Innovation for Economic Performance the Case of Latin American Firms

#2013-028
Innovation for economic performance: The case of Latin American firms
Elena Arias Ortiz, Gustavo Crespi, Ezequiel Tacsir, Fernando Vargas and Pluvia Zuñiga

Maastricht Economic and social Research institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU‐MERIT)
email: info@merit.unu.edu | website: http://www.merit.unu.edu

Maastricht Graduate School of Governance (MGSoG)
email: info‐governance@maastrichtuniversity.nl | website: http://mgsog.merit.unu.edu

Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands
Tel: (31) (43) 388 4400, Fax: (31) (43) 388 4499

Working Paper Series

UNU-MERIT Working Papers
ISSN 1871-9872
Maastricht Economic and social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology,
UNU-MERIT
Maastricht Graduate School of Governance
MGSoG
UNU-MERIT Working Papers intend to disseminate preliminary results of research
carried out at UNU-MERIT and MGSoG to stimulate discussion on the issues raised.

Innovation for Economic Performance:
The case of Latin American Firms*
May, 2013
Elena Arias Ortiz1
, Gustavo Crespi2
, Ezequiel Tacsir,2,3
Fernando Vargas,2
and Pluvia Zuñiga3
Abstract
In this note, a wide range of innovation indicators are analysed in order to describe the
innovation behaviour of manufacturing firms in LAC using the recently released
Enterprise Surveys 2010. The Enterprise Surveys define innovation rates as the share of
firms introducing product and process innovations. The survey also measures the
proportion of firms investing in research and development (R&D) and filing for
intellectual property rights (IPRs). The aim of this note is to understand the main
characteristics of innovative firms and to gather new evidence with regard to the nature
of the innovation process in the region. Statistics about the performance of LAC firms
are provided using different types of indicators to measure firms’ innovative behaviour.
In particular, differences in innovation performance and effort by country, sector, and
key firm characteristics, such as being a multinational or exporter, are explored. Those
firms in LAC that are top R&D performers are identified, and the analysis closes with an
exploration of firm characteristics that strongly correlate with the probability of being a
top R&D performer in the region.
JEL Classification: D22, O3, O33, O34
Keywords: innovation, research and development, Latin America, enterprise surveys
1 Education Division, Social Sector, Inter-American Development Bank.
2 Competitiveness and Innovation Division, Institutions for Development, Inter-American Development Bank.
3United Nations University and Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology
(MERIT), Maastricht, the Netherlands.
*
This paper is part of the project RG-T1861 “Policies and Institutions for Productivity in Latin America and the
Caribbean” coordinated by the Competitiveness and Innovation Division of the Inter-American Development Bank
(IDB) and has been published as an Inter-American Development Bank Technical Note. The Inter-American
Development Bank Technical Notes encompass a wide range of best practices, project evaluations, lessons learned,
case studies, methodological notes, and other documents of a technical nature. The information and opinions
presented in these publications are entirely those of the author(s), and no endorsement by the Inter-American
Development Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the countries they represent is expressed or implied.

1. Introduction
In the 21st century, economies are becoming more knowledge-based, where innovation
(including technological change) is the driver of national competitiveness, development, and
long-term economic growth. At the firm level, innovation—the transformation of ideas into new
or improved products, services, and production processes— leads to more efficient use of
resources, creating sustainable competitive advantages. In addition, innovation is essential to
spur economic growth and to raise living standards. Higher research and development (R&D)
spending, innovation, productivity, and per capita income reinforce each other and lead to
sustained long-term growth (Hall and Jones, 1999; Rouvinen, 2002).
Evidence of the important relationship between R&D, innovation, and productivity has
been found in studies of industrialized countries (Griffith et al., 2004; Griffith et al., 2006;
Mairesse and Mohnen, 2010; OECD, 2009a). Investing in innovation can have substantial
economic payoffs: firms that invest in R&D and other innovation-related activities are better
equipped to introduce technological advances and tend to have higher labour productivity than
those that do not. Crespi and Zuñiga (2012) report that productivity gaps between innovative and
non-innovative firms are much higher in LAC than in industrialized countries. For the typical EU
country, the productivity gap is 20 per cent, while for the typical LAC country it is 70 per cent.
Thus, LAC has great potential to benefit from investment and policies that foster innovation.
In this paper, a wide range of innovation indicators are analysed in order to describe the
innovation behaviour of manufacturing firms in LAC using the Enterprise Surveys database.2
Enterprise Surveys (ES) define innovation rates as the share of firms introducing product or
process innovations.3
The surveys also measure the proportion of firms investing in R&D and
filing for any type of intellectual property rights (IPR), such as patents, trademarks, or copyright
applications. The objective is to understand the main characteristics of innovative firms in LAC
and to gather new evidence with regard to the nature of the innovation process in the region.
Section 2 of the paper reviews the main findings in the literature on the determinants of
2
The Enterprise Survey is firm-level survey collected in more than 135 countries by the World Bank. This paper
focuses on data for the 18 LAC countries and the Caribbean. For more details, see the Technical Appendix.
3
In this paper, the term “product innovation” refers strictly to firms that introduced a new or significantly improved
product that is new to the establishment’s market in the last 3 years. “Process innovation” refers strictly to firms that
introduced new or significantly improved processes that are new to the industry in the last 3 years.

innovation in both industrialized and developing countries. Section 3 presents statistics about the
level of performance of LAC firms by country and sector of economic activity using different
types of indicators to measure firms’ innovation behaviour. The ways that innovation relates to
firm characteristics in the Latin American context are explored, including how it relates to
exporting, and how foreign firms differ from domestic ones. Economic rationales and arguments
provided by the literature for each of these evaluations are discussed. Finally, Section 4 identifies
the companies that invest in R&D in LAC and explores the firm characteristics that influence
R&D spending by top-performing firms in the region.
2. Literature Review
Innovation is fundamental for economic catching-up and raising living standards. Cross-country
studies demonstrate a virtuous circle in which R&D spending, innovation, productivity, and per
capita income mutually reinforce each other and lead to long-term, sustained growth rates (Hall
and Jones, 1999; Rouvinen, 2002) and could even foster job creation from a theoretical point of
view (Vivarelli, 2013). Investment in R&D is a source of direct and indirect advantages for
firms. There is convincing evidence for industrialized countries showing the positive linkages
between R&D, innovation, and productivity at the firm level (Griffith et al., 2004; Griffith et al.,
2006; Mairesse and Mohnen, 2010; OECD, 2009a, Mohnen and Hall, 2013). In addition to being
a major determinant of technological innovation, investment in R&D also affects the creation of
absorptive capacity, a fundamental prerequisite for “learning by doing” and successful catching-
up. Internal R&D allows firms to better identify the value of external technology, assimilate and
make better use of it, while expanding firms’ stock of knowledge (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989;
Griffith et al., 2004). Hence, strengthening in-house technological capabilities facilitates the
process of assimilation of knowledge spillovers through acquisition of machinery, equipment,
and interaction with more developed and foreign firms. Therefore, it is crucial to assess what
firms are doing in the areas of innovation and R&D. Do they engage in innovation as part of
their competitive strategy? Do they devote resources to R&D? How does innovation impact firm
performance and competitiveness?
Investing in innovation, however, can be prohibitive for many firms in developing
countries. Given the uncertainty, indivisibility, and the intangible nature of innovation

investments, it is difficult for firms to access to credit for innovation. Some of these constraints
are exacerbated by the fact that the returns on innovation can be appropriated by others due to
imitation and reverse engineering. Therefore, it is difficult to negotiate a loan over insecure
assets and to enter into contracts using knowledge assets as collateral or guarantees.
Public policy is needed to alleviate market failures in innovation investment. In contrast
to the OECD countries, fiscal budgets allocated to support innovation in LAC are rather meagre
and in general reach a small number of companies in the region (Crespi, 2012). For Latin
American firms, public support for innovation activities is essential. Many programs have been
evaluated, and existing studies about pioneering programs in operation in the region since the
early 1990s show that they have had a positive impact on (i) input additionality (i.e., tax
incentives have been effective in increasing business investment in innovative projects and
leveraging private resources for these investments); (ii) promoting links between companies and
universities; and (iii) output additionality, provided that sufficient time has elapsed since the
grant was approved (positive impacts on labour productivity begin to appear only after three to
five years after the start of an innovation project).
As far as constraints on innovation are concerned, problems related to securing financing
for innovation and the inability of the firms to wait for long periods of time are among the most
important obstacles to innovation perceived by firms in Latin America (Navarro et al., 2010;
Anlló and Suarez, 2009). It is more difficult for small- and medium-sized firms (SMEs) and
young firms to access financing. In addition, there is substantial international evidence
confirming that these types of firms are relatively more credit-constrained and face higher cost of
capital than large companies (Harhoff and Körting, 1998). These findings have also been
confirmed for Chile (Crespi and Alvarez, 2011).
Intellectual property protection is another public policy that intends to alleviate market
failures by providing a legal framework to innovators to receive appropriate returns on
innovations. Patenting has become an indicator of competitiveness as intellectual assets have
grown in importance in international economic transactions. By providing market exclusivity
rights over firm inventions that achieve a significant level of novelty and provide new industrial
applications, patents allow firms to recoup innovation costs (Griliches, 1990; OECD, 1994;

2009b). The importance of patent protection evolves with the level of economic development4
.
As firms become more innovative—and rely less on imitation as main strategy for catching up—
and as economies develop and acquire valuable knowledge assets, policy agents have a vested
interest in providing effective patent systems (Ginarte and Park, 1997).
3. Where is Innovation Occurring?
Enterprise Surveys includes data on a number of innovation activities, such as the development
of technological products, processes, and non-technological innovation (such as managerial,
organization, and marketing practices). Firms are considered to be innovators if they introduced
either a product innovation new to the market or process innovation new to the industry in the
previous three years. Due to the differences in the innovation processes that drive the two types
of innovations, product and process innovation will be discussed separately.
The average innovation rate among manufacturers5
–that is, the share of firms innovating
by introducing a new or significantly improved product or process—is 29 per cent in LAC. This
rate is highest in the region’s largest countries (Figure 1), and is lower in the small- and medium-
sized countries as well as the small Caribbean countries. Moreover, 16 per cent of firms in
LAC’s largest countries report both a product and a process innovation—compared to 11 per
cent of firms in small and medium countries and only 6 per cent in small Caribbean countries.
The fact that 32 per cent of firms in the large countries innovated a production process (16 with a
product innovation and 16 per cent without) suggests that firms in the region’s largest economies
are adapting more complex products and possibly exploiting economies of scale. By contrast, 13
per cent of firms in the small Caribbean countries report a product innovation without an
associated innovation in process. The latter fact could imply higher rates of adaptation of either
less complex products or simply replicating existing products in the market.
4
A clear example is analysed by Kim et al. (2013), who show that the catching up latecomers in the software
industry in China was initially led by handling the publishing (or distributing) of games developed by foreign firms,
then imitating them, and even pirating them occasionally.
5
All ES data reported in this paper are limited to manufacturers only.

Figure 1. Innovation Rates (percentage of firms)
Source: Authors’ calculation using Enterprise Surveys 2010.
There are large differences in innovation rates across LAC, reflecting cross-country
differences in the structure of economies as well as business and policy environments for
innovation. Large countries, such as Argentina, Chile, Colombia, and Peru, rank well above the
regional average for innovation indicators.6
The exception is Mexico, which had weak
performance on all innovation indicators.
Within large countries, where the size of the economy allows for comparisons across
selected industries—namely, Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru—there is further
variation across specific manufacturing sectors. Chemical and plastics manufacturers innovate at
the highest rate, appreciably higher in product and process innovation rates.
6
No data are provided for Brazil because the latest round of Enterprise Surveys from Brazil, in 2009, did not include
the innovation module used in 2010.
6%
11%
16%
13%
9%
9%4%
8%
16%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Caribbean Small countries Large countries
Only process innovation Only product innovation Product and process innovation LAC Avg. Innovation rate
LAC Region Average. innovation rate: 29%

Table 1. Product and Process Innovation Rates
Industry* Average**
Food/Beverages
Product 10.3
Process 12.5
Product & Process 7.5
Textiles & Garments
Product 14.9
Process 12.6
Chemicals & Rubber/Plastics
Product 15.2
Process 11.5
Fabricated metals & Machinery/Equip.
Product 10.6
Process 14.8
*Average among large countries with comparable data and survey designs (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru)
**Chosen based on stratification designs in selected, large countries
Given that in the majority of the countries in the region there is no official reporting on
R&D expenditures based, for example, on tax returns, answers to this question in the survey are
prone to measurement errors and particularly to over-reporting. In order to control for this, we
“trimmed” this figure by considering that a firm spends on R&D, when registering an
expenditure of at least the cost of one researcher, for the case of small firms, one researcher and
one technician, for medium firms, and two researchers and two technicians, for large firms, for a
year. Costs are calculated using data from Chilean National Innovation Survey 2009, estimating
the minimum number of R&D employees for a typical Chilean firm that spend on R&D, by firm
size, and the typical wage, by employee type and relative to GDP per capita, and adjusted for the
relative weight of wages in each country. This approach may under-report R&D expenditures by
small firms—even some that are highly innovative—but such an adjustment must be made in
order to systematically examine the data that follows.
The region also exhibits interesting patterns in R&D spending (Figure 2). Eight per cent
of firms in LAC reported R&D expenditures. This figure is notably higher in the region’s largest
countries, twice the rates in small and Caribbean countries. However, the amount of R&D
expenditure is low. On average, R&D expenditures are equivalent to less than one per cent (0.6
per cent) of annual sales. In large countries, R&D expenditures are valued at 1 per cent of annual
sales, while this average is less than 0.4 per cent elsewhere. R&D investments in the region are
also more skewed: a few very large investors generally represent a significant proportion of the

total national effort on R&D. Indeed, on average across the LAC countries, the firm that spends
the most on R&D accounts for 30 per cent of total national manufacturing sector R&D spending.
Among the 7 per cent of firms in LAC that reported spending on R&D, one in four firms spent
more than US$135,000 in 2009.
Figure 2. Participation in Innovation Activity (percentage of firms)
Source: Authors’ calculations using Enterprise Surveys 2010.
Almost 14 per cent of LAC firms filed for IPR between 2008 and 2010, with larger
economies seeing higher rates of applications (Figure 2). This figure is significantly lower than
the percentage of innovative firms (29 per cent). The low level of IPR use by manufacturing
firms suggests a lack of novelty of innovations, and this is true even when we use a definition of
innovation that is restricted to novel products or processes only. This means that even in the case
of novel products or processes (in the firm’s market or industry), much of the innovation in the
region is based on the adoption and adaptation of technologies developed elsewhere, implying to
some extent that they do not qualify for the international standards of novelty required for the
granting of IPRs.
20%
9%
13%
15%
7% 7%
9%
4%
6%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Applying for intellectual property
rights
Receiving public support for
innovation
Spending on R&D
Large countries Small countries Caribbean

The rate of firms applying for IPRs, however, differs strongly across industries: in large
economies for which we have data for several economic sectors, rates for patent applications
mirror patterns in innovation. Almost thirty-six per cent of manufacturers of chemicals and
plastics applied for a patent, while less than one in four textile and food manufacturers filed for
IPR. The lowest share of IPR applicants, in large economies, occurred among fabricated metal
and equipment manufacturers, at 13 per cent (Table 2).
Table 2. Share of Firms Applying for Intellectual Property Rights
Industry* Average**
Food/Beverages 21.2
Textiles & Garments 24.1
Chemicals & Rubber/Plastics 35.7
Fabricated metals & Machinery/Equip. 13.3
*Average among large countries with comparable data and survey
designs (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru).
Source: Own calculation using Enterprise Surveys 2010.
4. Who is Innovating?
Innovation behaviour differs across firms and countries. Not all firms rely on innovation as a
means to increase economic performance, nor are all firms able to invest in innovation and
transform internal knowledge into new competitive advantages. Several firm characteristics have
recurrently been identified as factors that increase the likelihood of engagement in innovation,
although patterns of firm innovation behaviour tend to differ between advanced and developing
countries as well as within developing countries.
In general, firm size, firm productivity level (proximity to the technology frontier) and
exporting orientation in developing country firms are often positively associated with firms’
propensity to innovate and invest in innovation. In contrast, evidence regarding the role of age in
explaining firm innovation is more mixed (Almeida and Fernandes, 2008; Crespi and Zuñiga,
2012).

Large-size firms enjoy numerous advantages regarding innovation: a larger spread of
R&D fixed costs over greater output (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989), economies of scope relating
to R&D production and R&D diversification, easier access to finance, and better appropriation of
external knowledge spillovers (Crespi and Zuñiga, 2012) enable larger firms to be better
positioned to take advantage of innovation investments. It is also argued that small firms have
more flexibility and adaptability (and less complex organizational structures), which favours
innovation and the development of new projects (Acs and Audretsch, 1988).7
With respect to exporting, the rationale behind the association with innovation is related
to the two types of effects that enhance firms’ propensity to invest in innovation: the
“competition” effect associated to international markets and the “learning” effects that derive
from exporting. Experience in export markets leads firms to “learn” and acquire new skills in
order to meet international product standards. Furthermore, firms must guarantee product quality
and timely delivery of their orders to satisfy foreign customers. Several studies report evidence
of the positive incidence of exporting on firms’ R&D investment and innovation: Braga and
Willmore (1991) for Brazilian firms and Alvarez (2001) for Chilean firms, among others.
The Enterprise Surveys found that large firms are more innovative than small- and
medium-sized ones (Figure 3). More than four out of ten large manufacturing firms innovated,
introducing either a new or significantly improved product or process.8
Thirty-four per cent of
medium firms and 23 per cent of small firms reported similar innovations. Moreover, 18 per cent
of large firms in LAC report both a product and a process innovation compared to 12 per cent of
medium firms and only 7 per cent of small ones. Exporting firms tend to innovate—either
product or process—more than non-exporters (39 per cent of exporters versus 25 per cent of non-
exporters)9
(Figure 4). Similarly, firms operating in markets with almost no competitors report
lower innovation rates than firms that compete with two or more firms in their main market.
However, consistent with previous findings,10
the relationship between innovation rates and
competitive pressures appears to be hump-shaped. While 40 per cent of firms that face two to
five competitors innovate, the proportion of firms that introduced product or process innovation
decreases to 32 per cent for firms with five or more competitors (Figure 5).
7
In advanced countries, the role of small firms as agents of radical innovation has recurrently been stressed
particularly in the case of emerging technologies (new technological paradigms).
8
Cases with less than five firms per size category in a country are excluded from averages.
9
Exporting firms are those that derive at least 10 per cent of sales from direct exports.
10
See Arnold, Nicoletti, and Scarpetta (2008) for a detailed review of the literature.

Figure 3. Innovation Rates by Firm Size (percentage of firms)
7%
12%
18%
8%
13%
17%
8%
9%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Small firms Medium firms Large firms

Figure 4. Innovation Rates by Export Profile (percentage of firms)
We also explore the relationship between the size of the urban area where the firm is
located and its propensity to innovate. A growing literature on the geography of innovation
indicates that knowledge has important tacit components, so its transfer is sensitive to distance in
the extent that it requires personal interaction (Asheim and Gertler, 2005). Despite this
compelling rationale, an analysis of the average innovation rates by the size of the urban area
where the firm is located did not reveal evidence of any significant correlation. This could be the
result of measurement problems (as perhaps the size of the urban area is an indicator which is too
general as to capture true economies of agglomeration) or it could indicate inherent weaknesses
in the linkages within local innovation systems.
Finally, older firms (created more than 10 years ago) report innovations rates slightly
higher than those of younger firms, although the difference is not statistically significant (30
versus 25 per cent, respectively). This result contrasts somewhat with findings from the
literature, which suggest that young firms are more likely to innovate.
9%
16%
9%
14%
7%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Non Exporter Exporter

Figure 5. Innovation Rates by Number of Competitors (percentage of firms)
Note: Statistics relative to the number of competitors does not include the smallest Caribbean countries.
The data from the Enterprise Surveys also reveal that young firms in LAC are
heterogeneous, with a wider dispersion in the share of firms innovating. To understand this
volatility, the innovation behaviour of young firms was analysed according to their dynamic
profiles. Young firms are considered to be dynamic if they sell output in foreign markets, were
founded based on new products, or created more employment since their founding than the
median firm in their countries (Acs and Szerb, 2011). Dynamic young firms exhibit significantly
higher innovation rates than other young firms. This result somewhat conciliates the results with
the literature given that their innovation rates are higher compared to old firms (though not
significantly) and higher (significantly) relative to young, non-dynamic firms (Figure 6).
20%
15% 16%
13%
5%
7%
11%
8%
2% 7%
11%
11%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
No competition 1 competitor 2 to 5 competitors 5 o rmore competitors
Product and process innovation New market Only process innovation LAC Avg. Innovation rate

Figure 6. Innovation Rates by Firm Age (percentage of firms)
5. Who is Spending on Research and Development and Using IPRs?
An association between size and propensity to invest in R&D has been reported for firms in most
countries in the Latin America and Caribbean region where systematic innovation surveys have
been conducted (Benavente, 2006; Crespi and Peirano, 2007). Firm size plays a big role in R&D
spending and in the likelihood that they will file IPR applications. Twice as many large firms
have R&D expenditures than SMEs. Almost twenty-four per cent of large firms invested in
R&D, nearly ten times the share of small firms that did so (Table 3). Nearly 30 per cent of large
firms reported applying for an IPR, four times more frequently than small firms (7 per cent) and
nearly two more frequently than medium-sized firms (17 per cent).
Exporting firms in LAC are three times more likely than non-exporting firms to perform
R&D (17 per cent of exporters versus 5 per cent of non-exporters). Almost 30 per cent of
exporters file for IPR, compared to 10 per cent of non-exporters. In the same vein as before, an
inverted U relationship was also found between the found between the number of competitors
and the share of firms applying for IPRs. Similar to the case with innovation outcomes, no large
11% 12%
7%
11% 9%
8%
8%
12%
3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Old Firms Young Dynamic Young Other

differences were found between firms located in large versus small cities when evaluating their
propensity to invest in R&D or their filing for IPRs.
Older firms are more likely to spend on R&D and to file for IPRs than young ones—
though dynamic young firms engage in R&D nearly as much as older firms and file for IPR at
higher rates. Thus, young, dynamic firms appear to be highly innovative, invest in R&D, and
introduce innovation in their processes and products at high rates.
Table 3. Share of Firms Spending on R&D
Firms Size Average*
Small Firms 3.0
Medium Firms 9.9
Large Firms 23.9
Export Profile**
Non Exporter Firms 5.1
Exporter Firms 17.3
Age and Dynamism***
Young Non Dynamics Firms 3.9
Young Dynamics Firms 7.0
Old Firms 9.1
*Estimated using national averages by firms characteristic.
** Exporting firms are those who derive at least 10 per cent of sales
from direct exports.
*** Young firms are dynamic if they sell output in foreign markets,
were founded based on new products, or created more employment
since being founded than the median firm in their countries.
Additionally, there are notable differences in the share of firms spending on R&D across
industries. In large economies, a larger share of firms in the chemicals and plastics sector spend
on R&D (35.7 per cent) than in other manufacturing sectors. Roughly one out of every five
manufacturers in food manufacturing as well as textile manufacturers spend on R&D; only 13.3
per cent of firms in the industry of fabricated metals and equipment spend on R&D (Table 4).

The use of public instruments for innovation is low across the region. The average share
of LAC firms that used public support for innovation was 6.2 per cent. The high rate of
innovation is likely due to technology adoption and adaptation. Few firms have followed
innovation strategies based on R&D and aimed at producing innovations that need to be
protected by some form of IPR. Large and export firms produce more innovations based on
R&D; thus, they are more intensive users of public instruments. These figures are low when
compared with the standard in developed countries. Indeed, the proportion of firms using public
support for innovation in LAC (7 per cent) is two times less than the OECD average (18 per
cent).11
Table 4. Share of Firms Spending on R&D
Industry* Average**
Food/Beverages 21.2
Textiles & Garments 24.1
Chemicals & Rubber/Plastics 35.7
Fabricated metals & Machinery/Equip. 13.3
*Average among large countries with comparable data and survey
designs (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru)
In addition to analysing the share of firms that invest in R&D in LAC, we explore their
level of spending compared with the level of R&D spending of firms considered the “top 20
global R&D champions.” In levels, LAC performance is relatively modest: among all the LAC
firms that invested in R&D, 82 per cent spent less than US$100,000 (PPP) in 2010. Considering
all spending in R&D in LAC as coming from one company, this company would rank 13th
on the
ranking cited. In relative terms, this means that the top 20 best R&D firms in the world (Tables 5
and 6) invest 22 times more than the aggregate of all LAC companies. Adding Brazil (using the
2008 Survey of Technological Innovation (PINTEC)) to these numbers, R&D investment in the
continent almost doubles, reducing the difference with the amount spent for the top 20
companies, to 12 times. It is important to note that even if Brazil’s GDP represents 30 per cent of
11
Unfortunately, we do not have comparable figures for other developing countries.

the GDP of the region, Brazilian firms’ spending in R&D accounts for 50 per cent of R&D
spending, revealing the strong concentration of effort in one country.
Table 5. R&D Spending by Top 20 Firms and LAC
Description
R&D 2010
(US$ millions)
R&D as a
% of sales
Total
sales
Top 20 firms 141,781 8.6% 1,656,970
Latin America and the Caribbean* 6,290 0.3% 1,910,000
Latin America and the Caribbean** 12,087 0.4% 2,815,949
Ratio (Top 20/LAC*) 22.5 26.0 0.9
Ratio (Top 20/LAC**) 11.7 19.9 0.6
* Countries in Enterprise Survey.
** Adding Brazil data.
Source: Enterprise Surveys and Bloomberg data, Key Booz & Company The Global Innovation
1000, "Why Culture is Key"

Table 6. Top 20 R&D Spending Firms
Rank
2010
Rank
2009
Company
2010,
US$
millions
Change
from
2009
As a
% of
sales
Sales HQ
location Industry
1 1 Roche holding 9646 1.5 21.1 45,716 Europe Healthcare
2 5 Pfizer 9413 20 13.9 67,719
North
America Healthcare
3 6 Novartis 9070 21.4 17.9 50,670 Europe Healthcare
4 2 Microsoft 8714 -3.3 14 62,243
North
America
Software and
Internet
5 14 Merck 8591 53 18.7 45,941
North
America Healthcare
6 4 Toyota 8546 0.7 3.9 219,128 Asia Auto
7 10 Samsung 7873 23.2 5.9 133,441 Asia
Computing and
Electronics
8 3 Nokia 7778 -0.8 13.8 56,362 Europe
Computing and
Electronics
9 11 General Motors 6962 16 5.1 136,510
North
America Auto
10 7
Johnson &
Johnson 6844 -2 11.1 61,658
North
America Healthcare
11 13 Intel 6576 16.3 15.1 43,550
North
America
Computing and
Electronics
12 18 Panasonic 6176 11 6.1 101,246 Asia
Computing and
Electronics
13 9 GlaxoSmithKline 6127 0.3 14 43,764 Europe Healthcare
14 15 Volkswagen 6089 19.4 3.6 169,139 Europe Auto
15 12 IBM 6026 3.5 6 100,433
North
America
Computing and
Electronics
16 8 Sanofi-Aventis 5838 -4 14.5 40,262 Europe Healthcare
17 19 Honda 5704 5.2 5.5 103,709 Asia Auto
18 22 AstraZeneca 5318 20.6 16 33,238 Europe Healthcare
19 17 Cisco Systems 5273 1.3 13.2 39,947
North
America
Computing and
Electronics
20 16 Siemens 5217 -1.4 5.1 102,294 Europe Industrials
Source: Bloomberg data, Booz & Company The Global Innovation 1000, "Why Culture is Key"
If we look at the top performers in the region, only 4 per cent of companies in LAC spend
a large amount of resources in R&D activities at least for the regional standard (more than
US$500,000 [PPP]). What are the main features of these top-performing firms in R&D in Latin
America? Do they have significant differences with firms that don’t invest? We explore what
makes some companies invest in R&D compared to the vast majority of firms in the region and
in particular, the characteristics of “top performers” in R&D in LAC using a probit model (Table
7).

First of all, the findings reveal that the factors that influence significantly the probability
of spending in R&D and being a regional top performer are similar. The only exception observed
is for ownership: foreign companies have a positive and significant probability of being a top
performer but this is not a strong predictor for engaging in R&D activities. This result suggests
that Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) are not more likely to invest in R&D compared to other
firms in LAC but when they do invest their level of the investment is significantly higher.
Exporting and high-productivity firms are more likely to spend more than US$500,000
(PPP) in R&D per year. However, the level of productivity of the firm is more important than
exporting in determining R&D spending. These roles remain identical when the discriminating
variable is the level of investment involved. Thus, there are more high-productivity firms
investing, and in addition, they tend to invest larger amounts.
Finally, we observe that size is the most important factor influencing the probability of
spending in R&D, but also being a top performer. Controlling by sub-region and economic sector
(ISIC 3.1. at the two-digit level), medium and large companies are more likely to be “top
performers” than small firms, increasing this probability by 4.6 per cent and 10.9 per cent,
respectively. These marginal effects are even stronger when we consider the probability of
spending in R&D: large firms in LAC have almost 20 per cent higher chances of engaging in
R&D activities than small firms, showing that the availability of resources is a crucial aspect for
R&D.

Table 7. Marginal Effects of the Probability of Spending in R&D and being a Top
Performer on R&D12
Model 1
Spending R&D
Model 2
R&D Top Performer
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Young -0.0102 0.013 -0.0037 0.007
Foreign Ownership -0.0142 0.014 0.0108
**
0.005
Export 0.0687
***
0.010 0.0131
***
0.005
High Productivity 0.0787
***
0.011 0.0255
***
0.005
Medium 0.0961
***
0.012 0.0465
***
0.015
Large 0.1826
***
0.013 0.1093
***
0.015
Sector Fixed effects Yes Yes
Country Fixed effects Yes Yes
Pseudo R-squared 0.1799 0.3287
N 6051 5917
Estimation is significant at 10% level (*), 5% level (**) or 1% level (***)
12
Estimation performed using a Probit model controlling by country and economic sector (ISIC 3.1. at the two-digit
level) and clustering by country and sector groups. A firm is foreign owned if 50 per cent or more of the shares are
owned by non-domestic capital.

6. Conclusion
Innovation is a relatively new concept for Latin American and Caribbean firms. Although
indicators reflect high propensities to innovate, even larger than the average observed in
developed economies, this statistical dissonance suggests that the way innovation is understood
in the region differs widely from that of firms in more developed nations. Statistical evidence on
the use of IPRs (based on an objective measure of performance) and the ratio of patenting firms
relative to innovating firms present quite a different picture in which the figures observed for
LAC firms are substantially smaller than the average of their OECD counterparts. In general,
firms in LAC hardly invest in disembodied technology; therefore, such high innovation rates
may likely reflect incremental and adaptive innovation (necessary for the use of foreign
technology).
Nevertheless, in spite of such embryonic technological capacity, the available evidence
enables corroboration of the importance of innovation in building sustainable economic
advantages, providing a rationale for public support. Firms that invest in R&D or innovate are
more likely to patent and have a stronger presence in international markets. These effects are
stronger for product than process innovation. Furthermore, innovation activities are found to be
strongly associated with firm size; small- and medium-sized firms are more handicapped to
participate in the innovation race which limits, in turn, their potential to grow and become more
competitive in international markets. Lastly, age by itself is not a preponderant factor if we do
not consider innovation activity by firms. Those young firms that are highly innovative behave
differently in terms of technological activity, and as such, can behave as change agents (“to
climb the ladder”).
From a policy standpoint, there is a great challenge for public policies to effectively
increase firms’ technology assets, facilitate access to finance for innovation and support more
effective and articulated innovation systems. Given that bigger firms are more likely to innovate
and access to (the limited) public policy instruments, it is important to pay special attention to
SMEs. Creative and effective policy mechanisms are needed to target this group and alleviate
innovation constraints that handicap perspectives of growth for these firms. Lastly, the findings
also show that there is a special group of world-class MNEs that invest in R&D. They are an
important share of the main performers of R&D in the region. Therefore, attracting this type of

companies should be emphasized in public policies regarding foreign direct investment.
Similarly (although it is beyond the scope of this paper), the service sector needs to be better
addressed by public policy, since it is the sector responsible for the overall low level of
productivity observed in the region.

References
Acs, Z. and D. Audretsch. 1988. “Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis.”
American Economic Review 78: 678-90.
Acs Z. and L. Szerb. 2011. Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index. Cheltenham,
United Kingdom: Edward Elgar.
Almeida, R. and A. Fernandes. 2008. “Openness and Technological Innovations in Developing
Countries: Evidence from Firm-Level Surveys.” The Journal of Development Studies
44(5): 701-27.
Alvarez, R. 2001. “External Sources of Technological Innovation in Chilean Manufacturing
Industry.” University of Chile, Department of Economics. Estudios de Economía 28
(June): 53-68.
Anlló, G. and D. Suarez. 2009. "Innovación: Algo más que I+D. Evidencias Iberoamericanas a
partir de las encuestas de innovación: Construyendo las estrategias empresariales
competitivas." Buenos Aires, Argentina: CEPALREDES. Unpublished.
Arnold, J., G. Nicoletti and S. Scarpetta, 2008. "Regulation, Allocative Efficiency and
Productivity in OECD Countries: Industry and Firm-Level Evidence." OECD Economics
Department Working Papers 616.
Asheim, B.T. and M.S. Gertler, 2005. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems.
In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford, University Press, Oxford, pp. 291–317.
Benavente, J. M. and R. Lauterbach, 2008. "Technological Innovation and Employment:
Complements or Substitutes?" European Journal of Development Research 20(2): 318-
29.
Braga, H. and L. Willmore. 1991. "Technological Imports and Technological Effort." Journal of
Industrial Economics 39(4): 421–32.
Cohen, W. and D. Levinthal. 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D."
Economic Journal 99(397): 569–56.
Crespi, G. 2012. “Incentivos fiscales para la innovación empresarial.” in Las Instituciones
Fiscales de Mañana. Washington, DC, United States: Inter-American Development
Bank.

Crespi G. and R. Alvarez, 2011. "Financing Gaps and Innovation Gaps. New Evidence from
Chile." Working Paper. Washington, DC United States: Inter-American Development
Bank. Forthcoming.
Crespi, G. and F. Peirano. 2007. “Measuring Innovation in Latin America: What We Did, Where
We Are and What We Want to Do.” Paper prepared for the United Nations University
and Maastricht Social and Economic Research and Training Institute on Innovation and
Technology (UNU-MERIT) Conference on Micro Evidence on Innovation in Developing
Countries, 31 May - 1 June, Maastricht.
Crespi, G. and P. Zuniga. 2012. “Innovation and Productivity: Evidence from Six Latin
American Countries.” World Development 4(2): 273-90.
Ginarte, J. and W. Park. 1997. “Determinants of Patent Rights: A Cross-national Study.”
Research Policy 26 (3): 283-301.
Griffith, R., S. Redding, and J. Van Reenen. 2004. “Mapping the Two Faces of R&D:
Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries.” The Review of Economics and
Statistics 86(4): 883-95.
Griffith, R., E. Huergo, J. Mairesse, and B. Peters. 2006. “Innovation and Productivity across
Four European Countries.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(4): 483-98.
Griliches, Z. 1990. “Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey.” Journal of Economic
Literature, American Economic Association 28(4), 1661-1707.
Hall, R. and C. Jones. 1999. “Why Do Some Countries Produce So Much More Output per
Worker than Others?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(1): 83-116.
Harhoff, D. and T. Korting. 1998. “Lending Relationships in Germany - Empirical Evidence
from Survey Data.” Journal of Banking & Finance. Elsevier 22(10-11): 1317-53.
Kim, J-Y., T-Y. Park and K. Lee. 2013. “Catch-up by indigenous firms in the Software Industry
and the Role of the Government in China: A Sectoral System of Innovation Perspective.”,
forthcoming in Eurasian Business Review, 3(1), 2013.
Mairesse, J. and P. Mohnen. 2010. “Using Innovations Surveys for Econometric Analysis.”
NBER Working Papers 15857. Cambridge, United States: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Mohnen, P. and B. Hall. (2013). “Innovation and Productivity: An Update”, forthcoming in
Eurasian Business Review, 3(1).

Navarro, J. C., J. J. Llisterri and P. Zuñiga. 2010. “The Importance of Ideas: Innovation and
Productivity in Latin America.” in Pagés, C. (ed.) The Age of Productivity: Transforming
Economies From the Bottom Up. Development in the Americas. Washington, DC, United
States: Inter-American Development Bank/Palgrave-McMillan.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2009a. Innovation in
Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective. Paris, France: OECD.
---. 2009b. Patent Statistics Manual. Paris, France: OECD.
---. 1994. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities using Patent Data as
Science and Technology Indicators. Paris, France: OECD.
Rouvinen, P. 2002. “Characteristics of Product and Process Innovators: Some Evidence from the
Finnish Innovation Survey.” Applied Economics Letters 9(9): 575-80.
Vivarelli, M. 2013. “Technology, Employment and Skills, an Interpretative Framework.”,
forthcoming in Eurasian Business Review, 3(1)

Technical Appendix – The Enterprise Survey
An Enterprise Survey is a firm-level survey of a representative sample of an economy's private
sector. The World Bank’s Enterprise Surveys (ES) has been conducting these surveys since 2000
for key manufacturing and service sectors in every region of the world. The ES cover a broad
range of business environment topics including access to finance, corruption, infrastructure,
crime, competition, and performance measures.
Enterprise Surveys in Latin America are jointly funded with the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB), and surveys in the Caribbean are jointly funded with IDB and
COMPETE Caribbean. It includes the list of following countries: Antigua, Argentina, Bahamas,
Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua,
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, C, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname Trinidad
and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Size, scope and sampling methodology:
 The Enterprise Survey is answered by business owners and top managers.
 In each country, businesses in the cities/regions of major economic activity are
interviewed.
 Typically 1200-1800 interviews are conducted in larger economies, 360 interviews are
conducted in medium-sized economies and for smaller economies, 150 interviews are
conducted.
 The manufacturing and services sectors are the primary business sectors of interest. This
corresponds to firms classified with ISIC codes 15-37, 45, 50-52, 55, 60-64, and 72 (ISIC
Rev.3.1). Services firms include construction, retail, wholesale, hotels, restaurants,
transport, storage, communications, and IT.
 Aimed at formal (registered) companies with 5 or more employees are targeted for
interview.
 Firms with 100 per cent government/state ownership are not eligible to participate in an
Enterprise Survey.

Structure and content of the surveys:
 The Enterprise Surveys Unit uses two instruments: the Manufacturing Questionnaire and
the Services Questionnaire.
 The standard Enterprise Survey topics include firm characteristics, gender participation,
access to finance, annual sales, costs of inputs/labour, workforce composition, bribery,
licensing, infrastructure, trade, crime, competition, capacity utilization, land and permits,
taxation, informality, business-government relations, innovation and technology, and
performance measures.
Sampling and weights:
The sampling methodology for Enterprise Surveys is stratified random sampling. The strata for
Enterprise Surveys are firm size, business sector, and geographic region within a country:
 Firm size levels are 5-19 (small), 20-99 (medium), and 100+ employees (large-sized
firms). Enterprise Surveys oversample large firms.
 Sector breakdown is usually manufacturing, retail, and other services. For larger
economies, specific manufacturing sub-sectors are selected as additional strata on the
basis of employment, value-added, and total number of establishments.
 Geographic regions within a country are selected based on which cities/regions
collectively contain the majority of economic activity.
For further information, please visit the official Enterprise Survey web page:
http://www.enterprisesurveys.org.

The UNU‐MERIT WORKING Paper Series

2013-01Effects of innovation on employment in Latin America by Gustavo Crespi and
Ezequiel Tacsir
2013-02Revisiting the porter hypothesis: An empirical analysis of green innovation for the
Netherlands George van Leeuwen and Pierre Mohnen
2013-03Impact of external knowledge acquisition strategies on innovation ‐ A comparative
study based on Dutch and Swiss panel data by Spyros Arvanitis, Boris Lokshin,
Pierre Mohnen and Martin Wörter
2013-04Interactive knowledge exchanges under complex social relations: A simulation
modelRobin  by Cowan  and Anant Kamath
2013-05Innovation systems framework: still useful in the new global context? by Michiko
Iizuka
2013-06The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for measuring IQ by Lex
Borghans, Huub Meijers and Bas ter Weel
2013-07Firms' innovation capability‐building paths and the nature of changes in learning
mechanisms: Multiple case‐study evidence from an emerging economy by Paulo N.
Figueiredo , Marcela Cohen  and Saulo Gomes
2013-08A set of time series data labour market stocks and flows for the Netherlands 1980
to 2010 by Manuel Müllers, Joan Muysken and Erik de Regt
2013-09Designing an optimal 'tech fix' path to global climate stability: R&D in a multi‐
phase climate policy framework by Adriaan van Zon and Paul A. David
2013-10Complementarity between internal knowledge creation and external knowledge
sourcing in developing countries by Jun Hou and Pierre Mohnen
2013-11Summarizing large spatial datasets: Spatial principal components and spatial
canonical correlation by Samyukta Bhupathiraju, Bart Verspagen and Thomas
Ziesemer
2013-12Regional systems of innovation in the Arab region by Samia Satti Osman Mohamed
Nour
2013-13Development and social justice: Education, training and health in Sudan by Samia
Satti Osman Mohamed Nour
2013-14The economic importance and impacts of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in
Sudan by Samia Satti Osman Mohamed Nour
2013-15Overview of knowledge economy in the Arab region by Samia Satti Osman
Mohamed Nour
2013-16The importance (impacts) of knowledge at the macro‐micro levels in the Arab Gulf
countries by Samia Satti Osman Mohamed Nour
2013-17Political determinants and impact analysis of using a cable system as a
complement to an urban transport system by Diego Escobar‐García, Francisco
García‐Orozco and Carlos Cadena‐Gaitán
2013-18Women entrepreneurs in the informal economy: Is formalization the only solution
for business sustainability? By Shyama V. Ramani, Ajay Thutupalli, Tamas
Medovarszki, Sutapa Chattopadhyay, Veena Ravichandran
2013-19Heterogeneity in innovation strategies, evolving consumer preferences and market
structure: An evolutionary multi‐agent based modelling approach by Salih
Çevikarslan

2013-20Optimal patent length and patent breadth in an R&D driven market with evolving
consumer preferences: An evolutionary multi‐agent based modelling approach by
Salih Çevikarslan
2013-21Innovation and productivity: An update by Pierre Mohnen and Bronwyn H. Hall
2013-22Fathers' use of parental leave. What do we know? by Nevena Zhelyazkova
2013-23Eliciting Illegal migration rates through list randomization by David McKenzie and
Melissa Siegel
2013-24How do ICT firms in Turkey manage innovation? Diversity in expertise versus
diversity in markets by Semih Akçomak, Erdal Akdeve and Derya Fındık
2013-25Dynamic models of R&D, innovation and productivity: Panel data evidence for
Dutch and French manufacturing by Wladimir Raymond, Jacques Mairesse, Pierre
Mohnen and Franz Palm
2013-26Centre‐based versus home‐based childcare by Robert Bauchmüller
2013-27Microeconometric evidence of financing frictions and innovative activity by
Amaresh K Tiwari, Pierre Mohnen, Franz C Palm and Sybrand Schim van der Loeff
2013-28Innovation for economic performance: The case of Latin American firms by Elena
Arias Ortiz, Gustavo Crespi, Ezequiel Tacsir, Fernando Vargas and Pluvia Zuñiga

Innovation for Economic Performance the Case of Latin American Firms

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (11)

Similar to Innovation for Economic Performance the Case of Latin American Firms (20)

More from Office of Trade Negotiations (OTN), CARICOM Secretariat (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Innovation for Economic Performance the Case of Latin American Firms