Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Important Is Trade and Foreign Ownership in Closing the Technology Gap? Evidence from Estonia and Slovenia

  • Published:
Review of World Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the impact that the different methods of privatization implemented in Estonia and Slovenia might have had on the pattern of technology transfer to domestic firms through either FDI or international trade. We develop an empirical model that looks at three aspects of the problem: the importance of direct and indirect effects of FDI; the role of local absorptive capacity; and the role of trade in technology transfer. The study finds that the method of privatization does influence the way a firm obtains technology from abroad: Estonia, which attracted a considerable amount of FDI through its privatization programme, used this channel to gain direct access to global markets for technology, while Slovenia discouraged sales of state enterprises to multinational firms and inclined domestic firms to use trade flows to gain access to these markets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abramovitz, M. (1956). Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870. American Economic Review 46 (2): 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aitken, B. J., and A. E. Harrison (1999). Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review 89 (3): 605–618.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alverez, I., J. P. Damijan, and M. Knell (2002). Do Spanish Firms Get Technology through FDI and Trade? Mimeo. University of Oslo.

  4. Amemiya, T. (1984). Tobit Models. A Survey. Journal of Econometrics 1: 3–61.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bank of Slovenia (2001). Foreign Investment Report 1996–2000. Ljubljana.

  6. Bardham, P. (1998). The Contributions of Endogenous Growth Theory to the Analysis of Development Problems: An Assessment. In F. Coricelli, M. di Matteo, and F. Hahn (eds.), New Theories in Growth and Development. London: Macmillan.

  7. Barry, F., H. Görg, and E. Strobl (2001). Foreign Direct Investment and Wages in Domestic Firms: Productivity Spillovers versus Labour-Market Crowding Out. CERP Discussion Paper 2907. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  8. Basu, S., and J. G. Fernald (1995). Are Apparent Productive Spillovers a Figment of Specification Error? Journal of Monetary Economics 36 (1): 165–188.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Blalock, G., and P. Gertler (2002). Technology Diffusion from Foreign Direct Investment through Supply Chains. Mimeo. University of California, Berkeley.

  10. Blomström, M., and H. Persson (1983). Foreign Investment and Spillover Efficiency in an Underdeveloped Economy: Evidence from the Mexican Manufacturing Industry. World Development 11 (6): 493–501.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Blomström, M., and F. Sjöholm (1999). Technology Transfer and Spillovers: Does Local Participation with Multinationals Matter? European Economic Review 43 (4/6): 915–923.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Blomström, M., and E. Wolff (1994). Multinational Corporations and Productivity Convergence in Mexico. In W. Baumol, R. Nelson, and E. Wolff (eds.), Convergence of Productivity: Cross-National Studies and Historical Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  13. Borensztein, E., J. De Gregorio, and J. W. Lee (1998). How Does Foreign Direct Investment Affect Economic Growth? Journal of International Economics 45 (1): 115–135.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cantwell, J. (1989). Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

  15. Caves, R. (1974). Multinational Firms, Competition and Productivity in Host-Country Markets. Economica 41: 176–193.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Coe, D., and E. Helpman (1995). International R&D Spillovers. European Economic Review 39 (5): 859–887.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cohen, W. M., and D. A. Levinthal (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99 (397): 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cross, M. M. (2000). Data for Intangibles in Selected OECD Countries. Mimeo. Statistics Netherlands.

  19. Damijan, J. P., M. Knell, B. Majcen, M. Rojec (2003a). The Role of FDI, R&D Accumulation and Trade in Transferring Technology to Transition Countries: Evidence from Firm Panel Data for Eight Transition Countries. Economic Systems 27 (2): 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Damijan, J. P., M. Knell, B. Majcen, M. Rojec (2003b). Technology Transfer through FDI in Top-10 Transition Countries: How Important Are Direct Effects, Horizontal and Vertical Spillovers? William Davidson Institute Working Paper 549. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  21. Djankov, S., and B. Hoekman (2000a). Avenues of Technology Transfers: Foreign Investment and Productivity Change in the Czech Republic. CEPR Discussion Paper 1883. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  22. Djankov, S., and B. Hoekman (2000b). Foreign Investment and Productivity Growth in Czech Enterprises. World Bank Economic Review 14 (1): 49–64.

  23. Dunning, J. H. (1994). Re-Evaluating the Benefits of Foreign Direct Investment. Transnational Corporations 3: 23–51.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Girma, S., D. Greenaway, and K. Wakelin (2001). Who Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in the UK? Scottish Journal of Political Economy 48 (2): 119–133.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Globerman, S. (1979). Foreign Direct Investment and ‘Spillover’ Efficiency Benefits in Canadian Manufacturing Industries. Canadian Journal of Economics 12 (1): 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Görg, H., and E. Strobl (2000). Multinational Companies, Technology Spillovers and Firm Survival: Evidence from Irish Manufacturing. GEP Research Paper 00/12. Centre for Research on Globalisation and Labour Markets, University of Nottingham.

  27. Haddad, M., and A. Harrison (1993). Are There Positive Spillovers from Direct Foreign Investment? Evidence from Panel Data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics 42: 51–74.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica 46 (6): 1251–1271.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1): 153–161.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kinoshita, Y. (2001). R&D and Technology Spillovers through FDI: Innovation and Absorptive Capacity. CEPR Discussion Paper 2775. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  31. Konings, J. (2001). The Effects of Foreign Direct Investment on Domestic Firms: Evidence from Firm Level Panel Data in Emerging Economies. CEPR Discussion Paper 2586. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.

  32. Kokko, A. (1992). Foreign Direct Investment, Host Country Characteristics and Spillovers. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.

  33. OECD (2001). Reviews of Foreign Direct Investment: Estonia. Paris.

  34. Perez, T. (1998). Multinational Enterprises and Technological Spillovers. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

  35. Rojec, M. (2001). Foreign Investment and Privatization in Slovenia. In P. Artisien-Maksimenko and M. Rojec (eds.), Foreign Investment and Privatization in Eastern Europe. Basingtoke: Palgrave.

  36. Smarzynska, B. K. (2004). Does Foreign Direct Investment Increase the Productivity of Domestic Firms? In Search of Spillovers through Backward Linkages. American Economic Review 94 (3): 605–626.

    Google Scholar 

  37. UNCTAD (2001). World Investment Report 2001. Geneva: United Nations.

  38. UNECE (2001). Economic Survey of Europe 2001:1. Chapter 5. Geneva: United Nations.

  39. Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Jože P. Damijan

  2. University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Mark Knell

Authors
  1. Jože P. Damijan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Knell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jože P. Damijan.

Additional information

JEL no.

D24, F14

About this article

Cite this article

Damijan, J., Knell, M. How Important Is Trade and Foreign Ownership in Closing the Technology Gap? Evidence from Estonia and Slovenia. Rev. World Econ. 141, 271–295 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-005-0028-6

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-005-0028-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation