亚开行-内部研发、技术转让与企业绩效（英）

ADBIWorkingPaperSeries

IN-HOUSER&D,TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER,ANDFIRMS’PERFORMANCE

HaThiThanhDoanand

LongQuangTrinh

No.1371

April2023

AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute

HaThiThanhDoanisaneconomistattheEconomicResearchInstituteforASEANandEastAsia.LongQuangTrinhisaprojectconsultantattheAsianDevelopmentBankInstitute.

TheviewsexpressedinthispaperaretheviewsoftheauthoranddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsorpoliciesofADBI,ADB,itsBoardofDirectors,orthegovernmentstheyrepresent.ADBIdoesnotguaranteetheaccuracyofthedataincludedinthispaperandacceptsnoresponsibilityforanyconsequencesoftheiruse.TerminologyusedmaynotnecessarilybeconsistentwithADBofficialterms.

Discussionpapersaresubjecttoformalrevisionandcorrectionbeforetheyarefinalizedandconsideredpublished.

TheWorkingPaperseriesisacontinuationoftheformerlynamedDiscussionPaperseries;thenumberingofthepaperscontinuedwithoutinterruptionorchange.ADBI’sworkingpapersreflectinitialideasonatopicandarepostedonlinefordiscussion.Someworkingpapersmaydevelopintootherformsofpublication.

TheAsianDevelopmentBankrefersto“China”asthePeople’sRepublicofChinaandto

“Vietnam”asVietNam.

Suggestedcitation:

Doan,H.T.T.andL.Q.Trinh.2023.In-HouseR&D,TechnologyTransfer,andFirms’Performance.ADBIWorkingPaper1371.Tokyo:AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute.Available:

/10.56506/OUVE8316

Pleasecontacttheauthorsforinformationaboutthispaper.

Email:doan.ha@,tqlong@

AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute

KasumigasekiBuilding,8thFloor

3-2-5Kasumigaseki,Chiyoda-ku

Tokyo100-6008,Japan

Tel:+81-3-3593-5500

Fax:+81-3-3593-5571

URL:

E-mail:info@

©2023AsianDevelopmentBankInstitute

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

Abstract

Thisstudyexaminestheindividualandjointimpactoftechnologytransferandin-houseR&Donfirms’productivityandexportperformance.Weutilizeaspeciallydesignedsurveymoduleonfirms’technologycompetitivenessinVietnamesemanufacturing,whichallowsustoidentifyvariousformsoftechnologytransferdirectlyatfirm-level.Wefindthattechnologytransferexhibitsapositiveimpactonfirms’exports.Theestimatedcoefficientsonbothexportparticipation(theextensivemargin)andexportshare(theintensivemargin)arepositiveandsignificant.Intermsofproductivity,ourresultsuggeststhepresenceofverticalspillover.Technologytransferalongthesupplychainisassociatedwithhigherproductivity—thecoefficientisstrongestintermsofsignificancelevelandmagnitude.Along-termrelationshipwithbusinesspartnersalongthesupplychaincanenhancetheeffectivenessoftechnologytransfer,thusimprovingproductivity.Thisfindingsuggeststhepotentialeffectivenessofpoliciestofurtherenhancelinkagesbetweenupstreamanddownstreamfirms,throughwhichtechnologytransfercanbepromoted.Otherformsoftechnologytransfer,however,donotshowrobustimpactonproductivity.WithregardtoR&D,wefindweakevidenceofR&Dimpact.Onlyestimatedcoefficientsonexportparticipationaresignificant.Finally,thejointimpactofR&Dandtechnologytransferonlyshowsonexportsthroughfirmswhopurchaseembodiedtechnologythroughgoodsorequipment.

Keywords:researchanddevelopment,technologytransfer,firms’heterogeneity,trade,productivity

JELClassification:O3,F23

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

Contents

1.INTRODUCTION 1

2.EMPIRICALSTRATEGY 3

2.1Data 3

2.2Methodology 4

2.3RobustnessCheck 5

3.TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERANDR&D—STYLIZEDFACTS 5

4.EMPIRICALRESULTS 8

5.ROBUSTNESSCHECK 13

6.CONCLUSION 15

REFERENCES 16

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

1

1.INTRODUCTION

Thedevelopmentgapacrosscountriescanlargelybeexplainedbydifferencesinproductivity(HsiehandKlenow2009;Waugh2010),which,inturn,isdrivenbyinnovationandtechnologicalprogress.Theimportanceofinnovationactivitiesinboostingproductivityhasbeenwelldocumentedinboththeoryandempiricalresearch(AghionandHowitt1998;O’MahonyandVecchi2009).Assuch,promotingtheutilizationofadvancedtechnologycanaccelerateproductivitygrowthandnarrowthetechnologygapwiththeglobalfrontier(Fu,Pietrobelli,andSoete2011).

Tocatchupwiththeadvancedtechnologyindevelopedcountries,firmsindevelopingcountrieshavetwoavenues:in-houseR&Dandtechnologytransfer(HouandMohnen2013).Theformerisreflectedintheexpenditurespentonthedevelopment,design,andimprovementofafirm’sproducts.Thelatterreferstotheacquisitionoftechnologyfromexternalsources,suchasthepurchaseofcapitalgoods,technologylicensingfromresearchinstitutesandotherfirms,orthroughlinkageswithinputsuppliersorcustomers.

Bothvenueshavebeenshowntoboostproductivityandenhancethecompetitivenessofcountriesandfirms.Pieri,VecchiandVenturini(2018)discusstwochannelsthroughwhichR&Dcanpromoteproductivity.Theinputaccumulationchannelemphasizestheroleofcapitaldeepening,aswellastheproductivity-enhancingeffectofinvestmentinknowledgeassets—thatis,innovation.Thesecondchannelisthroughtechnologyspillover,inwhichknowledgediffusionoccursacrossfirms.Empirically,themeta-regressionanalysisbyUguretal.(2016)shows,onaverage,positiveestimatesfortherate-of-returntoR&D.

Despiteitsindisputablepositivegrowth-enhancingeffect,R&Dmaybeinfeasibleforfirmsindevelopingcountrieswithlimitedfinancialandhumanresources.R&Dprojectsareexpensive:physicalandhumancapitalrequirementsaredemanding,andsuccessisnotguaranteed.Therefore,insteadofpursuingheavyinvestmentinR&D,thesefirmsmayoptfortechnologythathasalreadybeendevelopedelsewherethroughthesecondavenue—technologytransfer.Tariffreductionhasfacilitatedthiseffortbyreducingthecostofimportedmachineryandequipment.Furthermore,foreigndirectinvestment(FDI)liberalizationhasbroughtforeignfirmswithsuperiortechnologytothedomesticmarkets.TheexpectedtechnologyspilloverfrommultinationalenterprisestodomesticfirmsthroughthediffusionofadvancedtechnologyisonekeyrationaleforFDIattractionpolicy.1

Attractiveasitmaysound,technologyspilloverfromexternalsourcesdoesnotoccurautomatically.Theeffectivenessoftechnologytransferdependsontheabsorptivecapacityofrecipientfirms—thatis,theabilitytoidentify,assimilate,andcommerciallyapplytheknowledgecreatedabroad(CohenandLevinthal1990).TheconceptofabsorptivecapacityanditsroleingeneratingproductivityspillovershasbeenwidelydiscussedintheliteratureonFDIimpactonfirms.Theintuitionisstraightforward:Firmswiththecognitivecapacitiestointernalizetheknowledgesharedbyexternaltechnologysources,suchasfrommultinationalenterprises,aremorelikelytoenhanceperformancewhenexposedtonewtechnologies.InapioneeringstudyonFDIandabsorptivecapacity,Girma(2005)findsanonlinearthresholdassociatedwiththefirm’sabsorptivecapacity.Firmswhoareunabletoutilizeknowledgefromtheirforeign

1ForstudiesonFDIspillover,see,forexample,Javorcik(2004);Sarietal.(2016);MotohashiandYuan

(2010);Lu,Tao,andZhu(2017);Bwalya(2006).

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

2

counterpartslosethecompetition,thusexperiencingnegligibleorevennegativeFDIspillovers.

Givenboththeadvantagesanddisadvantagesofeachinnovationpath—R&Dversustechnologytransfer—thequestionforanindividualfirmiswhethertoinvestinin-houseR&Dasthekeysourceofinnovation,orrelyonexternalsources,orboth.ExistingliteraturelinkingR&Dandtechnologytransferproposestwodirections.IfforeigntechnologyandindigenousR&Dgeneratesimilarbenefitsforthefirm,andtheireffectsonfirmperformanceareindependent,firmswouldconsiderthesetwoavenuesassubstitutes.Firmswillallocatetheresourcesaccordingly—anincreaseinin-houseR&Disaccompaniedbyadecreaseintechnologytransfer.

Nevertheless,totheextentthatR&Dstimulateslearning,andthusenhancesabsorptivecapacity,in-houseR&Dcanplayacomplementaryroletotechnologytransfer.Inotherwords,largerinvestmentsinR&Dimprovetheefficacyoftechnologytransfer(Hu,Jefferson,andJinchang2005).UnderstandingtheeffectoftheinteractionofR&Dwithtechnologytransferonfirms’performancefacilitatestheformulationofinnovationstrategiestoenhancefirms’effectivetechnologyadoption.

Againstthisbackdrop,thisresearchaimstoexamineboththeindividualandjointimpactofin-houseR&DandtechnologytransferontheperformanceofVietnamesemanufacturingfirms.Ourstudyaddressestwoquestions.First,weaskwhetherR&Dandtechnologytransferperseenhancefirms’productivityandexports.Second,weexaminewhetherin-houseR&D,asaformofenhancingabsorptivecapacity,facilitatestheeffectivenessoftechnologytransfer.Ifacomplementaryrelationshipisobserved,weexpecttheinteractionbetweenR&Dandtechnologytransfertoexertpositiveimpactsonfirms’performance,andviceversa.

Toanswerthesequestions,weutilizetheVietNamEnterpriseSurvey(VES)matchedwiththeTechnologyCompetitivenessSurvey(TCS),coveringthe2009–2014period.OnekeyadvantageoftheTCSdataistheavailabilityofinformationonfirm-leveltechnologytransferandsupplylinkages.Thisinformationisusuallynotavailableinstudiesontechnologyspilloversandfirms’performance,andthusisproxiedbyindustry-levelindicators.2Usingindustry-levelvariables,inturn,maskssubstantialheterogeneityatfirm-level.Employingfirms’informationallowsustomeasurethedirecttechnologylinkagesamongfirmsalongthesupplychaininsteadofrelyingontheindirecttechnologyspillovermeasuredatindustry-level.Assuch,wecanexplicitlycontrolforfirmheterogeneityanddelvefurtherintothepotentialdifferentialimpactoftechnologyandR&Donfirmswithdiversecharacteristics.

Therestofourpaperisorganizedasfollows.Section2explainstwokeydatasourcesweuseandourempiricalsetting.Section3discussesfirms’perceptionoftechnologytransferandR&Dobservedfromourdata.Section4presentsbaselineestimates.Section5proceedswithrobustnesstests.Section6concludesanddiscussespolicyimplications.

2See,forexample,Konings(2001);Javorcik(2004);LeandPomfret(2011);Lu,Tao,andZhu(2017).

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

3

2.EMPIRICALSTRATEGY

2.1Data

2.1.1VietNamEnterpriseSurvey

TheVietNamEnterpriseSurvey(VES)isprovidedbyVietNam’sGeneralStatisticsOffice.Datahavebeencollectedannuallysince2000,andtheVESisbyfarthemostcomprehensivedatasetavailableonVietnamesefirms;itisthemainsourceoffirm-levelstatisticsintheformalagriculture,industry,andservicesectors.TheVESincludesageneralquestionnairecoveringbasicstatisticsatthefirm-level,includingownership,assetsandliability,employment,sales,laborcosts,capitalstock,andindustrycodefromJanuarytoDecemberofaparticularyear.Aconsistentanduniquetaxcodeisassignedtoeachfirm,whichallowsustotrackthefirmacrossyears.

2.1.2TheVietNamTechnologyandCompetitivenessSurvey(TCS)

TheVESdataissupplementedwithaspecializedmoduleontechnologyadoptionatthefirm-levelcoveringthe2009–2014period.TheTCSisajointproductbetweentheGeneralStatisticsOfficeofVietNam,theCentralInstituteforEconomicManagementandtheDepartmentofEconomics,CopenhagenUniversity.

TheTCSgathersdetailedinformationontheutilizationoftechnology,supplychainlinkages,researchanddevelopment,andtechnologytransfer.Approximately7,000firmsareselectedforthesurveyfromaround52,000manufacturingfirmsintheVES.TheTCSsurveyisadministeredsimultaneouslyusingthesamedisciplineastheVES.ThesedatacanbematchedwiththemasterdatafromVESusingtheuniquefirmID.

WefollowthedefinitionoftechnologytransferasspecifiedintheTCS,whichincludesthefollowingactivities:purchasingtechnologypresentedingoods(e.g.,machine,equipment);purchasingtechnologyormachineandequipmentfromresearchinstitutesandotherenterprises;utilizingtechnologyormachineandequipmentfromotherenterprisesinthesamegroup/corporation;andutilizingtechnologyormachinesandequipmentprovidedbyasupplierormaincustomerunderalong-termcontract(3yearsandover).

Weconstructourmajorvariablesasfollows.Weuseinformationfromthequestion“Howrelevantarethefollowingtransferchannelsassourcesoftechnologyforyourenterprise?”toconstructourfirms’perceptionoftherelevanceofeachtechnologytransferchannel.Therearefivetechnologytransferchannels:(i)purchaseofembodiedtechnology(e.g.,ingoods,machinery,orequipment);(ii)purchaseoftechnologyfromresearchinstitutionsorexternalfirms;(iii)useoftechnologyprovidedbyotherfirmswithinthegroup(e.g.,shareholder(s));(iv)useoftechnologyprovidedbyfirmsoutsidethegroup(e.g.,suppliersorcustomers);(v)skillsandexperienceofnewemployees.

Therelevanceofeachtechnologytransferchannelisreportedfrom0(notatall)to10(veryrelevant).Ourtechnologychannelvariablesareconstructedasbinaryvariables,whichtakethevalueofoneifafirmreportsthespecificchannelisveryrelevant(i.e.,thefirmchooses10intheirresponse)andzerootherwise.Sincethereisnoconsensusonwhetherthethresholdvalueshouldbeusedtoconstructvariablesontechnologytransferchannels,inouropinion,ifafirmusesaspecifictechnologytransferchannel,theirresponseshouldbeveryrelevantratherthanothervalues.

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

4

Technologytransferwithinputsupplierandcustomersisconstructedfromtwoquestionsfor2009andfourquestionsfor2010–2014.Inthe2010–2014questionnaires,thequestionsare“Doanyoftheserelationshipswithdomesticsuppliersresultintechnologytransferfromthesuppliertoyourenterprise?”;“Doanyoftheserelationshipswithforeignsuppliersresultintechnologytransferfromthesuppliertoyourenterprise?”;“Doanyoftheserelationships[i.e.,thesecontractingrelationshipswithyourVietnamesecustomers]resultintechnologytransferfromthecustomertoyourenterprise?”;and“Doanyoftheserelationships[i.e.,thesecontractingrelationshipswithyourinternationalcustomersoutsideVietNam]resultintechnologytransferfromthecustomertoyourenterprise?”Inthe2009questionnaire,thereareonlytwoquestionsforinputsuppliersandforcustomers(i.e.,itdoesnotdistinguishforeignanddomesticsuppliersandcustomers.Thisvariabletakesthevalueofoneiffirmsreportedthattheirrelationshipwitheitherinputsuppliersandcustomersresultedintechnicaltransferandzerootherwise.

TheR&Dvariableisconstructedfromthequestion:“Doesyourenterpriseundertakeresearchanddevelopment(R&D)activitiesinordertodevelopnewtechnologies?”R&DvariabletakesvalueofoneifthefirmreportedthattheyhaveR&Dactivitiesandzerootherwise.In-houseR&Dactivitiesareconstructedfromfirms'answertoquestion:“WherearetheseR&Dactivitiesperformed?”“In-houseR&Dactivities’isalsoabinaryvariable,whichtakesthevalueofoneiffirmsreportedthattheirR&Dactivitieswereperformedin-houseorbothin-houseandout-of-house,andzerootherwise.

Thedatasetalsoprovidesinformationontheshareofexportsintotalrevenue.Weusethisinformationtoconstructexport-relatedvariables.Exportingfirmsaredefinedasfirmswithapositiveexportshare.Exportshareisequaltotheshareofexportsintotalrevenue.

Inthispaper,weadopttheWooldridge(2009)approachtomeasuretotalfactorproductivity(TFP),usingthewholesamplefromtheVES2006–2014.Weusetheindustrialproducerpricetoconvertlaborcost,materialcost,capitalcosts,valueadded,andrevenuetothe2010price.Allthepriceandcostsareconvertedtothe2010USD.

2.2Methodology

WefollowHu,Jefferson,andJinchang(2005)toestimatetheperformanceoffirmsasafunctionoffirms’in-houseR&D,technologytransfer,andtheirinteractionterm.Industryfixedeffectsandtimefixedeffectsarealsoincluded.Ourregressionequationisasfollow:

Yit=F0+F1techtransferit+F2RDit+F3RDtechtransferit+FXit+uit(1)

whereiandtdenotefirmandtime,respectively.Yitrepresentsfirms’performancevariables,includingTFP,exportstatusdummy,andexportvalue.Techtransferitrepresentsmodesoftechnologytransferusedinourstudyasexplainedearlier.

WeincludeinXitasetoffirmcharacteristics—firmsize,ownership,and2-digitindustryfixedeffects,firmandyearfixedeffects.

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

5

WeexpectapositiverelationshipbetweentechnologytransferandR&Donfirms’performanceindividually.AsforthejointimpactofR&Dandtechnologytransfer(3),apositivecoefficientimpliescomplementaritybetweenR&Dandtechnologytransfer.Inotherwords,theperformance-enhancingeffectoftechnologytransferisexpectedtoincreasewithR&Dintensity,suggestinganabsorptivecapacityargumentisinplace.TotheextentthatR&Dresultsinbetterlearningskills,weexpectevidenceofacomplementaryrelationship.

2.3RobustnessCheck

Onemaybeconcernedwithourdefinitionoftechnologytransfer.Weareconservativeinthesensethatonlyfirmswhoreporttechnologytransferas“veryrelevant,”thatis,firmschoosing10intheresponsescale,arecodedas1inourempiricalmodel,whilefirmschoosing1to9areallclassifiedasfirmswithouttechnologytransfer.Astheresponsesareperception-based,differencesbetween“relevant”(9)and“veryrelevant”(10)canbesubtle.Toaccountforthispossiblesensitivityintheresponse,weredefinefirmswithtechnologytransferasthosewhoreporttherelevancescalesof8–10andestimateequation(1).

