Innovación, capacidad productiva, formación en el puesto de trabajo y productividad

  1. Manuel Guisado González 2
  2. Mercedes Vila Alonso 1
  3. Manuel Guisado Tato 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

  2. 2 Universidad de Extremadura
    info

    Universidad de Extremadura

    Badajoz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0174shg90

Revista:
Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

ISSN: 1131-6837

Ano de publicación: 2016

Volume: 16

Número: 2

Páxinas: 77-92

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.5295/CDG.140513MG DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openADDI editor

Outras publicacións en: Management Letters / Cuadernos de Gestión

Resumo

This study analyzes the relationship between labor productivity, radical innovation, incremental innovation, embodied technology in machinery and equipment, utilization of production capacity and training. The data used are from Spanish companies, manufacturing and services, and have been collected by the Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey (BEEPS). The technique used to estimate the coefficients of the model is the ordinary least square regression, since the dependent variable (labor productivity) is continuous. The results indicate that radical innovation and training have a significant positive impact on labor productivity. The influence of embodied technology is also significant, but of negative sign. Finally, note that the companies that export and larger achieve higher levels of productivity. The findings of this study have implications for responsible for economic policy. Spanish policy makers should promote and subsidize the purchase of machinery and equipment more efficient for companies that achieve lower levels of productivity, and subsidize the training of workers in the management of these new equipments. They must also promote and subsidize the development of activities high in R&D for companies that achieve high levels of productivity, to increase their performance in radical innovation. The promotion and subsidization of training programs related to R&D is also essential in this type of companies, especially in a scenario characterized by an intense and rapid technological change

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abowd, J. M.; Kramarz, F. y Margolis, D. N., 1999. High wage workers and high wage firms. Econometrica, 67, 251–333.
  • Ahmad, N. y Petersen, D. R., 2007. High-growth enterprises and gazelles — Preliminary and summary sensitivity analysis. Paris: OECD-FORA.
  • Amara,N.; Réjean L.; Nizar B. y Mathieu, O., 2008. Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation, 28(7), 450–463.
  • Albaladejo, M. y Romijn, H., 2000. Determinants of innovation capability in small UK firms: an empirical analysis. Eindhoven: Centre for Innovation Studies, Ecis working paper No. 00.13, Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands.
  • Baldwin, J. R. y Johnson, J., 1996. Business strategies in moreand less-innovative firms in Canada. Research Policy, 25(6): 785–804.
  • Ballot, G.; Fakhfakh, F. y Taymaz, E., 2006. Who benefits from training and R&D, the firm or the workers? British Journal of Industrial Relation, 44(3), 473-495.
  • Birch, D., 1979. The job generation process. Unpublished manuscript. Cambridge, MA: MIT Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change.
  • Blatter, M.; Mühlemann, S.; Schenker, S. y Wolter, S. C., 2012. Hiring costs of skilled workers and the supply of firm-provided training. IZA Discussion Papers 6344, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  • Boston Consulting Group, 1972. Perspectives on experience. Boston, MA.
  • Buddelmeyer, H.; Jensen, P. H. y Webster, E., 2010. Innovation and the determinants of company survival. Oxford Economic Papers-New Series, 62(2), 261-285.
  • Buzzel, R.D.; Gale, B.T. y Sultan, R. G. M., 1975. Market share: A key to profitability. Harvard Business Review, 53(1), 97-106. Cassiman, B.; Golovko, E. y Martínez-Ros, E., 2010. Innovation, exports and productivity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 372-376.
  • Colombo, E. y Stanca, L., 2014. The impact of training on productivity: evidence from a panel of Italian firms. International Journal of Manpower, 35(8), 1140 – 1158.
  • Crépon, B.; Duguet, E. y Mairesse, J., 1998. Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 7(2), 115-158.
  • Criscuolo, C., 2009. Innovation and productivity: Estimating the core model across 18 countries. En: OECD, innovation in firms: A microeconomic perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing, 111-131.
  • Crowley, F. y McCann, P., 2015. Innovation and productivity in Irish firms. Spatial Economic Analysis, DOI: 10.1080/17421772.2015.1023340.
  • Dearden, L.; Reed, H. y Van Reenen, J., 2006. The impact of training on productivity and wages: Evidence from British Panel Data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68(4), 397421.
  • Dixit, A., 1980. The role of investment in entry deterrence. Economic Journal, 90, 95-106.
  • Duguet, E., 2006. Innovation height, spillovers and TFP growth at the firm level: Evidence from French manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 415-442.
  • Foster, L.; Haltiwanger, J. y Syverson, C., 2008. Reallocation, firm turnover, and efficiency: selection on productivity or profitability? American Economic Review, 98 (1), 394–425.
  • Freel, M., 2005. Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation, 25 (2), 123–134.
  • Galindo-Rueda, F. y Haskel, J., 2005. Skills, workforce characteristics and firm-level productivity: Evidence from the matched ABI/Employer skills survey. Discussion Paper No. 1542, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Germany.
  • Geroski, P.A., 1991. Domestic and foreign entry in the United Kingdom: 1983-1984. En: Geroski, P.A. y Schwalbach, J. (eds), Entry and market contestability: An international comparison, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 63-88.
  • Griffith, R.; Huergo, E.; Mairesse, J. y Peters, B., 2006. Innovation and productivity across four European countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22, 483-498.
  • Griliches, Z., 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92-116.
  • Griliches, Z., 1998. R&D and productivity: The econometric evidence, Chicago IL, The University of Chicago Press Books.
  • Hall, B.H., 2011. Innovation and productivity. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 2, 167-204
  • Haltiwanger, J. C.; Lane, J. I. y Spletzer, J. R., 1999. Productivity differences across employers: The role of employer size, age, and human capital. American Economic Review, 89, 94–98.
  • Haskel, J.; Hawkes, D. y Pereira, S., 2005. Skills, human capital and the plant productivity gap:UK evidence from matched plant, worker and workforce data. CEPR Discussion Paper no. 5334, Center for Economic Policy Research, London.
  • Henderson, B.D., 1973. The experience curve Reviewed II: History. Perspectives, 125. The Boston Consulting Group.
  • Henderson, B. D., 1978. Cross-sectional experience. Perspectives, 208. The Boston Consulting Group.
  • Huergo, E. y Jaumandreu, J., 2004. How does probability of innovation change with firm age? Small Business Economics, 22, 193–207.
  • Iranzo, S.; Schivardi, F. y Tosetti, E., 2008. Skill dispersion and firm productivity: An analysis with employer-employee matched data. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(2), 247-285.
  • Janz, N.; Lööf, H. y Peters, B., 2004. Firm level innovation and productivity – is there a common story across countries. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 2, 184-204.
  • Jermias, J., 2006. Competitive intensity as a quasi-moderator of the relationship between innovative efforts and performance. International Journal of Business 8(3), 281–299.
  • Jovanovic, B., 1982. Selection and the Evolution of Industry. Econometrica, 50 (3), 649-670.
  • Konings, J. y Vanormelingen, S., 2010. The impact of training on productivity and wages: Firm level evidence. IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4731.
  • Laplagne, P. y Bensted, L., 1999. The role of training and innovation in workplace performance. Canberra: Productivity Commission Staff Research PaperAusInfo.
  • Leitch Review of Skills, 2006. Prosperity for all in the global economy-world class skills. Final report. The Stationery Office.
  • Lin, Y.Y. y Chen, Y.C., 2007. Does innovation lead to performance? An empirical study of SMEs in Taiwan. Management Research News 30(2), 115–132.
  • Lloyd-Ellis, H. y Roberts, J., 2002. Twin engines of growth: skills and technology as equal partners in balanced growth. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(2), 87-115.
  • Lööf, H.; Heshmati, A.; Apslund, R. y Naas, S-O., 2003. Innovation and performance in manufacturing industries: A comparison of the Nordic countries. International Journal of Management Research, 2, 5-36.
  • Lööf, H. y Heshmati, A., 2006. On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 317-344.
  • Lotti, F. y Santarelli, E., 2001. Linking knowledge to productivity: a Germany-Italy comparison using the CIS database. Empirica, 28, 293-317.
  • Mairesse, J.; Mohnen, P. y Kremp, E., 2005. The importance of R&D and innovation for productivity: A reexamination in light of the 2000 French innovation survey. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 79/80, 489-529.
  • Mairesse, J. y Robin, S., 2009. Innovation and productivity: A firm-level analysis for French manufacturing and services using CIS3 and CIS4 data (1998–2000 and 2002–2004). Working paper, Paris: CREST-ENSAE.
  • Masso, J. y Vahter, P., 2008. Technological innovation and productivity in late-transition Estonia: econometric evidence from innovation surveys. The European Journal of Development Research, 20, 240–61.
  • Mohnen, P. y Hall, B. H., 2013. Innovation and productivity: an update. Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 47-65.
  • Parisi, M.L.; Schiantarelli, F. y Sembenelli, A., 2006. Productivity, innovation creation and absorption, and R&D: Micro evidence for Italy. European Economic Review, 50(8), 2037-2061.
  • Pakes, A. y Griliches, Z., 1980. Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first report. Economics Letters, 5, 377–381.
  • Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change. Research Policy, 13, 343-373.
  • Porter, M., 1991. Competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.
  • Raffo, J.; Lhuillery, S. y Miotti, L., 2008. Northern and southern innovativity: a comparison across European and Latin American countries. The European Journal of Development Research, 20, 219–39.
  • Raymond, W.; Mairesse, J.; Mohnen, P. y Palm, F., 2012. Dynamic models of R&D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for Dutch and French manufacturing. En: EEA & ESEM, 27th Annual Congress of the European Economic Association & 66th European Meeting of the Econometric Society. Malaga, Spain 27-31 August 2012.
  • Romer, P.M., 1990. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.
  • Sakurai, N.; Ioannidis, E. y Papaconstantinou, G., 1996. The Impact of R&D and technology diffusion on productivity growth: Evidence for 10 OECD countries in the 1970s and 1980s. OECD Science, Technology and Industry. Working Papers, 1996/02, OECD Publishing.
  • Siedschlag, I.; Zhang, X. y Cahill, B., 2010. The effects of the internationalization of firms on innovation and productivity. ESRI Working Paper, 363.
  • Stobaugh, R.B. y Townsend, P.L., 1975. Price forecasting and strategic planning: The case of petro chemicals. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 19-29.
  • Van Leeuwen, G. y Klomp, L., 2006. On the contribution of innovation to multi-factor productivity growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15, 367–90.
  • Ying-Chieh, C. y Cipolla, J., 2007. Relationships between goal setting innovation, project management, quality speed to market and new product success. Business Review Cambridge, 9(1), 1–8.
  • Zwick, T., 2005. Continuing vocational training forms and establishment productivity in Germany. German Economic Review, 62(2), 155-184.
  • Zwick, T., 2006. The impact of training intensity on establishment productivity. Industrial Relations, 45(1), 26-46.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet