ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The Dynamics of International Competitiveness. — This paper focuses on the determinants of international competitiveness over the seventies and eighties. The theoretical framework adopted here is based on a “technology-gap” account of trade flows. The econometric analysis relies on a dynamic model estimated by pooling time-series across countries. The short- and long-term impacts of both technical change and labour costs on trade performance are investigated. It is found that technological variables (patents and investments) play a major role in shaping dynamics of exportshares, while labour costs asymmetries among countries appear to affect trade performance only in the short term.
The Dynamics of
International Competitiveness:
First Results from
an Analysis at the Industry Level
Paolo Guerrieri*
Paola Maggiolini**
Gennaro Zezza***
Presented at the International Workshop "The Mulltiple Linkages between
Technological Change and the Economy", Rome, 14th-16th March, 1996
*) Università di Roma "La Sapienza", via del Castro Laurenziano, 9 - 00165 Roma
**) Istituto di Ricerca sul Credito cooperativo dell'Economia Locale, via M.D'Azeglio, 33 -
00184 Roma
***) Università di Napoli "Ferderico II", Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Statistiche,
via G.Sanfelice, 47 - 80134 Napoli. e-mail: gzezza@unina.it
The Dynamics of International Competitiveness:
First Results from an Analysis at the Industry Level
Paolo Guerrieri - University of Rome
Paola Maggiolini - I.R.C.E.L.
Gennaro Zezza - University of Naples
°
Introduction
Over the past two decades a growing number of theoretical contributions and
empirical verifications have led to the recognition of the key role of technology in
determining trade flows and international competitiveness at the firm and country
level (for a survey see Dosi et al. 1988). In addition, they have shown that the
performance of firms depends not only on successfull management practices by
enterpreneurs but, to a large extent, also on the structural features of the countries
and sectors in which they operate. This is associated with the fact that the
competitive advantages of single countries are concentrated on given industries
and clusters of industries reflecting the systemic characteristics and the
interrelatedness of many technologies (Oecd, 1992; Porter, 1990; Guerrieri and
Tylecote, 1994).
These results are related both to the new trade and growth theories based on
imperfect competition models (Grossman and Helpman, 1991) and to the
evolutionary approaches to technological change and trade (for a survey see
Nelson, 1995).
One particular feature of technological innovation is its sectoral differentiation
(Pavitt, 1988). Numerous empirical studies confirm stable and similar differences
between sectors in the relative importance of both the various sources of new
knowledge (such as basic research, in-house, suppliers, etc.) and the industries in
which innovations are used (Pavitt, 1984; Scherer, 1986; Dosi, Pavitt, Soete,
1990). These trends reflect the fact that development of technological knowledge
follow cumulative and differentiated paths in individual sectors. In other words
°
This paper is the result of research made in collaboration by the authors. However, the
introduction and par. 2 have been written by P.Guerrieri, while G.Zezza wrote par.1 and
par.3, and P.Maggiolini constructed the data set.
Financial support from C.N.R. and M.U.R.S.T. is gratefully acknowledged.
1
processes of technological change tend to assume varying sectoral features, in
terms of differences in technological opportunities, cumulativeness and
appropriability conditions.
Altough the differences among sectors in their technological trajectories are
widely recognized, they have often been neglected by empirical studies on the
relationship between innovative activities and trade performance which have
prevalently provided aggregate analysis in the dynamic version (Amendola et al.,
1993; Amendola, Guerrieri, Padoan, 1992) or used cross-sectional data in the
static approaches (Soete, 1981; Fagerberg, 1988). That was also due to a lack of
an adequate set of comparable data on technology, trade and production of
different countries.
In the following we present a set of new data on trade, production, technology
and costs at industry level for a certain number of countries and use them by
trying to relate trade performance (international competitiviness) to a set of
different economic and technological factors accross countries and industrial
sectors since the early 1970s. The paper presents some preliminary results,
related to a certain number of different industrial sectors for the major
industrialized countries. A single model of trade specialization is applied to the
data in order to establish the impact of innovation, costs and country specific
factos to overall performance, both in the short and the long run, via a panel data
analysis. Model specification follows the now standard error-correction approach
and is discussed in section 2. The following section 1 presents the data set, while
the results of the estimates are discussed in section 3.
1 The theoretical model and the data set
Following a well-established approach1 we take competitiviness, and hence
international market shares, to be determined by:
- relative prices;
- relative technological capabitilies.
Moreover, the degree of importance of each factor depends upon the
characteristics of each specific industry: following Pavitt (1984, 1988) we expect
to find clusters of sectors responding in a different way to shocks, with respect to
industry technology, market conditions, degree of innovation etc.
1 See Amendola et al. (1993) among others.
2
Given the great amount of sectors and countries to analyze, we choose to
estimate a model as general as possible for each sector and country. The
theoretical function is
Xij = f(Tij, Cij) (1
where T represents the technological capabilities for country i in sector j, and C
stands for relative costs.
As a guide to model interpretation we have reported the data2 for two different
sectors in charts 1-12. We have choosen two sectors (Apparel, Drugs and
medicines) which should be consistently different with respect to technology,
costs and market structure.
Export market shares for Apparel (chart 1) clearly depicts the relevant questions
for the model-builder. We have to capture: a) the different specialization levels
accross countries, eg why Italy is more specialized than other countries, and; b)
the dynamics of market shares, eg why market shares tend to diminish for each
country and for the whole sample, and why (possibly) two countries experience
different performances through time.
The overall picture for all sectors shows a relative persistence of country
specialization through time.
The variables we choose to proxy for technology, given the available data set,
have been the share of the stock of US patents3 for each country in each sector4,
which is a proxy for the ability to innovate, and some measures of investment
intensity, to control for innovation embodied in the capital stock.
Patent share for Apparel and Drugs and medicines are reported in Charts 4 and 8,
respectively. Even though we normalized non-US share in patents, US share still
has a predominant role, in levels. Simple correlations of patents with export
market shares do not give any insight, since the increase in patent share of Japan,
say, is not always followed by an increase in overall competitiveness.
2 The data set comes from different sources (UN, Oecd, other data banks). All variables have
been appropriately allocated to the same definition of industry following the SITC
classification. A detailed description of the data set can be found in Guerrieri (1995).
3 The variable is Bijt = (Σs=0,t Pijs)/(ΣiΣs=0,t Pijs). We are aware of the several shortcomings
of patents as a proxy for technological effort in a given industry. For instance, the
propensity to patent may differ accross sectors and countries. However, the number of
patents in the United States was the best indicator available - at the time of writing - with
the required sectoral level of detail.
4 This variable obviously over-represents the share of the US. To partially adjust this effect,
the share of other countries is obtained with respect to the total number of non-US patents.
3
Given the well known problems in dealing with investment, we have choosen two
different indicators: the investment/product ratio, reported in charts 5 and 9, and
the “investment intensity”, defined as the ratio of investment in equipment in
sector i over total investment in equipment, both expressed as index numbers,
reported in charts 6 and 10.
The figures suggest that investment may help explain the dynamics of export
market shares, but there is no apparent correlation between investment intensity,
however measured, and trade specialization.
Cost competitiveness is proxied by average relative wages5, reported in charts 7
and 11. Again, there is no apparent (negative) correlation between better export
performance and lower labor costs.
2. Model specification.
Model specification has followed the now standard cointegration approach,
where a long run cointegrating vector is estimated along with the dynamic
adjustment process towards long-run equilibrium.
This procedure requires variables with the same order of integration, but it is not
feasible to run a proper integration analysis for each variable with such a large
data set. Even though export shares are expected to be I(0), since they have
upper and lower bounds, ADF tests did not reject the hypothesis of variables
being distributed as I(1). We therefore used first differences in the dynamic
specification, and we have appropriately transformed those variables which were
expected to be of higher order of integration. This implied, for instance,
normalizing average wages to average (world) unit wages.
The estimated model is, for each sector j:
Xijt = Σs=1,3 ρsXijt-s + Σs=0,3 βsIijt-s + Σs=0,3 γsBijt-s +
+ Σs=0,3 λsWijt-s - (ρ Xijt-1 - β Iijt-1 - γ Bijt-1 - λ Wijt-1) +
+ αi + Uijt(2
where:
X = share of country i exports for sector j;
I = An investment intensity measure for country i in sector j;
5 This variable is not entirely appropriate since it does not take into account the effects of
shifts in productivity. We are updating our database to get coherent estimates of output,
which will enable estimates of unit labor costs.
4
B = Share of US patents stock for country i in sector j;
W = unit wages for county i in sector j with respect to average unit wage in sector
j;
U is a random disturbance, and x stands for xt - xt-16.
The terms in parenthesis represent the long-term relation among all variables:
X = (β I + γ B + λ W)/ρ
with a speed of adjustment of ρ.
We want to use model (2) to test several hyopthesis:
a) exploring the determinants of competitiviness in both the short and the long
run, eg test for b=0 where b is the vector of all parameters;
b) explore differences accross countries and sectors
Model (2) has been estimated via a panel data analysis, using 17 observations
(1974-1990) for eleven OECD countries. The two different measures of
investment intensity have been alternatively used.
3. Model estimates.
Table 1 reports the estimates of model (2), using the investment/GDP ratio as the
measure of innovation embodied in the capital stock. The last coluumn reports a
panel estimate for all sectors pooled together.
Table 1 gives a number of interesting suggestions, most of which are in line with
previous research at the aggregate level7:
a) the evidence of a long-run relation among the choosen variable is weak, even
though some sectors specificities seem to arise;
b) the effects of technology, as measured by the share of US patents, tend to be
important in the long run but of secondary importance in the dynamic
adjustment. Anyway, patent indicators contributes to differentiate sectoral
6 First differences in market shares are expected to exhibit heteroscedasticity, since countries
with a higher market share in level will experience larger fluctuations (see chart 2). We
estimated model (2) using percent changes in market shares (see chart 3) instead of first
differences. The overall results are not affected, but some variables exhibit erratic
behaviours, given by absolute values close to zero, generating spurious outliers in the
transformed variable. We therefore choose to use first differences, and control for
heteroscedasticity.
7 See Amendola et al., 1993.
5
behaviours, as in the case of Chemicals, Metal Working and Machinery,
Machinery n.e.c.;
c) the investment to output ratio seems to have little explanatory power. Since
this result is strikingly different from what we expected, we estimated the
model with a different measure of investment intensity, namely the ratio of
sectoral investment in equipment to total investment in equipment, for each
country. Results are reported in table 2, but only for the Apparel sector the
new measure of investment is significant in the long run;
d) an increase in relative costs is directly related to export performance in the
short run. This result could be interpreted as a sectoral J-curve effect, with
demand adjusting slowly to changes in the exchange rate. Alternatively, there
could be an inverse relation, where good export performance signals higher
quality or higher productivity, which is reflected on salaries above the average.
The long-run effects of relative costs on competitiveness are negligible.
e) fixed effects play a dominant role in some sectors, such as “Rubber and
plastics” and “Instruments”, perhaps offsetting technology variables, as the
high coefficients for Japan and West Germany suggest;
f) structural fixed effects determine significant advantages for some countries in
some sectors, confirming persistent sectoral specilization in the long rn. These
are the case of West Germany and Italy for “Metal working and machinery”
and “Apparel”, or France, Great Britain and the Netherlands in “Chemicals”.
These effects should be further examined, incorporating other structural
variables in the model at the country level.
Overall, model estimates tend to stress some pecularities in the data which were
already apparent from graphical analysis. Export specialization tends to be sticky
with respect both to technology and cost shocks. This could be in line with recent
theoretical research, which assigns a relevant role to endogenous accumulation of
knowledge, so that when a country specializes, learning-by-learning tends to
predominate over adverse shocks in overall competitiveness.
We believe, however, that more definite conclusions can be drawn only with
further research, since the quality of some of our technology indicators and
6
sectoral data has to be further tested8. Costs indicators could be refined including
some measure of relative productivity, which is not available at present.
We aim also to extend and refine our analysis with multivariate techniques,
measuring the distance of sectors and countries in the variables space, in order to
test hypothesis about dissimilarities accross countries and sectors.
8 We have tested the model excluding the US, since the bias towards this country in the patent
indicator could be misleading. The results did not show any improvement with regard to the
effects of technology on trade performance.
7
References
Amendola, G., Guerrieri, P., Padoan, P.C., (1992), International Patterns of
Technological Accumulation and Trade, JOICE, 1.
Amendola, G., Dosi, G., Papagni, E., (1993), The Dynamics of International
Competitiveness, Weltwirtschaftiches Archiv, 3.
Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., Soete, L. (1990), The Economics of Technical Change and
International Trade, Wheatsheaf, Brighton.
Dosi, G. et al. (1988), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Frances Pinter,
London.
Fagerberg J. (1988), International Competitiveness, The Economic Journal, vol.
98, pp. 355-374.
Grossman, G. and Helpman, E. (1991), Innovation and growth in the Global
Economy, Cambridge, Mass.
Guerrieri, P. (1995), Interdipendenze tecnologiche e mutamenti strutturali,
risultati dell’unità operativa del progetto ISPE-CNR Technological change
and economic growth, Rome.
Guerrieri, P. and Tylecote, A. (1994), National Competitive Advantages and
Microeconomic Behaviour, Economics of Innovation and New Technology,
vol.3.
Nelson, R. (199.), Recent Evolutionary Theorizing about Economic Change,
JEL, vol. XXXIII, pp.48-90.
OECD (1992), Technology and the Economy: the Key Relationships, Paris.
Pavitt, K. (1984), Sectorals Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy
and a Theory, Research Policy, 13, pp.343-373.
Pavitt, K. (1988), International Patterns of Technological Accumulation, in Hood,
N. and Vahlne, J.E. (eds.), Strategies in Global Competition, Croom Helm,
London.
Porter, R. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London-
New York.
Soete, L. (1981), A General Test of Technological Gap Trade Theory,
Weltwirtschaftiches Archiv, vol. 117.
Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge.
8
Scherer, F.M. (1986), Innovation and Growth. Schumpeterian Perspectives,
MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).
9
Table 1. Sector estimates of model 2 (I = Investment/GDP)
CHEM MWM APP RUB DRU INS NEC ALL
DX(-1) -0.123 0.127 -0.055
DX(-2) -0.125 -0.219 -0.104
DX(-3) 0.179
DB 2.535
DB(-1) -1.345 0.098 -2.336
DB(-2) 1.775 1.360 -0.156
DB(-3) -2.707 -0.996
DI 0.294
DI(-1) -0.042 -0.190 -0.224 -0.189 -0.038
DI(-2) -0.054 0.125
DI(-3) 0.035
DW 0.021 0.027 0.014 0.028 0.025 0.022 0.040 0.025
DW(-1) -0.020 -0.009
DW(-2) -0.012 -0.007 0.017 -0.009
DW(-3) -0.013
X(-1) -0.448 -0.233 -0.197 -0.332 -0.298 -0.504 -0.301 -0.026
B(-1) 0.149 0.107 0.146
I(-1) 0.040 -0.007
W(-1)
Country effects
AUT 0.016 0.007
CAN 0.020 0.009
DEU 0.025 0.014 0.055 0.038 0.079 0.022 0.003
ESP 0.005 0.019
FRA 0.023 0.053 0.026 0.031
GBR 0.016 0.024 0.029 0.038
ITA 0.019 0.025 0.034 0.013 0.015 0.020
JPN 0.022 0.074 0.109 0.018 0.005
NLD 0.025 0.024 0.014 0.016
SWE 0.017 0.009 0.010
USA 0.104 -0.055 0.006
R0.352 0.414 0.239 0.291 0.202 0.378 0.338 0.155
DW 2.029 2.079 2.089 2.070 2.020 2.036 2.048 2.013
Notes: (chem) Chemicals; (mwm) Metal working machinery and equipment; (app) Apparel;
(rub) Plastics and Rubber; (dru) Drugs and medicines; (ins) Instruments; (nec) Machinery
NEC; (all) the seven sectors pooled together. (aut) Austria; (can) Canada; (deu) West
Germany; (esp) Spain; (fra) France; (gbr) United Kingdom; (ita) Italy; (jpn) Japan; (nld)
Nederland; (swe) Sweden; (usa) United States
Parameter estimates not significantly different from zero are not reported.
10
Table 2. Sector estimates of model 2 (I = Investment intensity)
CHEM MWM APP RUB DRU INS NEC ALL
DX(-1) 0.120 0.132 -0.058
DX(-2) -0.128 -0.228 -0.102
DX(-3) 0.160
DB 2.417
DB(-1) -1.554 0.109 -2.341
DB(-2) 1.794 1.442 -0.156
DB(-3) -2.601 -1.042 1.267
DI 0.020 0.028 0.008
DI(-1) -0.010 -0.021 -0.013
DI(-2) -0.012 0.009
DI(-3) 0.007
DW 0.017 0.027 0.011 0.028 0.024 0.022 0.039 0.026
DW(-1) -0.017 -0.009
DW(-2) -0.011 -0.007 0.015 -0.008
DW(-3)
X(-1) -0.456 -0.213 -0.238 -0.299 -0.280 -0.512 -0.290 -0.027
B(-1) 0.155 0.138
I(-1) 0.011 0.009 -0.007
W(-1)
Country effects
AUT 0.013
CAN 0.017
DEU 0.010 0.048 0.035 0.086 0.003
ESP 0.008
FRA 0.023 0.043 0.024 0.039
GBR 0.016 0.018 0.027 0.043
ITA 0.025 0.025 0.014 0.022
JPN 0.066 0.117 0.005
NLD 0.022 0.014 0.024
SWE 0.019
USA 0.114 -0.054 0.006
R0.323 0.426 0.257 0.292 0.195 0.382 0.336 0.160
DW 2.024 2.086 2.120 2.055 1.999 2.023 2.049 2.011
Notes: (chem) Chemicals; (mwm) Metal working machinery and equipment; (app) Apparel;
(rub) Plastics and Rubber; (dru) Drugs and medicines; (ins) Instruments; (nec) Machinery
NEC; (all) the seven sectors pooled together. (aut) Austria; (can) Canada; (deu) West
Germany; (esp) Spain; (fra) France; (gbr) United Kingdom; (ita) Italy; (jpn) Japan; (nld)
Nederland; (swe) Sweden; (usa) United States
Parameter estimates not significantly different from zero are not reported.
11
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Market shares.
Chart 1
-0,03
-0,02
-0,02
-0,01
-0,01
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,02
aut
can
deu
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Annual change in market shares.
Chart 2
12
-0,50
-0,40
-0,30
-0,20
-0,10
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
aut
can
deu
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Annual percent change in market shares.
Chart 3
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Patent shares.
Chart 4
13
0,00
0,01
0,01
0,02
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,04
0,04
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Investment ratio.
Chart 5
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
1,10
1,20
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Investment intensity.
Chart 6
14
0,30
0,50
0,70
0,90
1,10
1,30
1,50
1,70
1,90
2,10
2,30
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Apparel. 1974-90. Relative average wage.
Chart 7
0,00
0,02
0,04
0,06
0,08
0,10
0,12
0,14
0,16
0,18
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Drugs and medicines. 1974-90. Market shares.
Chart 8
15
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Drugs and medicines. 1974-90. Patent shares.
Chart 9
0,00
0,01
0,02
0,03
0,04
0,05
0,06
0,07
0,08
0,09
0,10
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Drugs and medicines. 1974-90. Investment ratio.
Chart 10
16
0,30
0,50
0,70
0,90
1,10
1,30
1,50
1,70
1,90
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Drugs and medicines. 1974-90. Investment intensity.
Chart 11
0,40
0,60
0,80
1,00
1,20
1,40
1,60
aut
can
esp
fra
gbr
ita
jpn
nld
swe
usa
Drugs and medicines. 1974-90. Relative average wage.
Chart 12
17
... For the purpose of verifying the trends described above, the study presented was divided into several stages as in Molendowski and Snarska (2018). The first step was to establish the revealed comparative advantage indices for the countries covered, i.e. the contributions of the 12 pillars assigned to the three sub-indices to the GCI score, according to the following formula derived from: Amendola at al. 1993 andBuckley et al. 1988: ...
... where: RCI it -the comparative advantage index for country i in year t; F it j -the score for factor j in country i in year t; the factors covered include 4 basic requirements, 6 efficiency enhancers and 2 innovation and sophistication factors; GCI t -the overall GCI score in year t. The next stage was to replace the scores for individual factors with average scores for each of the three groups (sub-indices) and to estimate the so-called inter-group comparative advantage indices according to the formula presented in: Amendola et al. 1993 and Akben-Selcuk 2016: ...
... For the purpose of examining the effect of each of the 12 determinants of the competitive positions of Czechia, Poland, Slovakia and Hungary against the backdrop of the EU-10, group and individual competitiveness indices were computed on the basis of the following formula (Amendola et al. 1993, Akben-Selcuk 2016: Secondly, in 2011-2012 Poland and Slovakia recorded a steady increase in the share of efficiency enhancers. It was on the decline in the following years. ...
Book
Full-text available
Introduction This monograph focuses on two relevant topics of modern economics: national competitiveness and sustainable integration of catching-up economies within the network of global interconnections. The concept of national competitiveness is an ambiguous area at the crossroads of the theories of growth, development and foreign trade. Over the years, this controversial topic has been the subject of much political and academic discussion, with main disputes focusing on definitions, models and measures of competitiveness on the national level. In this study, we broaden the cost-based trade perspective and define national competitiveness as the ability to reach developmental goals in the era of globalisation. We further categorise these goals as instrumental (understood as evolution of trade structure towards high-tech specialisation that enables economic growth, measured by GDP per capita) and fundamental (reflecting socio-economic development without environmental degradation, measured by “beyond GDP goals”). Researchers share the opinion that technological change constitutes one of the fundamental driving forces of economic growth, and thus, in our understanding, sustainable national competitiveness. However, it is recognised that in the era of globalisation, innovation is not solely generated by individual companies but it can also result from international cooperation. In this context, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), one of the major channels through which technology and know-how are circulated on a global scale, gains particular importance. In the process of building their strong competitive positioning, small catching-up economies - characterised by limited economic and technological potential – have a particular interest in gaining access to the resources of multinational enterprises. Due to supply and demand constraints, these economies are forced to actively seek opportunities in the external environment, mainly through integration within the global economy. Thus, the main goal of our research is to assess the role of internationalisation of a catching-up economy in shaping its long-term competitiveness. This monograph aims to contribute to the international discussion on the topic that is crucial from the point of view of catching-up economies in the era of globalisation. We exemplify catching-up economies with the EU New Member States (NMS, EU-10 or – in a few partial analyses – four Visegrád countries, V4, or Central and Eastern European countries, CEE), that accessed the EU in the years 2004 and 2007. We pay particular attention to the NMS because of their unique economic heritage and developmental path. All countries in this group were dealing with the communist past in the process of transition “from plan to market”. They had to rebuild their institutions, economic policies as well as to reshape the behaviour of producers, consumers and public authorities. They also had to undergo the process of adjustment to the EU rules and standards before accessing the grouping. The NMS started their way to the market economy with ineffective institutions, relatively outdated economic structures, tendency to autarky and with constrained economic ties determined by central planning rather than the actual economic interests. Over 15 years after the accession, the NMS are much further on their developmental path and it is reasonable to expect them to continue climbing the innovation ladder and converging to the most advanced EU members. Nevertheless, in this monograph, we stress that for these countries reaching high levels of sustainable competitiveness may constitute a particular challenge, due to their current export specialisation structure – mainly in the resource- and labour-intensive industries. Since we define competitiveness as the ability to achieve developmental goals, we propose a set of objectives of a competitive catching-up economy (in relation to growth, trade volume and trade structure) and benchmark the performance of the EU-10 against these predefined criteria. We assume that the most competitive economies