3.TECHNOLOGYTRANSFERANDR&D—STYLIZEDFACTS

Thissectionpresentspreliminaryobservationsaboutfirms’perceptionstowardstechnologytransferandtheirengagementinR&D.Table1demonstratesthepercentageoffirmswhoconsidertechnologytransferas“veryrelevant”totheirperformancebyyear.Overall,firmsregardtechnologytransferasapotentiallyimportantactivity—from21%to34%offirmshaverankedatleastonetechnologytransferapproachasveryrelevant.Amongthesixchannelsoftechnologytransfer,havingcontractswithbuyersandsuppliersisconsideredthemostimportant,followedbythepurchaseofembodiedtechnology.Upto22%and17%ofthefirmsgiveascoreof10totheformerandthelatter,respectively.Totheextentthatfirmsexpecttechnologytransfertoimprovetheirperformance,thisobservationisconsistentwithexistingstudiesonthepositivetechnologyspillovereffectsthroughverticallinkagesandthroughtheutilizationofadvancedtechnology.

Table1:TechnologyTransfer(TT)byYear

All

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Self-reportedrelevanceofTTapproach

TTthroughPurchaseofembodiedtechnology

17%

17%

18%

17%

16%

15%

15%

TTthroughPurchaseoftechnologyfromresearchinstitutionsorexternalfirms

7%

5%

8%

7%

8%

8%

8%

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyotherfirmswithingroup

6%

5%

7%

7%

6%

6%

7%

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyfirmsoutsidegroup

8%

4%

9%

9%

8%

8%

9%

TTthroughSkillsandexperienceofnewemployees

10%

0%

14%

15%

10%

9%

8%

Havingatleastone“mostrelevant”TTapproach

30%

21%

34%

33%

30%

30%

30%

TTthroughContractwithsuppliersandbuyers

22%

14%

28%

35%

20%

18%

15%

Source:Authors’calculation.

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

6

Table2presentsamoredetailedpictureoffirms’perceptionoftechnologytransferbasedontherelevancescalefrom0to10.Responsesconcentrateonthetwoextremes—either0or10—ndthemiddlevalue5.Approximately25%to40%offirmsconsidertechnologytransferasbeingofnorelevancetotheirbusiness.Around10%ofthefirmsviewtechnologytransferassomewhatrelevant.Ontherightextreme,technologytransferthroughpurchaseofembodiedtechnologyisregardedasthemostrelevantformamongthefivetypes,withupto17%offirmsgivingthisforma10-pointscoreontherelevancescale.

Table2:Firms’PerceptionofTechnologyTransfer(TT),byRelevanceScalea

DegreeofRelevance

(0:norelevance;10;verymuchrelevant);unit%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Allfirms

TTthroughPurchaseofembodiedtechnology

26

8

4

4

5

12

6

5

8

5

17

TTthroughPurchaseoftechnologyfromresearchinstitutionsorexternalfirms

33

10

5

6

6

13

7

5

5

3

7

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyanotherfirmwithingroup

41

9

5

5

5

11

6

4

5

3

6

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyfirmsoutsidegroup

36

8

5

5

6

12

6

5

6

3

8

TTthroughskillsandexperienceofnewemployees

24

9

5

6

6

14

8

6

7

4

12

aThe6thformoftechnologytransfer,i.e.,linkageswithsuppliersandbuyers,isnotperception-based,thuswedonot

includetheresponseinthistable.Similarly,R&Dstatisticsisnotpresentedinthistable.

Source:Authors’calculation.

Theimportanceoftechnologytransfervariesnotonlyacrossformsoftechnologytransferperse,butalsoonfirms’characteristics.Table3illustratesfirmheterogeneityintermsofsize,ownership,andtradestatus.Fortheperception-basedresponses(columns2to6),thedifferencesarelesspronounced.ConsistentwithfindingsfromTable2,thedominantsourceoftechnologytransferisthepurchaseofembodiedtechnology.However,weobserveclearerheterogeneityregardingfirms’technologytransferwithsuppliersorcustomers(column7).State-ownedenterprises(SOEs)—followedbyjointventures,largerfirms,andfirmswhoareactiveinbothexportsandimports,aremorelikelytohavetechnologytransfercontractswithpartnersalongthesupplychain.

AsimilarpatternisobservedforR&Dactivities(columns8and9).Nevertheless,comparedtotechnologytransfer,R&D—especiallyin-houseR&D—islesspopularamongfirms,arguablyduetothehighermonetarycostsandmoredemandinghumanresources.

AsweareinterestedintheinteractionbetweentechnologytransferandR&D,nextweexaminetheprevalenceofR&Dactivitiesamongfirmswhoconsidertechnologytransferasveryrelevant.Figure1depictsthefindings.Approximately9%ofthesefirmsconductR&Dactivities,eventhoughtheratiofluctuatesacrosstheyears.ThemajorityofR&Dactivitiesareconductedin-house.CombinedwiththestatisticsinTable3,itseemsthatfirmswithtechnologytransferarealsomorelikelytoengageinR&D,suggestingacomplementaryrelationshipbetweenthesetwoformsofinnovation.

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

7

Table3:TechnologyTransferandR&DbyFirmCharacteristics

TypeofTechnicalTransfer(RelevancePerspective)

AtLeastaTT

Technology

PurchaseofEmbodied

PurchaseofTechnologyfrom

ResearchInstitutionsor

ExternalFirms

UseofTechnologyProvided

byAnotherFirmwithinGroup

UseofTechnologyProvided

byFirmsOutsideGroup

SkillsandExperienceofNew

Employees

TTwithSuppliers/Customers

R&DActivity

In-houseR&DActivities

Firmownership

Cooperative/Partnership

31

18

7

3

5

13

19

5

4

State-ownedenterprises(SOEs)orSOEswith50%stateequity

34

19

7

9

7

9

37

23

23

Equitizedfirms(States<50%)

28

17

7

5

8

9

22

9

9

LTD/JointStocksCompanies

31

18

8

4

8

10

22

9

8

FDI100%foreign

31

13

7

13

9

9

24

7

6

FDI–jointventure

30

17

7

9

8

8

29

16

15

Byfirmsize

lessthan10employees

29

17

6

7

11

4

14

4

3

atleast10andlessthan20employees

29

17

7

6

10

4

16

5

5

atleast20andlessthan50employees

28

16

7

7

9

5

19

6

6

atleast50andlessthan250employees

30

17

8

8

9

7

25

11

10

atleast250employees

33

17

8

10

10

10

31

14

13

GVCstatus

Noimportandexportactivities

29

17

7

4

7

10

19

7

6

Onlyimportorexportactivities

30

16

8

6

8

10

25

12

11

Bothimportandexportactivities

32

15

8

11

9

9

28

11

10

Source:Authors’calculation.

Figure1:TechnologyTransferFirmswithR&DActivities,byYear

(%)

Source:Authors’calculationfromtheTCS.

DoanandTrinh

ADBIWorkingPaper1371

8

Table4presentsthedescriptivestatisticsofthevariablesinourmodel.

Table4:DescriptiveStatistics

Mean

Sta.Dev.

Min

Max

TFP(inlog)

40,366

1.20

0.82

–6.91

5.24

TFP(in'1000USD)

40,366

4.74

5.86

.001001

188.26

ShareofTFPinrealvalueadded

40,366

0.04

0.05

0.00

0.30

Havingexportactivities

40,366

0.35

0.48

0

1

Shareofexportsintotalrevenue

40,366

0.23

0.39

0

1

Exportvalue(in1000USD)

40,366

1,139.91

5,203.21

0.01

165,699

Havein-houseR&Dactivities

40,366

0.08

0.27

0

1

Havingatleastone“mostrelevant”technologytransfer(TT)approach

40,366

0.30

0.46

0

1

TTthroughPurchaseofembodiedtechnology

40,366

0.17

0.37

0

1

TTthroughPurchaseoftechnologyfromresearchinstitutionsorexternalfirms

40,366

0.07

0.26

0

1

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyanotherfirmwithingroup

40,366

0.06

0.24

0

1

TTthroughUseoftechnologyprovidedbyfirmsoutsidegroup

40,366

0.08

0.27

0

1

TTthroughSkillsandexperienceofnewemployees

40,366

0.10

0.29

0

1

TTthroughContractwithsuppliersandbuyers

40,366

0.22

0.42

0

1

Usedimportedinputs

40,366

0.31

0.46