Thinking locally: exploring the importance of a subsidiary-centred model of FDI-related spillovers in Brazil

International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 87-107

  Marin, Anabel ^a   Costa, Ionara ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b UNU MERIT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Brazil; FDI spillovers; heterogeneity; localised innovation; productivity; subsidiaries

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861508685     PISSN: 17531942     EISSN: 17531950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTLID.2010.031055     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Aitken, B. and Harrison, A. (1999) ‘Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela’, American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, pp.605–618.
2. Alvarez, I. and Molero, J. (2005) ‘Technology and the generation of international knowledge spillovers: an application to Spanish manufacturing firms’, Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 9, pp.1440–1452.
3. Ariffin, N. and Bell, M. (1999) ‘Firms, politics and political economy: patterns of subsidiary-parent linkages and technological capability-building in electronics TNC subsidiaries in Malaysia’, In K.S. Jomo, G. Felker and R. Rasiah (Eds.), Industrial Technology Development in Malaysia, UK: Routledge, pp.150–190.
4. Ariffin, N. and Figueiredo, P.N. (2006) ‘Globalisation of innovative capabilities: evidence from local to foreign firms in the electronics industry in Malaysia and Brazil’, Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp.191–227.
5. Birkinshaw, J. (1997) ‘Entrepreneurship in multinational corporations: the characteristics of subsidiary initiatives’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.207–229.
6. Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (1998) ‘Multinational subsidiary evolution: capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.773–795.
7. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N. and Jonsson, S. (1998) ‘Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp.221–241.
8. Birkinshaw, J., Hood, N. and Young, S. (2005) ‘Subsidiary entrepreneurship, internal and external competitive forces, and subsidiary performance’, International Business Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.227–248.
9. Blomström, M. and Persson, H. (1983) ‘Foreign investment and spillover efficiency in an underdeveloped economy: evidence from the Mexican manufacturing industry’, World Development, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp.493–501.
10. Buckley, P., Clegg, J. and Wang, C. (2007) ‘Is the relationship between inward FDI and spillover effects linear? An empirical examination of the case of China’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.447–459.
11. Cantwell, J. and Janne, O. (1999) ‘Technological globalisation and innovative centres: the role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, Nos. 2–3, pp.119–144.
12. Cantwell, J. and Sanna-Randaccio, F. (1993) ‘Multinationality and firm growth’, Welwirtschaftliches Archiv, Vol. 129, pp.275–299.
13. Cassiolato, J., Lastres, H., Szapiro, M. and Vargas, M. (2001) ‘Local systems of innovation in Brazil, development and transnational corporations: a preliminary assessment bases on empirical results of a research project’, Proceedings of the DRUIDs Nelson and Winter Conference. Available at: http://www.business.auc.dk/druid/conferences/.
14. Castellani, D. and Zanfei, A. (2005) ‘Technology gaps, absorptive capabilities and the impact of inward investment on productivity of European firms’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp.555–576.
15. Caves, R. (1974) ‘Multinational firms, competition and productivity in host-country markets’, Economica, Vol. 41, No. 162, pp.176–193.
16. Chang, S. and Xu, D. (2008) ‘Spillovers and competition among foreign and local firms in China’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 29, No. 5, pp.495–518.
17. Consoni, F. and Quadros, R. (2006) ‘From adaptation to complete vehicle design: a case study of product development capabilities in a carmaker in Brazil’, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 36, Nos. 1–3, pp.91–107.
18. Costa, I. (2006) ‘Technological learning, R&D and foreign affiliates in Brazil’, Proceedings of an UNCTAD Expert Meeting: Globalization of R&D and Developing Countries, UN: New York and Geneva.
19. Costa, I. and Filippov, S. (2008) ‘Foreign-owned subsidiaries: a neglected nexus between foreign direct investment, industrial and innovation policies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 35, No. 6, pp.379–390.
20. Costa, I. and Queiroz, S.R.R. (2002) ‘Foreign direct investment and technological capabilities in Brazilian industry’, Research Policy, Vol. 31, Nos. 8–9, 1431–1443.
21. Crespo, N. and Fontoura, M. (2007) ‘Determinant factors of FDI spillovers: what do we really know?’, World Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp.410–425.
22. De Araújo, R.D. (2004) Desempenho inovador brasileiro e comportamento tecnológico das firmas domésticas e transnacionais no final da década de 1990, MPhil Dissertation, Institute of Economics, UNICAMP, Campinas Brazil.
23. Driffield, N. and Love, J. (2007) ‘Linking FDI motivation and host economy productivity effects: conceptual and empirical analysis’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp.460–473.
24. Dunning, J. (1994) ‘Re-evaluating the benefits of foreign direct investment’, Transnational Corporations, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.23–51.
25. Ferigotti, C. and Figueiredo, P.N. (2005) ‘Managing learning in the refrigerator industry: evidence from a firm-level study in Brazil’, Innovation: Management, Policy and Practice, Vol. 7, Nos. 2–3, pp.222–239.
26. Findlay, R. (1978) ‘Relative backwardness, direct foreign investment, and the transfer of technology: a simple dynamic model’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 92, No. 1, pp.1–16.
27. Franco, E. and Quadros, R. (2002) ‘Patterns of technological activities of transnational corporations affiliates in Brazil’, Seventh International S&T Indicators Conference, Karlsruhe, Germany.
28. Furtado, J. (2004) ‘O comportamento inovador das empresas industriais no Brasil’, Forum Nacional, INAE Estudos e Pesquisas, 88. Available at: http://forumnacional.org.br.
29. Girma, S. (2005) ‘Absorptive capacity and productivity spillovers from FDI: a threshold regression analysis’, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 67, No. 3, pp.281–305.
30. Giuliani, E. and Marin, A. (2007) ‘Global and local knowledge linkages: the case of MNC subsidiaries in Argentina’, In L. Piscitello and G. Santangelo (Eds.), Do Multinationals Feed Local Growth and Development?, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
31. Globerman, S. (1979) ‘Foreign direct investment and spillover efficiency benefits in Canadian manufacturing industries’, Canadian Journal of Economics, Vol. XII, No. 1, pp.42–56.
32. Gonçalves, J.E.P. (2005) Empresas Estrangeiras e Transbordamentos de Produtividade na Indústria Brasileira 1997–2000, Mimeo, Rio de Janeiro: BNDES.
33. Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (2000) ‘Knowledge flows within multinational corporations’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.473–496.
34. Haddad, M. and Harrison, A. (1993) ‘Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment? Evidence from panel data for Morocco’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.51–74.
35. Haskel, J., Pereira, S. and Slaughter, M. (2002) ‘Does inward foreign direct investment boost the productivity of domestic firms’, NBER Working Paper, 8724, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
36. Hedlund, G. (1986) ‘The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp.9–36.
37. Hobday, M. and Rush, H. (2007) ‘Upgrading the technological capabilities of foreign transnational subsidiaries in developing countries: the case of electronic in Thailand’, Research Policy, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp.1335–1356.
38. Hymer, S. (1976) The International Operations of National Firms: A Study of Foreign Direct Investment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Javorick, B. (2004) ‘Does foreign direct investment increases the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages’, American Economic Review, Vol. 94, No. 3, pp.605–627.
40. Kannebley Jr., S., Porto, G.S. and Pazello, E.T. (2005) ‘Characteristics of Brazilian innovative firms: an empirical analysis bases on Pintec – industrial research on technological innovation’, Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp.872–893.
41. Kathuria, V. (2000) ‘Productivity spillovers from technology transfer to Indian manufacturing firms’, Journal of International Development, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.343–369.
42. Kinoshita, Y. (2001) ‘R&D and technology spillovers through FDI: innovation and absorptive capacity’, CEPR Discussion Papers, p.2775.
43. Kogut, B. (2002) ‘International management and strategy’, In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, and R. Whittington, (Eds.), Handbook of Strategy and Management. London: Sage Publications.
44. Kokko, A. (1994) ‘Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.279–293.
45. Konings, J. (2001) ‘The effects of foreign direct investment on domestic firms: evidence from firm level panel data in emerging economies’, Economics of Transition, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.619–633.
46. Kuemmerle, W. (1999) ‘Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries: results from a survey of multinational firms’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, Nos. 2–3, pp.179–193.
47. Kumar, N. (2001) ‘Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: the case of US and Japanese corporations’, Research Policy, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.159–174.
48. Levinsohn, J. and Petrin, A. (2003) ‘Estimating production functions using inputs to control for unobservables’, Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 70, No. 2, pp.317–342.
49. Lim, P. (1991) Steel: From Ashes Rebuilt To Manufacturing Excellence. Pataling Jaya, Malaysia: Pelanduk Publications.
50. Marin, A. and Bell, M. (2005) ‘The local/global integration of MNC subsidiaries, and their technological behaviour: Argentina in the Late 1990’, paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference, Denmark 2006. Available at: http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=222&cf=8.
51. Marin, A. and Bell, M. (2006) ‘Technology spillovers from foreign direct investment (FDI): an exploration of the active role of MNC subsidiaries in the case of Argentina’, Journal of Development Studies, Vol. 42, No. 4, pp.678–697.
52. Marin, A. and Sasidharan, S. (2008) ‘Heterogeneous MNC’ subsidiaries and technological spillovers: explaining positive and negative effects in emerging economies’, UNU-Merit Working Paper Series, p.66.
53. Minbaeva, D., Pedersen, T., Bjorkman, I., Fey, C. and Park, H. (2003) ‘MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary absorptive capacity and HRM’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp.586–599.
54. Mortimore, M. and Vergara, S. (2007) ‘Targeting winners: can foreign direct investment policy help developing countries to industrialise?’, In R. Narula and S. Lall (Eds.), Understanding FDI-Assisted Economic Development. Abingdon, UK and New York, USA: Routledge.
55. Ngoh, C. (1994) Motorola Globalization: The Penang Journey. KL, Malaysia: Lee and Sons.
56. Patibandla, M. and Sanyal, A. (2005) ‘Foreign investment and productivity: a study of post-reform Indian industry’, Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 1, No. 1, Available at: http://openarchive.cbs.dk/cbsweb/handle/10398/6582.
57. Pearce, R. (1999) ‘Decentralised R&D and strategic competitiveness: globalised approaches to generation and use of technology in multinational enterprises (MNEs)’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, Nos. 2–3, pp.157–178.
58. Peri, G. and Urban, D. (2006) ‘Catching up to foreign technology? Evidence on the ‘Veblen- Gerschenkrin’ effect of foreign investments’, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 65, No. 2, pp.389–415.
59. Puga, F.P. (2006) ‘O que mudou nas exportações e importações da indústria’, BNDES Visão do Desenvolvimento, No. 4, 14 July, pp.1–6, Available at: http://www.bndes.gov.br/SiteBNDES/export/sites/default/bndes_pt/Galerias/Arquivos/conhecimento/visao/visao_04.pdf.
60. Ramachandran, V. (1993) ‘Technology transfer, firm ownership, and investment in human capital’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75, No. 4, pp.664–670.
61. Szulansky, G. (1996) ‘Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practices within the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, Winter, pp.27–44.
62. Teece, D. (1977) ‘Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know how’, Economic Journal, Vol. 87, pp.242–261.
63. Todo, Y. and Miyamoto, K. (2002) ‘Knowledge diffusion from multinational enterprises: the role of domestic and foreign knowledge-enhance activities’, OECD Technical Paper, 196, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
64. Zander, I. (1999) ‘How do you mean ‘global’? An empirical investigation of innovation networks in the multinational corporation’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, Nos. 2–3, pp.195–213.
65. As a way of an example, from the 60 studies reviewed by Crespo and Fontouro (2007) only 12 identified positive effects, 12 found negative effects and 31 cases found insignificant effects.
66. Both studies corroborated their arguments in the case of England. However, in the case of India Marin and Sasidharan (2008) focusing on subsidiaries’ activities rather than on FDI motivation found that creative subsidiaries – which could be associated with FDI motivated to sourcing – generated positive effects, while competence exploiting subsidiaries – which could be associated with FDI motivated to exploiting – generated negative effects.
67. Exceptions are Todo and Miyamoto (2002); Castellani and Zanffei (2005); Marin and Bell (2006) and Marin and Sasidharan (2008).
68. For instance, Furtado (2004, p.8) points to the significance of the capability building process within MNC subsidiaries in the metal-mechanic complex in Brazil, which helped them to accumulate their own assets and develop their ‘own identities’.
69. Data from the Brazilian Central Bank – Bacen, quoted by Costa (2006).
70. Monetary values were deflated by the sectoral IPA-OG, calculated by Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV).
71. We also used output participation and the results did not change. They are available upon request from the authors.
72. The annual coefficient of import penetration per sector (two digits) is from Puga (2006, p.4).
73. This is important because, as noted earlier, during the period analysed important promarket reforms were introduced and developed in Brazil.
74. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of spurious correlation if there are industry characteristics that change overtime and affect the pattern of FDI.
75. This also controls for other factors that even when they are not fixed over time might be roughly constant over a four-year period, such as level of education or regional policies.
76. Sensitiveness tests were run using top and low quartiles, and results did not change.
77. Similar results were identified in a previous study in Brazil by Gonçalves (2005) for the period 1997–2000.
78. De Araújo (2004) found that R&D efforts by MNC subsidiaries have a positive impact on the probability of domestic firms investing on R&D.