Business Innovation in Emerging Markets - Analysing Innovative Enterprises Using the PLS-SEM and NCA Methods

• Autorzy: Márton Gosztonyi , Filep Judit Csákné

Warianty tytułu

Innowacje biznesowe na wschodzących rynkach - analiza innowacyjnych przedsiębiorstw przy użyciu metod PLS-SEM i NCA

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The study entails an examination of the factors needed for the emergence of busi- ness innovation, in the context of a developing economy, based on representative data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021. Drawing on the theories in the literature, the impact mechanism of the entrepreneurial innovation develop- ment in our model has been assumed to involve a three-sided impact. The study builds on the entrepreneurial side effects, based on the classical Schumpeterian theory as well as incorporating the enterprises' productive-side effects into the model, defining the model as resultant from socioeconomic macrocontext effects. The analysis of our model has been tested and analyzed using partial least squares - structural equation modeling and the necessary condition analysis. Our results show that business innovation requires not one factor, but a combination of factors. The system needs visionary entrepreneurs, who can stimulate innovation, along the concept of sustainability. An economically prosperous business with international connections which views challenges as opportunities, however, also constitutes an important factor providing proper framework for new products and services. Adequacy of the socio-economic macro-context is essential as well, as it too contributes to the development of entrepreneurship and thus to the creation of entrepreneurial innovation.(original abstract)

W artykule przedstawione zostały czynniki potrzebne do pojawienia się innowacji biznesowych w krajach rozwijających się, na podstawie reprezentatywnych danych z Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2021. Opierając się na teoriach zaczerpniętych z literatury przedmiotu, Autorzy zakładają, że mechanizm oddziaływania rozwoju innowacji biznesowych w zaprezentowanym modelu ma charakter trójstronny. Z jednej strony model opiera się na efektach ze strony przedsiębiorcy, bazujących na klasycznej teorii Schumpetera, z drugiej - do modelu włączone są produkcyjne efekty przedsiębiorstw, a z trzeciej - model można zdefiniować jako wynik skutku makrokontekstu społeczno-ekonomicznego. Model jest testowany i analizowany przy użyciu metody cząstkowych najmniejszych kwadratów - modelowania rów- nań strukturalnych i analizy warunków koniecznych. Zaprezentowane w artykule wyniki pokazują, że tworzenie innowacji biznesowych nie opiera się wyłącznie na jednym czynniku, ale jest wynikiem ich kombinacji. System potrzebuje wizjonerskich przedsiębiorców, którzy potrafią stymulować innowacje zgodnie z koncepcją zrównoważonego rozwoju. Jednak dobrze prosperujące gospodarczo i ekonomicznie przedsiębiorstwo z międzynarodowymi powiązaniami, które postrzega wyzwania jako szanse, jest również ważnym czynnikiem, mogącym zapewnić odpowiednie ramy dla tworzenia nowych produktów i usług. Duże znaczenie ma jednak społeczno-ekonomiczny makrokontekst, który również przyczynia się do rozwoju przedsiębiorczości, a tym samym do tworzenia innowacji przedsiębiorczych.(abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Innovations; Developing countries

PL

Innowacje; Kraje rozwijające się

• Czasopismo: Przestrzeń, Ekonomia, Społeczeństwo
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: nr 21/1
• Strony: 117--148

Twórcy

autor

Márton Gosztonyi

• Universiti Malaya, Malaysia

autor

Filep Judit Csákné

• Budapest Business School University of Applied Sciences, Hungary

Bibliografia

• 1. Acs Z. J., Szerb L., Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy, "Small Business Economics" 2007, 28(2-3).
• 2. Arrow K. J., Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention, [In:] The rational direction of inventive activity: A conference, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1962.
• 3. Audretsch D. B., Keilbach M., The theory of knowledge spillover entrepreneurship, "Journal of Management Studies", 2007, 44(7).
• 4. Audretsch D. B., Peña-Legazkue I., Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: An introduction to the special issue, "Small Business Economics" 2012, 39(3).
• 5. Audretsch D. B., Bonte W., Keilbach M., Entrepreneurship capital and its impact on knowledge diffusion and economic performance, "Journal of Business Venturing" 2008, 23(6).
• 6. Audretsch D. B., Keilbach M. C., Lehmann E., Entrepreneurship and economic growth, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.
• 7. Bandura A., Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory, Prentice Hall, Hoboken 1986.
• 8. Baumol W. J., Entrepreneurship in economic theory, "American Economic Review" 1968, 58, pp. 64-71.
• 9. Baumol W. J., The microtheory of innovative entrepreneurship, Princeton University Press, Princeton 2010.
• 10. Bennett A., Checkel J. T. (Eds.), Process tracing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2015.
• 11. Blatter J., Haverland M., Designing case studies, Palgrave McMillan, London 2012.
• 12. Bruton G. D., Ahlstrom D., Li H.-L., Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future?, "Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice" 2010, 34(3).
• 13. Byrne D., Callaghan G., Complexity theory and the social sciences: The state of the art, Routledge, London 2013.
• 14. Cilliers P., Boundaries, hierarchies and networks in complex systems, "International Journal of Innovation Management" 2001, 5(2).
• 15. Cohen B., Winn M., Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship, "Journal of Business Venturin" 2007, 22.
• 16. Cohen B., Smith B., Mitchell R., Toward a sustainable conceptualization of dependent variables in entrepreneurship research, "Business Strategy and the Environment" 2008, 17(2).
• 17. Dacin M. T., Goodstein J., Scott R. W., Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum, "Academy of Management Journal" 2002, 45(1).
• 18. Davidsson P., Nascent entrepreneurship: Empirical studies and developments, "Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship" 2006, 2(1).
• 19. Day G., Sustaining corporate growth requires 'Big I' and 'small i' innovation, Knowledge@Wharton: A special report, 2008.
• 20. Day G. S., Schoemaker P. J. H., Seeing sooner: How to scan for weak signals from the periphery, "Rotman Magazine", 2008, 43.
• 21. Deacon T. W., Three levels of emergent phenomena, [In:] A. Murphy, L. Stoeger (Eds.), Evolution and emergence: Systems, organisms, persons, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007.
• 22. DeLanda M., Intensive science and virtual philosophy, Continuum, London 2005.
• 23. Dijkstra T. K., Henseler J., Consistent and asymptotically normal PLS estimators for linear structural equations, "Computational Statistics & Data Analysis" 2015, 81(1), available oline: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2014.07. 008 [Access: September 2022].
• 24. DiMaggio P. J., Interest and agency in institutional theory, [In:] L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment, Cambridge 1988.
• 25. Dul J., Necessary condition analysis (NCA) logic and methodology of "necessary but not sufficient" causality, "Organizational Research Methods" 2016, 19(1).
• 26. Dul J., Conducting necessary condition analysis, SAGE, Los Angeles-London- New Delhi- Singapore-Washington DC-Melbourne 2020.
• 27. Dul J., van der Laan E., Kuik R., A statistical significance test for necessary condition analysis, Organizati onal Research Methods" 2020, 23(2).
• 28. Fagerberg J., Innovation: A guide to literature, [In:] J. Fagerberg D. C. Mowery, R. R. Nelson, (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.
• 29. Friedman J. H., Popescu B. E., Importance sampled learning ensembles, "Journal of Machine Learning Research" 2003, 94305.
• 30. Fritsch M., How does new business formation affect regional development?, "Introduction to the special issue, "Small Business Economics" 2008, 30(1).
• 31. Gartner W. B., Carter N. M., Entrepreneurial behaviour and firm organizing processes, [In:] Z. J. Acs, D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research, Springer, Berlin 2003.
• 32. Glaeser E. L., 2002 Learning in cities, "Journal of Urban Economics" 2002, 46(2).
• 33. Grossman G. M., Helpman E., Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth, "Journal of Economic Perspectives" 1994, 8(1).
• 34. Hair J., Hult G. T. M., Ringle C., Sarstedt M., A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, London 2016.
• 35. Hair J., Matthews J. F., Matthews L. M., Sarstedt M., PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use, "International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis" 2017, 1(2), available online: https://doi.org/ 10.1504/IJMDA.2017.10008574 [Access: September 2022].
• 36. Harris R. G., The knowledge-based economy: Intellectual origins and new economic perspectives, "International Journal of Management Reviews" 2001, 3(1).
• 37. Hayton J. C., Promoting corporate entrepreneurship through human resource management practices: A review of empirical research, "Human Resource Management Review" 2005, 15(1).
• 38. Hockerts K., Wüstenhagen R., Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids. Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship, "Journal of Business Venturing" 2010, 23.
• 39. Holm P., The dynamics of institutionalization. Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries, "Administrative Science Quarterly" 1995, 40(3).
• 40. Hu L.-T., Bentler P. M., Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification, "Psychological Methods" 1998, 3(4).
• 41. Huggins R., Izushi H., Competing for knowledge: Creating, connecting and growing, Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames 2007.
• 42. Huggins R., Johnston A., Knowledge networks in an uncompetitive region: SME innovation and growth, "Growth and Change" 2009, 40(2).
• 43. Ibert O., Towards a geography of knowledge creation: The ambivalences between 'knowledge as an object' and 'knowing in practice', "Regional Studies" 2007, 41(1).
• 44. Ikeda S., The meaning of 'social capital' as it relates to the market process, "Review of Austrian Economics" 2008, 21(2/3).
• 45. Jancsary D., Meyer R., Höllerer M. A., Boxenbaum E., Institutions as multimodal accomplishments: Towards the analysis of visual registers, Emerald 2018.
• 46. Jewkes J., Sawers D., Stillerman R., The sources of invention, Macmillan, New York 1958.
• 47. Johnson J. S., Sohi R. S., The curvilinear and conditional effects of product line breadth on salesperson performance, role stress, and job satisfaction, "Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science" 2014, 42(1).
• 48. Jöreskog K. G., Wold H. O., Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction, North Holland, Amsterdam-New York- Oxford 1982.
• 49. Kirzner I. M., Competition and entrepreneurship, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1973.
• 50. Kriton M., Kirton adaption-innovation inventory manual (2nd ed.), Occupational Research Centre, Hertford 1987.
• 51. Lee Y., Choi J., A structural equation model of predictors of online learning retention, "The Internet and Higher Education" 2013, 16(1).
• 52. Lohmöller J.-B., Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg 1989.
• 53. March J. G., Olsen J. P., Discovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics, Free Press, Washington 1989.
• 54. Maturana H., Varela F., Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living, Springer, Berlin 1980.
• 55. McClelland D., The achieving society, Free Press, Washington 1961.
• 56. Mckeown M., The truth about innovation, Pearson/Financial Times, London 2008.
• 57. Nicolis G, Introduction to nonlinear science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2012.
• 58. North D. C., Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.
• 59. Noseleit F., Entrepreneurship, structural change, and economic growth, "Journal of Evolutionary Economics" 2013, 84, available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00191-00012-00291-00193 [access: September 2022].
• 60. Ostrom E., Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1990.
• 61. Reed M., Harvey D. L., Social science as the study of complex systems, [In:] L. D. Kiel, E. Elliott (Eds.), Chaos theory in the social sciences, University of Michigan Press, Michigan 1996.
• 62. Reinartz W., Haenlein M., Henseler J., An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM, "International Journal of Research in Marketing" 2009, 26(4), available online: https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001 [access: September 2022].
• 63. Richter N. F., Schubring S., Hauff S., Ringle C.M., Sarstedt M., When predictors of outcomes are necessary: Guidelines for the combined use of PLS-SEM and NCA, "Industrial Management & Data Systems" 2020, 120(12).
• 64. Ringle C. M., Wende S., Becker J.-M., SmartPLS 3, SmartPLS, 2015.
• 65. Romer P., Increasing returns and long run growth, "Journal of Political Economy" 2007, 94(5).
• 66. Samuelsson M., Davidsson P., Does venture opportunity variation matter? Investigating systematic process differences between innovative and imitative new ventures, "Small Business Economics" 2009, 33(2).
• 67. Schumpeter J., The theory of economic development, Harvard University Press, Harvard 1934.
• 68. Scott W. R., Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests, SAGE Los Angeles- London-New Delhi-Singapore-Washington DC-Melbourne 2007.
• 69. Soderberg A. M., Vaara E. (Eds.), Merging across borders: People, cultures and politics, Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen 2003.
• 70. Spencer A. S., Kirchhoff B. A., White C., Entrepreneurship, innovation, and wealth distribution-The essence of creative destruction, "International Small Business Journal" 2008, 26(1).
• 71. Stevenson H. H., Jarrilo J. C., Preserving entrepreneurship as the company grows, "Journal of Business Strategy" 1990, 6(1).
• 72. Taylor S., Schroeder H., Inside Intuit: How the makers of Quicken beat Microsoft and revolutionized an entire industry, SAGE, Los Angeles-London- New Delhi-Singapore-Washington DC-Melbourne 2003.
• 73. Vaz T. D., Nijkamp P., Knowledge and innovation: The strings between global and local dimensions of sustainable growth, "Entrepreneurship and Regional Development" 2009, 21(4).
• 74. Weber M., Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology, University of California Press, California 1978.
• 75. Weick K. E., Sensemaking in organizations, SAGE, Los Angeles-London-New Delhi-Singapore-Washington DC-Melbourne 1995.
• 76. Wong P. K., Ho Y. P., Autio E., Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data, "Small Business Economics" 2005, 24(3).
• 77. Xu X., Sheng Y., Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment: Firmlevel evidence from China, "World Development" 2012, 40(1).
• 78. Zhang Y., Li H., Li Y., Zhou L.-A., FDI spillovers in an emerging market: The role of foreign firms' country origin, diversity and domestic firms' absorptive capacity. Strategic, "Management Journal" 2010, 31(9).
• 79. Zotto C. D., Gustafsson V., Human resource management as an entrepreneurial tool? [In:] R. Barret, S. Mayson (Eds.), International handbook of entrepreneurship and HRM, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2008.
• 80. Zucker L. G., Darby M. R., Furner J., Liu R. C., Hongyan M., Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production, "Research Policy" 2007, 36(6).