Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
July 2015
Abstract: Endogenous growth theory postulates that innovation is one of the key
Researcher at the Economic Research Center of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (P2E-LIPI)
and visiting fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Email:
siwage@yahoo.com. This study is commissioned by the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN
and East Asia (ERIA).
1. Introduction
Endogenous growth theory postulates that innovation is one of the key drivers of
technological progress and productivity growth of a country (Romer, 1990; Aghion
and Howitt, 2005). Technological improvement stemming from a firms innovative
activities can lead to more efficient production processes and generate better quality
outputs. In an increasingly competitive global economy, innovation capacity is crucial
for firms to improve productivity and hence sustain their export competitiveness (Aw
et al., 2009; Cassiman et al., 2010).
Innovation requires an environment that is conducive to support firms to conduct
innovative activities. Studies show that public policies, including labour market
policies, can influence the operating conditions and institutional structures of firms to
foster innovation that leads to productivity gains. Several OECD studies in this area
suggest that different regulatory environments may explain performance differentials
between countries, or between industries with regard to innovation (OECD, 2002;
OECD, 2009).
Certain regulatory policies may affect firms incentives to innovate. For example,
regulations that restrict competition (e.g., creating entry barriers or operational
restrictions), or limit the ability of firms to adjust their workforce (e.g., stricter hiring
and firing rules), can adversely affect incentives to innovate. This in turn could hinder
the process of technological transfer and deny the economy potential productivity
improvements.
Labour market policies can influence the allocation of resources across firms and
sectors in the economy. They affect firms choices over labour inputs, investments,
technology, and outputs (Boeri et al., 2008). Different labour market policies induce
greater or lesser adjustment costs for firms to reallocate workers, thus affecting overall
economic efficiency. An efficient labour market is defined as one that ensures the
flexibility to shift workers from one production activity to another at low cost (World
Economic Forum, 2014). Efficiency in the labour market is critical in ensuring that
labour is assigned to its most effective use in the production process. An efficient
labour market provides opportunities for firms to foster innovation activities, which
may involve labour replacement or job reallocation, without excessive social
disruption. In this paper, the term efficient and flexible labour market is used
interchangeably.
The literature on the impact of labour market policies on firms incentives to
innovate provides mixed empirical evidence. Some studies find that less-stringent
labour market policies are associated with stronger innovation competitiveness
(OECD, 2002; Saint-Paul, 2002; Barbosa and Faria, 2011; Murphy, et al., 2013;
Griffith and Macartney, 2014). Conversely, other studies also find that stricter labour
market policies can foster innovation and lead to greater country-level economic
growth. They argue that stringent labour market policies that limit firms ability to
dismiss workers, act as an insurance device for firms not to punish employees when
certain innovative activities fail. In turn, this increases workers incentives to engage
in innovative activity (Acharya et al., 2010; Tang, 2012).
Countries at different development stages have different labour market
requirements, which influence their respective labour market policies. This paper
attempts to construct a set of balanced panels consisting of OECD and non-OECD
countries to investigate the relationship between labour market policies and countries
innovation capacity. In addition, it also looks at how the latter relates to countries
trade competitiveness. It argues that a more efficient labour market characterised by
less-rigid labour market policies stimulates innovation. In turn, higher innovation
positively impacts countries trade competitiveness.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews selected studies examining
the relationship between labour market policies, and innovation intensity and
performance. Section 3 proposes simple empirical models to test the relationship
between labour market policies and countries innovation competitiveness. Section 4
discusses the data used for the estimation and presents some stylised facts. Section 5
discusses the empirical findings, whilst Section 6 concludes the paper.
2. Literature Review
There are several studies assessing the relationship between labour market policies
and innovation. This literature survey was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide an assessment of the current state of knowledge and highlight the existing
knowledge gaps where future research might be focused. It is important to note that
most, if not all, of the studies assessing the relationship between labour market policies
and innovation primarily focus on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) member countries. Availability of good quality firm- and
industrial-level data in OECD countries may explain this trend. However, for nonOECD countries, especially for developing countries in Southeast Asia, there is lack
of (or in many cases non-existent) good quality microdata on innovation and
productivity (Lee and Narjoko, 2015).
Labour market policies vary from country to country. In general, these policies
aim to achieve social (rather than economic) objectives, such as providing employment
protection measures for workers. Employment protection policies are primarily
introduced to protect workers from adverse labour market risks, such as lay-offs or
low-paid earnings. Empirically, these policies vary widely across and within countries
(see Botero et al., 2004 for detailed discussion of each policy). To protect the earnings
of the lowest level of workers, some governments set minimum wages.1 In addition,
some governments also set regulations such that employers must provide extra benefits
to their workers, including training, health care, paid vacations, maternity leave, etc.
To protect workers from lay-off, some governments provide unemployment insurance
for those who lose their jobs.2 Alternatively, some governments prefer to set
regulations that restrict firms ability to dismiss employees at will.
For examples, several countries, such as Australia, the United States, France, Chinese Taipei,
Japan, South Korea, China, the United Kingdom, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, implement
minimum wage systems. The arguments for minimum wage policy are to ensure low wage workers
having a minimum living standard; to prevent employers from exploiting low-skilled workers; to
increase purchasing power of low wage workers; and to compel employers to raise efficiency and
productivity, amongst others.
2
The US, Chinese Taipei, Japan, South Korea, and China also operate unemployment insurance
benefits, which are not linked to the minimum wages. Australia operates an unemployment
assistance system, in which benefit rates are set below the earnings of minimum wage workers.
France operates both systems.
The existing literature suggests that the relationship between labour market
policies and innovation capacity can be both positive and negative. On the one hand,
a stricter labour market policy provides job security; hence this should increase
incentives for workers to invest in firm-specific human capital and to be more engaged
in innovation activities (see Acharya et al., 2010). On the other hand, a stricter labour
market policy, which causes higher hiring and firing costs, will increase the cost for
firms that need to adjust their workforce in relation to innovation activities. This in
turn will discourage firms from conducting significant innovative activities (see SaintPaul, 2002; Bassinini and Ernst, 2002; Barbosa and Faria, 2011).
Murphy et al. (2013) identify two channels through which labour market policies
(employment protection regulations) may affect innovation. The first channel is linked
through human capital investment. In this channel, labour market policy is likely to
increase the probability of workers engaging in firm-specific or industry-specific
skills. It also increases the probability of workers engaging in innovation activities
(Murphy et al., 2013, p.5). Furthermore, a stricter labour market policy is likely to
increase workers bargaining power and their incentives to invest in firm-specific
skills. Acharya et al. (2010) found that stronger employment protection regulations
had a positive impact on innovation at the industry level. It also led to relatively more
innovation in the innovation-intensive industries than in traditional industries.
Acharya et al. (2010) find that stronger employment protection laws not only
foster innovation but also lead to greater country-level economic growth. They argue
that regulations governing the dismissal of workers are the only dimension of labour
laws that enhance firm-level innovation and country-level economic growth (Acharya
et al., p.23). They explain that employment protection laws impose limits on firms
ability to dismiss workers. This acts as an insurance device encouraging firms not to
punish their workers as a result of an unsuccessful innovative project. Consequently,
this incentivises workers to increase their investment in innovative projects relative to
their investment in routine projects. Therefore, stringent employment protection laws
encourage firms to find innovative projects in order to be more value-enhancing than
routine projects.
Tang (2012) shows that cross-country differences in labour market policies shape
the pattern of international trade, with a focus on workers skill acquisition. Similar to
Acharya et al. (2010), Tang also finds that countries with more protective labour laws
export relatively more in firm-specific skill-intensive sectors through both the
intensive and extensive margins of trade.3
Contrary to Acharya et al. (2010) and Tang (2012) findings, Barbosa and Faria
(2011) find that stricter labour market policy leads to less innovation intensity at the
industry level in European countries. They find that in European countries that have
rigid labour market policy, the innovation intensity decreases by 1.89 for a unit
increase in the indicator of employment rigidity holding other variables constant (see
Barbosa and Faria, 2011, p. 20). These findings are in line with Bassanini and Ernst
(2002), who investigated the impact of product and labour market regulations on
innovation by using a set of OECD indicators on the regulatory framework on a crosssection of 18 OECD countries and 18 manufacturing industries. Their results show a
positive association between more flexible labour market policies and research and
development (R&D) intensity, which is used as proxy for innovation.
The second channel through which labour market policy may affect innovation is
through firms adjustment costs when they need to adjust against idiosyncratic shocks
(Murphy et al., 2013).4 In this case, a more rigid labour market policy inflates hiring
and firing costs for firms. As a result, this is likely to discourage innovative activities
that require adjustments or reallocations of labour. The adjustment cost will be
relatively higher in technologically advanced industries (Saint-Paul, 2002). Stricter
employment protection regulations discourage firms from experimenting with new
technologies with higher returns, but also with higher adjustment costs. Empirically,
employment protection restrictions are more costly in industries with rapid
technological change, such as ICT. Therefore, countries with stricter employment
protection regulations are likely to specialise in industries with a lower rate of technical
change (Murphy, et al., p.5).
A study by Pierre and Scarpetta (2006) find that innovative firms are the most
negatively affected by stricter labour market policies. Griffith and Macartney (2014)
find that multinational firms are likely to locate more innovation activities in countries
3
The intensive margin refers to the export volume per firm, whilst the extensive margin refers to
the number of exporting firms.
4
Idiosyncratic shocks that affect individual firm can be natural, social, economic, political, or
environmental.
with stricter employment protection policies. However, the same firms locate more
technologically advanced innovation activities in countries with less-stringent
employment protection policies. Furthermore, Murphy et al. (2013) find that the
effects of labour market policies on innovation vary by industry and country depending
on factors such as lay-off propensity, technological intensity, skills intensity,
competition pressures, openness, and other labour market institutions, such as wagesetting institutions. They find that a more rigid labour market policy leads to
significantly lower innovation intensity in industries with higher job reallocation rates
or higher probability of dismissal. In addition, Murphy et al. find that innovation
intensity was higher in industries with higher import competition and in industries with
less rigid product market regulations. Furthermore, in countries with abundant human
capital, innovation intensity was higher in human capital-intensive industries.
Meanwhile, in countries with abundant physical capital, innovation intensity was
higher in physical capital-intensive industries. These results are aligned with SaintPaul (2002) and Griffith and Macartney (2014). In summary, the empirical literature
on the relationship between labour market policies and innovation provides a mixed
and complicated picture. The overall evidence leans slightly towards a positive
association between more flexible labour market policies and innovation capacity.
With regard to the relationship between innovation and trade competitiveness,
studies find a positive association between innovation capacity and firms exports. For
examples, Wagner (2007), Aw et al. (2009) and Cassiman, et al. (2010) find evidence
on the link between product innovation, productivity and exports. In this case,
innovation policy targeted at enhancing productivity is likely to be important for
improving firms exporting competitiveness. However, using the Slovenian microdata,
Damijan, et al. (2010) find a reverse causal direction in which exporting induces
process innovation and, in turn, affects the productivity growth relationship. This
finding suggests that firms with past exporting experience have a higher probability of
being more productive due to process innovation. Therefore, the link between
innovation and exporting seems fairly robust, and existing studies show that the
direction of causality can be both ways. Along these lines, Lee and Narjoko 2015
review some micro-data studies on the relationship between innovation and trade
competitiveness measured by exporting capability for five developing countries from
Southeast Asia, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
They conclude that most existing studies in the region are not able to pinpoint the
direction of causality between innovation and exporting capability, most likely due to
data constraints. However, there is strong evidence that the incidence of innovation is
positively correlated with firms exporting performance. In addition, they find that
foreign competition in domestic markets is also important for innovation.
3.1. Data
To investigate whether cross-country variations in labour market policies can
explain differences in innovation intensity, we constructed a set of panel data of 32
countries covering the period 2009-13. The data set includes seven ASEAN member
states, all members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), 16
OECD countries, plus Argentina, Hong Kong, Mexico and Pakistan (Table 1). The
selection of countries tries to capture all different stages of development as discussed
in the Global Competitiveness Report (WEF, 2014).
As can be seen from Table 1, ASEAN member states levels of development vary
from factor-driven economies such as Cambodia to innovation-driven economies such
as Singapore. As mentioned above, countries with different development levels have
different labour market requirements. Therefore, this influences their respective labour
market policies. In addition, countries with different development levels have different
innovation intensities and capacities. In view of this, combining such a wide
development level within a panel increases the variation in our data. Due to the lack
of data, three ASEAN member states, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, and
Myanmar, cannot be included in the panel estimation.
Transition
from stage 1
to stage 2
Cambodia
(CMB)
India
(IND)
Pakistan
(PAK)
Viet Nam
(VNM)
Philippines
(PHP)
Stage 2:
Efficiencydriven
economies
China
(CHN)
Indonesia
(IDN)
South Africa
(SAF)
Thailand
(THL)
Transition
from stage 2
to stage 3
Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
economies
Argentina
(ARG)
Brazil
(BRZ)
Malaysia
(MLY)
Mexico
(MEX)
Russia
(RUS)
Turkey
(TUR)
Australia (AUS)
Canada (CAN)
Finland (FIN)
France (FRA)
Germany (GER)
Greece (GRE)
Hong Kong (HKG)
Italy (ITA)
Japan (JPN)
South Korea (KOR)
New Zealand (NZ)
Portugal (POR)
Singapore (SIN)
Spain (SPN)
Sweden (SWE)
United Kingdom (UK)
United States (US)
Note: The classification of countries follows the development stages in the Global
Competitiveness Report 20142015 published by the World Economic Forum. Country codes are
shown in parentheses.
As a proxy for innovation intensity, this paper uses scores data for innovation
competitiveness published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) since 2005. The
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) published by WEF is designed to measure both
microeconomic and macroeconomic foundations of national competitiveness. It is a
composite index consisting of 12 pillars of competitiveness, namely, institutions,
infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher
education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial
market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication,
and innovation. Each pillar consists of several indicators. The indicators are derived
using a standardised survey targeted to over 14,000 business executives in 144
countries. Similar to other perception surveys, there is a potential subjectivity bias in
the data. Nevertheless, the Global Competitiveness Index is a valuable data set that
can easily be used in a quantitative way, especially when other alternative standardised
measures on innovation and labour market policy are not readily available as in most
See Kleinknecht et al. 2002 for detailed discussion about the weakness of each innovation
indicator.
Banks Doing Business. Specifically, the labour market policies index covers two
components, namely, the flexibility and the efficiency of the labour market. The
flexibility of a labour market is measured by indicators of: cooperation in labouremployer relations; flexibility of wage determination; hiring and firing practices; costs
of redundancy dismissal; and the effect of taxation on incentives to work. The higher
the score of labour market efficiency, the more efficient the labour market is, implying
a less-rigid labour market policy. Meanwhile, the cost of redundancy dismissals
measures the strictness of regulations in terms of dismissal for a regular and a
temporary contract (Murphy et al., 2013, p. 3).
Table 2 describes each variable used in the empirical model, data sources and the
expected impact on innovation.
Patent
Empkw
Vencap
Description
Dependent variable, measured by the innovation
scores (weighted average of capacity for innovation;
quality of scientific research institutions; company
spending on R&D; universityindustry collaboration
in R&D; government procurement of advanced
technology products; availability of scientists and
engineers; PCT patent applications and intellectual
property protection), values vary between 1 and 7
from least to most innovative environment.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
number of patent filed by resident at national office
(per billion GDP, 2005 PPP$), values vary between 0
and 100 from least to most patent application.
Source: World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), Global Innovation Index.
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
employment in knowledge-intensive services (% of
workforce), values vary between 0 and 100 from
least to most knowledge employment.
Source: ILO, Global Innovation Index.
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
venture capital per investment location: number of
deals (per trillion GDP, 2005 PPP$), values vary
between 0 and 100 from least to most venture deals.
Source: Thomson Reuters, Global Innovation Index.
10
Expected Impact
Lxport
Lbreffi
Lmefi
Gmefi
Institut
Highed
Macro
Mktsize
11
+/-
+/-
+/-
Techred
Infras
Openness
It is important to note that the innovation scores from the GCI focus on
technological innovation capacity. Technological innovation is not related to skills,
know-how, or organisational conditions. The importance of technological innovation
in improving standards of living is well documented. Technological breakthroughs
have been the basis of many of productivity gains that modern economies currently
enjoy. For example, technological innovation in ICT has led the digital revolution
which, in turn, has benefitted modern economies in terms of increasing productivity
and efficiency. The digital revolution would have never happened without
technological innovation, which has significantly transformed the ways in which
things are done, and opened a wider range of new opportunities in terms of products
and services development.
Technological innovation is particularly important for economies approaching the
frontiers of knowledge. At this stage of development, the possibility of generating
more value by merely integrating and adapting exogenous technologies tends to
disappear. For firms in those countries that have reached this innovation stage of
development, they must design and develop cutting-edge products and processes to
maintain a competitive edge and move towards even higher value-added activities.
12
13
The correlation matrix shows that there is a high positive correlation between the
institutional environment (institute) and goods market efficiency (gmefi). The
institutional environment is determined by the legal and administrative framework
within which firms and government interact to generate wealth. Meanwhile, goods
market efficiency is determined by healthy market competition and demand conditions
(customer orientation and buyer sophistication).
There is also a high positive correlation between infrastructure quality (infra) and
higher education quality (highed); between infrastructure quality and technological
readiness (techred); and between higher education quality and technological readiness.
Infrastructure quality is measured by how extensive and efficient the infrastructure a
14
BRZ
CAN
CHN
CMB
FIN
FRA
GER
GRE
HKG
IDN
IND
ITA
JPN
KOR
MEX
MLY
NZ
PAK
PHP
POR
RUS
SAF
SIN
SPN
SWE
THL
TUR
UK
US
VNM
6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
4
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
lmefi
ARG
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
year
Graphs by country
15
Figure 2 shows the trend scores of innovation capacity based on the GCI. Overall,
the global trend shows that innovation intensity has been increasing in some countries
and also declining in others. Finland, Japan, Germany, and the US lead in global
innovation competitiveness, whilst Cambodia, Argentina and Pakistan seem to be
laggards in innovation.
BRZ
CAN
CHN
CMB
FIN
FRA
GER
GRE
HKG
IDN
IND
ITA
JPN
KOR
MEX
MLY
NZ
PAK
PHP
POR
RUS
SAF
SIN
SPN
SWE
THL
TUR
UK
US
VNM
5 6
4
3
5 6
4
3
4
5 6
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
innov
4 5
4 5
4 5
ARG
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
year
Graphs by country
16
FIN
GER
JPN
SWE
US
KOR
FRA
MLY
CAN
NZ
AUS
IDN
ITA
TUR
HKG
POR
Innovation
SIN
UK
ARG
PAK
CHN
SAFSPN
IND PHP
MEXBRZ
THL RUS
GRE
VNM
CMB
4
5
labour market efficiency
innov
Fitted values
Figures 4 to 6 show that labour market efficiency has a positive association with
the number of patents filed in the national office, the number of venture capital deals,
and the number of people employed in knowledge-intensive services.
17
100
US
80
KOR
number of patent
RUS
60
NZ
40
FIN
UK
FRA
SWE
ITA
20
TUR
ARG
PAK
AUS
SPN POR
GRE
BRZ
IND
THL
VNM
SAF
MEX
IDN PHP
CAN
SIN
MLY
HKG
CMB
4
5
labour market efficiency
patent
Fitted values
Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.
100
CAN
US
UK
50
GER
SPN
AUS
IND
ARG
ITA PAK
TUR
NZ
JPN
POR
RUSCHN MLY
BRZ PHP
KOR
MEX
SAF
IDN
THLVNM CMB
GRE
HKG
-50
SIN
SWE
FRA
4
5
labour market efficiency
vencap
Fitted values
Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.
18
100
SIN
80
SWE
60
FRA
FIN
AUSRUSGER
CAN
NZ
US
ITA
GRE
40
UK
SPN
POR
MLY
JPN
SAF
ARG
TUR
PAK
HKG
PHP
BRZ KOR
20
MEX
THL
IDN
VNM CHN
CMB
4
5
labour market efficiency
empkw
Fitted values
Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.
Figure 7 shows that the relationship between labour market efficiency (lmefi) and
trade openness also seems positive. A more efficient labour market is associated with
greater openness to trade. Similarly, Figure 8 shows that the relationship between
innovation and trade competitiveness (measured by the natural logarithm of export
value) is also positive. A more innovative country is associated with greater export
competitiveness.
19
100
trade openness
90
ITA
TUR
GER
FIN
SWE
JPN
AUS
MEX
IDN
SAF
80
CAN
UK
NZUS
MLY
CHN
PHP THL
RUS
VNM
ARG
70
BRZ
IND
KOR
PAK
60
CMB
4
5
labour market efficiency
open
Fitted values
Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.
16
CHN
12
RUS
ITA
MEX IND
SPN
BRZ
THL
TUR
VNM
SAF
ARG
PHP
GRE
PAK
10
log export
14
US
GER
KORUK
HKGCAN FRA
AUS
IDN
JPN
SIN
MLY
SWE
FIN
POR
NZ
CMB
innovation
lxprt
Fitted values
Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.
20
(1)
Due to lack of standardised industrial data, the model cannot control for industrial
heterogeneity.
21
openness and interaction terms. In this case, the degree of openness matters for
innovation.
The estimated coefficient for higher education is positive and significant for
different model specification. This means higher education quality is positively
associated with innovation. In view of this, policy that supports the quality of higher
education is crucial for improving countrys innovation competitiveness. Other
significant determinant for innovation is infrastructure quality. Columns 24 show that
better infrastructure quality is associated with higher innovation competitiveness.
Meanwhile, columns 1, 2, and 5 show that estimated coefficients on goods market
efficiency are positive and significant, meaning that more efficient goods market
policies (more domestic and foreign competition) are associated with higher
innovation capacity. This result is in line with other previous findings (see Aghion et
al., 2005; Barbosa and Faria, 2011).
Lmefi
Gmefi
Highed
Infra
Mktsize
Openness
1
0.232**
(0.099)
0.362**
(0.136)
0.371***
(0.112)
Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity scores
2
3
4
0.225***
0.296***
1.718***
(0.079)
(0.082)
(0.401)
0.290**
0.108
0.150
(0.109)
(0.122)
(0.117)
0.288**
0.284**
(0.112)
(0.112)
0.451***
0.388 ***
0.378***
(0.089)
(0.098)
(0.091)
0.158
(0.286)
0.019***
(0.006)
-0.323***
(0.089)
5
1.643***
(0.409)
0.311**
(0.144)
0.312***
(0.109)
0.019***
(0.006)
Open*Lmefi
-0.308***
(0.090)
Techred
0.114**
(0.066)
Constant
-0.395
-0.469
-1.847
-2.744***
-2.170**
(0.786)
(0.626)
(1.514)
(0.877)
(0.984)
N
160
160
160
160
160
Rho
0.946
0.952
0.950
0.953
0.945
Prob > F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients
statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed
description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation.
22
The Hausman test is conducted to choose between the fixed effect and random
effect model. The Hausman test rejects the null hypothesis, i.e., that the unique error
(ui) is not correlated with the regressors.7 Therefore, the fixed effect is selected for
equation (1).
Different proxies for innovation are also tested in the estimation of equation (1).
Table 4 shows the results of fixed effect regression on equation (1) using different
proxies for dependent variable, namely the number of venture deals (vencap) and the
number of people employed in knowledge-intensive services (empkw) as the
dependent variables. Similar to previous results, the coefficient for the labour market
efficiency (lmefi) remains positive and significant. However, we cannot find a
significant association between labour market policies and the number of patents filed
in the national office. This is probably due to weaknesses of the patent data.8
23
Dependent variable:
Employment in knowledge
services
1
2
3
4
Lmefi
2.490***
2.136***
0.357**
0.341**
(0.471)
(0.472)
(0.150)
(0.156)
Gmefi
-3.247***
-2.059***
-0.532***
-0.535**
(0.656)
(0.774)
(0.197)
(0.247)
Mktsize
-5.038***
-4.032**
2.708***
2.677***
(1.804)
(1.781)
(0.482)
(0.486)
Highed
-1.552***
-0.196
(0.546)
(0.177)
Infra
-0.379
0.199
(0.531)
(0.173)
Constant
33.818***
34.175***
9.417***
-9.205***
(9.482)
(9.185)
(2.536)
(2.554)
N
145
145
155
155
Rho
0.973
0.974
0.989
0.989
Prob > F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients
statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed
description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation
24
Lmefi
Gmefi
1
0.222***
(0.074)
0.549***
(0.125)
Mktsize
Highed
Infra
Institut
Macro
0.181*
(0.097)
Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity scores
2
3
4
0.243***
0.210**
0.234**
(0.085)
(0.092)
(0.095)
0.537***
0.237*
0.230*
(0.134)
(0.134)
(0.139)
0.227
0.168
0.294
(0.346)
(0.306)
(0.317)
0.190*
0.105
0.100
(0.103)
(0.090)
(0.094)
0.436***
0.468***
(0.117)
(0.119)
0.195*
0.192*
(0.105)
(0.109)
-0.056
(0.043)
5
0.201**
(0.085)
0.243*
(0.133)
0.101
(0.088)
0.430***
(0.114)
0.199*
(0.103)
Openness
Innov (t-1)
-0.181
-0.253
-0.220
-0.315*
(0.154)
(0.197)
(0.182)
(0.186)
Constant
0.457
-0.505
-1.423
-1.617
(0.711)
(1.625)
(1.472)
(1.517)
N
96
96
96
96
Prob>Chi2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level,
respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation
0.001
(0.002)
-0.195
(0.154)
-0.700
(0.611)
96
0.000
In addition, we also test whether labour market policies and innovation will have
an effect on a countrys trade competitiveness.
Lxportit = it +*Innovit-1 + *Lmefiit +*Xit +it + it
(2)
25
intensity in country i at time t-1. A potential caveat that should be kept in mind, due to
data constraints, is that we can only use a one-year lag. This one-year lag is probably
too short for innovation to show any meaningful impact on a countrys trade
competitiveness. Xit is a set of control variables of country i at time t. it controls for
unobserved country-specific characteristics and it is an idiosyncratic error term.
Our hypothesis is that a more efficient labour market is associated with greater
innovation. And greater innovation is, in turn, associated with a countrys trade
competitiveness measured by its exports. Again, this is a rather bold simplification of
the reality in which innovation may indirectly affect productivity and export
competitiveness. Nevertheless, we are interested in finding preliminary evidence that
overall innovation scores could be higher or lower in countries with more efficient
labour markets.
To capture the dynamic nature of innovation relative to export competitiveness,
we then estimate equation (2) with fixed and random effect models and perform the
Hausman test. As stated above, trade competitiveness is measured by the natural
logarithm of a countrys exports value (see Table 2 description). Table 6 shows that a
different model specification leads to different choices between the fixed or random
effect. The Hausman test selects the random effect for the model without goods market
policy variable (gmefi) (see column 1 and 2). While it selects the fixed effect for the
model with goods market policy variable (see column 3 and 4). Overall, the estimation
results show that the lag variable of innovation is positively associated with export
competitiveness. The estimated coefficient for innovation variable remains consistent,
positive and significant across different model specifications. In addition,
technological readiness and goods market competition policy are associated with
higher exports. Meanwhile, a more flexible labour market policy is associated with
lower exports. This result contradicts our hypothesis about the impact of labour market
policy on trade competitiveness.
26
Lmefi
1
(F.E)
-0.212**
(0.082)
Gmefi
Techred
Innov (t-1)
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test
0.178***
(0.066)
0.195**
(0.083)
11.547***
(0.542)
128
0.991
0.000
Dependent variable:
Log exports
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
-0.186**
-0.237***
(0.080)
(0.080)
0.319**
(0.127)
0.194***
0.103
(0.064)
(0.071)
0.237***
0.165**
(0.080)
(0.081)
11.190***
10.676***
(0.536)
(0.630)
128
128
0.991
0.992
0.000
0.000
4
(R.E)
-0.216***
(0.079)
0.303**
(0.125)
0.121*
(0.069)
0.204***
(0.079)
10.407***
(0.620)
128
0.991
0.000
Conclusions
This paper investigates the relationship between labour market policies and
innovation. Most of the studies in this area have been undertaken for OECD member
countries. This study attempts to fill in the knowledge gap by expanding the analysis
to include both OECD and non-OECD countries, including some of the Southeast
Asian countries. The data used in the estimation come from the Global
Competitiveness Report and the Global Innovation Index. A set of balanced panel data
is constructed including 32 countries covering the period 20092013. Data availability
limits our empirical model in two ways. First, it is related to the difficulty of finding
reliable and standardised innovation data at the firm or industry level for developing
countries. Second, it is related to the difficulty of finding good proxies for labour
market policy, as there is substantial heterogeneity in labour market policies across
27
countries. Due to institutional complexity, there is no perfect proxy for labour market
policy. The use of labour market efficiency indicators from the Global Competivenesss
Index (GCI) should therefore be treated with caution.
Despite these challenges, GCI data nevertheless provide valuable information
when better alternative standardised measures on innovation and labour market policy
are not easily available in most countries. In this case, opinions from business
executives are instrumental in understanding the factors behind business
competitiveness. This study finds some preliminary evidence that a more efficient
labour market (more flexible labour market policy) is positively correlated with
innovation. Innovation competitiveness in turn leads to a countrys trade
competitiveness. Our results are robust even after controlling for other explanatory
variables. The quality of higher education is positively associated with a countrys
innovation competitiveness. Therefore, policies that support improving higher
education quality are crucial for economies that want to develop their innovation
competitiveness. Other important determinants for innovation are infrastructure
quality and goods market policies (more domestic and foreign competition). The two
are positively correlated with innovation. The country-level analysis in this paper
demonstrates the average correlation between labour market efficiency and
innovation. However, it does not take into account structural differences across
industries/sectors. Subject to data availability, future research should be directed
towards understanding variances of labour market efficiency and innovation between
different industries and sectors across countries.
On trade aspects, we find some preliminary evidence that past innovation is
positively associated with trade competitiveness. This is in line with some previous
studies that find a positive link between innovation and exporting (Wagner, 2007; Aw
et al. 2009; Cassiman et al. 2010). We cannot find a significant positive association
between labour market policies and trade competitiveness. However, we postulate that
there may be an indirect link between labour market policies and trade
competitivenessone that our simple model fails to capture.
Research on labour market policies and innovation is still limited in the region.
We hope that future research will fully explore the relationship between labour market
policies and innovation in developing countries in the Southeast Asian region using
28
good quality firm-level data. As ASEAN will soon start implementing the ASEAN
Economic Community characterised by the free flow of skilled labour amongst others,
there is a greater need to assess how labour market policies in one member state may
affect other countries, and also how they affect innovation in the region. In addition, it
is important to collect better quality micro-data to test the relationship between
innovation, productivity and firms exporting competitiveness. Innovation policy
targeted at enhancing productivity, especially in export-oriented sectors, is likely to be
important, but empirical evidence in this area is still lacking in ASEAN.
References
Acharya, V., R. Baghai-Wadji, and K. Subramarian (2013), Labour Laws and
Innovation, Journal of Law and Economics 56, pp.9971037.
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (2005), Growth with Quality-Improving Innovations: An
Integrated Framework, in Handbook of Economic Growth by P. Aghion and
S.N. Durlauf, eds., Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, 67110. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Aw, B.Y., M.J. Roberts, and D.Y. Xu (2009), R&D Investment, Exporting, and
Productivity Dynamics, NBER Working Paper Series No. 14670, Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Barbosa, N. and A.P. Faria (2011), Innovation across Europe: How Important Are
Institutional Differences, Research Policy 40, pp.11571169.
Bassanini, A., and E. Ernst (2002), Labour Market Institutions, Product Market
Regulation, and Innovation: Cross-Country Evidence, OECD Department of
Economics Working Paper No. 316. Paris: OECD.
Bassanini, A., L. Nunziata, and D. Venn (2009), Job Protection Legislation and
Productivity Growth in OECD countries, Economic Policy 24(58), pp.351
402.
Boeri, T. , B. Helppie, and M. Macis (2008), Labor Regulations in Developing
Countries: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research,
World Bank SP Discussion Paper No. 0833. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Botero, J., S. Djankov, R. La Porta, F. Lopez-De-Silanes, and A. Shleifer (2004), The
Regulation of Labor, Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4), pp.13391382.
Cassiman, B., E. Golovko, and E. Martinez-Ros (2010), Innovation, Exports and
Productivity, International Journal of Industrial Organization 28, pp.372
376.
Damijan, J.P., C. Kostevc, and S. Polanec (2010), From Innovation to Exporting or
Vice Versa?, The World Economy, pp.374398.
29
30
World Economic Forum (WEF) (2014), The Global Competitiveness Index 20142015.
Available
at:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_201415.pdf
Yang C.-H. and Y.-H. Chen (2012), R&D, productivity & exports: Plant-level
evidence from Indonesia, Economic Modelling 29(2), pp.208216.
31
Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize
Highed
Infra
1
(F.E)
0.296***
(0.071)
0.108
(0.114)
0.158
(0.219)
0.288***
(0.082)
0.388**
(0.080)
Macro
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test
-1.847
(1.160)
160
0.950
0.000
Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
0.275***
0.297***
(0.060)
(0.072)
0.198**
0.109
(0.093)
(0.115)
0.135
0.165
(0.086)
(0.232)
0.307***
0.288 ***
(0.073)
(0.082)
0.297***
0.387***
(0.067)
(0.081)
-0.003
(0.034)
-1.685***
-1.868
(0.565)
(1.189)
160
160
0.935
0.950
0.000
0.000
4
(R.E)
0.276***
(0.060)
0.204**
(0.099)
0.139
(0.086)
0.307***
(0.074)
0.294***
(0.067)
-0.009
(0.032)
-1.681***
(0.565)
160
0.934
0.000
32
Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize
1
(F.E)
2.490***
(0.471)
-3.247***
(0.656)
-5.038***
(1.804)
Highed
Infra
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test
33.818***
(9.482)
145
0.973
0.000
Dependent variable:
Number of venture deals
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
2.880***
2.136***
(0.332)
(0.472)
-2.486***
-2.059***
(0.415)
(0. 774)
-0.107
-4.032**
(0.290)
(1.781)
-1.552***
(0.546)
-0.379
(0.531)
2.357***
34.175***
(2.250)
(9.185)
145
145
0.701
0.974
0.000
0.000
4
(R.E)
2.826***
(0.073)
-2.753***
(0.515)
-0.239
(0.293)
-0.601
(0.388)
0.679**
(0.332)
4.043*
(2.369)
145
0.693
0.000
33
Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize
Highed
Infra
Dependent variable:
Employment in knowledge services
1
2
3
4
(F.E)
(R.E)
(F.E)
(R.E)
0.357**(0.150) 0.157 (0.137)
0.341**(0.156) 0.135 (0.134)
0.002 (0.172)
-0.535**
-0.369*
0.532***(0.19 0.648***(0.19 (0.247)
(0.215)
7)
4)
2.677***
0.316*(0.162)
2.708***
(0.486)
0.147 (0.161)
(0.482)
-0.196 (0.177) 0.383***(0.14
0.199 (0.173)
7)
Constant
-9.417***
(2.536)
-0.351 (1.273)
Observation
s
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman
Test
155
0.989
0.000
155
0.935
0.006
9.205***(2.55
4)
155
0.989
0.000
0.534 (1.108)
155
0.884
0.000
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically
significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
34
No.
2015-48
2015-47
Author(s)
Siwage Dharma
NEGARA
Title
How Labour Market Policies Affect Innovation and
Trade Competitiveness
Year
July
2015
Saowaruj
RATTANAKHAMFU
Sumet
ONGKITTIKUL
2015-46
Nutthawut
LAKSANAPUNYAK
UL
Nichamon
THONGPAT
Natcha O-CHAROEN
2015-45
2015-44
2015-43
2015-42
2015-41
2015-40
June
2015
May
Shandre
THANGAVELU
May
Rully PRASSETYA
and Ponciano S.
INTAL, Jr.
May
May
May
Koji KUBO
Philippa DEE
Fukunari KIMURA,
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA, and
Yasushi UEKI
35
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
No.
Author(s)
2015-39
Dionisius NARJOKO
2015-38
2015-37
2015-36
2015-35
2015-34
2015-33
2015-32
2015-31
2015-30
Title
Year
May
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPANYAK
UL, Shujiro URATA
May
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPANYAK
UL, Pisit PUAPAN,
Sastra SUDSAWASD
May
Dionisius A.
NARJOKO
May
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Tadashi ITO, and
Fukunari KIMURA
Apr
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Tadashi ITO
Apr
Kazubobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPNYAKU
L, and Shujiro
URATA
Apr
Apr
Emily Christi A.
CABEGIN
Apr
Venkatachalam
ANBUMOZHI, Alex
BOWEN and
Puthusserikunnel
Devasia JOSE
Apr
36
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
No.
2015-29
2015-28
2015-27
Author(s)
Title
Year
Venkatachalam
ANBUMOZHI
Apr
Mar
Mar
2015
2015
2015
Sunghoon CHUNG,
Joonhyung LEE,
Thomas OSANG
2015-24
Mar
The Indian Automotive Industry and the ASEAN
Supply Chain Relations
2015
2015-23
Hideo KOBAYASHI
and Yingshan JIN
2015-22
Hideo KOBAYASHI
Mar
Current State and Issues of the Automobile and Auto
Parts Industries in ASEAN
2015
2015-21
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA
Mar
Assessing the Progress of ASEAN MRAs on
Professional Services
2015
2015-20
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Hikari ISHIDO
Mar
Values and Limitations of the ASEAN Agreement
on the Movement of Natural Persons
2015
2015-26
2015-25
Mar
2015
Mar
2015
Mar
2015
Mar
2015-19
Nanda NURRIDZKI
2015-18
Patarapong
INTARAKUMNERD
and Pun-Arj
CHAIRATANA and
Preeda
CHAYANAJIT
2015-17
37
2015
Host-Site Feb
of the
2015
No.
Author(s)
2015-16
2015-15
2015-14
2015-13
2015-12
2015-11
2015-10
2015-09
2015-08
2015-07
2015-06
2015-05
2015-04
Title
Year
Feb
Feb
38
2015
2015
Feb
2015
Feb
2015
Jan
2015
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
Erlinda M.
MEDALLA
Jan
2015
Archanun
KOHPAIBOON and
Juthathip
JONGWANICH
Misa OKABE
Hikari ISHIDO
2014-25
Junianto James
LOSARI
Dec
Searching for an Ideal International Investment
Protection Regime for ASEAN + Dialogue Partners
2014
(RCEP): Where Do We Begin?
Nov
2014-24
Dandan ZHANG,
Xunpeng SHI, and Yu
SHENG
Nov
2014-22
Yanrui WU
Nov
Deregulation, Competition, and Market Integration
in Chinas Electricity Sector
2014
2014-21
Yanfei LI and
Youngho CHANG
2015-02
2015-01
2014-26
2014-23
2014-20
2014-19
2014-18
2014-17
Yu SHENG, Yanrui
WU, Xunpeng SHI,
Dandan ZHANG
Andindya
BHATTACHARYA
and Tania
BHATTACHARYA
Jan
2015
Jan
2015
Dec
2014
2014
2014
Sadayuki TAKII
July
Import Penetration, Export Orientation, and Plant
Size in Indonesian Manufacturing
2014
39
2014
No.
2014-16
2014-15
Author(s)
Tomoko INUI, Keiko
ITO, and Daisuke
MIYAKAWA
Han PHOUMIN and
Fukunari KIMURA
Title
Japanese Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Export Decisions: The Role of Overseas Market
Information
Trade-off Relationship between Energy Intensitythus energy demand- and Income Level: Empirical
Evidence and Policy Implications for ASEAN and
East Asia Countries
Year
July
2014
June
2014
Cassey LEE
May
The Exporting and Productivity Nexus: Does Firm
Size Matter?
2014
2014-13
Yifan ZHANG
May
Productivity Evolution of Chinese large and Small
Firms in the Era of Globalisation
2014
May
2014-12
Valria SMEETS,
Sharon
TRAIBERMAN,
Frederic
WARZYNSKI
May
Inkyo CHEONG
Sothea OUM,
Dionisius NARJOKO,
and Charles HARVIE
Christopher
PARSONS and PierreLouis Vzina
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA and
Toshiyuki
MATSUURA
May
May
2014
May
2014
Apr
Apr
Apr
Feb
Yasuyuki SAWADA
and Fauziah ZEN
Jan
2014-14
2014-11
2014-10
2014-09
2014-08
2014-07
2014-06
2014-05
2014-04
2014-03
40
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
2014
Jan
2014-02
2014-01
2013-38
2013-37
2013-36
2013-35
2013-34
2013-33
2013-32
2013-31
2013-30
2013-29
2013-28
Cassey LEE
Rizal SUKMA
Toshihiro OKUBO,
Fukunari KIMURA,
Nozomu TESHIMA
Dec
Tereso S. TULLAO,
Jr. And Christopher
James CABUAY
Dec
Dec
Paul A. RASCHKY
Nipon
POAPONSAKORN
and Pitsom
MEETHOM
Nov
Nov
Mitsuyo ANDO
Nov
Nov
Nov
Simon PEETMAN
Nov
Nov
Rajah RASIAH
2014
Jan
2014
Dec
2013
41
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
No.
2013-27
2013-26
2013-25
2013-24
Author(s)
Maria Monica
WIHARDJA
2013-22
Year
Nov
2013
Nov
Oct
Oct
2013
Oct
Oct
Fukunari KIMURA
Olivier CADOT
Ernawati MUNADI
Lili Yan ING
Charles HARVIE,
2013-23
Title
Dionisius NARJOKO,
Sothea OUM
Alan Khee-Jin TAN
2013
2013
2013
2013
Hisanobu SHISHIDO,
2013-21
2013-20
2013-19
2013-18
2013-17
2013-16
Oct
2013
Oct
Toshihiro KUDO,
Making Myanmar the Star Growth Performer in
Satoru KUMAGAI, So ASEAN in the Next Decade: A Proposal of Five
UMEZAKI
Growth Strategies
Sep
2013
2013
Sep
Sep
Sep
Simon TAY
Ruperto MAJUCA
42
2013
2013
2013
No.
2013-15
2013-14
2013-13
2013-12
2013-11
2013-10
Author(s)
Danilo C. ISRAEL
and Roehlano M.
BRIONES
Title
Impacts of Natural Disasters on Agriculture, Food
Security, and Natural Resources and Environment
in the Philippines
Year
Aug
2013
Aug
Aug
Brent LAYTON
Aug
Aug
Mitsuyo ANDO
Le Dang TRUNG
Sann VATHANA,
Sothea OUM, Ponhrith Impact of Disasters and Role of Social Protection
KAN, Colas
in Natural Disaster Risk Management in Cambodia
CHERVIER
2013
2013
2013
2013
Aug
2013
Sommarat
CHANTARAT, Krirk
PANNANGPETCH,
Nattapong
PUTTANAPONG,
Preesan RAKWATIN,
and Thanasin
TANOMPONGPHAN
DH
Aug
July
2013-07
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Hikaru ISHIDO
May
2013-06
Ken ITAKURA,
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA, and
Ikumo ISONO
Misa OKABE and
Shujiro URATA
May
2013-09
2013-08
2013-05
43
2013
2013
2013
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
2013
2013-04
2013-03
2013-02
Kohei SHIINO
Cassey LEE and
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Ikumo ISONO
May
Apr
2013
2013
Jan
2013-01
Ken ITAKURA
Jan
2013
2012-17
Aug
2012
2012-16
Yanrui WU
Aug
2012
2012-15
Youngho CHANG,
Yanfei LI
Aug
2012
2012-14
Aug
2012
2012-13
Joshua AIZENMAN,
Minsoo LEE, and
Donghyun PARK
July
2012
2012-12
Hyun-Hoon LEE,
Minsoo LEE, and
Donghyun PARK
July
2012
2012-11
Cassey LEE
June
2012
2012-10
Jacques MAIRESSE,
Pierre MOHNEN,
Yayun ZHAO, and
Feng ZHEN
June
2012
44
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
2012-09
Ari KUNCORO
2012-08
Alfons
PALANGKARAYA
2012-07
June
2012
2012-06
Keiko ITO
June
2012
2012-05
Rafaelita M.
ALDABA
June
2012
June
2012-04
Toshiyuki
MATSUURA and
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA
2012-03
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Hyun-Hoon LEE
Feb
2012
Jan
2012-02
2012-01
2011-10
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA and
Yasushi UEKI
2011-09
Joseph D. ALBA,
Wai-Mun CHIA, and
Donghyun PARK
2011-08
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA and
Yasushi UEKI
45
June
2012
2012
2012
Jan
2012
Dec
2011
Dec
2011
Nov
2011
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
2011-07
Yanrui WU
Nov
2011
Philip AndrewsSPEED
Nov
2011-06
Yu SHENG,
Oct
2011
2011-05
Xunpeng SHI
2011-04
Hikari ISHIDO
2011-03
2011-02
2011
Aug
2011
May
2011
May
2011
A Mapping Exercise
2011-01
Kuo-I CHANG,
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA
Mar
2011
Toshiyuki
MATSUURA
2010-11
Charles HARVIE,
Dionisius NARJOKO,
Sothea OUM
Oct
2010
2010-10
Mitsuyo ANDO
Oct
2010
Sep
2010
Fukunari KIMURA
2010-09
Ayako OBASHI
2010-08
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA, Shoichi Detecting Effective Knowledge Sources in Product
MIYAHARA,
Innovation: Evidence from Local Firms and
Masatsugu TSUJI, and MNCs/JVs in Southeast Asia
Yasushi UEKI
Aug
2010
2010-07
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA,
How ICTs Raise Manufacturing Performance:
Masatsugu TSUJI, and Firm-level Evidence in Southeast Asia
Yasushi UEKI
Aug
2010
46
No.
Author(s)
2010-06
Xunpeng SHI
2010-05
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and
Title
Year
July
2010
Mar
2010
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
2010-04
2010-03
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
and Yasushi UEKI
Upstream-Downstream Relations
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
2010-02
2010-01
2009-23
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
Dionisius NARJOKO
Feb
2010
Feb
2010
Feb
2010
Feb
2010
Nov
2009
2009-22
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Daisuke
HIRATSUKA, Kohei
SHIINO, and Seiya
SUKEGAWA
Nov
2009
2009-21
Ayako OBASHI
Oct
2009
2009-20
Oct
2009
2009-19
Xunpeng SHI
Sept
2009
47
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
2009-18
Sothea OUM
Jun
2009
2009-17
Erlinda M.
MEDALLA and Jenny
BALBOA
Jun
2009
2009-16
Masami ISHIDA
Jun
2009
2009-15
Toshihiro KUDO
2009-14
Claire HOLLWEG
and Marn-Heong
WONG
Apr
2009
2009-13
Loreli C. De DIOS
Apr
2009
2009-12
Patricia SOURDIN
and Richard
POMFRET
Apr
2009
Apr
2009
Sayuri SHIRAI
Akie IRIYAMA
Mar
2009
2009-08
Archanun
KOHPAIBOON
Mar
2009
2009-07
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Toshiyuki
MATSUURA
Mar
2009
2009-06
Dionisius A.
NARJOKO
2009-05
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
Mitsuyo ANDO
and
2009-09
48
Mar
2009
No.
Author(s)
Title
Year
and Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
2009-04
Mar
2009
2009-03
Ayako OBASHI
Mar
2009
2009-02
Fukunari KIMURA
Mar
2009
2009-01
Fukunari KIMURA
and Ayako OBASHI
Jan
2009
2008-03
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA and
Fukunari KIMURA
Dec
2008
2008-02
Satoru KUMAGAI,
Toshitaka GOKAN,
Ikumo ISONO, and
Souknilanh KEOLA
Dec
2008
2008-01
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
Dec
2008
49