国有企业知识创造外文翻译文献中英文

外文文献翻译原文及译文标题：国有企业知识创造外文翻译中英文文献出处：Matteo Landoni.JStructural Change and Economic Dynamics, Volume 53, June 2020, Pages 77-85译文字数：6900多字英文Knowledge creation in state-owned enterprisesMatteo LandoniAbstractThe understanding of knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) is a rising issue in the academic debate and in the political agenda; still, there is a lack of a comprehensive theory despite the number of research published so far. This paper offers a novel theoretical framework for knowledge creation in SOEs by the study of innovation in SOEs from the perspective of the theory of the entrepreneurial firm and the theory of knowledge management, which together provide new insights that explain the factors that enable innovation in SOEs. These factors are managerial autonomy and government coordination. The theoretical development is important because considers SOEs as both firms and public entities, a double nature that combines the advantages of state-ownership and corporate governance. The theoretical contribution provides support to the increasing academic attention on the entrepreneurial state and the rise of SOEs as innovative actors.Keywords: Innovation, Knowledge creation, Knowledge management, State-owned enterprises, Entrepreneurial state, State capitalism1.IntroductionState-owned enterprises (SOEs) have a relevant role in the economy worldwide (Florio,2014). Despite decades of privations, SOEs still account for a large part of industrial outputs and assets, around 10% of global GDP and around 20% of global market capitalization (Brutonetal., 2015;Tnuristand Karo,2016), and their number is constantly increasing; in contrast with public perception, states around the world have acquired more firms assets than sold (Borisovaetal., 2015).Despite the attention of scholars has turned towards SOEs given their importance for the economy, their contribution to innovation has been underestimated for a long time. Only recently, a few studies have investigated their innovative role and recognized SOEs for their historical role in support of technological industries (for example in Italy and South Korea.Cardinale,2018: 4). Still, however, the reason of the increasing attention on SOEs is in most cases due to their role in the development of emerging economies (Ralstonetal., 2006;Musacchioand Lazzarini,2014;Stanetal., 2014), and particularly in China, where SOEs play a pivotal role in the innovation process.This paper looks at the process of knowledge creation in SOEs and contributes to the current debate with a framework concerning how state-ownership affects innovation in enterprises. The paper argues that innovation in SOEs is different than in private firms as well as other public entities, e.g. universities. SOEs differs from private firms because of their long-term perspective, public-nature, appreciation of externalities increasing social benefit, and relationship with the government; at the same time, SOEs differ from other public institutions for their corporate structure and market competition constraints. Therefore, it is misleading to simply compare the respective innovation efficiencies, for example in terms of outputs such as patents. Instead, the paper contributes to the theory of innovation and the debate on the state fostering innovation offering a comprehensive framework to evaluate and formulate innovation policies. The framework consists in two factors enabling innovation in SOEs, and these factors are the autonomy of the management and coordination with the government. The paper extensively reviews the issue in the literature and proposes a novel theoretical foundation for knowledge-creation in SOEs by the matching of the theory of the firm and the economy of knowledge.The research question that concerns innovation in SOEs deals with which factors allow for the creation of knowledge that makes SOEs unique and incomparable innovators able to acquire, exploit, combine, and ultimately create new knowledge. The contribution of the paper to the theory of knowledge creation is the view of SOEs the only innovators that combine the governance of knowledge of firms with the public mission orientation of the state.First, what distinguishes SOEs from any other private firm is the ownership structure that includes the government as a shareholder, either majority or minority owner (Musacchioand Lazzarini,2014;Pengetal., 2016). The share of ownership defines also the commitment of state, for example, whether its position is dominant (Benito etal., 2016;Estrinetal., 2016;Cuervo-Cazurraetal., 2014). The nature of the shareholders is not the only difference that matters; it is more relevant that SOEs exist for the good of both the industrial policy and the social interest (Landoni,2018). The two mutually reinforce when the social interest of the government is to spur and diffuse innovation. While governments pressure to develop information may target both public and private firms, SOEs are more prone to fulfill them due to a greater involvement with government goals and institutional prescriptions (Aldrichand Fiol,1994;Baumand Oliver,1991;Bichlerand Schmidkonz,2012;Tnurist,2015;Wangetal., 2012).Second, SOEs diverge from any other research and development entity of the public sector, such as public universities and research centres. The public sector is that section of the economy controlled by the state and it comprises all the publicly funded and controlled agencies, enterprises, and organizations that deliver public programs, goods, or services. Among the entities of the public sectors are universities, hospitals, and the like. The role of the public sector is unique to bring to society education, healthcare, law and police enforcement, transportation, welfare, and other government-related services. Despite the importance of the public sector worldwide, it is currently under pressure both from the governments that need to reduce budget expenditures and the societies changing issues such as aging, pollution, and the like (Tizard,2012). The public sector needs to face the current transformation and provide new ways to deliver services. Knowledge management in the public sector is indeed essential for the delivering of policies that aim at the public good (Wiig,2002;Riegeand Linsday,2006). Nevertheless, the public sector is a specific context and cannot simply import private sector techniques (Massaroetal., 2015). It must develop its knowledge management strategy.Several studies have explored knowledge management in the public sectors, showing the influence in education (Eliaetal., 2017), healthcare (Cegarra-Navarroetal., 2012;Cruz-Cunhaetal., 2013), police and military sector (Epplerand Pfister,2014), and public transport (Cairoetal., 2015). However, knowledge management studies in the public sector have left SOEs behind. A recent literature review on the topic found that only 3% of the studies concerning knowledge management in the public sector have a focus on SOEs (Massaroetal., 2015: 535).Quick web research for journal articles on the topic brings in even a more clear result. Searching on Scopus2for articles that include “public enterprises” and “knowledge management” in the title, abstract, and keywords, the query returned only two results, namely conference proceedings around ten years old (2008 and 2011 respectively). The same research strategy for “state-owned enterprises” and “knowledge management” returned 23 results. Similarly, “public enterprises” and “innovation” returned just 35 articles, while “state-owned enterprises” and “innovation” produced 169 results. For a comparison, (any) “enterprises” and “innovation” returned 13,867 articles and almost seven thousand conference papers.It looks like innovation and knowledge creation is missing in SOEs. This paper tries to fill this gap. It contends that innovative SOEs are other than regular firms and argues that SOEs differ from any other public sector entity because they combine the mechanism of governance of firms with state-ownership. For this reason, SOEs can apply knowledge management within the public sectors like any other public entities can do.This study explores the theories of the firm and knowledge management to develop a novel theoretical perspective on innovation in SOEs. Two factors explain innovation in SOEs. These factors derive from the corporate governance of firms together with a publicly supported mission and are found in the managerial autonomy and coordination with the government. Their combination allows SOEs to enjoy managerial efficiency in terms of allocation of resources together with a long-term vision, patient capital, and synergy with the government policies.2.Theoretical background: a review of innovation in SOEs2.1.State-owned enterprises and innovationThe nature of state-owned enterprises is exceptional (for a reviewDaiseretal., 2017). There is no consensus on the economic rationalities of SOEs. The classic works ofArrow (1951,1962) andDebreu(1959)point to the underinvestment of private firms in technologies with public and social spill-overs for their low value and uncertain returns. Of course, public authorities can and do support knowledge creation by the means of universities and public research centres; however, concerning the diffusion and the commercial valorisation of technologies, enterprises arise to deal with uncertainty and coordination related to the use of market mechanisms and resources allocation, as in the perspective ofCoase(1937)andRomer(1990).Similarly, the efficiency of SOEs is also disputed. Several scholars associate government ownership to inefficient corporate governance (Eckeland Vermaelen,1986;Boardmanand Vining,1989;Chenetal., 2008;Borisova et al., 2012). A review of studies on the privatization of SOEs (Megginson and Netter, 2001) found lower performance compared to private firms.Estrinetal.(2009)confirmed the negative effect of transition economies. One reason relates to the fact that SOEs are prone to fulfill more administrative rather than economic principles (Shleiferand Vishny,1994;Shleifer,1998;Ramamurti,2000;Freund,2001;Ramaswamy,2001). Another reason lies in the opportunism of managers to gain political support (Khwajaand Mian,2005;Cheungetal., 2009;Jiangetal., 2010) or in little incentives for risk-taking decisions and a preference for short-term and political goals (Shleifer,1998) and a higher cost of equity (Boubakri,and Cosset, 2012;Kahanand Rock,2010,2013). Furthermore, some attribute poor monitoring of managers, corruptions, market indiscipline, and political interference to state-ownership (Belloc,2014: 824), as well asThe common view on SOEs changed over time. SOEs are now considered as dynamic actors more than a relic of the past (Ralstonetal., 2006;Musacchioand Lazzarini,2014;Stanetal., 2014). For example, government ownership may relax budget constraints and allow for long-term investments that lower the cost of capital, reduce financial constraints, and allow for larger and longer investment in R&D (Bortolotti et al., 2018). Several scholars (OHaraand Shaw,1990;Faccioetal., 2006;Borisovaand Megginson,2011;Iannottaetal., 2013;Borisovaetal., 2015;Acharya et al., 2016) found government ownership to provide implicit debt guarantees and access to public funds (e.g. state-owned banks.Lazzarinietal., 2015;Bacchiocchietal., 2017). Similarly, recent contributions relate the long-term orientation of the state to greater innovation in SOEs (Munarietal., 2010;Choietal., 2011). The linkages with the government consist of a stronger obligation to meet policy goals, which include a greater commitment to innovation (Lietal., 2018).The relationship of SOEs with the government is undergoing a process of corporatization. Initially, they were servant of the state, adopting the same organizational goals (Amayah,2013: 456); then, they gradually developed their own internal competencies and assured their financial sustainability, loosening their ties with the government (Sexty,1980;Hafsietal., 1987;Lioukasetal., 1993). With the decrease of government control, SOEs gain entrepreneurial autonomy (Rentschand Finger,2015). The renovated tendency to pursue market goals is particularly relevant in the middle management of SOEs (Guoetal., 2017).Innovation studies look at SOEs as instruments of innovation policy; for example, SOEs have been excellent sources of knowledge spill-overs (Antonellietal., 2014), and provide an institutional setting that combines private incentives and risk-taking behavior with public incentives and long-term orientation (Tnuristand Karo,2016). The last is supposed to fix at least partially the failures of the market (for a review seeMartinand Scott,2000).The role of the public sector including SOEs towards innovation has been at best underestimated, at worst misjudged (Meissneretal., 2017). SOEs experience an increasing pressure to promote growth due to their importance in the world economy, firstly by undertaking “an active role in generating and implementing innovation” (Meissneretal., 2019: 121).Empirical research on innovation outcomes has not disentangled these opposing views. The effects of state-ownership on the innovation effort of firms are ambivalent (Zhouetal., 2017). The analysis of resource allocation to R&D and its efficiency gives mixed results; SOEs allocate more resources, while the outcome is greater for private firms, i.e. amount of patents (Munariand Oriani 2005;Munarietal., 2002;Munariand Sobrero 2003). While the effect of SOEs on innovation is unclear (Choietal., 2011;Renetal., 2005), the role of the state as a shareholder in promoting innovative activities is documented (Mahmoodand Rufin,2005). Very recently,Yietal.(2017)explored a sample of more than 190 thousand Chinese firms and found a positive moderating effect of state-ownership on R&D intensity and innovation. Their result confirms other studies (Wangetal., 2015;Kafourosetal., 2015) on the positive role of state-ownership in the innovation process. An analysis of more than five thousands European firms (3808 private firms and 1363 SOEs) from 1999 to 2016 found that a government shareholder is significantly associated with greater R&D expenditure (5.55% increase in R&D investment), confirming a cheaper access to funds, but simultaneously a reduction in patents production, measured as patents per dollar invested (Bortolotti et al., 2018). While the first result is partially explained by the larger average size of SOEs compared to private firms, the second may relate to the public scope of R&D activities in SOES. For the same reason, it would be misleading to compare the value (for example by measuring the stock price reaction as inKogan et al., 2017) of private firms and SOEs patents.The innovation performance of an enterprise is enhanced by both its government connections and the innovativeness of its economic stakeholders (Pfefferand Salancik,1978). Government connections allow enterprises to access resources and information (Culletal., 2015;Hillman,2005,1999;Inoueetal., 2013;Liand Zhang,2007;Pengand Luo,2000), which positively impacts innovative strategy and performance (Liand Atuahene-Gima,2001). Innovation relies on the integration of different sources of knowledge that enterprises develop into capabilities and routines (Grant,1996).2.2.Knowledge management and innovationGovernments aim at radical innovation targeting complex and uncertain issues (Mazzucato,2016a), and drive firms efforts in direction of societal innovation (Hellstrm,2003;Owenetal., 2012;Stilgoeetal., 2013;Mazzucato and Semieniuk,2017). For this reason, governments need to develop knowledge management strategies to transfer knowledge (Riegeand Linsday,2006: 29) with the aim of novel combination between distant and unrelated technologies (Castaldietal., 2015). This implies a clear vision and an effective network of partners (Wiig,2002).The innovation process is the growth of new knowledge (DuPlessis,2007) as a result of the combination of existing knowledge in novel forms (Arthur,2009). Knowledge management shows that among all the knowledge processes (i.e. knowledge creation, sharing, acquisition, transfer, and application), knowledge creation has the most beneficial impact on innovation (Andreevaand Kianto,2011); thus, managers need to develop practices and techniques for acquiring and sharing knowledge from internal and external sources (Darrochand McNaughton,2002;Halland Andriani 2002,2003).Knowledge theory makes clear two fundamental issues. First, innovation needs knowledge that is spread among different actors, often a great amount, and all may contribute significantly to the innovation process (Cassimanand Veugelers,2006;Metcalfe,2007). Second, knowledge is not always easy to transfer; it is frequently tacit and embodied in people (Rodan,2002;Cavusgiletal., 2003;Franken,2017). The major problem is to make the combination of knowledge effective and efficient.Knowledge management aims at the acquisition, integration, combination, and application of existing internal and external knowledge sources. The combination of knowledge has to overcome the cognitive distances of individuals. When individuals share a common knowledge base, the cognitive distance is lower, making combinations easier (Nooteboom,2000;Frenkenetal., 2007). However, low cognitive distance increases the chances to produce incremental innovation in adjacent fields or related diversification. The match of unrelated technologies and experiences of distant industries is necessary to produce brand new combinations, and in the best case,