Optimizing effects of firms’ technological and non-technological processes on export-led innovation

References

• Adewumi, O. M. 2022. “The Effect of Quality of Education on Disruptive Innovations: A Cross-Country Analysis.” International Journal of Business Innovation and Research 27 (2): 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2022.121568.
   Google Scholar
• Aghion, P., A. Bergeaud, M. Lequien, and M. J. Melitz. 2018. “The Impact of Exports on Innovation: Theory and Evidence.” SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3171084.
   Google Scholar
• Aghion, P., N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, and P. Howitt. 2005. “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (2): 701–728. https://doi.org/10.1162/0033553053970214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, M., and H. Lööf. 2009. “Learning-by-Exporting Revisited: The Role of Intensity and Persistence.” The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 111 (4): 893–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9442.2009.01585.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C. 2019. “The Creative Response and International Trade.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 51: 445–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C., and C. Feder. 2021. “The Schumpeterian Creative Response: Export and Innovation: Evidence for OECD Countries 1995–2015.” Economia Politica 38 (3): 803–821. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-021-00239-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arendt, J., and A. Holm. 2006. Probit Models with Binary Endogenous Regressors: CAM Working Papers 2006–06. University of Copenhagen.
   Google Scholar
• Babington, M. P., and J. Cano-Urbina. 2016. “A Test for Exogeneity in the Presence of Nonlinearities.” The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata 16 (3): 761–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1601600313.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, A. B., J. B. Jensen, S. J. Redding, and P. K. Schott. 2007. “Firms in International Trade.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 21 (3): 105–130. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., D. K. Guilkey, and T. A. Mroz. 1995. “Binary Outcomes and Endogenous Explanatory Variables: Tests and Solutions with an Application to the Demand for Contraceptive use in Tunisia.” Demography 32 (1): 111–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2061900.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bravo-Ortega, C., J. M. Benavente, and Á González. 2014. “Innovation, Exports, and Productivity: Learning and Self-Selection in Chile.” Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 50 (sup1): 68–95. https://doi.org/10.2753/REE1540-496X5001S105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bustos, P. 2011. “Trade Liberalization, Exports, and Technology Upgrading: Evidence on the Impact of MERCOSUR on Argentinian Firms.” American Economic Review 101 (1): 304–340. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castellacci, F. 2011. “How Does Competition Affect the Relationship Between Innovation and Productivity? Estimation of a CDM Model for Norway.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20 (7): 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2010.516535.
   Google Scholar
• Chaminade, C., B. Lundvall, and S. Haneef. 2018. Advanced Introduction to National Innovation Systems. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
   Google Scholar
• Cieślik, A., J. J. Michałek, K. Szczygielski, J. Lewkowicz, and J. Mycielski. 2021. “Foreign Ownership and Within-MNEs GVC Participation as Determinants of Innovation Activities: A CIS-Based Firm-Level Analysis.” Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics 13 (2): 189–211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausen, T. H., and M. Pohjola. 2013. “Persistence of Product Innovation: Comparing Breakthrough and Incremental Product Innovation.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 25 (4): 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.774344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clausen, T., M. Pohjola, K. Sapprasert, and B. Verspagen. 2012. “Innovation Strategies as a Source of Persistent Innovation.” Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (3): 553–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespi, G., C. Criscuolo, and J. Haskell. 2008. “Productivity, Exporting, and the Learning-by-Exporting Hypothesis: Direct Evidence from UK Firms.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique 41 (2): 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5982.2008.00479.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crespi, G., and P. Zuniga. 2012. “Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from six Latin American Countries.” World Development 40 (2): 273–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damijan, J., Č Kostevc, and M. Rojec. 2017. “Exporting Status and Success in Innovation: Evidence from CIS Micro Data for EU Countries.” The Journal of International Trade & Economic Development 26 (5): 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638199.2016.1271819.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Fuentes, C., J. Niosi, and J. A. Peerally. 2021. “Exploring Innovation and Export Interplay in Canadian Firms.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 30 (8): 786–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2020.1786999.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fassio, C. 2018. “Export-led Innovation: The Role of Export Destinations.” Industrial and Corporate Change 27 (1): 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Vega, M., and E. Huergo. 2019. “The Role of International and Domestic R&D Outsourcing for Firm Innovation.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 157: 775–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.11.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golovko, E., and G. Valentini. 2014. “Selective Learning-by-Exporting: Firm Size and Product Versus Process Innovation.” Global Strategy Journal 4 (3): 161–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haus-Reve, S., R. D. Fitjar, and A. Rodríguez-Pose. 2019. “Does Combining Different Types of Collaboration Always Benefit Firms? Collaboration, Complementarity, and Product Innovation in Norway.” Research Policy 48 (6): 1476–1486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, and BÅ Lundvall. 2007. “Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation.” Research Policy 36 (5): 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kemp, R. G., M. Folkeringa, J. P. De Jong, and E. F. Wubben. 2003. Innovation and Firm Performance, Scales Research Reports (No. 200207). Zoetermeer: EIM Business and Policy Research. http://www.ondernemerschap. nl/pdf-ez/H200207.pdf (accessed December 15, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Knott, A. M., and C. Vieregger. 2015. Reconciling the Firm Size and Innovation Debate. Wharton, TX: University of Pennsylvania.
   Google Scholar
• Lileeva, A., and D. Trefer. 2010. “Improved Access to Foreign Markets Raises Plant-Level Productivity … for Some Plants.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (3): 1051–1099. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lochner, L., and E. Moretti. 2015. “Estimating and Testing Models with Many Treatment Levels and Limited Instruments.” Review of Economics and Statistics 97 (2): 387–397. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maddala, G. S. 1983. Limited Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mechling, G. W., J. W. Pearce, and J. W. Busbin. 1995. “Exploiting AMT in Small Manufacturing Firms for Globalcompetitiveness.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15 (2): 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510080427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowery, D. C., and J. E. Oxley. 1995. “Inward Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: The Role of National Innovation Systems.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19: 67–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035310.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mroz, T. A., and D. K. Guilkey. 1992. Discrete Factor Approximation for use in Simultaneous Equation Models with Both Continuous and Discrete Endogenous Variables. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• OECD/Eurostat. 1997. OECD Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data – Oslo Manual. Paris: OEC.
   Google Scholar
• Parrilli, M. D., and A. Elola. 2012. “The Strength of Science and Technology Drivers for SME Innovation.” Small Business Economics 39 (4): 897–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-011-9319-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrilli, M. D., and H. A. Heras. 2016. “STI and DUI Innovation Modes: Scientific-Technological and Context-Specific Nuances.” Research Policy 45 (4): 747–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricardo, D. 1817. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: John Murray Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Rivera Batiz, L. A., and P. A. Romer. 1991. “International Trade with Endogenous Technological Change.” European Economic Review 35 (4): 971–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(91)90048-N.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, M. J., and V. A. Vuong. 2013. “Empirical Modeling of R&D Demand in a Dynamic Framework.” Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35 (2): 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmutzler, A. 2013. “Competition and Investment — A Unified Approach.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 31 (5): 477–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2013.07.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Siedschlag, I., and X. Zhang. 2015. “Internationalisation of Firms and Their Innovation and Productivity.” Economics of Innovation and New Technology 24 (3): 183–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.918439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stock, J. H., and M. Yogo. 2001. Testing for Weak Instruments in Linear IV Regression, unpublished manuscript. Harvard University,Cambridge, M A.
   Google Scholar
• Sundbo, J., and F. Gallouj. 2000. “Innovation as a Loosely Coupled System in Services.” International Journal of Services Technology and Management 1 (1): 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTM.2000.001565.
   Google Scholar
• Tether, B. S. 2005. “Do Services Innovate (Differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer Survey.” Industry & Innovation 12 (2): 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710500087891.
   Google Scholar
• Tishler, A., and I. Milstein. 2009. “R&D Wars and the Effects of Innovation on the Success and Survivability of Firms in Oligopoly Markets.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 27 (4): 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2008.12.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakelin, K. 1998. “Innovation and Export Behaviour at the Firm Level.” Research Policy 26 (7-8): 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00051-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woerter, M., and S. Roper. 2010. “Openness and Innovation—Home and Export Demand Effects on Manufacturing Innovation: Panel Data Evidence for Ireland and Switzerland.” Research Policy 39 (1): 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, J. M. 2010. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2nd ed. MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar