Technological Capacity, Product Position, and Firm Competitiveness

Abstract

using firm-level data from a 2009 survey conducted in Suzhou city, jiangsu province, this article examines the impact of technological capacity and value-chain position on a firm's product competitiveness. Technological capacity and product competitiveness are self-assessed relative to other firms and products in the same industry. Position on the value chain is measured relative to a firm's position as an original-brand manufacturer or not. Our empirical results show that competitiveness rises with a firm's technological capacity and its position on the global value chain. This finding is consistent with the theoretical prediction. The article also investigates the determinants of technological capacity and value-chain position, including the firm's size, research and development (r&D) spending, location dummies, educational level of technical and managerial personnel, wages Downloaded by [University of Otago] at 18:00 15 July 2015 56 The ChineSe eCOnOmy of technical and managerial personnel, and enterprise ownership. bootstrapping, probit, and linear probability regression models are employed.

Will China Avoid the Middle-Income Trap?

“…Exports of textile goods created many employment opportunities and helped the industrialization of Japan. In contrast, India did not have technological capabilities to modify 2 At the micro level, Ju, Fung, and Mano (2013) have studied how a firm's performance is affected by technological capabilities, and Gao et al (2013) have shown that a firm's competitiveness increases with its technological capacity. imported machines and the development of the textile industry lagged (Otsuka, Ranis, and Saxonhouse, 1988).…”

Diagnosing cluster competitiveness using firm-level data in the profit—growth nexus framework

“…Buckley et al (1988) define firm competitiveness as consisting of three dimensions: performance, potential, and process. Craig et al (2008), Laureti -Viviani (2011), and Gao et al (2013) conclude that performance is an important dimension of firm-level competitiveness. Kivilouto (2013) asserts that firm performance itself consists of multiple dimensions, and is characterised by the co-existence of growth (potential) and profitability (performance).…”

“…Craig et al (2008) use self-reported scales measuring firm performance and two different dimensions of competitive orientation in pursuit of measuring competitiveness. Gao et al (2013) also implemented self-rated measures of competitiveness, consisting of product competitiveness, technological capacity, and the product position on the value chain. A fourth aspect of firm competitiveness was included in the modelling by Gao et al (2013), namely firm size, in order to incorporate a measure of organisational capacity.…”

“…Gao et al (2013) also implemented self-rated measures of competitiveness, consisting of product competitiveness, technological capacity, and the product position on the value chain. A fourth aspect of firm competitiveness was included in the modelling by Gao et al (2013), namely firm size, in order to incorporate a measure of organisational capacity. These diverse ways of measuring firm competitiveness are aligned with the three categories of measures anchored in literature (Buckley et al 1988): performance, potential, and process.…”

“…The second research proposition concerns the issue of cross-population comparability as highlighted by Lopez-Garcia et al (2014), thereby querying the sufficiency of the profit-growth nexus to provide an indication of aggregate competitiveness. Several efforts that have been reviewed to establish linear (Craig et al 2008;Gao et al 2013) or non-linear (Laurenti -Viviani 2011) aggregates/ proxies have shown that the issue of information accessibility and comparability are inherited to the higher level of competitiveness index aggregation. Comparability can be ensured using standardised absolute measures; however, Harzing et al (2013) argue that such cross-country comparisons can be difficult and po-tentially misleading.…”