El acceso a canales de información y la adopción de tecnologías de proceso

  1. Gómez Villascuerna, Jaime 1
  2. Salazar Terreros, Idana 1
  3. Vargas Montoya, Pilar 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Rioja
    info

    Universidad de La Rioja

    Logroño, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0553yr311

Revista:
Cuadernos de economía y dirección de la empresa

ISSN: 1138-5758

Año de publicación: 2012

Volumen: 15

Número: 4

Páginas: 169-180

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1016/J.CEDE.2012.04.003 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Cuadernos de economía y dirección de la empresa

Resumen

Los estudios sobre el proceso de difusión han mostrado que, para algunas empresas, la adopción de una tecnología puede producirse a�nos después de su introducción en el mercado, o no tener lugar nunca. El propósito de este trabajo es explicar la heterogeneidad en la adopción de tecnologías de proceso a partir del acceso de la empresa a canales de información. Para ello identificamos 2 mecanismos a través de los que la empresa puede recibir indicaciones relevantes sobre la existencia y la rentabilidad de la tecnología: la actividad en el extranjero y los acuerdos de colaboración con otros agentes. Los resultados del trabajo tienen implicaciones para el estudio de la difusión de tecnologías y para la explicación de la existencia de diferencias en las dotaciones de recursos de las empresas.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L., 1997. Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: a computer simulation. Organization Science 8 (3), 289-309.
  • Abrahamson, E., Rosenkopf, L., 1999. Modeling reputational and informational influences in threshold models of bandwagon innovation diffusion. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory 5 (4), 361-384.
  • Astebro, T., 2002. Noncapital investment costs and the adoption of CAD and CNC in US metalworking industries. Rand Journal of Economics 33 (4), 672-688.
  • Baptista, R., 1999. The diffusion of process innovations: a selective review. International Journal of the Economics of Business 6, 107-129.
  • Baptista, R., 2000. Do innovations diffuse faster within geographical clusters? International Journal of Industrial Organisation 18, 515-535.
  • Bartel, A., Ichniowski, C., Shaw, K., 2007. How does information technology affect productivity? Plant-level comparisons of product innovation process improvement and worker skills. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (4), 1721-1758.
  • Bass, F., 1969. A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science 15, 215-227.
  • Bayo-Moriones, A., Lera-López, F., 2007. A firm-level analysis of determinants of ICT in Spain. Technovation 27, 352-366.
  • Bayona, C., García, T., Huerta, E., 2003. ¿Cooperar en I+D? Con quién y para quién. Revista de Economía Aplicada 31, 103-134.
  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., Veugelers, R., 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22, 1237-1263.
  • Bharadwaj, A., Bharadwaj, S., Konsynski, B., 1999. Information technology effects on firm performance as measured by Tobin's Q. Management Science 45 (6), 1008-1024.
  • Blalock, G., Gertler, P., 2004. Learning from exporting revisited in a less developed setting. Journal of Development Economics 75, 397-416.
  • Borensztein, E., Gregorio, J., Lee, J., 1998. How does foreign direct investment affect economic growth. Journal of International Economics 45, 115-135.
  • Brass, D., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H., Tsai, W., 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal 47, 795-817.
  • Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L., 2000. Beyond computation: information technology, organizational transformation and business performance. Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (4), 23-48.
  • Canepa, A., Stoneman, P., 2005. Financing constraints in the inter firm diffusion of new process technologies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer 30 (2-2), 159-169.
  • Cappellari, L., Jenkins, S.P., 2003. Multivariate probit regression using simulated maximum likelihood. The Stata Journal 3 (3), 278-294.
  • Carr, N.G., 2003. IT doesn'i{dotless}t matter. Harvard Business Review 81 (5), 41-49.
  • Chen, L., 2009. Learning through informal local and global linkages: the case of Taiwan's machine tool industry. Research Policy 38, 527-535.
