外文翻譯--中小企業(yè),技術(shù)與全球化

1、<p><b>　　外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯</b></p><p><b>　?。?013屆）</b></p><p>　　譯文一：中小企業(yè),技術(shù)與全球化1 </p><p>　　譯文二：中小企業(yè),技術(shù)與全球化2 </p><p>　　學(xué)生姓名 </p><

2、p>　　學(xué) 號(hào) </p><p>　　院 系 </p><p>　　Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, Technology, and Globalization:Introduction to a Special Issueon Small and Medium-Sized</p><p&

3、gt;　　Zoltan J. Acs</p><p>　　Enterprises in the Global Economy</p><p>　　Lee Preston</p><p>　　Abstract. This paper is an introduction to the special issue on Small and Medium-Sized En

4、terprises in the Global Economy. The paper gives a broad outline of globalization, the role of technology, and examines the role that small and medium-sized enterprises play in the global economy. We focus on foreign dir

5、ect investment of small technology based firms and how their innovations diffuse into the global economy</p><p>　　There is little question that economic activity of all types is moving in the direction of gl

6、obalization. As we approach the 21st century, a worldwide system of production and distribution is evolving, in much the same way as national markets evolved from local and regional networks</p><p>　　during

7、the 19th century (Chandler, 1990). In nearly every economically active country of the world, the importance of international trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) have risen significantly over the last decade. The gr

8、owth of FDI has been particularly dramatic, increasing more rapidly than either world production or world trade. As a result, both inbound and outbound FDI stocks have increased relative to total investment and gross dom

9、estic product in nearly every country (Dunning, 1995)</p><p>　　Globalization refers to the web of linkages and interconnections between states, societies, and organizations that make up the present world eco

10、nomic system. Globalization creates new structures and new relationships, with the result that business decisions and actions in one part of the world have significant consequences in other places. Underlying and reinfor

11、cing these globalization trends is the rapidly changing technological environment, particularly in biotechnology, information processing</p><p>　　The growth of global markets stimulates competition and force

12、s governments to adopt market-oriented policies, both domestically and internationally. Modern technologies have greatly</p><p>　　reduced the cost of information and the capabilities to participate in the gl

13、obal economy (Dunning,</p><p>　　1993). Countries must join the club. Policies that aim to exclude global participation via trade and investment barriers can be easily circumvented, and they keep no hostages

14、but deprive the countries of global prosperity.</p><p>　　Along with the globalization trend, contemporary technical advances are demanding a much closer synthesis and more integrative learning between innova

15、tive and production activities. The pressures of global competition force producers to continually innovate, and to upgrade the quality of existing products. Yet, at the same time, many firms can no longer acquire or aff

16、ord all the technological and human resources that they need. Increasingly, they form interdependent and flexible relationships wi</p><p>　　In this new environment knowledge and intellectual labor are being

17、mobilized on a more</p><p>　　collaborative basis. Firms must develop human resource strategies based on synthesis with educational institutions. They must locate design and production facilities in metropoli

18、tan areas that allow partnerships with suppliers and educational institutions, and in places served by governments committed to business-friendly policies. The main form of economic organization in intermediary product m

19、arkets is increasingly a network of inter firm cooperative arrangements, rather than the large hierarc</p><p>　　Advancement in technologies and management skills have blurred firm boundaries. Before 1980 mos

20、t FDI was of the “stand alone” variety. Each Multinational Enterprise (MNE) would exploit its own home-based competitive advantages and coordinate related intra-firm activities across national boundaries through internal

21、 mechanisms. More recently, however, MNEs are expanding their territorial and functional horizons by acquiring, or gaining access to, new resources and capabilities. The critical featur</p><p>　　Globalizatio

22、n challenges management and students of business economics. According to conventional wisdom, most transnational business activities, particularly those involving FDI or cross-border alliances, are traditionally carried

23、out by large firms. In addition, some people have believed that technological change requires increasingly large scale total operations, along with increasing size of research and development resources. These views would

24、 lead one to expect that small enterprises would</p><p>　　As the readers of this Journal well know, there is considerable evidence that these commonly held views are no longer correct. Depending upon the mea

25、sure of business size examined, the long-term trend toward increasing firm size either decelerated, ceased, or reversed itself sometime between the late 1960s and the late 1970s (Acs, 1996). This leads to an interesting

26、question: “Is the apparent resurgence of smaller firms due to the emergence of a dynamic, vital innovative entrepreneurial sector, </p><p>　　SMEs has been overestimated, and that MNEs have been able to prosp

27、er in the new global environment by combining four basic building blocks: returning to their core competencies; using new information technologies; forming strategic alliances; and eliciting more active collaboration fro

28、m their workers. However, this view overlooks the synergy between large and small firms, the strong attachment of small firms to their local economies, the role of small firms in technological change, and the role </p

29、><p>　　there is ample evidence that small and medium sized enterprise (SMEs) have not only flourished in domestic economies, but that their international presence has grown as well (UNCTAD, 1993; Masataka, 1995

30、a and 1995b; Admiraal, 1996; and Buckley et al., in press). However, very little is</p><p>　　known about the processes by which SMEs participate in the global economy. 10 For this reason, the Center for Inte

31、rnational Business Education and Research (CIBER) at the University of Maryland organized a conference of experts on “Small and Medium Sized Enterprises and the Global Economy”, held on October 20, 1995. The conference w

32、as organized by Zoltan J. Acs,</p><p>　　then Associate Director of CIBER. The primary focus of the conference was on the role that technology and network organizations play in the global activities of SMEs.

33、Participants in this</p><p>　　conference examined the role of SMEs in the identification of technological opportunity, technological diversity and geographical localization, technology transfer, R&D spil

34、lovers, strategic alliances, and the international diffusion of innovations. The papers appearing in this special issue of Small Business Economics are revised versions of those presented on that occasion. </p>&l

35、t;p>　　An overview of SME participation in the global economy reveals at least three lines of activity: trade, technology, and investment. The most commonly discussed topic in SMEs international literature is their rol

36、e as exporters from their domestic jurisdictions to foreign customers. The opportunities and challenges facing SMEs in this role are well known. The conference papers do not address these topics in any detail. Instead, t

37、hey see that export activity as linked to the other activities that a</p><p>　　The final issue is the SME role in investment, the connection between SMEs and FDI. SMEs may evolve as multinationals either thr

38、ough their own investments or as a result of the formation of alliances. The questions of why SMEs go abroad, how they do it, and what are the consequences of this activity are examined carefully in the papers in this vo

39、lume. We start by examining the technological basis of SMEs. Though in aggregate SMEs spend less on R&D than large firms, they produce almost twice as m</p><p>　　only has very limited property rights pro

40、tection. The new product, process, etc. generally belongs to the firm, not the employee who invented it. This reduces creative employees’ incentives to innovate for the company. The lack of clear property rights in large

41、 corporations creates perverse incentives for both employees and managers. Both can benefit from “free riding” on other people’s innovative efforts and results.</p><p>　　翻譯: 文摘。摘要本文介紹了特殊問(wèn)題的中小企業(yè)在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)。本文給出了一個(gè)全

42、球化的大綱,科技的作用,同時(shí)也將檢視這個(gè)中小企業(yè)在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)中所扮演的這個(gè)角色。我們專(zhuān)注于外國(guó)直接投資的小公司和他們的技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)的創(chuàng)新擴(kuò)散到全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的現(xiàn)象.毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)的類(lèi)型是朝著全球化的方向。當(dāng)我們接近21世紀(jì),全球系統(tǒng)生產(chǎn)和分配的進(jìn)步,在很大程度上與是由于國(guó)家市場(chǎng)從當(dāng)?shù)睾偷貐^(qū)網(wǎng)絡(luò)進(jìn)化而來(lái)的.</p><p>　　在20世紀(jì)(錢(qián)德勒,1990) 在過(guò)去的十年, 國(guó)際貿(mào)易和外國(guó)直接投資(FDI) 幾乎在每個(gè)國(guó)

43、家的經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)中的重要性已經(jīng)明顯增加在.外國(guó)直接投資的增長(zhǎng)尤其戲劇化,比世界生產(chǎn)或世界貿(mào)易增加更多。結(jié)果, 相對(duì)于總投資和國(guó)內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值幾乎在每個(gè)國(guó)家(鄧寧,1995)兩個(gè)入站和出站FDI股票增加了。</p><p>　　全球化指的是web的狀態(tài)之間的聯(lián)系和社會(huì)和組織相互連接 ,彌補(bǔ)當(dāng)前世界經(jīng)濟(jì)體系。全球化創(chuàng)造了新結(jié)構(gòu)、新關(guān)系,結(jié)果導(dǎo)致業(yè)務(wù)決策和行動(dòng)在一個(gè)世界的其他地方造成重大的影響,加強(qiáng)了這些全球化趨勢(shì)是快速變化的

44、技術(shù)環(huán)境,特別是在生物技術(shù)、信息處理和通信領(lǐng)域。電信和數(shù)據(jù)處理能力的增強(qiáng)使它可以協(xié)調(diào)研究在世界各地的生產(chǎn)作業(yè)和營(yíng)銷(xiāo)。幾乎瞬時(shí)的通訊使人們有可能使用貿(mào)易金融工具一天24小時(shí),因此更多的返回敏感位置內(nèi)的資源公司、行業(yè)和國(guó)家.</p><p>　　全球市場(chǎng)的增長(zhǎng)刺激競(jìng)爭(zhēng),迫使,在國(guó)內(nèi)和國(guó)外政府采取以市場(chǎng)為導(dǎo)向的政策?，F(xiàn)代技術(shù)大大降低了參與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)成本的信息和能力 (鄧恩。1993)。國(guó)家必須加入俱樂(lè)部。政策旨在排除全球

45、參與通過(guò)貿(mào)易和投資壁壘可以很容易地繞過(guò),和他們保持沒(méi)有人質(zhì)但剝奪了國(guó)家的全球繁榮。</p><p>　　隨著全球化趨勢(shì),現(xiàn)代技術(shù)進(jìn)步要求一個(gè)更綜合、更綜合在創(chuàng)新和生產(chǎn)活動(dòng)之間學(xué)習(xí)。全球競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的壓力迫使生產(chǎn)商不斷創(chuàng)新和升級(jí)現(xiàn)有產(chǎn)品的質(zhì)量。然而,與此同時(shí),許多公司不再能夠獲得或提供所有的技術(shù)和人力資源,他們需要越來(lái)越多地與其他公司形成相互依賴(lài)和靈活的關(guān)系——包括供應(yīng)商和相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的公司——,充分利用他們的核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力(Go

46、mesCasseres,1996)。相互依存呼吁部分公司、個(gè)人和政府與速度、靈活性和創(chuàng)造性的行為其他代理(de la Mothe和Paquet,1996)</p><p>　　在這個(gè)新環(huán)境的知識(shí)和智力勞動(dòng)被動(dòng)員起來(lái)更協(xié)作的基礎(chǔ)。公司必須開(kāi)發(fā)基于合成與教育機(jī)構(gòu)的人力資源策略。他們必須找到在大都市地區(qū)設(shè)計(jì)和生產(chǎn)設(shè)施,允許合作伙伴與供應(yīng)商和教育機(jī)構(gòu),服務(wù)于地方政府致力于商業(yè)友好政策。經(jīng)濟(jì)組織的主要形式在中間產(chǎn)品市場(chǎng)正日

47、益成為一個(gè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的國(guó)際合作安排,而不是等級(jí)森嚴(yán)的大型公司(帝國(guó),1992)。</p><p>　　在技術(shù)進(jìn)步和管理技能之間有模糊公司邊界。在1980年之前大多數(shù)外國(guó)直接投資是“獨(dú)立”品種。每個(gè)跨國(guó)企業(yè)(外資)將利用自己的以家庭為基礎(chǔ)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)和協(xié)調(diào)相關(guān)公司內(nèi)部活動(dòng)跨越國(guó)界通過(guò)內(nèi)部機(jī)制。最近,然而,跨國(guó)公司正在擴(kuò)大他們的領(lǐng)土和功能的視野,或通過(guò)收購(gòu)獲得新資源與能力。關(guān)鍵特性的戰(zhàn)略資產(chǎn)尋求外國(guó)直接投資,而不是市場(chǎng)尋

48、求外國(guó)直接投資,參與公司承認(rèn)他們的獨(dú)立資源與能力都不足以維持他們的國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力,他們需要利用別人的資源和能力來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)這一目標(biāo)。雖然有可能某些原因與其他公司的公司結(jié)盟,絕大多數(shù)的那些總結(jié)過(guò)去十年一直為獲得新產(chǎn)品或過(guò)程、技術(shù)和組織能力,尤其是那些認(rèn)為需要推進(jìn)他們的核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力.</p><p>　　全球化挑戰(zhàn)管理和商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的學(xué)生。根據(jù)傳統(tǒng)觀念,大多數(shù)跨國(guó)商業(yè)活動(dòng),特別是那些涉及外國(guó)直接投資或跨國(guó)聯(lián)盟,傳統(tǒng)上是由大公司進(jìn)行

49、。此外,一些人認(rèn)為,技術(shù)變革需要越來(lái)越大的規(guī)模總運(yùn)算,以及增加大小的研究和開(kāi)發(fā)的資源。這些觀點(diǎn)會(huì)導(dǎo)致人們預(yù)計(jì),小企業(yè)將下降,因?yàn)樗麄兂蔀橹匾员蝗蚬纠靡?guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)。</p><p>　　這雜志的讀者一樣清楚,有大量證據(jù)表明,這些普遍持有的觀點(diǎn)不再是正確的。根據(jù)大小是衡量企業(yè),長(zhǎng)期趨勢(shì)增加企業(yè)規(guī)模要么減慢,停止或逆轉(zhuǎn)在本身之間的某個(gè)時(shí)候,1960年代末和1970年代后期(Acs,1996)。這導(dǎo)致一個(gè)有趣的問(wèn)題:

50、“是明顯復(fù)蘇的小公司由于出現(xiàn)了一個(gè)動(dòng)態(tài)的、至關(guān)重要的創(chuàng)新企業(yè)部門(mén),還是由于大型跨國(guó)公司的無(wú)能創(chuàng)造了在一個(gè)技術(shù)動(dòng)態(tài)全球環(huán)境?“哈里森(1994)認(rèn)為,這個(gè)角色的中小企業(yè)已經(jīng)被高估了,跨國(guó)公司已經(jīng)能夠繁榮在新的全球環(huán)境結(jié)合四個(gè)基本構(gòu)建塊:回到他們的核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力;利用新的信息技術(shù),形成戰(zhàn)略聯(lián)盟,誘發(fā)更積極合作從他們的工人。然而,這種觀點(diǎn)忽略了大型和小型企業(yè)之間的協(xié)作,強(qiáng)勁的附件的小公司到當(dāng)?shù)亟?jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展的作用,小公司在技術(shù)變化,其扮演的角色的發(fā)展和

51、演化的行業(yè)(Acs,1995)。事實(shí)上,有充分的證據(jù)表明,中小企業(yè)雖然在國(guó)內(nèi)經(jīng)濟(jì)繁榮,但他們的國(guó)際影響力增長(zhǎng)是非常小的.為了知道過(guò)程,中小企業(yè)參與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的這個(gè)原因,國(guó)際商業(yè)中心的教育和研究(CIBER)在馬里蘭大學(xué)組織了一次會(huì)議的專(zhuān)家在“中小型企業(yè)和全球經(jīng)濟(jì)》,1995年10月20日舉行。這個(gè)會(huì)議是由佐爾坦?j . Acs擔(dān)任C</p><p>　　概述中小企業(yè)參與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的揭示了至少有三個(gè)活動(dòng):貿(mào)易、技術(shù)、投

52、資。最常討論的話(huà)題在中小企業(yè)是他們作為出口商從國(guó)內(nèi)司法管轄區(qū)外國(guó)客戶(hù)。中小企業(yè)面臨的機(jī)遇和挑戰(zhàn)在這個(gè)角色是眾所周知的。這個(gè)會(huì)議不解決這些主題在任何細(xì)節(jié)。相反,他們看到出口活動(dòng)是作為鏈接到其他活動(dòng).強(qiáng)調(diào)了這里,第二個(gè)最突出的問(wèn)題是中小企業(yè)和技術(shù),特別是中小企業(yè)供應(yīng)商關(guān)系與較大的跨國(guó)公司在當(dāng)?shù)氐氖袌?chǎng)。最簡(jiǎn)單的形式,這些連接涉及“國(guó)內(nèi)出口”,即,國(guó)內(nèi)銷(xiāo)售給外國(guó)公司,那些碰巧操作在祖國(guó)的供應(yīng)商。這些連接的重要性是強(qiáng)調(diào)通過(guò)波特(1993),在他的

53、角色的討論“相關(guān)和配套產(chǎn)業(yè)”,鄧寧(1993)標(biāo)題下的“聯(lián)系和溢出效應(yīng)”的跨國(guó)公司。這些連接是在會(huì)議上明確關(guān)注主要在連接技術(shù)的機(jī)會(huì),技術(shù)多樣性、技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓、和研發(fā)外溢。重點(diǎn)主要是跨國(guó)公司的技術(shù)關(guān)于他們的中小企業(yè)供應(yīng)商和客戶(hù),雖然它也承認(rèn),跨國(guó)公司也可能獲得適當(dāng)?shù)募夹g(shù)從本地的中小企業(yè)外,并也可能最終獲得他們自己的中小企業(yè)。最后的問(wèn)題是中小企業(yè)的作用在投資,中小企業(yè)和外商直接投資之間的聯(lián)系。中小企業(yè)可能演變?yōu)榭鐕?guó)公司通過(guò)自己的投資或結(jié)果的形成

54、聯(lián)盟。這個(gè)問(wèn)題是為什么中小企業(yè)出國(guó),他們是如何做到的,以及</p><p>　　只有非常有限的產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)。新產(chǎn)品、過(guò)程等,一般屬于公司,而不是員工誰(shuí)發(fā)明了它。這減少了創(chuàng)造性的員工為公司創(chuàng)新動(dòng)力。缺少明確的產(chǎn)權(quán)在大型企業(yè)創(chuàng)造了不正當(dāng)?shù)膭?dòng)機(jī)對(duì)于雇員和經(jīng)理。兩者都可以受益于“搭便車(chē)”別人的創(chuàng)新努力和結(jié)果。</p><p>　　In contrast to innovative employees

55、in largefirms, independent innovators can hold clear property rights, can have every incentive to undertake radical innovations, and can be largely free of red tape. Thus they argue that SMEs are better at creating radic

56、al innovations because they better protect the innovator’s property rights. Acs et al. further argue that the international diffusion of SMEs innovations is important for global economic welfare. However, SMEs have only

57、 limited operations abro</p><p>　　property rights. The Authors suggest that these difficulties faced by SMEs in international markets can frequently be circumvented by using existing MNEs as international co

58、nduits for SMEs innovations. MNEs can thus be catalysts and facilitator of smaller firms’ international expansion. While direct expansion by SMEs is the subject of much discussion, the intermediated possibility had not

59、been given much attention. However, such intermediated modes of expansion are adversely affected by transac</p><p>　　How do we explain the superior innovative performance of SMEs? In a recent study Jaffe et

60、al. (1993) analyzed patent citation data pertaining to domestic university and corporate patents to test the extent of localization of knowledge spillovers. Almeida and Kogut (1995) found that localization of patentable

61、 knowledge varies across regions. Semiconductor knowledge in the Silicon Valley and New York triangle tends to be localized. This suggests that complementarities are important. (Feldman, 199</p><p>　　But why

62、 should this phenomenon of regionalnetworking benefit smaller firms rather than larger ones? One reason, perhaps, is that larger firms, because of their property rights and incentive structure, are more self reliant and

63、do not emphasize building relationships with other institutions in the region. By definition of a start up, the personnel in a new company will have a shorter tenure in the company, and recent experience in other firms.

64、</p><p>　　To study the influence of geographic localization and technological diversity on innovation Almeida and Kogut in the second paper examine the origins of citations to 170 major patents in the semico

65、nductor industry. Field research, consisting of interviews with semiconductor engineers and other informed individuals, served to complemented the patent analysis. They argue (1) that start ups gain their comparative inn

66、ovative advantage by exploring new technological spaces that may be overlooked by l</p><p>　　The next two papers offer examples of the intermediated form of international expansion by SMEs. If small firms fa

67、ce higher barriers to entry in international operations than large firms, and have a more difficult time protecting their property rights, how can small firms become international players? When SMEs invest abroad they ge

68、nerally seek help. In the third paper, Gomes-Casseres examines the use of strategic alliances by SMEs. He asks three questions: (1) When do small firms use alliances </p><p>　　In any event, the evidence show

69、s that SMEs, against the expectations of many traditional scholars, are active players in the international arena. In the fourth paper, Kohn examines how SMEs play the international game when they choose not to team up w

70、ith larger partners. He finds that most small multinational firms follow a “deep niche strategy”. That is, their positions were characterized by market dominance and techno- logical leadership, and by a focus on producer

71、 goods. Also, small firms ten</p><p>　　In terms of the costs of technology transfer, they suggest that SMEs may face higher transaction costs that large MNEs. Although SMEs, due to their relative size, benef

72、it from reduced bureaucratic costs, they also have fewer resources to devote to search, negotiation, monitoring and enforcement efforts. They may also be more subject to opportunistic behavior on the part of suppliers an

73、d buyers due to their smaller size and corresponding inability to retaliate. Finally, SMEs may be less likely to</p><p>　　therefore may face higher risks of dissipation and its attendant costs. This view is

74、consistent with Cohen and Klepper (1996) </p><p>　　If small technology-based firms have in fact become international players, then how large a role are they playing in the global economy? The fifth article b

75、y Buckley examines the role of SMEs in technology transfer. It relies for its empirical evidence on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) report on small and medium sized multinational corporati

76、ons (UNCTAD, 1993). The UNCTAD study on technology transfer found that SMEs, like MNEs, transferred technology international</p><p>　　These firms frequently utilize joint ventures, and non-equity licensing d

77、eals and alliances. </p><p>　　Finally, Reynolds revisit’s an old question: “Do larger markets favor larger firms?” A number of recent analyses and events suggest that the types of large markets currently in

78、development not only provide substantial opportunities for SMEs, but</p><p>　　that a dynamic new and small firm sector is critical for economic growth in these markets. This brings us full circle to the issu

79、es initially raised by Acs et al. and Almeida and Kogut. Rather than weak and vulnerable entities that may require subsidies, new and small firms may not only thrive in new global markets, but maybe a necessary component

80、 for enhanced economic well-being (Lucas, 1988). The international diffusion of new innovations is crucial for continuing improvement of global economi</p><p>　　Acknowledgements We wish to thank Bernard Yeun

81、g for helpful comments on an earlier draft. All errors and omissions remain our responsibility.</p><p>　　翻譯:相比之下,在創(chuàng)造力的員工、獨(dú)立的創(chuàng)新者可以容納產(chǎn)權(quán)清晰、可以有充分動(dòng)機(jī)進(jìn)行激進(jìn)的創(chuàng)新,可以很大程度上自由的繁文縟節(jié)。因此他們認(rèn)為中小企業(yè)更善于創(chuàng)造革命性創(chuàng)新,因?yàn)樗麄兏玫谋Ｗo(hù)創(chuàng)新者的產(chǎn)權(quán)。Acs等

82、人進(jìn)一步認(rèn)為,國(guó)際擴(kuò)散中小企業(yè)創(chuàng)新是重要的全球經(jīng)濟(jì)福利。然而,中小企業(yè)只有有限的海外行動(dòng)。原因之一是進(jìn)入壁壘,為限制國(guó)際擴(kuò)張,比大公司,中小企業(yè)系統(tǒng)要求更高。另一個(gè)原因是,中小企業(yè)有更少的資源來(lái)保護(hù)自己產(chǎn)權(quán)。作者認(rèn)為,這些中小企業(yè)面臨的困境在國(guó)際市場(chǎng)可以經(jīng)常被規(guī)避跨國(guó)公司通過(guò)使用現(xiàn)有的國(guó)際渠道應(yīng)對(duì)中小企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新?？鐕?guó)公司也因此可以限制催化劑和促進(jìn)者的小公司的國(guó)際擴(kuò)張。而直接膨脹的中小企業(yè)受到了很多討論,作為中介可能沒(méi)有得到太多的關(guān)注。然

83、而,這樣的擴(kuò)張作為中介模式負(fù)面影響交易困難和國(guó)際中介的租金萃取,主題非常詳細(xì)地探索在戈梅斯,伊甸園的論文.提出了若干概念性問(wèn)題重要的兩種模式的比較國(guó)際擴(kuò)張,并確定條件的私人市場(chǎng)安排是有效的。他們不相信直接補(bǔ)貼中小企業(yè)出國(guó)是明智的。</p><p>　　我們?nèi)绾谓忉寖?yōu)越的創(chuàng)新性能的中小企業(yè)呢?在最近的一項(xiàng)研究Jaffe等(1993)分析了專(zhuān)利引文數(shù)據(jù)等屬于國(guó)內(nèi)大學(xué)和公司的專(zhuān)利來(lái)測(cè)試的范圍知識(shí)溢出的本地化。阿爾梅達(dá)和

84、科格特發(fā)現(xiàn),本地化的專(zhuān)利知識(shí)在不同地區(qū)。半導(dǎo)體知識(shí)在硅谷和紐約三角往往是本地化。這表明互補(bǔ)性是重要的。最近的文獻(xiàn)顯示,中小企業(yè)受益于研發(fā)外溢從大學(xué)研究和大公司的私人研究 但為什么這一現(xiàn)象大公司的利益比小公司的利益而不是更大的嗎?其中一個(gè)原因也許是,較大的公司,因?yàn)樗麄兊呢?cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)和激勵(lì)結(jié)構(gòu),更自我依靠、不強(qiáng)調(diào)建立關(guān)系和其他機(jī)構(gòu)在該地區(qū)。通過(guò)定義的啟動(dòng),人員在一個(gè)新公司將會(huì)有一個(gè)較短的任期在公司,利用最近的經(jīng)驗(yàn)在其他公司。</p>

85、<p>　　研究地理定位的影響和技術(shù)的多樣性在創(chuàng)新阿爾梅達(dá)和科格特來(lái)自在第二個(gè)紙檢查引用的起源到170主要專(zhuān)利在半導(dǎo)體行業(yè)。實(shí)地調(diào)查研究,包括采訪(fǎng)半導(dǎo)體工程師和其他個(gè)人的信息,用來(lái)補(bǔ)充專(zhuān)利分析。他們認(rèn)為中小企業(yè)開(kāi)始獲得它們的比較優(yōu)勢(shì),探索新技術(shù)創(chuàng)新的空間,會(huì)被大公司壓縮,在這個(gè)過(guò)程很容易造成區(qū)域性網(wǎng)絡(luò)允許小公司更有效地獲得和使用知識(shí)比大公司。他們發(fā)現(xiàn),初創(chuàng)企業(yè)生產(chǎn)創(chuàng)新在擁擠的技術(shù)空間相對(duì)于大公司。這時(shí),小公司更有可能探索不

86、同地區(qū)的技術(shù)。他們的實(shí)證結(jié)果確定小公司如何使激進(jìn)的創(chuàng)新和恭維理論推測(cè)在Acs et al。雖然知識(shí)是本地化為兩個(gè)初創(chuàng)企業(yè)和其他企業(yè),初創(chuàng)公司正在更加密切到區(qū)域網(wǎng)絡(luò)是因?yàn)樗麄円揽烤W(wǎng)絡(luò)輸入關(guān)鍵知識(shí)。知識(shí)是為初創(chuàng)公司更多的本地化比其他公司和組織的企業(yè)家發(fā)揮了決定性的作用。如果知識(shí)流都是局部的,那么公司位于遙遠(yuǎn)的地區(qū)被排除在知識(shí)網(wǎng)絡(luò)。這是這個(gè)地方特色的網(wǎng)絡(luò),是他們的潛在的鏈接與全球化(Acs,德拉Mothe和Pacquet,1996)。因此,小

87、科技型企業(yè)有吸引力的收購(gòu)目標(biāo)感興趣的跨國(guó)公司進(jìn)入新技術(shù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)。大約10%的38000個(gè)新的高科技企業(yè)上市的集團(tuán)科技數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)有外國(guó)所有權(quán)會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)移.如果小公</p><p>　　在任何情況下,證據(jù)表明,中小企業(yè),對(duì)許多傳統(tǒng)學(xué)者的預(yù)期,是活躍在國(guó)際舞臺(tái)上的成員。中小企業(yè)如何發(fā)揮優(yōu)勢(shì),當(dāng)他們選擇不與較大的合作伙伴進(jìn)行合作。他發(fā)現(xiàn),大多數(shù)小型跨國(guó)公司遵循“深深的縫隙戰(zhàn)略”。就是說(shuō),他們的位置以市場(chǎng)主導(dǎo)地位和techno——邏輯領(lǐng)

88、導(dǎo),并由一個(gè)專(zhuān)注于生產(chǎn)資料。同時(shí),小公司傾向于投資于年輕的行業(yè),而不是更成熟的行業(yè)。事實(shí)上,Gomes-Casseres和科恩(即將到來(lái)的)發(fā)現(xiàn)情況有更少,而不是更多的中小企業(yè)的聯(lián)盟比人們預(yù)期的。做中小企業(yè)比跨國(guó)公司在國(guó)際擴(kuò)張面臨更高的交易成本嗎?在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上的第五論文考察了交易成本的作用在國(guó)際擴(kuò)張。伊甸園,Levitas和馬丁內(nèi)茲調(diào)查一個(gè)大型文學(xué)處理國(guó)際業(yè)務(wù),企業(yè)家和技術(shù)改變;他們提供了一個(gè)鏈接技術(shù)文獻(xiàn)之間的中小企業(yè)和跨國(guó)公司的技術(shù)文

89、獻(xiàn)。本文檢視技術(shù)三個(gè)方面:(1)技術(shù)作為公司特有的優(yōu)勢(shì),(2)技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移的成本,和(3)技術(shù)外溢。在每種情況下他們大綱視圖和辯論的電流場(chǎng)關(guān)于所發(fā)揮的作用,大型跨國(guó)公司,根據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)證據(jù),是世界上的主要技術(shù)生產(chǎn)商。最后,他們比較的能力大、小公司利潤(rùn)從技術(shù)。他們認(rèn)為,中小企業(yè)不太可能能夠出現(xiàn)問(wèn)題時(shí)妥善管理技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)讓過(guò)程。</p><p>　　在成本方面的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移,他們建議中小企業(yè)可能面臨更高的交易成本,相對(duì)于大型跨國(guó)公司。雖

90、然中小企業(yè),由于它們的相對(duì)比較小,受益于減少官僚成本,然而他們也有更少的資源投入到搜索、談判、監(jiān)控和執(zhí)法力度。他們也可能更受機(jī)會(huì)主義行為的部分供應(yīng)商和買(mǎi)家由于其小的尺寸和相應(yīng)的無(wú)法反饋。最后,中小企業(yè)不太可能擁有一個(gè)專(zhuān)用性政權(quán)保護(hù)他們的知識(shí)庫(kù),</p><p>　　因此可能面臨更高的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)成本的耗散和服務(wù)。這種觀點(diǎn)是符合科恩和克萊伯(1996)如果小科技型企業(yè)事實(shí)上成為國(guó)際企業(yè),那么他們是在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)中扮演多大的角色

91、載.它依賴(lài)于它的經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)在聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易和發(fā)展會(huì)議(UNCTAD)報(bào)告在中小型跨國(guó)公司(UNCTAD,1993)。聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易和發(fā)展會(huì)議上的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),中小企業(yè)的技術(shù)轉(zhuǎn)移,如跨國(guó)公司,轉(zhuǎn)讓技術(shù)國(guó)際從母公司。最常用的工具是通過(guò)國(guó)際轉(zhuǎn)移與東道國(guó)的合資企業(yè)公司合作。三種類(lèi)型的技術(shù)關(guān)于中小企業(yè):小規(guī)模技術(shù)、勞動(dòng)密集型技術(shù)和專(zhuān)業(yè)高技術(shù)訣竅。后者包括生物技術(shù)和微電子學(xué)。這些公司經(jīng)常利用合資企業(yè),和非股權(quán)許可交易和聯(lián)盟。</p><p&g

92、t;　　最后,雷諾茲重新審視的一個(gè)老問(wèn)題:“做大市場(chǎng)青睞大公司嗎?“最近的一系列分析和事件表明,類(lèi)型的大型市場(chǎng)目前在發(fā)展不僅提供了大量的機(jī)會(huì),但中小企業(yè)這一新動(dòng)態(tài)和小公司部門(mén)對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)增長(zhǎng)至關(guān)重要的這些市場(chǎng),這給我們帶來(lái)了整圓的問(wèn)題等人提出的來(lái)自于最初Acs和阿爾梅達(dá)和科格特德問(wèn)題。而不是軟弱和脆弱的實(shí)體,可能需要補(bǔ)貼,新的小公司不僅可以生長(zhǎng)在新的全球市場(chǎng),但也許是增強(qiáng)經(jīng)濟(jì)福利(盧卡斯,1988)的必要的組件。國(guó)際擴(kuò)散的新的創(chuàng)新至關(guān)重要的

93、繼續(xù)改善全球經(jīng)濟(jì)福利。在擴(kuò)散過(guò)程中小企業(yè)面臨著兩個(gè)嚴(yán)重的挑戰(zhàn):產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)和進(jìn)入壁壘。如果創(chuàng)造性破壞的速度確實(shí)過(guò)低,公共政策的目標(biāo)應(yīng)該是提高創(chuàng)建和國(guó)際擴(kuò)散的中小企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新。在論文的分析表明,政策應(yīng)該遵循旨在降低成本為中小企業(yè)的國(guó)際擴(kuò)張。這是,政策應(yīng)該旨在減少私人市場(chǎng)費(fèi)用為保護(hù)財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利,減少進(jìn)入壁壘,降低交易成本。我們應(yīng)該注意,然而,建議依靠的前提,我們必須小創(chuàng)造性破壞。更大的問(wèn)題我們是否有太多或太少的創(chuàng)造性破壞還沒(méi)有解決。這個(gè)基本的問(wèn)題值得