THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FOREIGN COMPETITION, ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY AND PIONEERING INNOVATION: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between competition and innovation has drawn great attention from economists and strategic management researchers. However, the empirical evidence for this relationship remains inconsistent. On the one hand, the Schumpeterian viewpoint credits that the large firms with substantial monopoly market power have resources and incentives to innovate. On the other hand, it is also possible for a monopolist to have incentives to suppress subsequent innovations. It is suggested by Baldwin and Scott (1987) and Tang (2006) that the relationship between competition and innovation is dependent on the competition context and specific type of innovation activities. In this study, we investigate the relationship between foreign competition and pioneering innovation and consider the moderating role of absorptive capacity for this relationship, using the Canadian Innovation Data. We find a U-shaped relationship between foreign competition and pioneering innovation: when foreign competition increases from a low to a moderate level, the likelihood of pioneering innovation decreases. However, the likelihood of pioneering innovation increases when foreign competition continues to increase from a moderate to a high level. We also found evidence that absorptive capacity may positively moderate the relationship between foreign competition and pioneering innovation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".