Innovation Complementarities,
Management Quality and Export
Composition
W. F. Maloney
Research Department, World Bank
Ankara, December 2013
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/9371
Ancient Latin American Growth Mystery I:
Same Good, Different Outcomes
4000
5000
30
35
40
45
Copper in Chile, 1870-1950:
Production and % of World Production
Introduction of New Foreign
Technologies
0
1000
2000
3000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950% Prod. Mundial Production
Ancient LA Growth Mystery II: Same
Business Climate, Different Outcomes
Country Year % Immigrant
Directors/Owners
Argentina 1900 80
Percentage of Firms Managed by Immigrants
Argentina 1900 80
Chile 1880 70
Colombia (Baranquilla) 1888 60
Mexico 1935 50
Source: Maloney 2013
Structure of the Presentation
• Part I: Export Composition: is this the missing ingredient?
• Part II: Innovation: the critical agenda
• Part III: Management quality as a missing complement
Export Composition-is this the Export Composition-is this the
critical ingredient?
Why might standard price signals be
deceptive in choosing goods
• Marshallian externalities related to goods
• local industry-level knowledge spillovers, input-output
linkages, and labor pooling.
Volatility externalities: Export diversification?• Volatility externalities: Export diversification?
• Intervention warranted to shift to good with
externalities against price signals.
Empirical concerns of policy
makers about export composition
1. Yes, Externalities dictate that market will not generate optimal basket
2. How do we measure these externalities?
3. Doesn’t the whole world see the same benefit and drive the price
down? (GE)
• Interindustry spillovers, assymetries• Interindustry spillovers, assymetries
• Should we look for safe rents, too? Natural Resources
• More generally, must think of demand side as well
4. Do externalities necessarily come with a good, or does it matter how
we produce it?
• Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity, Heterogeneity
In practice, measurement of MEs is
difficult, so we take shortcuts
• Natural resources
• Low productivity (Smith, Matsuyama, Sachs), few Externalities
• Rent seeking
• High productivity goods
• Rich Country Goods (Rodrik, Hausmann)
• High tech (Lall) high inter-industry MEs
CURSED GOODS: NATURAL RESOURCES
Empirically, there is no resource curse
• In growth regressions
• Minerals are good: Davis (1995), Sala-i-Martin et al. (2004), Stijns
(2005), Brunnschweiler (2008, 2009)
• Conditional on education (above 2 years of schooling): Bravo-Ortega &
De Gregorio (2007)
• Existing resource curse findings fragile: Lederman & Maloney (2007,
2008)2008)
• [Also, Jacob Viner and Douglass North years ago…]
There is lots of heterogeneity in
experiences with NRLog GDP per capita 1990 9
10
Argentin
AustraliAustria
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
Denmark
Fiji
FinlandFrance
Gabon
Germany
Greece
Hong Kon
Hungary
Iceland
Iran, Is
IrelandIsrael
ItalyJapan
Korea, RMalaysiaMauritiuMexico
NetherlaNew Zeal
Norway
Poland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerl
Syrian A
Turkey
United K
United S
Uruguay
Venezuel
Leamer Measure: Net Exports of
NR/Worker
Log GDP per capita 1990
Log Natural Resources (Leamer)-11.5041 11.7949
6
7
8
Algeria
Banglade
Benin
Bolivia
Brazil
Burkina Burundi
Cameroon
Cape Ver
Chad
China
Colombia
Comoros
Congo, D
Costa Ri
Dominica
Ecuador
Egypt, A El Salva
Gabon
Gambia,
Ghana
Guatemal
GuineaGuinea-B
Guyana
Honduras
India
Indonesi
Iran, Is
Cote d'I
Jamaica
Jordan
Kenya
Madagasc
MalawiMali
Mauritan
Morocco
Mozambiq
Nicaragu
Nigeria
Pakistan
Panama
Papua Ne
ParaguayPeru
Philippi
Rwanda
Senegal
Sierra L
South Af
Sri Lank
Sudan
Thailand
Togo
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Resource AbundantResource Scarce
Maloney 2007
Trees can be very high tech!
Innovation policy is key
12/23/2013
Nokia: Site of an early
pulp mill in Finland
Learn how to learn
HIGH PRODUCTIVITY GOODS
Does It Matter What We Export?
Hausmann, Hwang, Rodrik (2007)
• Model- broadly inter-industry spillover
• Country should produce the highest productivity good within its CA
• Empirics:
• PRODY= avg. income of countries producing good
• EXPY= income value of our export basket• EXPY= income value of our export basket
• Similar to Lall (2000)
• Find higher EXPY correlated with higher growth.
Caveats
• GE critique again?
• Rents- higher where rich countries already are?
• Not generally the case- Nokia and TVs
• If easy to move into these goods, then barriers to entry/rents low
• Empirical findings muddy
• Animals, electrical machinery same PRODY• Animals, electrical machinery same PRODY
Again, high degree of heterogeneity
20000
25000
30000
35000 PRODYs (with +/- 1 SD*)
0
5000
10000
15000
Caveats
• GE critique again?
• Rents- higher where rich countries already are?
• Not generally the case- Nokia and TVs
• If easy to move into these goods, then barriers to entry/rents low
• Empirical findings muddy
• Animals, electrical machinery same PRODY• Animals, electrical machinery same PRODY
• Finding of an impact on growth fragile
Empirically, some support for
MODELGrowth Regressions
Base: HHR
Regressions
Including the Export
Herfindahl and the
Investment Share
With Income Average
Value
Including the Export
Herfindahl and the
Investment Share
IV GMM IV GMM IV GMM IV GMM
Log ( initial gdp) -0.0382*** -0.0203** -0.0414* -0.0177 -0.0166* -0.0177 -0.028 0.0215
(0.01) (0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.01) (0.04) (0.02) (0.03)
Log (expy) 0.0925*** 0.0532** 0.107 -0.00687 0.102*** 0.0504** 0.124 0.00275
(0.02) (0.02) (0.07) (0.03) (0.02) (0.02) (0.08) (0.03)
Category Log (expy) -0.0577*** -0.00566 -0.0431 -0.119Category Log (expy) -0.0577*** -0.00566 -0.0431 -0.119
(0.02) (0.10) (0.03) (0.08)
Log (primary schooling) 0.00468* 0.00565 0.00271 0.0101 0.00394 0.00582 0.00207 0.00958
(0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01) (0.00) (0.01)
Log (Investment Share) 0.0111* 0.0360** 0.00935 0.0566***
(0.01) (0.02) (0.01) (0.02)
Root Herfindal Index 0.0551 -0.0381 0.0615 -0.0283
(0.06) (0.04) (0.06) (0.04)
Constant -0.426*** -0.250* -0.572 0.14 -0.186* -0.199 -0.449 0.699
(0.10) (0.13) (0.44) (0.18) (0.10) (0.47) (0.40) (0.46)
Observations 285 285 285 285 285 285 285 285
Number of wbgroup 75 75 75 75
Regressions include decade dummies
Robust standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1
1b. A digression on Monkeys
• Being a tree in a dense area is like a ME with same
GE concerns
• If easy to jump from one tree to others, then easy to
jump to, i.e, no barriers to entry and rents
• Is past a good predictor?• Is past a good predictor?
• iPhone didn’t exist, Saab already does
• Would Chilean forestry produce Saab?
IS IT WHAT WE PRODUCE, OR HOW?
BEYOND GOODS
Is High Tech Necessarily High Tech?
CAI=1
Fuente: Lederman and Maloney (2012)
LKALKALKALKALKALKALKALKALKALKA
LVALVALVALVALVALVALVALVALVALVALVAMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMARMAR LBNLBNLBNLBNLBNLBNLBNLBN
BLRBLRBLRBLRBLRBLRBLRKWTKWTKWTKWTKWT
ROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROMROM
IDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDNIDN
BHSBHSBHSBHSBHSBHSBHSBHS
TURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURTURHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRVHRV
PRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRTPRT
ISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISL
PHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHL
SVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVNSVN UKRUKRUKRUKRUKRUKRUKRUKRUKRBGRBGRBGRBGRBGRBGRBGRBGRBGR
THATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHATHA
SAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAU
CZECZECZECZECZECZECZECZECZECZECZECZE
GRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCGRCPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOL
MYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYSMYS
LUXLUXLUXLUXLUXLUX NZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZLNZL
IRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRLIRL
HUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUNHUN
RUSRUSRUSRUSRUSRUSRUSRUSRUSZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAFZAF
HKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKGHKG
INDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDIND
CHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHNCHN
NORNORNORNORNORNORNORNORNORNORNORNOR
ESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPESPDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKDNKAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUTAUT
BELBELBELBELBELBEL
FINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFINFIN ISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSSWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWESWE
NLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLDNLD
CHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHECHEITAITAITAITAITAITAITAITAITAITAITA
KORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORKORTWNTWNTWNTWNTWNTWNTWNTWNCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCANCAN
GBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRGBRFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRAFRA
DEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA
BOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLBOLJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTM
CRICRICRICRICRICRICRICRICRICRICRI
PERPERPERPERPERPERPERPERPERPERPERPERCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOLCOL
CHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHLCHL
VENVENVENVENVENVENVENVENVENVENVEN
ARGARGARGARGARGARGARGARGARGARGARGARG
MEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEXMEX
BRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRA
181
Exports Ratio (ranked)
Exports vs Patents in Computers (SIC 357)
DZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZADZA
ATGATG
UGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGAUGA
MDAMDAMDAMDAMDAMDAMDAMDAMDAMDA
SYR
IRNIRNIRNIRNIRNIRNIRNIRNPAKPAK
NGANGANGANGANGANGANGA
EGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGY
ISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLISLJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMJAMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTMGTM
1Exports Ratio (ranked)
1 83Patents Ratio (ranked)
World LAC
Heterogeneity in product quality is also huge (relative unit values, standardized)
Krishna and Maloney 2011
Quality ladders by product and countries (relative unit
values, standardized)
Export Quality Growth
Krishna and Maloney 2011
Growth in Quality Driven by Both
What and How
Source: Krishna and Maloney 2011
GOODS OR TASKS
Table 2 China: 10 Exports with the Lowest Domestic Value Added
Electronic computer 4.6
Telecommunication equipment 14.9
Cultural and office equipment 19.1
Other computer peripheral equipment 19.7
Electronic element and device 22.2
Radio, television, and communication equipment 35.5
Household electric appliances 37.2
Plastic products 37.4
Generators 39.6
Instruments, meters and other measuring equipment 42.2
Goods or Tasks: Does China really
export the iPOD?
“..the electronic components we
make in Singapore require less
skill than that required by
barbers or cooks, involving
mostly repetitive manual
operations” Instruments, meters and other measuring equipment 42.2
China: 10 Exports with the Highest Domestic Value
Added
Agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fishing
machinery 81.8
Hemp textiles 82.7
Metalworking machinery 83.4
Steel pressing 83.4
Pottery, china and earthenware 83.4
Chemical fertilizers 84.0
Fireproof materials 84.7
Cement, lime and plaster 86.4
Other non-metallic mineral products 86.4
Coking 91.6
Source: Koopmans, Wang, and Wei (2008).
operations”
Goh Keng Swee, Minister of
Finance Singapore (1972)
Innovation: The Critical Agenda
Weak innovative capacity meant LA
missed the 2nd Industrial RevolutionInnovative Capacity vs Income 1900
Source: Maloney yValencia (2013)
Current literature focusing on R&D
is not credible...
� US firm level/industry data- social returns
� Grilliches and Lichtenberg (1984) 71%
� Terleckyj 1980, Scherer (1982 ) >100%
� Griffith, Redding, Van Reenen (2004) 57%
Estimated returns to R&D are very highN
� Jones and Williams (1998) 28%
� X country
� Coe and Helpman (1995) G7 123%
� Van Pottlesberghe and Lichtenberg (2001) G7 68%
� …And imply social rates of return far above private
� Jones and Williams (1998): US should quadruple investment in RD
…and get higher with distance
from the frontier
� Two Faces of R&D (Cohen and Levinthal 1989)
� Invention
� Learning\Catch-up
� Poor countries should have much greater returns
� Griffith, Redding, Van Reenen (2004)� Griffith, Redding, Van Reenen (2004)
� Dist. Frontier RoR R&D
� USA -.18 57%
� UK -.53 77%
� Italy -.73 88%
� What should the rate of return be for Korea (-1.33),
Malaysia (-2.28), Turkey (-2.5), Indonesia (-3.74)? 200%? 300%?
But poor countries do generally less
R&D than rich countries…Why?
R&D/GDP vs Level of Development
2
21
&
+=CAP
GDP
CAP
GDP
GDP
DRββ
Innovation Superstars?
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Predicted & Observed R&D/GDP Israel
Finland
2
21
&
+=CAP
GDP
CAP
GDP
GDP
DRββ
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log GDP per Capita
Predicted & Observed R&D/GDP
IndiaArgentina
China
Korea
Mexico
Source: Goni, Lederman, Maloney 2006
Rates of Return suggest missing
complementary factors
AR
G(1
97
1-1
97
5)
20
00
)
AU
S(1
97
6-1
98
0)
AU
S(1
99
6-2
00
0)
AU
T(1
97
6-1
98
0)
AU
T(1
99
6-2
00
0)
BO
L(1
99
6-2
00
0)
BR
A(1
97
6-1
98
0) BR
A(1
99
6-2
00
0)
CH
E(1
97
1-1
97
5)
20
00
)
CH
L(1
98
1-1
98
5)
CH
L(1
99
6-2
00
0)
CH
N(1
99
6-2
00
0)
CO
L(1
97
6-1
98
0)
CO
L(1
98
1-1
98
5)
19
80
)
CR
I(1
99
6-2
00
0)
DE
U(1
99
6-2
00
0)
DN
K(1
97
6-1
98
0)
DN
K(1
99
6-2
00
0)
EC
U(1
97
6-1
98
0)
EC
U(1
99
6-2
00
0)
19
85
)
ES
P(1
97
6-1
98
0)
ES
P(1
99
6-2
00
0)
FIN
(19
71
-19
75
)
FIN
(19
96
-20
00
)
GR
C(1
98
1-1
98
5)
GR
C(1
99
6-2
00
0)
19
90
)
HU
N(1
97
6-1
98
0)
HU
N(1
99
6-2
00
0)
IDN
(19
96
-20
00
)
-19
80
)
ISL(
19
71
-19
75
)
ISL(
19
96
-20
00
)
ISR
(19
71
-19
75
)IT
A(1
97
1-1
97
5)
ITA
(19
96
-20
00
)
JAM
(19
86
-19
90
)
19
85
)
JOR
(19
86
-19
90
)
JPN
(19
71
-19
75
)
KO
R(1
97
1-1
97
5)
KO
R(1
99
6-2
00
0)
ME
X(1
97
1-1
97
5)
ME
X(1
99
6-2
00
0)
19
90
)
MY
S(1
99
1-1
99
5)
MY
S(1
99
6-2
00
0)
NLD
(19
76
-19
80
)
19
80
)
PA
N(1
99
1-1
99
5)
PE
R(1
97
6-1
98
0)
PE
R(1
99
6-2
00
0)
PH
L(1
97
1-1
97
5)
PO
L(1
99
6-2
00
0)
PR
T(1
97
6-1
98
0)
20
00
)
RO
M(1
99
1-1
99
5)
20
00
) SW
E(1
97
1-1
97
5)
TH
A(1
98
1-1
98
5)
20
00
)
TU
R(1
99
6-2
00
0)
UR
Y(1
97
1-1
97
5) U
RY
(19
96
-20
00
)
20
00
)
VE
N(1
97
6-1
98
0)
VE
N(1
99
6-2
00
0)ZA
F(1
98
6-1
99
0)
ZA
F(1
99
1-1
99
5)
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
Retirns to R&D
AR
G(1
99
6-2
00
0)
AU
S(1
97
6
AU
S(1
99
6
AU
T(1
97
6
AU
T(1
99
6
BE
L(1
97
1-1
97
5)
BO
L(1
99
6
CH
E(1
97
1
CH
E(1
99
6-2
00
0)
CO
L(1
97
6
CO
L(1
98
1
CR
I(1
97
6-1
98
0)
DE
U(1
99
6
DN
K(1
99
6
EC
U(1
97
6
EC
U(1
99
6
EG
Y(1
98
1-1
98
5)
EG
Y(1
99
6-2
00
0)
ES
P(1
99
6
FIN
(19
96
FR
A(1
97
1-1
97
5)
FR
A(1
99
6-2
00
0)
GB
R(1
97
6-1
98
0)
GB
R(1
99
6-2
00
0)
GT
M(1
97
1-1
97
5)
GT
M(1
98
6- 1
99
0)
IDN
(19
96
IRL(
19
76
-
ISL(
19
96
ITA
(19
96
JOR
(19
81
-19
85
)
JPN
(19
71
JPN
(19
96
-20
00
)
KO
R(1
97
1
MU
S(1
98
6-1
99
0)
MY
S(1
99
1
NLD
(19
76
NLD
(19
96
-20
00
)
NO
R(1
97
1-1
97
5)
NO
R(1
99
6-2
00
0)
NZ
L(1
97
6- 1
98
0)
NZ
L(1
99
6-2
00
0)
PE
R(1
99
6
PH
L(1
99
1-1
99
5)
PR
T(1
99
6-2
00
0)
RO
M(1
99
1
RO
M(1
99
6-2
00
0)
SLV
(19
91
-19
95
)S
LV(1
99
6-2
00
0)
SW
E(1
99
6-2
00
0)
TH
A(1
99
6-2
00
0)
TU
N(1
99
6-2
00
0)
TU
R(1
97
6-1
98
0)
TU
R(1
99
6
US
A(1
97
1-1
97
5)
US
A(1
99
6-2
00
0)
-4,0
-3,0
-2,0
-1,0
0,0
-4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
Retirns to R&D
Distance to the economic frontier
Source: Goni and Maloney 2012
Universities/
Think tanks/CTsThe firm
Barriers to Demand
Macro Context
Innovation
“supply”Demand Side
A
Accumulation
Barriers to AccumulationBarriers to Innovation
K
Innovation Ecosystem
Macro Context
Trade Regime
International Marketing
Externalities
Competitive Structure
Entrepreneurship
Barriers to Accumulation
Credit
Entry/Exit barriers
Business/Regulatory
Climate
Market Failures (&IP)
Seed/Venture capital
Poorly articulated S&T
system (including
discovery, oversight)
Labor regulation
Deficient human capital
Perceived Quality of Research
Institutions
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
CHE
CRI
DEUDNK
FINFRA
GBR
HUN
IND
IRL
ISL
ISR
JPN
KOR
MEX
MYS
NLD
NOR
NZL
POL
PRT
SWE
TUN
USA
5,0
6,0
7,0
ARGBRA
CHLCHN
ECU
EGY
ESP
GRC
IDN ITA
MEX
PAN
PER
POL
ROM
SEN
SLV
TUN
TURUGA
URY
VEN
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
-5,5 -5,0 -4,5 -4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
Quality
Distance to the economic frontier (1996-2000)
University-Industry Collaboration
AUSAUT
BEL
BRA
CAN
CHE
CHLCHNCRI
DEUDNK
FIN
GBR
HUN
IND
IRL ISL
ISRJPN
KORMYS
NLD
NOR
NZLPRT
SWE
USA
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
Collaboration
ARG
BRA
ECU
EGY
ESPFRA
GRC
IDNIND
ITA
MEXPAN
PER POL
ROM
SEN
SLV
TUNTURUGA
URY
VEN
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
-5,5 -5,0 -4,5 -4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
Collaboration
Distance to the economic frontier (1996-2000)
Business Share in R&D
AUS
BEL
CAN
CHE
CHN
DEU
ESP
FIN
FRA
GBR
HUN
IRL
ISL
ISR
JPN
KOR
MYS
NLD
ROM
USA
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
perform
ed by Business enterprise %
(year=
2000)
ARG
BRA
CRI
HUN
IDN
IND
ITA
MEX
PER
POL
PRT
TUN
TUR
URY
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
-5,5 -5,0 -4,5 -4,0 -3,5 -3,0 -2,5 -2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0
GERD-perform
ed by Business enterprise %
(year=
2000)
Distance to the economic frontier (1996-2000)
Managing Risky Ventures
Return
Krishna and Maloney 2011Risk
Ability to manage risk
Export Quality Growth and Risk
Krishna and Maloney 2011
So, China: Waste or Wisdom?
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Predicted & Observed R&D/GDP Israel
Finland
2
21
&
+=CAP
GDP
CAP
GDP
GDP
DRββ
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Log GDP per Capita
Predicted & Observed R&D/GDP
IndiaArgentina
China
Korea
Mexico
Who’s doing R&D? Patents granted by the
USPTO to inventors based in China
Branstetter 2012
China differs from Taiwan and Korea in the
composition of their innovation surges
Branstetter (2012)
Pros and Cons
• MNCs providing eco-system: complementary factors
• Most patents owned by MNCs
• 50% are co-patented
• But will it maintain an autonomous innovative capacity?• But will it maintain an autonomous innovative capacity?
Management Quality: A Missing Management Quality: A Missing
Complement?
Management Quality and
Productivity
Argentina
Brazil
France
Germany
Great BritainGreece
Italy
Japan
Mexico
Northern Ireland
Poland
Portugal
Sweden
US
45
6
Log of Sales/Employees
China
India
23
4
Log of Sales/Employees
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4Overall Management Scores
.
Bloom and Van Reenen (2010) Sarrias and Maloney (2013)
Management Quality and Productivity
Argentina
France
Germany
Great BritainGreece
Italy
Japan
Northern Ireland
Poland
Portugal
Sweden
US56
Log of Sales/Employees
• Chile
Brazil
China
India
Mexico
23
4Log of Sales/Employees
2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4Overall Management Scores
.
Fuente: Bloom et al. 2010+LAC, Sarrias and Maloney (2013)
• Colombia
China: Unprepared for indigenous
Innovation
Source: Maloney 2013
Convergence to the management
frontier-not just more competition
Source: Maloney and Sarrias 2013
Direct interventions in management
quality?
• Japan, Korea, Singapore: All employed management
promotion programs for SMEs
• Korea: The Small and Medium Industries Promotion program
• Singapore: Local Industry Upgrading Program (LIUP)Singapore: Local Industry Upgrading Program (LIUP)
• India
• Colombia
• Lays the foundation for progressively more adoption and
invention of new technologies.
India-Successful Management
Intervention .5
.6
Treatment plants
(●)
Control
plants (♦)
Sh
are
of
ke
y t
ext
ile
ma
na
ge
me
nt
pra
ctic
es
ad
op
ted
11
%
pro
du
ctivid
ad
.2.3
.4
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12Months after the diagnostic phase
plants (♦)
Sh
are
of
ke
y t
ext
ile
ma
na
ge
me
nt
pra
ctic
es
ad
op
ted
Source: Bloom, et al 2013
pro
du
ctivid
ad
Colombia
• Technological Extension pilot-Autoparts
• RCT 180 firms
• Individual company intervention
• Group intervention- Lower cost, more dynamism?
• Current plans to scale up to whole sector • Current plans to scale up to whole sector
Thank You
Distribution relative to the US
Sarrias and Maloney (2012
Decomposition: Manager having a
degree, important. OtherwiseN?
Do Chinese managers know
what they don’t know?Self Percieved vs. Actual Management Ability
Sarrias and Maloney (2012