| In the section | Articles |
| Title of the article | Learning Innovations Through Exploration and Exploitation in Russian Regions: A Nonlinear Panel Data Interaction Model |
| Pages | 77-107 |
| Author | Yegor Leonidovich Domnich Candidate of Sciences (Economics), Senior Research Fellow Economic Research Institute FEB RAS 153 Tikhookeanskaya St., Khabarovsk, 680042, Russian Federation This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ORCID: 0000-0002-1379-8053 |
| Abstract | When implementing innovations, firms are faced with the need to make a choice between relatively inexpensive, but short-term in effect duration, or more expensive, but promising long-term benefits, projects. The first option of innovation learning is based on the use of existing technologies – usually in the form of ready-made technical solutions – while the second involves conducting its own research and development. The baseline and joint effects of exploitation and exploration of technologies as ways of learning innovation are not obvious, and therefore are the focus of numerous studies. The study presents estimates of the comparative effects of technology exploitation and exploration as factors of innovation activity changes in the economy of Russian regions in 2010–2022. A feature of the methodology used, taking into account the methodological limitations of official statistics, is the assessment of nonlinear and joint effects of exploitation and exploration, which makes them comparable with the world experience in studying such effects. The results of the study indicate the limited applicability of the innovation learning model through exploitation and exploration in modern Russia. It is established that such a model is not applicable to the top 20 regions in terms of innovative development. Within the 60 least developed regions, the effects of exploitation and exploration are dispersed in space. Linear exploitation costs increase the innovative activity of enterprises in the Southern Federal District, and linear exploration costs increase the enterprises of the Central Federal District. Quadratic exploitation costs, on the contrary, suppress innovation activity in the Southern Federal District, and quadratic exploration costs in the Far Eastern Federal District. The joint (synergistic) impact of exploitation and exploration has been recorded in the regions of the Urals, Siberia and the Far East. The results obtained make it possible to complement the world experience in studying innovation learning processes, taking into account the specifics of implementing innovation processes in Russian regions |
| Code | 330.3+311.3+332.1 |
| JEL | C33, R12, H59, O32, O38 |
| DOI | https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2024.4.077-107 |
| Keywords | innovation, exploration, exploitation, learning innovations, innovation activity, synergistic effect, nonlinear interaction model, panel data, regions of Russia |
| Download | |
| For citation | Domnich Y.L. Learning Innovations Through Exploration and Exploitation in Russian Regions: A Nonlinear Panel Data Interaction Model. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2024, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 77–107. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2024.4.077-107 (In Russian) |
| References | 1. Atuahene-Gima K., Murray J.Y. Exploratory and Exploitative Learning in New Product Development: A Social Capital Perspective on New Technology Ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 2007, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–29. https://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jimk.15.2.1 2. Berg J.M. Balancing on the Creative Highwire: Forecasting the Success of Novel Ideas in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2016, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 433–468. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839216642211 3. Brambor T., Clark W., Golder M. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis, 2006, vol. 14, issue 1, pp. 63–82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014 4. Cao Q., Gedajlovic E., Zhang H. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies and Synergistic Effects. Organization Science, 2009, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 781–796. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0426 5. Christensen C.M., McDonald R.M., Altman E.J., Palmer J.E. Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018, vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1043–1078. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joms.12349 6. Chu C., Li C., Lin C. The Joint Effect of Project-Level Exploratory and Exploitative Lear-ning in New Product Development. European Journal of Marketing, 2011, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 531–550. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111111325 7. Domnich Y.L. Innovation as a Factor of Changing the Productivity of Enterprises: Measurement and Interpretation Issues. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Econo-mics, 2022, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 93–127. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2022.4.093-127 (In Russian). 8. Domnich Y.L. The Economic Effects of Technological Innovations in the Manufacturing Industry of Russia and the Russian Far East. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2023, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 84–116. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2023.4.084-116 (In Russian). 9. Domnich Y.L. The Specific Structure and Regional Proportions of Innovation Costs in the Russian Economy. Ekonomicheskie i Sotsialnye Peremeny: Fakty, Tendentsii, Prognoz = Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 2024, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 133–150. https://dx.doi.org/10.15838/esc.2024.5.95.7 (In Russian). 10. Echambadi R., Hess J.D. Mean-Centering Does Not Alleviate Collinearity Problems in Moderated Multiple Regression Models. Marketing Science, 2007, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 438–445. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1060.0263 11. Gibson C.B., Birkinshaw J. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 2004, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 209–226. 12. Greve H.R. Exploration and Exploitation in Product Innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2007, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 945–975. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtm013 13. Harris R.D.F., Tzavalis E. Inference for Unit Roots in Dynamic Panels Where the Time Dimension Is Fixed. Journal of Econometrics, 1999, vol. 91, no. 2, pp. 201–226. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00076-1 14. Hausman J.A. Specification Tests in Econometrics. Econometrica, 1978, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 1251–1271. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1913827 15. He Z., Wong P. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 2004, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 481–494. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078 16. Huber P.J. The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates Under Nonstandard Conditions. Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967, vol. 1, pp. 221–233. 17. Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., Shin Y. Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogenous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, 2003, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 53–74. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7 18. Katila R., Ahuja G. Something Old, Something New: A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 2002, vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 1183–1194. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069433 19. Lavie D., Rosenkopf L. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Alliance Formation. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 797–818. https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083085 20. Lavie D., Stettner U., Tushman M.L. Exploration and Exploitation Within and Across Organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 2010, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 109–155. https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/19416521003691287 21. Levin A., Lin C.F., Chu C.J. Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties. Journal of Econometrics, 2002, vol. 108, issue 1, pp. 1–24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7 22. Levinthal D.A., March J.G. The Myopia of Learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, vol. 14, issue S2, pp. 95–112. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250141009 23. Li P. P. Global Implications of the Indigenous Epistemological System from the East: How to Apply Yin-Yang Balancing to Paradox Management. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 2016, vol. 23, issue 1, pp. 42–77. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-10-2015-0137 24. Li P.P., Liu H., Li Y., Wang H. Exploration-Exploitation Duality with Both Tradeoff and Synergy: The Curvilinear Interaction Effects of Learning Modes on Innovation Types. Management and Organization Review, 2023, vol. 19, issue 3, pp. 498–532. https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/mor.2022.49 25. March J.G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science, 1991, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 71–87. 26. Mariev O.S., Nagieva K.M., Simonova V.L. Managing Innovation Activity Factors in Russian Regions through Econometric Modeling. Upravlenets = The Manager, 2020, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 57–69. https://dx.doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2020-11-1-6 (In Russian). 27. Mathias B.D. Exploration, Exploitation, Ambidexterity, and Firm Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Technology, Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Competitive Strategy: Exploration and Exploitation in Early-Stage Ventures and SMEs. Editor by T. Amburgey, U. Stettner, B. Aharonson. Emerald Publishing Limited, 2014, pp. 289–317. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/s1479-067x20140000014009 28. Naumov I.V., Nikulina N.L. Exploring the Innovative Development of Russian Regions: A Spatial Regression Analysis Using the Cobb-Douglas Model. R-Economy, 2023, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 226–247. https://dx.doi.org/10.15826/recon.2023.9.2.014 29. Raisch S., Birkinshaw J., Probst G., Tushman M.L. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustainable Performance. Organization Science, 2009, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 685–695. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428 30. Schad J., Lewis M.W., Raisch S., Smith W.K. Paradox Research in Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward. Academy of Management Annals, 2016, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 5–64. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2016.1162422 31. Siggelkow N., Levinthal D.A. Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation. Organization Science. 2003, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 650–669. https://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24840 32. Siren C.A., Kohtamaki M., Kuckertz A. Exploration and Exploitation Strategies, Profit Performance, and the Mediating Role of Strategic Learning: Escaping the Exploitation Trap. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2012, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 18–41. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sej.1126 33. Smith W.K., Lewis M.W. Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic Equilibrium Model of Organizing. Academy of Management Review, 2011, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 381–403. https://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011.59330958 34. Tereshchenko D.S. Interregional Effects of Innovations in Russia: Analysis from the Bayesian Perspective. Prostranstvennaya Ekonomika = Spatial Economics, 2024, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 125–143. https://dx.doi.org/10.14530/se.2024.1.125-143 (In Russian). 35. White H. A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 1980, no. 48, pp. 817–830. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1912934 |
| Financing | |
| Submitted | 05.11.2024 |
| Approved after reviewing | 09.12.2024 |
| Accepted for publication | 10.12.2024 |
| Available online | 28.12.2024 |