Innovation and Firm-level Labour Productivity: A Comparison of Chinese and Indian Manufacturing Based on Enterprise Surveys

Bhattacharya, Poulomi; Rath, Badri Narayan

doi:10.1177/0971721820912902

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 40 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It highlights the existence of substantial returns for investment in technology in terms of high labour productivity. These findings are in line with recent findings of Bhattacharya and Rath (2020). This is also important for Indian policymakers as it offers great support for their recent policy initiative of attracting advanced and critical foreign technology under the ‘Make in India’ programme (see Mudambi et al, 2017; Singh & Sharma, 2020).…”

Section: Regression Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Foreign Technology Transfer, R&D and Innovation: Resolving the Technology–Productivity Conundrum

Sharma

Mishra

2022

Science, Technology and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to empirically investigate the impact of foreign technology transfer and R&D on total factor productivity and labour productivity of Indian firms. The results of production function analysis indicate that foreign technology plays a significant role in output growth. The results of growth the accounting approach also suggest a critical role of foreign technology in the productivity growth of firms. Interestingly, our findings indicate that while R&D does not significantly contribute to productivity growth, it shares a complementary relationship with foreign technology and drives a firm’s productivity. Our findings indicate that firms that engage in R&D and foreign technology transfer have a competitive edge in terms of productivity and output, but the role of R&D intensity cannot be established.

show abstract

Section: Regression Resultssupporting

confidence: 93%

Foreign Technology Transfer, R&D and Innovation: Resolving the Technology–Productivity Conundrum

Sharma

Mishra

2022

Science, Technology and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other papers, instead, analyse competitiveness based on dynamic indicators (productivity growth, GVA growth, employment growth, etc. ), e.g., (Aguiar & Gagnepain, 2017;Albanese, de Blasio, & Locatelli, 2021;Bhattacharya & Rath, 2020).…”

Section: The Measurement Of Competitiveness With Firm Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is probably the most common 1 3 and established variable used to compare the competitiveness of firms. Value added per employee to measure Labour Productivity is used in the papers by Aguiar & Gagnepain (2017, Bhattacharya & Rath (2020, Falciola, Jansen, & Rollo (2020), Laureti & Viviani (2011), Nemethova, Siranova, & Sipikal (2019).…”

Section: Firms' Indicators Of Competitivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring competitiveness differentials inside the same region: a propensity-score matching approach

Fantechi¹,

Fratesi²

2022

Soc Indic Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses regional competitiveness at the subregional level through a novel methodological approach that adopts a matching design. By comparing the performance of similar firms in different parts of the region, it is possible to detect whether different places provide different competitive territorial assets. Using data for Lombardy, a large and competitive European region, the analysis shows that the different territories of the region are differently competitive in different industries, even when they are similar in terms of total GDP per capita or specialization. The paper also confirms that measuring competitiveness on different indicators (Labour Productivity, TFP, Profitability) can provide different results, and this especially happens when comparing static and dynamic indicators. The methodology presented here is especially relevant to the design of regional policies, that are mostly deployed at the NUTS-2 level but would benefit from accounting for the presence of strongly dis-homogeneous territories inside the same region.

show abstract

“…Labor productivity: computed as the ratio between Value Added and number of Employees (Aguiar & Gagnepain, 2017;Bhattacharya & Rath, 2020;Falciola et al, 2020;Laureti & Viviani, 2011;Nemethova et al, 2019).…”

Section: Measuring Territorial Competitiveness Using Firm-level Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Firm Competitiveness, Specialisation, and Employment Growth: Territorial Level Relationships

Fantechi

Fratesi

2022

Springer Proceedings in Political Science and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of competitiveness is today a central element for regional development, European cohesion policies and smart specialisation strategies. Despite being born for firm-level analyses, competitiveness is indeed commonly used at the territorial level, mainly at the regional or urban scale, normally measured with different composite structural indicators. However, since territorial competitiveness is unevenly distributed in space, territorial units smaller than a full NUTS-2 region might be differently competitive and hence suited to implement differentiated cohesion policies and smart specialisation strategies. To test the hypothesis that these firm-level indicators can characterize the intraregional differences in aggregate performance, the paper sets up a meta-analysis framework between these indicators and structural indicators (employment growth and specialisation index) measured at the NUTS-3 level. For the meta-analysis at this novel intraregional level, the paper exploits the Lombardy region as a case study. Lombardy is well suited for the aims of this paper, being a large and competitive European region, whose territory—as well as its labor market—is highly differentiated, from peripheral and mountainous areas to many medium and small cities, second-tier large cities and a large metropolitan area—the city of Milan. All these territories are characterized by different economic and social vocations, but all share the same regional administration. The results of the meta-analysis show that firm-level indicators correlate with the aggregate performance of regions and that the structural measures selected can characterize different territories in different conditions. Hence, the competitiveness of firms seems to translate into aggregate territorial performance at small spatial scales. This implies that territorial specificities are also relevant inside regions and should be considered in designing regional policy interventions, such as those of the Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3).

show abstract

Innovation and Firm-level Labour Productivity: A Comparison of Chinese and Indian Manufacturing Based on Enterprise Surveys

Cited by 15 publications

References 40 publications

Foreign Technology Transfer, R&D and Innovation: Resolving the Technology–Productivity Conundrum

Foreign Technology Transfer, R&D and Innovation: Resolving the Technology–Productivity Conundrum

Measuring competitiveness differentials inside the same region: a propensity-score matching approach

Firm Competitiveness, Specialisation, and Employment Growth: Territorial Level Relationships

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About