are these that are the best/fastest in achieving their goals and converging to the pattern of the most developed European economies (e.g. in our analyses Germany was set as a benchmark). We focus on the NMS, complementing the analyses with further global examples to demonstrate the interconnections between competitiveness and internationalisation. Our project lasted over four years and the research was based on numerous databases, including the data from various years in order to cover the longest possible period. However, as specific sectoral data were used e.g. in the calculation of Porter’s diamonds and our partial analyses were conducted sequentially in different years, we were forced to use different time-series in various parts of our research due to the limited availability of data. Even when discussing similar phenomena, we sometimes used different periods of analysis for e.g. exports statistics at different levels of aggregation. Nevertheless, all our partial analyses took into consideration the year of the EU accession of 8 out of 10 countries we analysed (2004). All analyses include the years of the last global economic crisis (2008-2009) and the years of recovery (usually until 2014; in the case of the most disaggregated data on the automobile industry until 2011). Despite the time heterogeneity, we think that our research will shed new light on the problem of competitiveness of a catching-up economy. We have been systematically publishing our research results in Polish and international journals, with this monograph being a compilation of the most important findings. The developed conceptual frameworks are the result of critical analysis of the Polish and international scientific literature and are based on the main conclusions drawn in the research process. We cite the respective literature sources chronologically to stress the pioneer works first, and then to mention the successors, followers and those who built-up on the achievements of predecessors but considerably extended their works. Sometimes, when citing short papers, or when the approach to the problem was scattered across a large number of pages, we resigned from the citation of specific pages, suggesting the reader should study the whole text. This monograph is addressed to the researchers studying theoretical and empirical aspects of competitiveness as well as to those interested in the developmental problems of the NMS. Furthermore, with the best practice examples and policy recommendations we want to attract the attention of politicians and students of all degree levels pursuing economics and management. Our monograph is structured as follows. In Chapter 1, we discuss the concept of competitiveness of a national economy and interlink it with disaggregated competitiveness at the sectoral and firm level. We present an interdisciplinary model as well as approaches to how measure and shape competitiveness. In Chapter 2, we discuss developmental constraints of catching-up economies and investigate in how far integration within the network of international interconnections enables overcoming these barriers and enhancing competitiveness. A particular focus is laid on the role of FDI in shaping long-term competitiveness of a small catching-up economy – this relation is exemplified with the case studies of Ireland and Singapore. In Chapter 3, we analyse the competitiveness evolution of NMS treated as catching-up economies. Basing on the suggested competitiveness model, we investigate the ability of the NMS to achieve their developmental goals: welfare, exports volume and structure as well as innovative capabilities. In Chapter 4, we evaluate the role of foreign direct investment in shaping competitiveness and innovativeness of a catching-up economy exemplified by the NMS or their representatives (Poland). The monograph is concluded with the main research project findings.
... Os países que dominam e desenvolvem competências tecnológicas específicas da indústria possuem posição relevante no comércio internacional. Amendola, Dosi e Papagni (1993) não só apontam o domínio de competências tecnológicas como um elemento primordial para explicar os fluxos de comércio no longo prazo como, também, criticam o uso de dados mais comumente utilizados, a exemplo de taxas de câmbio, preço e custos de produção, porque estariam limitados a uma análise de curto prazo. O grau de desenvolvimento tecnológico é um dos principais elementos da competitividade de um país e, uma vez que possui relação direta com sua estrutura produtiva, também irá refletir nos padrões de comércio de longo prazo do mesmo. ...
Article
Full-text available
Resumo O patamar de desenvolvimento industrial das nações pode ser inferido pelo domínio tecnológico e produtivo de um país e da sua estrutura produtiva local. Estes elementos são também importantes para determinar a competitividade das nações e a sua participação no comércio internacional. O artigo avalia empiricamente como o desenvolvimento da indústria farmacêutica está associado às mudanças nos padrões de especialização na rede de comércio mundial de medicamentos para investigar a coevolução de tais dimensões tendo em vista o arcabouço das políticas industriais de três países distintos: Irlanda, Índia e Brasil. Os principais resultados, obtidos pelo método de Análise de Redes, mostram que Índia e Irlanda, diferente do Brasil, adotaram políticas mais consistentes e contínuas, essenciais para o sucesso de uma estratégia de desenvolvimento do setor, mensurado por seus papéis na rede de comércio mundial de medicamentos. Além disso, os resultados deixam evidente que a abertura comercial não é condição suficiente para um país alçar patamares superiores de competitividade.
... Because of the high openness of CEE economies, we give primary attention to explaining the export dynamics,X, which is a function of world market expansion and international competitive position (Thirlwall, 1979). Evolutionarily, the latter is based on both cost and technology absolute advantages, as measured by the levels of labor productivity and wages, whereby the world market shares follow a replicatordynamics process (Dosi et al., 1990;Amendola et al., 1993;Razmi and Blecker, 2008;Grodzicki and Skrzypek, 2020). Note that we assume away the impact of institutional setting on competitiveness for the moment. ...
Article
Full-text available
We construct a simple model of a small, open economy with two macroeconomic variables of interest, namely, wage and employment dynamics and two institutions, namely, employment protection legislation (EPL) and minimum wage level (MW). Using stylized facts about macroeconomic performance and labor market reforms in Central Eastern European countries (CEEC) and assuming that the government wants to maximize equilibrium payroll, we can reproduce interesting labor market dynamics in these economies similar to those observed after the global financial crisis (GFC). This includes increased labor market resilience coupled with an increase in MW level and an implicitly higher EPL, with a partial reversal of a secular trend toward temporary employment. We conclude that a degree of complementarity (or at least weakened substitution) exists between worker-friendly EPL and MW policies in the peculiar economic circumstances that CEEC found themselves in the years after the GFC. We call these circumstances a Goldilocks period for the labor market.
... Theories of endogenous growth testified that economic growth depends on investment in research and development. In a few scientific studies, it is stated that investments in R&D firms and public research organizations are important elements for the improvement of R&D management, labor productivity, competitiveness of countries, and economic growth (Romer, 1990; Amendola et al., 1993). In that event, science has a different impact for different stages of economic development of countries. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to assess the relationship between R&D and economic growth in terms of their ability to understand R&D management. In the paper, the algorithm of actions was used, which allows ensuring interconnection, sequence of work, validity of the choice of the methods used, and defining key factors over a long period. The following methods of the empirical study were used: analysis of the provision of level development; regional analysis of the data; correlation analysis. Based on correlation analysis the impact of economic growth on R&D was investigated, which is expressed by such variables as the number of organizations engaged in R&D, internal expenditures in R&D, expenditures for technological innovations, number of employees in R&D. The data were obtained from the World Bank, the Eurasian Economic Union, and the statistical yearbook of Kazakhstan for 2009–2019. The results obtained show that all determinants correlate not only with the GDP but with each other as well. According to the findings, viewing the GDP level, there is a positive and negative correlation link between such two factors as ‘the number of research organizations’ and ‘R&D technological innovations’. These coefficients of correlation between GDP and independent factors selected for the analysis are significant, i.e. they can significantly affect the value of the GDP. The obtained results are useful in formulating the R&D development management strategy. AcknowledgmentsThis study has been funded by the Science Committee of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (grant IRN AP08052800 “Intellectual potential of the regions of the Republic of Kazakhstan: assessment and development prospects”).
... Several of works that sought to assess the relationship between innovation and trade performance, however, adopted specifications different from Eq. (3) . Fagerberg (1988) , Magnier and Toujas-Bernate (1994) , Amendola et al. (1993) and Amable and Verspagen (1995) , for example, found evidence of positive and significant impacts of price and technological competitiveness on export shares of OECD countries using R&D-and/or patent-based measures of technology. 2 Carlin et al . (2001) , however, found that while price competitiveness partially explains the export market shares of OECD countries, relative technology intensity is not significant. ...
This paper provides new evidence on the relationship between innovation, export performance and trade elasticities across different sectors. It explores a unique database, which comprises a diverse selection of 15 countries over the period 1976-2012. The empirical investigation also employs different regression techniques, namely a system GMM estimator and a panel error correction model. All estimations coincide in confirming the well-known result that technological competitiveness is a relevant determinant of exports, more so than price competitiveness. Moreover, they reveal the following new findings: (i) excluding technological competitiveness inflates income elasticities due to omitted variable bias; (ii) income elasticities remain significant even when introducing technological competitiveness; (iii) Krugman's hypothesis that income elasticities are proportional to each country's share in the world's product variety is rejected; (iv) technological competitiveness and foreign income exert larger effects on high-tech than on low-tech exports; (v) price competitiveness is more relevant for low-tech exports.
Article
Many studies have examined deregulation as a market tool for competition and efficiency enhancement, but climate change mitigation has hardly been pursued. This paper utilizes the staggered difference-in-difference(SDID) method on the panel of 17 OECD countries for 1985–2017. Authors progressively compare countries that have deregulated their natural gas sector and otherwise to single out the impact on the innovation related to carbon capture, storage, and sequestration(CCS). The SDID approach enables authors to provide evidence for the entire spectrum of liberalization, which has implications for both developed and developing economies. Focusing on carbon capture and storage(CCS) innovation also helps introduce net-zero emission relevance. The empirical results show following the liberalization of the natural sector, deregulation promotes CCS innovation, implying it can promote climate change action. Authors also find that the deregulation effects on CCS innovation among the OECD countries are driven by those with relatively low natural gas regulation, natural gas net-exporters and high input innovation performance in global innovation ranking. In general, (1) our results highlight the role of the regulatory environment and liberalization process in explaining the disparity conclusion of the influence of energy sector deregulation on innovation in extant literature. (2) show potential for natural gas deregulation-lagging economies to accelerate net-zero emission with the market liberalization. (3) suggest augmenting country policy with a market mechanism to accelerate climate change mitigation technologies, among other policy implications.
Article
We report a hitherto undocumented causal mechanism of how patent protection affects exports. The empirical analysis leverages unique data on the worldwide patenting and exporting activities at the product level for the universe of French firms. Exploiting heterogeneity of patent coverage within firm-product-country destinations, we find evidence of a patent premium. Goods protected by patents in a destination country are associated with higher export quantities, ceteris paribus. The effect ranges between four and eleven percent. The causality of the finding is confirmed using rejected patent applications, which are exogenous to the firm. Exports collapse when firms lose patent protection.
Article
International differences in technological activity are considered a fundamental factor in explaining differences in both levels and trends between countries’ exports, imports, and income, especially among industrialized nations. This study examines the effects of innovation activity (measured by R&D expenditure and patent applications) and economic growth (GDP per capita) on trade openness (the ratio of imports plus exports to GDP) in 10 European countries from 1983 to 2018 using time series analysis. We also investigate the impact of the Lisbon and Europe 2020 strategies on trade openness. We use autoregressive distributed lag methodology and Granger causality tests based on the vector error correction model to conduct the analysis. The empirical findings indicate a strong long-run relationship among the variables in all the countries examined. In most countries, the long-run coefficients of R&D expenditure, patent applications, and GDP per capita are positive and statistically significant. In short-run dynamics, error correction models are well-defined and provide interesting results for each country. The effects of the Lisbon Strategy and Europe 2020 differ across the countries examined. Finally, the Granger causal relationships among the variables vary across countries.
Article
Intellectual property rights protection (IPP) at destination countries is an important determinant of exports, a result shown by the existing literature. This paper empirically examines the effect of the degree of IPP on export product quality at the origins, using firm-product level data from Chinese exporters and city-level statistics of IPP. To establish the causal relationship, we employ an instrumental variable (IV) approach. Our panel regression results from 2008 to 2013 show that the de facto IPP contributes to the export product quality upgrading and the result is robust against variations of IPP measures, IVs, and different combinations of control variables such as the firm and industry level subsidies. Our heterogeneity results indicate that the betterment of IPP favors less capital-intensive firms; foreign-owned firms relative to domestic-owned firms; and firms in innovation-intensive industries. The effect of IPP on export product quality is statistically insignificant in certain geographic regions (i.e., central and western regions) and trade mode (i.e., processing trade). In addition, we show that the channels through which IPP takes effect on product quality include strengthened R&D input, new product development, and mitigated financial constraints.
Article
This article surveys selected recent contributions and debates regarding fundamental aspects of the theory of balance-of-payments-constrained growth (BPCG). The survey focuses mainly on studies, from roughly the period since 2010, in four broad (and related) areas: whether and how relative prices and the real exchange rate affect export performance and long-run growth; the role of endogenous technological progress; the causes and consequences of structural change; and the dynamics of adjustment toward (or cycles around) a long-run growth equilibrium with a balance-of-payments constraint. The discussion also highlights the increasing incorporation of insights from other theoretical traditions (Kaleckian, Kaldorian, Schumpeterian, Goodwinian, and structuralist) into the BPCG framework. The survey suggests the need to clarify the underlying assumptions and policy implications of the BPCG model and to complement its focus on long-run growth rates with analyses of medium-run adjustments and level effects.
Book
This book is not another parable of Japan's economic success; it provides rich and systematic descriptions of Japanese microeconomic institutions and interprets their work in terms familiar to Western economists. A systematic, in-depth analysis of Japanese institutions of this kind has never been available before. In making his comparative analysis of the Japanese system, Professor Aoki critically examines conventional notions about the microstructure of the market economy that have strongly shaped and influenced economists' approach to industrial organization (e.g., hierarchy as the alternative to the market, the firm as a propery of the stockholders, and market-oriented incentive contracts). While these notions may constitute an appropriate foundation for the analysis of the highly market-oriented Western economies, the author has found that a more complete understanding of the Japanese economy requires us to broaden such 'specific' notions. At one level, therefore, this book may be regarded as a provocative exercise in comparative industrial organization and the theory of the firm. To the extent that this approach is convincing, the book suggests a reordering of focus and emphasis in these studies.
Article
Location of new products, 191. — The maturing product, 196. — The standardized product, 202.
Chapter
Advances in information technology have increased the actual and potential uses of patent statistics as a proxy measure of inventive and innovative activities. Analytical contributions have come out of economics, bibliometrics, and descriptive comparisons for policy purposes. They show achievement and promise in describing and explaining1 international patterns of technological activity and their effects on the economic performance2 the volume, sectoral pattern, geographical location and dynamics of technological activity in specific firms, and their effects on competitive performance3 links between science and technology.