مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد عملکرد نوآوری انواع سرمایه داری محصول صادراتی

مقاله سال 2017

In their VoC (varieties of capitalism) argument, Hall and Soskice (2001) suggest that an MME (mixed market economy) has a comparative disadvantage in relation to both radical innovation and incremental innovation. Subsequently, evidence from multiple studies either support or oppose this argument. Most of these studies focus on the notion of national ‘institutional coherence’, or complementarities, in liberal market economies (LMEs) such as the USA and in coordinated market economies (CMEs) such as Germany. Hall and Soskice (2001) posit that there is national institutional coherence in LMEs and CMEs, which offers them comparative advantages in radical and incremental innovation, respectively. On the other hand, MMEs lack national institutional coherence and thus perform poorly in both radical and incremental innovation. Institutional incoherence is the primary source of MMEs’ comparative disadvantage. Subsequently, intellectual tension formed between those who see national institutional incoherence as a comparative disadvantage of the MME (Allen, 2013; Hall and Gingerich, 2009; Hall and Soskice, 2001; Schneider and Paunescu, 2012) and those who refute institutional coherence as a necessary or sufficient condition for comparative advantage of MMEs (Allen and Whitely, 2012; Campbell and Pedersen, 2007; Kenworthy, 2006; Lane and Wood, 2009; Nölke and Vliegenthart, 2009; Taylor, 2004; Walker et al., 2014; Witt and Jackson, 2016). The core issue in this divide is that of institutional incoherence in the MME.

One side finds institutional coherence crucial for economic performance. The institutional coherence of the LME is seen as favourable for radical innovation, whereas the CME has the institutional coherence required to support incremental innovation. This is supported by empirical studies of national performance regarding patents (Akkermans et al., 2009; Hall and Gingerich, 2009), export performance (Allen et al., 2006; Schneider et al., 2010) and at other macro levels of analysis and outcome measures. At least partially, the original set of countries in the MME category such as France, Italy, Spain, Greece, Portugal and Turkey (Allen et al., 2006; Hall and Soskice, 2001), as well as a newly added set of MME countries such as Japan, Korea, Norway, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic and Hungary (Schneider and Paunescu, 2012) fail to have better innovation performance because of their incoherent institutions.

The opposing argument suggests that institutional coherence is neither necessary nor sufficient. External changes and internal sector-level diversity can reduce the institutional coherence of an LME or CME, let alone an MME. Studies show that national economies achieve comparable innovation performance without conforming to either the LME or CME models (Campbell and Pedersen, 2007; Hancke et al., 2008; Nölke and Vliegenthart, 2009; Walker et al., 2014; Witt and Jackson,2016). Further evidence shows that some firms in LMEs are producing incremental innovation and some in CMEs are conducting radical innovation (Allen et al., 2006; p10; Mudambi, 2008). This evidence reduces support for the critical role of coherence. Sectoral differences deliver another blow to the disadvantages of institutional incoherence in relation to comparative advantage which may originates from sectoral positions of strength rather than institutional coherence (Allen and Whitely, 2012; Crouch et al., 2009; Witt and Jackson, 2016). Externally, internationalization exerts pressure on national economies to partially change and partially retain institutions. Efficient adaptations to external pressure create combinations of institutions that hardly exhibit coherence according to ideal type LMEs and CMEs