Restoring America's Global Competitiveness Through Innovation (New Horizons in International Business Series)
Ben L. Kedia
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Though we live in an era of rapid innovation, the United States has introduced comparatively few commercial innovations within the past decade. Innovation shortfall contributes to weaker trade performance, decreased productivity growth, lower wages and many other economic woes. This study provides insightful recommendations for developing enhanced innovation efforts that could help foster substantial, long-term economic growth.
As a high-wage country, the US relies on its ability to develop innovative products and services in order to compete with low-cost countries such as China, South Korea, India and Brazil. The contributors to this book, all well-known international business scholars, offer a diversity of perspectives on how the US can leverage its capacity for innovation to retain a competitive advantage within the global economy. Topics discussed include strategic organization, corporate leadership and innovation theory, as well as specific innovation challenges facing the US today.
This book will prove an invaluable resource for students and professors of international business, along with those interested in examining how countries can become more economically competitive through increased focus on innovation.
Contributors: K. Aceto, J.D. Arthurs, N. Balasubramanian, S.Y. Cho, E. De Lia, F.C. de Sousa, D. Dougherty, D.D. Dunne, T.L. Galloway, J. Harkins, S.C. Jain, V.K. Jain, B.L. Kedia, S.K. Kim, J. Lee, R. Leung, C.L. Levesque, D.J. Miller, D.R. Miller, S.E. Mooty, R. Pellissier, S. Raghunath, J.C. Ronquillo, R. Sarathy, J.B. Sears, D. Smith, M.T.T. Thai, E. Turkina, S. Vachani
change. The latter is further aggravated by the continued striving for efficiency and predictability (especially in periods of rapid growth). Such stability is a prerequisite for efficiency, and the traditional management tools and models measure success based on routine repetition of tasks by semi-skilled workers and the convergence-to-fit phenomenon (Doz and Kosonen, 2010, p. 371). However, such stability quickly becomes rigidity, leading to limited agility and an inability to renew. Indeed,
resources and capabilities. While greater overlap may reduce innovative novelty (Makri et al., 2010), greater overlap better facilitates the use of the current capabilities of the target and the acquirer, leading to greater innovative quantity (Sears, 2012). Combining our knowledge of the effects of both technological overlap and the capabilities of the acquirer, past empirical results support the differentiation between potential and realized absorptive capacity. There must be sufficient
Antitrust remedies can use forced licensing of patented inventions to offset concentration in innovation markets, but this does not guarantee that further innovation based on the scientific underpinnings of those inventions will take place. Recognizing that non-patented IP is separable from the firm could enable and incentivize researchers to continue inventing even if they do not continue with the merged firm. In fact, there has never been a case in which a merged firm was required to license
Christensen, 1997). Thus the existing networks in which the focal firm is engaged may exert considerable pressure on that firm to choose a search orientation that preserves existing networks. In instances where this condition does not exist, focal firms may have more freedom to choose a search orientation that goes outside, and even threatens, existing networks. This leads us to our third proposition. Proposition 3: The focal firm’s existing network relationships will influence its search
These pressures often make it difficult for managers to take a long-term view (Porter, 1992), a basic prerequisite for investments in risky technologies. Together, these arguments suggest that private firms are more likely to undertake riskier innovations than public firms. Accordingly, we expect to see better-quality patents from such firms. To test these arguments, we employed OLS regressions of the following form: pj 5 Du 1 DSPr 1 DLPr 1 DSPu 1 DLPu 1 controls 1 ej where D represents a