Why firm size matters: investigating the drivers of innovation and economic performance in New Zealand using the Business Operations Survey

ABSTRACT The performance of the New Zealand (NZ) economy is something of an enigma. Although ranked one (of 144 countries) for four important ‘growth fundamentals’ NZ is ‘middle of the pack’ when it comes to economic growth, productivity and process innovation. Using four iterations (2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011) of the Business Operations Survey, this research seeks to shed some new light on this conundrum by using a multivariate probit regression (mvprobit) approach applied to pooled samples in excess of 22,000 unit record observations of NZ firms. The results suggest that factors including firm size, high perceived quality, investment/research and development (R&D) capability, major technology change, application of formal IP protection and new export markets are systematically and positively related to innovation; while many external issues, such as those related to geography, market structure, business environment, have little influence. At the firm level, innovations in NZ are highly dependent on the firms’ internal ability to develop new technologies and market demand. The (very small) size of firms does matter in NZ, which lacks a major ‘home market’ or a major trade block on its doorstep, such that ultimately, government may need to be involved to maintain a viable scale for domestic R&D.

[1]  M. Lessnoff.  Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , 1979 .

[2]  Eva Kirner,et al.  Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms--An empirical analysis of German industry , 2009 .

[3]  M. Frenz,et al.  The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey , 2009 .

[4]  Noel P. Greis,et al.  Absorptive capacity and new product development , 2001 .

[5]  M. Chen,et al.  Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan , 2007 .

[6]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Innovation And Spatial Externalities , 2003 .

[7]  Heidi Armbruster,et al.  Organizational innovation: The challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys , 2008 .

[8]  R. Fabling,et al.  Innovation and the local workforce , 2014 .

[9]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  The Size Distribution of Innovating Firms in the UK: 1945-1983 , 1987 .

[10]  P. Beneito.  The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models , 2006 .

[11]  Philip McCann,et al.  Employment Growth in Italian Local Labour Systems: Issues of Model Specification and Sectoral Aggregation , 2008 .

[12]  C. Freeman.  Economics of Industrial Innovation , 1975 .

[13]  R. Fabling,et al.  Export Performance, Invoice Currency and Heterogeneous Exchange Rate Pass‐Through , 2013 .

[14]  Bruno Crépon,et al.  Research, Innovation, and Productivity: an Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level , 1998 .

[15]  G. Hult,et al.  Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination , 1998 .

[16]  M. Falk.  Effects of Foreign Ownership On Innovation Activities: Empirical Evidence for Twelve European Countries , 2008, National Institute Economic Review.

[17]  R. Fabling,et al.  Any port in a storm: Impacts of new port infrastructure on exporter behaviour , 2013 .

[18]  Jacob Schmookler,et al.  Invention and Economic Growth , 1967 .

[19]  W. Baumol.  The Free-Market Innovation Machine - Analyzing the Growth Miracle of Capitalism , 2002 .

[20]  M. Hirschey.  Market Power and Foreign Involvement by U.S. Multinationals , 1982 .

[21]  Alfred A. Marcus,et al.  Policy Uncertainty and Technological Innovation , 1981 .

[22]  J. Jacobs,et al.  The Economy of Cities , 1969 .

[23]  Thomas Horst.  Firm and Industry Determinants of the Decision to Invest Abroad: An Empirical Study , 1972 .

[24]  W. Mitchell,et al.  The effect of introducing important incremental innovations on market share and business survival , 1995 .

[25]  A Multi-Sector Model of Growth with Innovation Clustering , 2013 .

[26]  Balázs Égert.  Prices and Price Convergence in Emerging Europe: an Overview , 2008, National Institute Economic Review.

[27]  R. Fabling,et al.  Whatever next? Export market choices of New Zealand firms* , 2012 .

[28]  Manfred Stadler,et al.  Success breeds success. The dynamics of the innovation process , 1994 .

[29]  R. Johnston.  TECHNICAL PROGRESS AND INNOVATION , 1966 .

[30]  J. Alegre,et al.  Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance: an empirical test , 2008 .

[31]  M. Nieto,et al.  Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other sources of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries , 2009 .

[32]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  The moon and the ghetto , 1977 .

[33]  Zhongqi Jin,et al.  Innovativeness and performance: evidence from manufacturing sectors , 2004 .

[34]  Raymond Vernon,et al.  The R & D Factor in International Trade and International Investment of United States Industries , 1967 .

[35]  Jacques Mairesse,et al.  Research Investment, Innovation and Productivity: An Econometric Analysis at the Firm Level , 1998 .

[36]  Almarin Phillips,et al.  Technology and Market Structure: A Study of the Aircraft Industry , 1971 .

[37]  Bruce Elmslie,et al.  The Geographic Concentration of Knowledge: Scale, Agglomeration, and Congestion in Innovation Across U.S. States , 2004 .

[38]  Rolf Sternberg,et al.  Government R & D expenditure and space: empirical evidence from five industrialized countries , 1996 .

[39]  R. Baldwin.  DETERMINANTS OF TRADE AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT: FURTHER EVIDENCE* , 1979 .

[40]  P. McCann.  Economic geography, globalisation and New Zealand's productivity paradox , 2009 .

[41]  R. Fabling,et al.  Exporting and firm performance: Market entry, investment and expansion , 2013 .

[42]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[43]  Over the Hedge: Do Exporters Practice Selective Hedging? , 2014 .

[44]  R. Fabling,et al.  HR practices and New Zealand firm performance: what matters and who does it? , 2010 .

[45]  Liliana Herrera,et al.  Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm's innovation process , 2010 .

[46]  Morton I. Kamien,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey , 1975 .

[47]  P. McCann,et al.  A Survey of the Innovation Surveys , 2012 .

[48]  P. McCann,et al.  Globalisation: Countries, Cities and Multinationals , 2009 .

[49]  R. Fabling,et al.  A Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Firm Performance Measures , 2008 .

[50]  Richard N. Langlois,et al.  Schumpeter and the Obsolescence of the Entrepreneur , 2002 .

[51]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation , 2000 .

[52]  A. D. Serres,et al.  An International Perspective on the New Zealand Productivity Paradox , 2014 .

[53]  Gaby Sadowski-Rasters,et al.  On the innovativeness of foreign affiliates: Evidence from companies in The Netherlands , 2006 .

[54]  Raimar Richers.  The theory of economic development , 1961 .

[55]  Alfred Kleinknecht,et al.  Are Urban Agglomerations a Better Breeding Place for Product Innovation? An Analysis of New Product Announcements , 1999 .

[56]  Lionel Page,et al.  How success breeds success , 2021, Quantitative Economics.

[57]  Aija Leiponen,et al.  Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business‐to‐Business Services* , 2006 .

[58]  M. Santoro.  Success breeds success , 2000 .

[59]  P. McCann,et al.  Regional Market Potential and the Number and Size of Firms: Observations and Evidence from Chile , 2014 .

[60]  Eric von Hippel,et al.  Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: A study of Dutch high-tech firms , 2009 .