Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability

This paper examines the impact of the share of business groups in an industry on the industry’s R&D intensity. First, we derive a simple theoretical model of industry R&D intensity in the presence of big business groups. Our model predicts that the effect of business-group share on industry R&D intensity differs across industries depending on the technological appropriability: A positive relationship for industries with low R&D appropriability, while a negative relationship for industries with high R&D appropriability. Based on these predictions, we develop and test our hypothesis using unique data on Korean manufacturing industries. Our results confirm the moderating role of technological appropriability, implying that the inverted-U shape between business-group share and industry R&D intensity frequently observed at the aggregate-sample level reflects the combination of those two opposite relationships.

[1]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Institutions, Resources, and Internationalization of Emerging Economy Firms , 2013 .

[2]  S. Zahra,et al.  Market-oriented institutional change and R&D investments: Do business groups enhance advantage? , 2014 .

[3]  N. Venkatraman,et al.  Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms , 2005 .

[4]  F. Scherer,et al.  Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. , 1971 .

[5]  Ishtiaq P. Mahmood,et al.  Business groups: entry barrier–innovation debate revisited , 2004 .

[6]  M. Porter,et al.  From Entry Barriers to Mobility Barriers: Conjectural Decisions and Contrived Deterrence to New Competition , 1977 .

[7]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[8]  M. Whinston,et al.  Multimarket Contact and Collusive Behavior , 1990 .

[9]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses , 1985 .

[10]  K. Manikandan,et al.  Beyond institutional voids: Business groups, incomplete markets, and organizational form , 2015 .

[11]  J. van Oosterhout,et al.  Business group affiliation, performance, context, and strategy: a meta-analysis , 2011 .

[12]  David E. Weinstein,et al.  Japan's Corporate Groups: Collusive or Competitive? An Empirical Investigation of Keiretsu Behavior , 1995 .

[13]  Federico Etro,et al.  Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: An Empirical Test , 2011 .

[14]  Chang‐Yang Lee.  A New Perspective on Industry R&D and Market Structure , 2005 .

[15]  Sharon Belenzon,et al.  Innovation in Business Groups , 2007, Manag. Sci..

[16]  Ji‐Hwan Lee.  Managing Diversified Firms through Socio-Cultural Mechanisms: A Focus on Korean Chaebols ** , 2007 .

[17]  Robert Z. Lawrence.  Efficient or Exclusionist: The Import Behavior of Japanese Corporate Groups , 1991 .

[18]  Bernard Yeung,et al.  Agency Problems in Large Family Business Groups , 2003 .

[19]  S. Winter,et al.  Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development , 1987 .

[20]  Chang‐Yang Lee.  Firm Density and Industry R & D Intensity: Theory and Evidence , 2003 .

[21]  D. Shapiro,et al.  Ownership structure and innovation: An emerging market perspective , 2012, Asia Pacific Journal of Management.

[22]  Chi-Nien Chung,et al.  When and How Does Business Group Affiliation Promote Firm Innovation? A Tale of Two Emerging Economies , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[23]  Mark Granovetter,et al.  Coase Revisited: Business Groups in the Modern Economy , 1995 .

[24]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[25]  Kenneth A. Kim,et al.  The costs (and benefits?) of diversified business groups: The case of Korean chaebols , 2003 .

[26]  M. Spence.  Cost Reduction, Competition and Industry Performance , 1984 .

[27]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Managing Multi-Business Firms: A Comparison between Korean Chaebols and Diversified US Firms , 2013 .

[28]  Jeffery S. McMullen,et al.  Capital Is Not Enough: Innovation in Developing Economies , 2012 .

[29]  R. Dorfman,et al.  Optimal Advertising and Optimal Quality , 1976 .

[30]  P. Williamson,et al.  Related diversification, core competences and corporate performance , 2007 .

[31]  Z. Griliches.  Market Value, R&D, and Patents , 1981 .

[32]  Robert E. Hoskisson,et al.  Diversification Strategy and R&D Intensity in Multiproduct Firms , 1989 .

[33]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Business Group Affiliation, Firm Governance, and Firm Performance: Evidence from China and India , 2009 .

[34]  Oc Herfindahl,et al.  Concentration in the US steel industry , 1950 .

[35]  Chang‐Yang Lee.  Competition favors the prepared firm: Firms' R&D responses to competitive market pressure , 2009 .

[36]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Methodological Advances in the Analysis of Bipartite Networks , 2013 .

[37]  P. V. Cayseele,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey of the Last Twenty Years , 1998 .

[38]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  International Diversification, Business Group Affiliation and Firm Performance: Empirical Evidence from India , 2008 .

[39]  F. Scherer,et al.  Demand-Pull and Technological Invention: Schmookler Revisited , 1982 .

[40]  Tarun Khanna,et al.  The Nature of Diversified Business Groups: A Research Design and Two Case Studies , 2003 .

[41]  Jing Dong,et al.  Corporate governance structure, managerial discretion, and the R&D investment in China , 2010 .

[42]  K. Ramaswamy,et al.  Why do business groups continue to matter? A study of market failure and performance among Indian manufacturers , 2012 .

[43]  A. Jaffe.  Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms&Apos; Patents, Profits and Market Value , 1986 .

[44]  Xufei Ma,et al.  THE CONTINGENT VALUE OF LOCAL PARTNERS' BUSINESS GROUP AFFILIATIONS , 2008 .

[45]  Richard C. Levin,et al.  Tests of a Schumpeterian Model of R&D and Market Structure , 1984 .

[46]  M. Hobday,et al.  Technological Innovation and Business Groups , 2010 .

[47]  Zhaozhao He.  Rivalry, Market Structure and Innovation: The Case of Mobile Banking , 2015 .

[48]  F. Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation , 2000 .

[49]  Will Mitchell,et al.  Two Faces: Effects of Business Groups on Innovation in Emerging Economies , 2004, Manag. Sci..

[50]  Gary G. Hamilton,et al.  Business groups and product variety in trade: evidence from South Korea, Taiwan and Japan , 1999 .

[51]  G. Dosi.  Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation , 1988 .

[52]  Mauro F. Guillén,et al.  Strategy and Structure in Developing Countries: Business Groups as an Evolutionary Response to Opportunities for Unrelated Diversification , 2001 .

[53]  R. Caves.  International differences in industrial organization , 1989 .

[54]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities , 1995 .

[55]  R. Angelmar,et al.  Market Structure and Research Intensity in High-Technological-Opportunity Industries , 1985 .

[56]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Product Diversification and International Expansion of Business Groups , 2011 .

[57]  H. Demsetz.  Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy , 1973, The Journal of Law and Economics.

[58]  T. Khanna,et al.  Is Group Affiliation Profitable in Emerging Markets? An Analysis of Diversified Indian Business Groups , 2000 .

[59]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Governance Structure, Innovation and Internationalization: Evidence from India , 2013 .

[60]  Linsu Kim,et al.  Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea's Technological Learning , 1997 .

[61]  Gary R. Saxonhouse.  What Does Japanese Trade Structure Tell Us about Japanese Trade Policy , 1993 .

[62]  M. Sobrero,et al.  The effects of owner identity and external governance systems on R&D investments: A study of Western European firms , 2010 .

[63]  Deeksha A. Singh,et al.  Export Performance of Emerging Market Firms , 2009 .

[64]  Ajai S. Gaur,et al.  Business group affiliation and firm performance during institutional transition , 2006 .