  • Chung, S.A., Kim, G.M., 2003. Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development. Research Policy 32, 587-603.
  • Clemons, E.K., Kimbrough, S., 1986. Information systems, telecommunications, and their effect on industrial organization. En: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, CA.
  • Coe, D.T., Helpman, E., 1995. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review 39, 859-887.
  • Coe, D.T., Helpman, E., Hoffmeister, A.W., 1997. North-South R&D spillovers. Economic Journal 107, 134-149.
  • Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128-152.
  • Comin, D., Hobijn, B., 2004. Cross-country technology adoption: making the theories face the facts. Journal of Monetary Economics 51, 39-83.
  • Davies, S., 1979. The diffusion of process innovations. Cambridge University Press.
  • Fariñas, J.C., Jaumandreu, J., 1994. La Encuesta sobre Estrategias Empresariales: características y usos. Economía Industrial 299, 109-119.
  • Fariñas, J.C., Jaumandreu, J., 1999. Diez años de Encuesta sobre Estrategias Empresariales. Economía Industrial 329, 29-42.
  • Fosfuri, A., Motta, M., Ronde, T., 2001. Foreign direct investment and spillovers through workers' mobility. Journal of International Economics 53, 205-222.
  • Fosfuri, A., Tribó, J., 2008. Exploring the determinants of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega 36 (2), 173-187.
  • Fudenberg, D., Tirole, J., 1985. Pre-emption and rent equalization in the adoption of new technology. Review of Economic Studies 52, 383-401.
  • Geroski, P.A., 2000. Models of technology diffusion. Research Policy 29, 603-625.
  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M., 1994. The new Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage Publications, London.
  • Globerman, S., 1979. Foreign direct investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries. Canadian Journal of Economics 12, 42-56.
  • Gómez, J., Vargas, P., 2009. The effect of financial constraints, absorptive capacity and complementarities on the adoption of multiple process technologies. Research Policy 38, 106-119.
  • Greve, H.R., 2009. Bigger and safer: the diffusion of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 30, 1-23.
  • Griffith, R., Harrison, R., Van Reenen, J., 2006. How special is the special relationship? Using the impact of U. S. Spillovers on U. K. firms as a test of technology sourcing. The American Economic Review 96 (5), 1859-1875.
  • Grossman, G.M., Helpman, E., 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  • Gulati, R., 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 40, 619-652.
  • Gulati, R., 1999. Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal 20, 397-420.
  • Hamel, G., Doz, Y., Prahalad, C.K., 1989. Collaborate with yours competitors and win. Harvard Business Review 67, 190-196.
  • Hejazi, W., Safarian, A.E., 1999. Trade, foreign direct investment, and R&D spillovers. Journal of International Business Studies 30, 491-511.
  • Helpman, E., 1997. R&D and productivity: the international connection. Working Paper No. 6101. Cambridge, MA: NBER.
  • Jimenez-Barrionuevo, M.M., García-Morales, V.J., Molina, L.M., 2011. Validation of an instrument to measure absorptive capacity. Technovation 31, 190-202.
  • Jiménez, J., Polo, Y., 2001. Key variables in the EDI adoption by retail firms. Technovation 21, 385-394.
  • Karshenas, M., Stoneman, P., 1993. Rank, stock, order, and epidemic effects in the diffusion of new process technologies: an empirical model. Rand Journal of Economics 24 (4), 503-528.
  • Karshenas, M., Stoneman, P., 1995. Technological diffusion. En: Stoneman, P. (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and New Technology. Blackwell.
  • Keller, W., 2004. International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature 42, 752-782.
  • Levin, S.G., Levin, S.L., Meisel, J.B., 1987. A dynamic analysis of the adoption of a new technology, the case of optical scanners. The Review of Economics and Statistics 69 (1), 12-17.
  • Luque, A., 2002. An option value approach to technology adoption in U.S. manufacturing: Evidence from microdata. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 11 (6), 543-568.
  • Mahajan, V., Peterson, R.A., 1985. Models for Innovation Diffusion. Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications.
  • Mansfield, E., 1961. Technical change and the rate of imitation. Econometrica 29 (4), 741-766.
  • Mansfield, E., 1968. Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. Norton, New York.
  • Mansfield, E., Romeo, A., 1980. Technology transfer to overseas subsidiaries by USbased firms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 94, 863-873.
  • Merino, F., Salas, V., 1995. Empresa extranjera y manufactura española: efectos directos e indirectos. Revista de Economía Aplicada 9, 105-131.
  • Merino, F., Salas, V., 1996. Diferencias de eficiencia entre empresas nacionales y extranjeras en el sector manufacturero. Papeles de Economía Española 66, 191-207.
  • Milgrom, P., Roberts, J., 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy and organization. The American Economic Review 80 (3), 511-528.
  • Molero, J., Buesa, M., 1996. Patterns of technological change among Spanish innovative firms: The case of the Madrid region. Research Policy 25, 647-663.
  • Nelson, R., Phelps, E., 1966. Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. American Economic Review 56 (1/2), 65-75.
  • Nieto, M.J., Santamaría, L., 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27 (6-7), 367-377.
  • Park, S., Russo, M., 1996. When competition eclipses cooperation: an event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science 42, 875-890.
  • Rao, H., Greve, H.R., Davis, G., 2001. Fool's gold: social proof in the initiation and abandonment of coverage by Wall Street analysts. Administrative Science Quaterly 46 (3), 502-526.
  • Reinganum, J.F., 1981. Market structure and the diffusion of new technology. The Bell Journal of Economics 12 (2), 618-624.
  • Robertson, T.S., Gatignon, H., 1986. Competitive effects on technology diffusion. The Journal of Marketing 50 (3), 1-12.
  • Rogers, E.M., Shoemaker, F.F., 1971. Communication and innovation: a cross-cultural approach. The Free Press, New York.
  • Romeo, A.A., 1975. Interindustry and interfirm differences in the rate of diffusion of an innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics 5 (3), 311-319.
  • Romeo, A.A., 1977. The rate of imitation of a capital-embodied process innovation. Economica 44, 63-69.
  • Rothwell, R., 1994. Issues in user-producer relations in the innovation process: the role of government. International Journal of Technology Management 9, 629-649.
  • Sánchez, R., 1995. Strategic flexibility in product competition. Strategic Management Journal 16, 135-159.
  • Sánchez, R., Mahoney, J., 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal 17, 63-76.
  • Santamaría, L., Rialp, J., 2007. La elección del socio en las colaboraciones tecnológicas: un análisis empírico. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 31, 67-96.
  • Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J.W., Fleming, L., 2006. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy 35, 994-1017.
  • Spencer, J.W., 2003. Firm's knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal 24, 217-233.
  • Stoneman, P., Diederen, P., 1994. Technology diffusion and public policy. The Economic Journal 104, 918-930.
  • Surroca, J., Santamaría, L., 2007. La cooperación tecnológica como determinante de los resultados empresariales. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 33, 31-62.
  • Swanson, E.B., 1994. Information systems innovation among organizations. Management Science 40 (9), 1069-1090.
  • Tether, B.S., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy 31, 947-967.
  • Teece, D.J., 1977. Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how. The Economic Journal 87 (346), 242-261.
  • Teece, D., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy 15, 285-305.
  • Tiessen, J.H., Wright, R.W., Turner, I., 2001. A model of e-commerce use by internationalizing SMEs. Journal of International Management 7, 211-233.
  • Tsai, K.-H., Wang, J.C., 2009. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: an analysis based on the Taiwanese technological innovation survey. Research Policy 38, 518-526.
  • Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B., Lichtenberg, F., 2001. Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders? Review of Economics and Statistics 83, 490-497.
  • Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., 2009. Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change 18 (4), 637-670.
  • Whitley, R., 2002. Developing competences: the role of institutional frameworks. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (3), 497-528.
  • Zahra, S.A., George, G., 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconcepualisation, and extension. Academy of Management Review 27 (2), 185-203.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet