ERIA-DP-2015-48

ERIA Discussion Paper Series

How Labour Market Policies Affect

Innovation and Trade Competitiveness
Siwage Dharma NEGARA*
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), The Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS)

July 2015
Abstract: Endogenous growth theory postulates that innovation is one of the key

drivers of technological progress and productivity growth of a country.

Technological improvements stemming from firms innovative activities can
contribute to a countrys overall productivity and export competitiveness. For
innovation to flourish, it necessitates an environment that is conducive to firms
conducting risky innovative activities. Studies show that public policies, including
labour market policies, can influence the operating conditions and institutional
structures of firms to foster innovation that leads to productivity gains. However, the
literature indicates that there is mixed empirical evidence on the impact of labour
market policies on firms incentives to innovate.
This paper argues that more flexible labour market policies that do not constrain
workers adjustments and mobility will have positive associations with a countrys
technological innovation competitiveness. In addition, innovation competitiveness
affects a countrys productivity and trade competitiveness. Using a balanced panel
of OECD and non-OECD countries, this study offers simple empirical models to
measure the relationship between labour market policies and innovation capacity;
and between innovation capacity and trade competitiveness. The main findings show
that countries with more flexible labour market policies have higher levels of
innovation competitiveness. In addition, the paper finds evidence of a positive
correlation between innovation competitiveness and trade competitiveness.
Key words: Labour market policies, innovation, trade, competitiveness, labour
market flexibility
JEL Classification: F16, J08, J38, J63, O31, O38
*

Researcher at the Economic Research Center of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (P2E-LIPI)
and visiting fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS). Email:
siwage@yahoo.com. This study is commissioned by the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN
and East Asia (ERIA).

1. Introduction
Endogenous growth theory postulates that innovation is one of the key drivers of
technological progress and productivity growth of a country (Romer, 1990; Aghion
and Howitt, 2005). Technological improvement stemming from a firms innovative
activities can lead to more efficient production processes and generate better quality
outputs. In an increasingly competitive global economy, innovation capacity is crucial
for firms to improve productivity and hence sustain their export competitiveness (Aw
et al., 2009; Cassiman et al., 2010).
Innovation requires an environment that is conducive to support firms to conduct
innovative activities. Studies show that public policies, including labour market
policies, can influence the operating conditions and institutional structures of firms to
foster innovation that leads to productivity gains. Several OECD studies in this area
suggest that different regulatory environments may explain performance differentials
between countries, or between industries with regard to innovation (OECD, 2002;
OECD, 2009).
Certain regulatory policies may affect firms incentives to innovate. For example,
regulations that restrict competition (e.g., creating entry barriers or operational
restrictions), or limit the ability of firms to adjust their workforce (e.g., stricter hiring
and firing rules), can adversely affect incentives to innovate. This in turn could hinder
the process of technological transfer and deny the economy potential productivity
improvements.
Labour market policies can influence the allocation of resources across firms and
sectors in the economy. They affect firms choices over labour inputs, investments,
technology, and outputs (Boeri et al., 2008). Different labour market policies induce
greater or lesser adjustment costs for firms to reallocate workers, thus affecting overall
economic efficiency. An efficient labour market is defined as one that ensures the
flexibility to shift workers from one production activity to another at low cost (World
Economic Forum, 2014). Efficiency in the labour market is critical in ensuring that
labour is assigned to its most effective use in the production process. An efficient
labour market provides opportunities for firms to foster innovation activities, which
may involve labour replacement or job reallocation, without excessive social

disruption. In this paper, the term efficient and flexible labour market is used
interchangeably.
The literature on the impact of labour market policies on firms incentives to
innovate provides mixed empirical evidence. Some studies find that less-stringent
labour market policies are associated with stronger innovation competitiveness
(OECD, 2002; Saint-Paul, 2002; Barbosa and Faria, 2011; Murphy, et al., 2013;
Griffith and Macartney, 2014). Conversely, other studies also find that stricter labour
market policies can foster innovation and lead to greater country-level economic
growth. They argue that stringent labour market policies that limit firms ability to
dismiss workers, act as an insurance device for firms not to punish employees when
certain innovative activities fail. In turn, this increases workers incentives to engage
in innovative activity (Acharya et al., 2010; Tang, 2012).
Countries at different development stages have different labour market
requirements, which influence their respective labour market policies. This paper
attempts to construct a set of balanced panels consisting of OECD and non-OECD
countries to investigate the relationship between labour market policies and countries
innovation capacity. In addition, it also looks at how the latter relates to countries
trade competitiveness. It argues that a more efficient labour market characterised by
less-rigid labour market policies stimulates innovation. In turn, higher innovation
positively impacts countries trade competitiveness.
The paper is organised as follows. Section 2 reviews selected studies examining
the relationship between labour market policies, and innovation intensity and
performance. Section 3 proposes simple empirical models to test the relationship
between labour market policies and countries innovation competitiveness. Section 4
discusses the data used for the estimation and presents some stylised facts. Section 5
discusses the empirical findings, whilst Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review
There are several studies assessing the relationship between labour market policies
and innovation. This literature survey was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide an assessment of the current state of knowledge and highlight the existing
knowledge gaps where future research might be focused. It is important to note that
most, if not all, of the studies assessing the relationship between labour market policies
and innovation primarily focus on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) member countries. Availability of good quality firm- and
industrial-level data in OECD countries may explain this trend. However, for nonOECD countries, especially for developing countries in Southeast Asia, there is lack
of (or in many cases non-existent) good quality microdata on innovation and
productivity (Lee and Narjoko, 2015).
Labour market policies vary from country to country. In general, these policies
aim to achieve social (rather than economic) objectives, such as providing employment
protection measures for workers. Employment protection policies are primarily
introduced to protect workers from adverse labour market risks, such as lay-offs or
low-paid earnings. Empirically, these policies vary widely across and within countries
(see Botero et al., 2004 for detailed discussion of each policy). To protect the earnings
of the lowest level of workers, some governments set minimum wages.1 In addition,
some governments also set regulations such that employers must provide extra benefits
to their workers, including training, health care, paid vacations, maternity leave, etc.
To protect workers from lay-off, some governments provide unemployment insurance
for those who lose their jobs.2 Alternatively, some governments prefer to set
regulations that restrict firms ability to dismiss employees at will.

For examples, several countries, such as Australia, the United States, France, Chinese Taipei,
Japan, South Korea, China, the United Kingdom, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia, implement
minimum wage systems. The arguments for minimum wage policy are to ensure low wage workers
having a minimum living standard; to prevent employers from exploiting low-skilled workers; to
increase purchasing power of low wage workers; and to compel employers to raise efficiency and
productivity, amongst others.
2
The US, Chinese Taipei, Japan, South Korea, and China also operate unemployment insurance
benefits, which are not linked to the minimum wages. Australia operates an unemployment
assistance system, in which benefit rates are set below the earnings of minimum wage workers.
France operates both systems.

The existing literature suggests that the relationship between labour market
policies and innovation capacity can be both positive and negative. On the one hand,
a stricter labour market policy provides job security; hence this should increase
incentives for workers to invest in firm-specific human capital and to be more engaged
in innovation activities (see Acharya et al., 2010). On the other hand, a stricter labour
market policy, which causes higher hiring and firing costs, will increase the cost for
firms that need to adjust their workforce in relation to innovation activities. This in
turn will discourage firms from conducting significant innovative activities (see SaintPaul, 2002; Bassinini and Ernst, 2002; Barbosa and Faria, 2011).
Murphy et al. (2013) identify two channels through which labour market policies
(employment protection regulations) may affect innovation. The first channel is linked
through human capital investment. In this channel, labour market policy is likely to
increase the probability of workers engaging in firm-specific or industry-specific
skills. It also increases the probability of workers engaging in innovation activities
(Murphy et al., 2013, p.5). Furthermore, a stricter labour market policy is likely to
increase workers bargaining power and their incentives to invest in firm-specific
skills. Acharya et al. (2010) found that stronger employment protection regulations
had a positive impact on innovation at the industry level. It also led to relatively more
innovation in the innovation-intensive industries than in traditional industries.
Acharya et al. (2010) find that stronger employment protection laws not only
foster innovation but also lead to greater country-level economic growth. They argue
that regulations governing the dismissal of workers are the only dimension of labour
laws that enhance firm-level innovation and country-level economic growth (Acharya
et al., p.23). They explain that employment protection laws impose limits on firms
ability to dismiss workers. This acts as an insurance device encouraging firms not to
punish their workers as a result of an unsuccessful innovative project. Consequently,
this incentivises workers to increase their investment in innovative projects relative to
their investment in routine projects. Therefore, stringent employment protection laws
encourage firms to find innovative projects in order to be more value-enhancing than
routine projects.
Tang (2012) shows that cross-country differences in labour market policies shape
the pattern of international trade, with a focus on workers skill acquisition. Similar to

Acharya et al. (2010), Tang also finds that countries with more protective labour laws
export relatively more in firm-specific skill-intensive sectors through both the
intensive and extensive margins of trade.3
Contrary to Acharya et al. (2010) and Tang (2012) findings, Barbosa and Faria
(2011) find that stricter labour market policy leads to less innovation intensity at the
industry level in European countries. They find that in European countries that have
rigid labour market policy, the innovation intensity decreases by 1.89 for a unit
increase in the indicator of employment rigidity holding other variables constant (see
Barbosa and Faria, 2011, p. 20). These findings are in line with Bassanini and Ernst
(2002), who investigated the impact of product and labour market regulations on
innovation by using a set of OECD indicators on the regulatory framework on a crosssection of 18 OECD countries and 18 manufacturing industries. Their results show a
positive association between more flexible labour market policies and research and
development (R&D) intensity, which is used as proxy for innovation.
The second channel through which labour market policy may affect innovation is
through firms adjustment costs when they need to adjust against idiosyncratic shocks
(Murphy et al., 2013).4 In this case, a more rigid labour market policy inflates hiring
and firing costs for firms. As a result, this is likely to discourage innovative activities
that require adjustments or reallocations of labour. The adjustment cost will be
relatively higher in technologically advanced industries (Saint-Paul, 2002). Stricter
employment protection regulations discourage firms from experimenting with new
technologies with higher returns, but also with higher adjustment costs. Empirically,
employment protection restrictions are more costly in industries with rapid
technological change, such as ICT. Therefore, countries with stricter employment
protection regulations are likely to specialise in industries with a lower rate of technical
change (Murphy, et al., p.5).
A study by Pierre and Scarpetta (2006) find that innovative firms are the most
negatively affected by stricter labour market policies. Griffith and Macartney (2014)
find that multinational firms are likely to locate more innovation activities in countries
3

The intensive margin refers to the export volume per firm, whilst the extensive margin refers to
the number of exporting firms.
4
Idiosyncratic shocks that affect individual firm can be natural, social, economic, political, or
environmental.

with stricter employment protection policies. However, the same firms locate more
technologically advanced innovation activities in countries with less-stringent
employment protection policies. Furthermore, Murphy et al. (2013) find that the
effects of labour market policies on innovation vary by industry and country depending
on factors such as lay-off propensity, technological intensity, skills intensity,
competition pressures, openness, and other labour market institutions, such as wagesetting institutions. They find that a more rigid labour market policy leads to
significantly lower innovation intensity in industries with higher job reallocation rates
or higher probability of dismissal. In addition, Murphy et al. find that innovation
intensity was higher in industries with higher import competition and in industries with
less rigid product market regulations. Furthermore, in countries with abundant human
capital, innovation intensity was higher in human capital-intensive industries.
Meanwhile, in countries with abundant physical capital, innovation intensity was
higher in physical capital-intensive industries. These results are aligned with SaintPaul (2002) and Griffith and Macartney (2014). In summary, the empirical literature
on the relationship between labour market policies and innovation provides a mixed
and complicated picture. The overall evidence leans slightly towards a positive
association between more flexible labour market policies and innovation capacity.
With regard to the relationship between innovation and trade competitiveness,
studies find a positive association between innovation capacity and firms exports. For
examples, Wagner (2007), Aw et al. (2009) and Cassiman, et al. (2010) find evidence
on the link between product innovation, productivity and exports. In this case,
innovation policy targeted at enhancing productivity is likely to be important for
improving firms exporting competitiveness. However, using the Slovenian microdata,
Damijan, et al. (2010) find a reverse causal direction in which exporting induces
process innovation and, in turn, affects the productivity growth relationship. This
finding suggests that firms with past exporting experience have a higher probability of
being more productive due to process innovation. Therefore, the link between
innovation and exporting seems fairly robust, and existing studies show that the
direction of causality can be both ways. Along these lines, Lee and Narjoko 2015
review some micro-data studies on the relationship between innovation and trade
competitiveness measured by exporting capability for five developing countries from

Southeast Asia, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam.
They conclude that most existing studies in the region are not able to pinpoint the
direction of causality between innovation and exporting capability, most likely due to
data constraints. However, there is strong evidence that the incidence of innovation is
positively correlated with firms exporting performance. In addition, they find that
foreign competition in domestic markets is also important for innovation.

3. Data, Empirical Model, and Variables

3.1. Data
To investigate whether cross-country variations in labour market policies can
explain differences in innovation intensity, we constructed a set of panel data of 32
countries covering the period 2009-13. The data set includes seven ASEAN member
states, all members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), 16
OECD countries, plus Argentina, Hong Kong, Mexico and Pakistan (Table 1). The
selection of countries tries to capture all different stages of development as discussed
in the Global Competitiveness Report (WEF, 2014).
As can be seen from Table 1, ASEAN member states levels of development vary
from factor-driven economies such as Cambodia to innovation-driven economies such
as Singapore. As mentioned above, countries with different development levels have
different labour market requirements. Therefore, this influences their respective labour
market policies. In addition, countries with different development levels have different
innovation intensities and capacities. In view of this, combining such a wide
development level within a panel increases the variation in our data. Due to the lack
of data, three ASEAN member states, namely, Brunei Darussalam, Lao PDR, and
Myanmar, cannot be included in the panel estimation.

Table 1: Countries Covered in the Panel Data Set

Stage 1:
Factor-driven
economies

Transition
from stage 1
to stage 2

Cambodia
(CMB)
India
(IND)
Pakistan
(PAK)
Viet Nam
(VNM)

Philippines
(PHP)

Stage 2:
Efficiencydriven
economies
China
(CHN)
Indonesia
(IDN)
South Africa
(SAF)
Thailand
(THL)

Transition
from stage 2
to stage 3

Stage 3:
Innovation-driven
economies

Argentina
(ARG)
Brazil
(BRZ)
Malaysia
(MLY)
Mexico
(MEX)
Russia
(RUS)
Turkey
(TUR)

Australia (AUS)
Canada (CAN)
Finland (FIN)
France (FRA)
Germany (GER)
Greece (GRE)
Hong Kong (HKG)
Italy (ITA)
Japan (JPN)
South Korea (KOR)
New Zealand (NZ)
Portugal (POR)
Singapore (SIN)
Spain (SPN)
Sweden (SWE)
United Kingdom (UK)
United States (US)
Note: The classification of countries follows the development stages in the Global
Competitiveness Report 20142015 published by the World Economic Forum. Country codes are
shown in parentheses.

As a proxy for innovation intensity, this paper uses scores data for innovation
competitiveness published by the World Economic Forum (WEF) since 2005. The
Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) published by WEF is designed to measure both
microeconomic and macroeconomic foundations of national competitiveness. It is a
composite index consisting of 12 pillars of competitiveness, namely, institutions,
infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher
education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial
market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication,
and innovation. Each pillar consists of several indicators. The indicators are derived
using a standardised survey targeted to over 14,000 business executives in 144
countries. Similar to other perception surveys, there is a potential subjectivity bias in
the data. Nevertheless, the Global Competitiveness Index is a valuable data set that
can easily be used in a quantitative way, especially when other alternative standardised
measures on innovation and labour market policy are not readily available as in most

developing countries. Moreover, the opinions of business executives are invaluable in

understanding the factors that determine business competitiveness.
In addition to innovation scores data, the paper also uses alternative proxies for
innovation, including the number of patents filed by residents at the national office,
the number of venture capital deals, and the number of people employed in knowledgeintensive services from the Global Innovation Index published by Cornell University,
INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
It is important to note that comparable cross-country firm-level data on innovation
are relatively limited in the non-OECD countries, including in the Southeast Asian
region. So far, there is no standardised industry- or firm-level survey on innovation
activity and intensity within ASEAN member states. In view of this, it is critical for
countries in ASEAN to improve the availability and quality of their micro-data on
innovation to be on a par with OECD countries.
Lee and Narjoko (2015) explain that there are two types of innovation measures,
namely, innovation input and innovation output. The most widely used measure of
innovation input is R&D expenditure. As for innovation outputs, the patents count data
have been widely used to measure innovation intensity. However, there are drawbacks
to using either R&D expenditure or the number of patents to measure innovation
intensity. R&D expenditure cannot capture the output side of the innovation process.
In addition, R&D expenditure is only one of several inputs for innovation. Meanwhile,
patents only measure invention rather than innovation and cannot capture many nonpatented inventions and innovations.5 In addition, the use of patents to protect
inventions varies across industries. Nevertheless, the advantage of using innovation
indicators from GCI is that they capture both input and output measures of innovation,
namely, the capacity for innovation, the quality of scientific research institutions,
company spending on R&D, universityindustry R&D collaboration, government
procurement of advanced technology products, availability of scientists and engineers,
patent applications, and intellectual property protection.
As a proxy for labour market policies, this paper uses scores data for labour market
efficiency published by the GCI and cost of redundancy dismissal from the World

See Kleinknecht et al. 2002 for detailed discussion about the weakness of each innovation
indicator.

Banks Doing Business. Specifically, the labour market policies index covers two
components, namely, the flexibility and the efficiency of the labour market. The
flexibility of a labour market is measured by indicators of: cooperation in labouremployer relations; flexibility of wage determination; hiring and firing practices; costs
of redundancy dismissal; and the effect of taxation on incentives to work. The higher
the score of labour market efficiency, the more efficient the labour market is, implying
a less-rigid labour market policy. Meanwhile, the cost of redundancy dismissals
measures the strictness of regulations in terms of dismissal for a regular and a
temporary contract (Murphy et al., 2013, p. 3).
Table 2 describes each variable used in the empirical model, data sources and the
expected impact on innovation.

Table 2: Variables Acronyms, Description and Expected Impact

on Innovation
Variable
Innov

Patent

Empkw

Vencap

Description
Dependent variable, measured by the innovation
scores (weighted average of capacity for innovation;
quality of scientific research institutions; company
spending on R&D; universityindustry collaboration
in R&D; government procurement of advanced
technology products; availability of scientists and
engineers; PCT patent applications and intellectual
property protection), values vary between 1 and 7
from least to most innovative environment.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
number of patent filed by resident at national office
(per billion GDP, 2005 PPP$), values vary between 0
and 100 from least to most patent application.
Source: World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO), Global Innovation Index.
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
employment in knowledge-intensive services (% of
workforce), values vary between 0 and 100 from
least to most knowledge employment.
Source: ILO, Global Innovation Index.
Dependent variable, measured by weighted scores of
venture capital per investment location: number of
deals (per trillion GDP, 2005 PPP$), values vary
between 0 and 100 from least to most venture deals.
Source: Thomson Reuters, Global Innovation Index.

10

Expected Impact

Lxport

Dependent variable, measured by log of country

exports.
Source: World Bank, World Integrated Trade
Solution (WITS) database.

Lbreffi

Independent variable (alternative for lmefi),

measured by weighted scores of cost of redundancy
dismissal (sum of notice period and severance pay
for redundancy dismissal in salary weeks), values
vary between 0 and 100 from most to least costly.
Source: World Bank, Global Innovation Index.
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of labour market efficiency (cooperation in labouremployer relations; flexibility of wage
determination; hiring and firing practices;
redundancy costs; effect of taxation on incentives to
work; pay and productivity; reliance on professional
management; country capacity to retain and attract
talent, and female participation in labour force),
values vary between 1 and 7 from least to most
efficient and flexible labour market.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of goods market efficiency (domestic and foreign
competition), values vary between 1 and 7 from least
to most healthy market competition. Source: Global
Competitiveness Index, World Economic Forum
Independent variable (alternative for gmefi),
measured by weighted scores of institutional
environment (weighted average of property rights,
ethics and corruption, undue influence, government
efficiency, security, corporate ethics, and
accountability), values vary between 1 and 7 from
least to most conducive institutional environment.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of higher education and training quality, values vary
between 1 and 7 from low to high quality of higher
education and training environment.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of stability of macroeconomic environment, values
vary between 1 and 7 from least to most stable
macroeconomic environment.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of market size (domestic and foreign market size),

Lmefi

Gmefi

Institut

Highed

Macro

Mktsize

11

+/-

+/-

+/-

Techred

Infras

Openness

values vary between 1 and 7 from smallest to largest

market size.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable (alternative for highed),
measured by weighted scores of technological
readiness (technological adoption and ICT use),
values vary between 1 and 7 from least to most agile
economy to adopt existing technologies to enhance
the productivity of its industries. Source: Global
Competitiveness Index, World Economic Forum
Independent variable (alternative for techred),
measured by weighted scores of infrastructure
quality (weighted average of transport, electricity
and telephony infrastructure), values vary between 1
and 7 from least to most extensive and efficient
infrastructure.
Source: Global Competitiveness Index, World
Economic Forum
Independent variable, measured by weighted scores
of applied tariff rate (weighted mean, all products
(%)), values vary between 0 and 100 from least to
most open economy.
Source: World Bank, Global Innovation Index.

It is important to note that the innovation scores from the GCI focus on
technological innovation capacity. Technological innovation is not related to skills,
know-how, or organisational conditions. The importance of technological innovation
in improving standards of living is well documented. Technological breakthroughs
have been the basis of many of productivity gains that modern economies currently
enjoy. For example, technological innovation in ICT has led the digital revolution
which, in turn, has benefitted modern economies in terms of increasing productivity
and efficiency. The digital revolution would have never happened without
technological innovation, which has significantly transformed the ways in which
things are done, and opened a wider range of new opportunities in terms of products
and services development.
Technological innovation is particularly important for economies approaching the
frontiers of knowledge. At this stage of development, the possibility of generating
more value by merely integrating and adapting exogenous technologies tends to
disappear. For firms in those countries that have reached this innovation stage of
development, they must design and develop cutting-edge products and processes to
maintain a competitive edge and move towards even higher value-added activities.

12

This advancement requires an environment that is conducive to innovative activities

and supported by both the public and the private sectors. It needs sufficient investment
in R&D, especially by the private sector; the presence of high-quality scientific
research institutions that can generate the basic knowledge needed to build the new
technologies; extensive collaboration in research and technological developments
between universities and industry; and the protection of intellectual property (WEF
2014, pp.89).
Table 3 reports some descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent
variables used in the empirical analysis. Part I of the table reports the summary
statistics, whereas Part II reports the summary of correlation coefficients amongst
selected variables.

13

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Dependent and Independent Variables

Part I: Summary statistics

Part II: Correlation coefficients amongst selected variables

The correlation matrix shows that there is a high positive correlation between the
institutional environment (institute) and goods market efficiency (gmefi). The
institutional environment is determined by the legal and administrative framework
within which firms and government interact to generate wealth. Meanwhile, goods
market efficiency is determined by healthy market competition and demand conditions
(customer orientation and buyer sophistication).
There is also a high positive correlation between infrastructure quality (infra) and
higher education quality (highed); between infrastructure quality and technological
readiness (techred); and between higher education quality and technological readiness.
Infrastructure quality is measured by how extensive and efficient the infrastructure a

14

country has. A well-developed transport and communications infrastructure network,

quality of roads, railroads, ports, electricity supplies and telecommunications network,
all are critical for effective functioning of an economy. Considering the correlation
between variables, our choice of explanatory variable in the estimation avoids putting
together highly correlated variables. All in all, the correlation matrix shows that none
of these variables are perfectly collinear.

3.2. Some stylised facts

Figure 1 depicts the trend scores of labour market efficiency based on the GCI.
Overall, the global trend shows that employment protection has been increasing in
some countries and declining in others. In the data, Argentina, Italy, Pakistan, and
Turkey are classified as the strictest countries in terms of labour market policies
(measured by lower scores for labour market efficiency), whilst Singapore, Hong
Kong, the US, and the UK are classified as the least strict countries for labour market
policies (higher scores for labour market efficiency).
Figure 1: Cross-country Labour Market Efficiency Trend, 20092013
AUS

BRZ

CAN

CHN

CMB

FIN

FRA

GER

GRE

HKG

IDN

IND

ITA

JPN

KOR

MEX

MLY

NZ

PAK

PHP

POR

RUS

SAF

SIN

SPN

SWE

THL

TUR

UK

US

VNM

6
5
4
3
6
5
4
3
4

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

lmefi

ARG

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

year
Graphs by country

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Competitiveness Index 2009-2013.

15

Figure 2 shows the trend scores of innovation capacity based on the GCI. Overall,
the global trend shows that innovation intensity has been increasing in some countries
and also declining in others. Finland, Japan, Germany, and the US lead in global
innovation competitiveness, whilst Cambodia, Argentina and Pakistan seem to be
laggards in innovation.

Figure 2: Cross-country Innovation Scores Trend, 20092013

AUS

BRZ

CAN

CHN

CMB

FIN

FRA

GER

GRE

HKG

IDN

IND

ITA

JPN

KOR

MEX

MLY

NZ

PAK

PHP

POR

RUS

SAF

SIN

SPN

SWE

THL

TUR

UK

US

VNM

5 6
4
3
5 6
4
3
4

5 6

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

innov

4 5

4 5

4 5

ARG

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

year
Graphs by country

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Competitiveness Index 20092013.

Figure 3 depicts a positive association between labour market efficiency (lmefi)

and innovation capacity. The figure shows that countries such as Singapore, the US,
and the UK, are relatively advanced in terms of innovation performance and relatively
flexible in terms of labour market policies. This pattern remains unchanged when we
use a different proxy for labour market efficiency, namely, the cost of redundancy
dismissal (lbrefi).

16

Figure 3: Labour Market Efficiency and Innovation Capacity, 2013

FIN
GER

JPN
SWE

US

KOR

FRA

MLY
CAN
NZ

AUS

IDN
ITA
TUR

HKG

POR

Innovation

SIN
UK

ARG

PAK

CHN

SAFSPN
IND PHP
MEXBRZ
THL RUS
GRE
VNM
CMB

4
5
labour market efficiency
innov

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Competitiveness Index.

Figures 4 to 6 show that labour market efficiency has a positive association with
the number of patents filed in the national office, the number of venture capital deals,
and the number of people employed in knowledge-intensive services.

17

100

Figure 4: Labour Market Efficiency and Number of Patents Filed, 2013

CHN
GER JPN

US

80

KOR

number of patent

RUS

60

NZ

40

FIN
UK

FRA

SWE

ITA

20

TUR

ARG

PAK

AUS
SPN POR
GRE
BRZ
IND
THL
VNM
SAF
MEX
IDN PHP

CAN

SIN

MLY
HKG

CMB

4
5
labour market efficiency
patent

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.

100

Figure 5: Labour Market Efficiency and Number of Venture Deals, 2013

FIN

CAN
US
UK

50

GER
SPN
AUS

IND
ARG

ITA PAK
TUR

NZ

JPN
POR
RUSCHN MLY
BRZ PHP
KOR
MEX
SAF
IDN
THLVNM CMB
GRE

HKG

-50

number of venture deals

SIN

SWE

FRA

4
5
labour market efficiency
vencap

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.

18

Figure 6: Labour Market Efficiency and Employment

100

in Knowledge-intensive Services, 2013

SIN

80

SWE

60

FRA
FIN
AUSRUSGER

CAN
NZ
US

ITA
GRE

40

UK

SPN

POR
MLY
JPN

SAF

ARG
TUR
PAK

HKG

PHP
BRZ KOR

20

MEX
THL
IDN

VNM CHN

CMB

4
5
labour market efficiency
empkw

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.

Figure 7 shows that the relationship between labour market efficiency (lmefi) and
trade openness also seems positive. A more efficient labour market is associated with
greater openness to trade. Similarly, Figure 8 shows that the relationship between
innovation and trade competitiveness (measured by the natural logarithm of export
value) is also positive. A more innovative country is associated with greater export
competitiveness.

19

100

Figure 7: Trade Openness and Labour Market Efficiency, 2013

HKG
SIN

trade openness

90

ITA

GRE SPN POR FRA

TUR

GER
FIN
SWE
JPN

AUS

MEX
IDN

SAF

80

CAN
UK
NZUS

MLY

CHN
PHP THL

RUS
VNM

ARG

70

BRZ
IND
KOR
PAK

60

CMB

4
5
labour market efficiency
open

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.

16

Figure 8: Trade Competitiveness and Innovation, 2013

CHN

12

RUS
ITA
MEX IND
SPN
BRZ
THL
TUR
VNM
SAF
ARG
PHP
GRE
PAK

10

log export

14

US
GER
KORUK
HKGCAN FRA
AUS
IDN

JPN
SIN

MLY
SWE
FIN

POR
NZ

CMB

innovation
lxprt

Fitted values

Source: Authors calculation based on Global Innovation Index and Global Competitiveness
Index.

20

3.3. Empirical Model

We are interested in examining how much variation in labour market policies

relate to variation in innovation capacity. For this purpose, we propose a simplified
version of Acharya, et al. (2010) fixed effect model, as follows:
Innovit = it +*Lmefiit +*Xit +i + it

(1)

The dependent variable, Innovit, represents innovation competitiveness in country i at

time t. Lmefiit represents labour market efficiency in country i at time t. Higher values
of this variable correspond to more efficient labour markets, implying more flexible
labour market policies. Xit is a set of control variables including institutional
environment, infrastructure quality, macroeconomic condition, higher education
quality, goods market efficiency, and market size of country i at time t. it controls for
unobserved country-specific characteristics, and it is a disturbance term capturing
unobservable variables affecting innovation. The country fixed effects control for
time-invariant unobserved factors at the country level.6
The parameters of interest are coefficients on the labour market efficiency
indicators. Model 1 assumes that labour market policies affect the way resources are
allocated, and hence the efficiency and flexibility of the overall labour market. This in
turn leads to either higher or lower country innovation capacity.
Table 3 shows the estimation results for equation (1) using the innovation scores
measure as the dependent variables. The coefficient for the labour market efficiency
(lmefi) is positive and significant. This result indicates that as the score of labour
market efficiency increases (less rigid labour market policies), a countrys innovation
score increases, holding other things constant. The estimate for coefficient remains
positive and significant when we control for additional variables, such as higher
education quality, the institutional environment, infrastructure quality, market size,
openness and interaction term (openness*lmefi). The latter tries to capture the
possibility of non-linearity in the model specification. As column 4 and 5 show that
the effect of labour market efficiency on innovation is higher when we include the

Due to lack of standardised industrial data, the model cannot control for industrial
heterogeneity.

21

openness and interaction terms. In this case, the degree of openness matters for
innovation.
The estimated coefficient for higher education is positive and significant for
different model specification. This means higher education quality is positively
associated with innovation. In view of this, policy that supports the quality of higher
education is crucial for improving countrys innovation competitiveness. Other
significant determinant for innovation is infrastructure quality. Columns 24 show that
better infrastructure quality is associated with higher innovation competitiveness.
Meanwhile, columns 1, 2, and 5 show that estimated coefficients on goods market
efficiency are positive and significant, meaning that more efficient goods market
policies (more domestic and foreign competition) are associated with higher
innovation capacity. This result is in line with other previous findings (see Aghion et
al., 2005; Barbosa and Faria, 2011).

Table 3: Fixed Effect Regressions Results: Innovation Capacity

as Dependent Variable

Lmefi
Gmefi
Highed
Infra
Mktsize
Openness

1
0.232**
(0.099)
0.362**
(0.136)
0.371***
(0.112)

Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity scores
2
3
4
0.225***
0.296***
1.718***
(0.079)
(0.082)
(0.401)
0.290**
0.108
0.150
(0.109)
(0.122)
(0.117)
0.288**
0.284**
(0.112)
(0.112)
0.451***
0.388 ***
0.378***
(0.089)
(0.098)
(0.091)
0.158
(0.286)
0.019***
(0.006)
-0.323***
(0.089)

5
1.643***
(0.409)
0.311**
(0.144)
0.312***
(0.109)

0.019***
(0.006)
Open*Lmefi
-0.308***
(0.090)
Techred
0.114**
(0.066)
Constant
-0.395
-0.469
-1.847
-2.744***
-2.170**
(0.786)
(0.626)
(1.514)
(0.877)
(0.984)
N
160
160
160
160
160
Rho
0.946
0.952
0.950
0.953
0.945
Prob > F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients
statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed
description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation.

22

The Hausman test is conducted to choose between the fixed effect and random
effect model. The Hausman test rejects the null hypothesis, i.e., that the unique error
(ui) is not correlated with the regressors.7 Therefore, the fixed effect is selected for
equation (1).
Different proxies for innovation are also tested in the estimation of equation (1).
Table 4 shows the results of fixed effect regression on equation (1) using different
proxies for dependent variable, namely the number of venture deals (vencap) and the
number of people employed in knowledge-intensive services (empkw) as the
dependent variables. Similar to previous results, the coefficient for the labour market
efficiency (lmefi) remains positive and significant. However, we cannot find a
significant association between labour market policies and the number of patents filed
in the national office. This is probably due to weaknesses of the patent data.8

See the Appendix for the Hausman test results.

Firms in different industries and countries have different propensities to patent and that the value
of a patent is heterogeneous across countries (see Griffith and Macartney, 2014, p.141).
8

23

Table 4: Fixed Effect Regressions Results: Venture Capital Deals and

Employment in Knowledge Services as Dependent Variable
Dependent variable:
Venture capital deals

Dependent variable:
Employment in knowledge
services
1
2
3
4
Lmefi
2.490***
2.136***
0.357**
0.341**
(0.471)
(0.472)
(0.150)
(0.156)
Gmefi
-3.247***
-2.059***
-0.532***
-0.535**
(0.656)
(0.774)
(0.197)
(0.247)
Mktsize
-5.038***
-4.032**
2.708***
2.677***
(1.804)
(1.781)
(0.482)
(0.486)
Highed
-1.552***
-0.196
(0.546)
(0.177)
Infra
-0.379
0.199
(0.531)
(0.173)
Constant
33.818***
34.175***
9.417***
-9.205***
(9.482)
(9.185)
(2.536)
(2.554)
N
145
145
155
155
Rho
0.973
0.974
0.989
0.989
Prob > F
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients
statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed
description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation

It is important to note that our fixed-effect model is likely to suffer from an

endogeneity problem. An important concern stems from the fact that changes in a
country's labour market policies are likely to be correlated with changes in other
unobserved factors. To address this endogeneity problem, we run a dynamic paneldata using the Arellano-Bond method by including the lag of the dependent variable
to control for other unobserved factors.
Table 5 shows the results of the Arellano-Bond dynamic panel-data estimation.
The results corroborate the findings from previous models (compared with Table 3).
Our estimation results show that a more efficient labour market is associated positively
with innovation capacity. The estimate for coefficient remains positive and
significant when we control for additional variables, such as higher education quality,
the institutional environment, infrastructure quality, institutional quality and openness
(columns 3-5). We find that improved goods market efficiency (more competition),
better infrastructure quality, and improved institutional quality, are all positively
correlated with a countrys innovation performance. It is important to note that a higher

24

education variable becomes non-significant after including more control variables,

namely, infrastructure and institutional quality. This is probably due to the strong
positive correlation between higher education and these two variables. The
insignificant sign of the openness variable and the lag of innovation are rather
puzzling.

Table 5: Arellano-Bond Dynamic Panel-data Estimation

Lmefi
Gmefi

1
0.222***
(0.074)
0.549***
(0.125)

Mktsize
Highed
Infra
Institut
Macro

0.181*
(0.097)

Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity scores
2
3
4
0.243***
0.210**
0.234**
(0.085)
(0.092)
(0.095)
0.537***
0.237*
0.230*
(0.134)
(0.134)
(0.139)
0.227
0.168
0.294
(0.346)
(0.306)
(0.317)
0.190*
0.105
0.100
(0.103)
(0.090)
(0.094)
0.436***
0.468***
(0.117)
(0.119)
0.195*
0.192*
(0.105)
(0.109)
-0.056
(0.043)

5
0.201**
(0.085)
0.243*
(0.133)

0.101
(0.088)
0.430***
(0.114)
0.199*
(0.103)

Openness
Innov (t-1)

-0.181
-0.253
-0.220
-0.315*
(0.154)
(0.197)
(0.182)
(0.186)
Constant
0.457
-0.505
-1.423
-1.617
(0.711)
(1.625)
(1.472)
(1.517)
N
96
96
96
96
Prob>Chi2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Notes: ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level,
respectively. See Table 2 for the detailed description of the variables.
Source: Authors calculation

0.001
(0.002)
-0.195
(0.154)
-0.700
(0.611)
96
0.000

In addition, we also test whether labour market policies and innovation will have
an effect on a countrys trade competitiveness.
Lxportit = it +*Innovit-1 + *Lmefiit +*Xit +it + it

(2)

The dependent variable, Lxportit, represents trade competitiveness measured by the

natural logarithm of country is exports at time t. Innovit-1 represents innovation

25

intensity in country i at time t-1. A potential caveat that should be kept in mind, due to
data constraints, is that we can only use a one-year lag. This one-year lag is probably
too short for innovation to show any meaningful impact on a countrys trade
competitiveness. Xit is a set of control variables of country i at time t. it controls for
unobserved country-specific characteristics and it is an idiosyncratic error term.
Our hypothesis is that a more efficient labour market is associated with greater
innovation. And greater innovation is, in turn, associated with a countrys trade
competitiveness measured by its exports. Again, this is a rather bold simplification of
the reality in which innovation may indirectly affect productivity and export
competitiveness. Nevertheless, we are interested in finding preliminary evidence that
overall innovation scores could be higher or lower in countries with more efficient
labour markets.
To capture the dynamic nature of innovation relative to export competitiveness,
we then estimate equation (2) with fixed and random effect models and perform the
Hausman test. As stated above, trade competitiveness is measured by the natural
logarithm of a countrys exports value (see Table 2 description). Table 6 shows that a
different model specification leads to different choices between the fixed or random
effect. The Hausman test selects the random effect for the model without goods market
policy variable (gmefi) (see column 1 and 2). While it selects the fixed effect for the
model with goods market policy variable (see column 3 and 4). Overall, the estimation
results show that the lag variable of innovation is positively associated with export
competitiveness. The estimated coefficient for innovation variable remains consistent,
positive and significant across different model specifications. In addition,
technological readiness and goods market competition policy are associated with
higher exports. Meanwhile, a more flexible labour market policy is associated with
lower exports. This result contradicts our hypothesis about the impact of labour market
policy on trade competitiveness.

26

Table 6: Exploring the Relationship between Innovation

and Trade Competitiveness

Lmefi

1
(F.E)
-0.212**
(0.082)

Gmefi
Techred
Innov (t-1)
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test

0.178***
(0.066)
0.195**
(0.083)
11.547***
(0.542)
128
0.991
0.000

Dependent variable:
Log exports
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
-0.186**
-0.237***
(0.080)
(0.080)
0.319**
(0.127)
0.194***
0.103
(0.064)
(0.071)
0.237***
0.165**
(0.080)
(0.081)
11.190***
10.676***
(0.536)
(0.630)
128
128
0.991
0.992
0.000
0.000

4
(R.E)
-0.216***
(0.079)
0.303**
(0.125)
0.121*
(0.069)
0.204***
(0.079)
10.407***
(0.620)
128
0.991
0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.173

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000
Cannot reject Ho. Use random
Reject Ho. Use fixed effect
effect
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically
significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.
Source: Authors calculation

Conclusions
This paper investigates the relationship between labour market policies and
innovation. Most of the studies in this area have been undertaken for OECD member
countries. This study attempts to fill in the knowledge gap by expanding the analysis
to include both OECD and non-OECD countries, including some of the Southeast
Asian countries. The data used in the estimation come from the Global
Competitiveness Report and the Global Innovation Index. A set of balanced panel data
is constructed including 32 countries covering the period 20092013. Data availability
limits our empirical model in two ways. First, it is related to the difficulty of finding
reliable and standardised innovation data at the firm or industry level for developing
countries. Second, it is related to the difficulty of finding good proxies for labour
market policy, as there is substantial heterogeneity in labour market policies across

27

countries. Due to institutional complexity, there is no perfect proxy for labour market
policy. The use of labour market efficiency indicators from the Global Competivenesss
Index (GCI) should therefore be treated with caution.
Despite these challenges, GCI data nevertheless provide valuable information
when better alternative standardised measures on innovation and labour market policy
are not easily available in most countries. In this case, opinions from business
executives are instrumental in understanding the factors behind business
competitiveness. This study finds some preliminary evidence that a more efficient
labour market (more flexible labour market policy) is positively correlated with
innovation. Innovation competitiveness in turn leads to a countrys trade
competitiveness. Our results are robust even after controlling for other explanatory
variables. The quality of higher education is positively associated with a countrys
innovation competitiveness. Therefore, policies that support improving higher
education quality are crucial for economies that want to develop their innovation
competitiveness. Other important determinants for innovation are infrastructure
quality and goods market policies (more domestic and foreign competition). The two
are positively correlated with innovation. The country-level analysis in this paper
demonstrates the average correlation between labour market efficiency and
innovation. However, it does not take into account structural differences across
industries/sectors. Subject to data availability, future research should be directed
towards understanding variances of labour market efficiency and innovation between
different industries and sectors across countries.
On trade aspects, we find some preliminary evidence that past innovation is
positively associated with trade competitiveness. This is in line with some previous
studies that find a positive link between innovation and exporting (Wagner, 2007; Aw
et al. 2009; Cassiman et al. 2010). We cannot find a significant positive association
between labour market policies and trade competitiveness. However, we postulate that
there may be an indirect link between labour market policies and trade
competitivenessone that our simple model fails to capture.
Research on labour market policies and innovation is still limited in the region.
We hope that future research will fully explore the relationship between labour market
policies and innovation in developing countries in the Southeast Asian region using

28

good quality firm-level data. As ASEAN will soon start implementing the ASEAN
Economic Community characterised by the free flow of skilled labour amongst others,
there is a greater need to assess how labour market policies in one member state may
affect other countries, and also how they affect innovation in the region. In addition, it
is important to collect better quality micro-data to test the relationship between
innovation, productivity and firms exporting competitiveness. Innovation policy
targeted at enhancing productivity, especially in export-oriented sectors, is likely to be
important, but empirical evidence in this area is still lacking in ASEAN.

References
Acharya, V., R. Baghai-Wadji, and K. Subramarian (2013), Labour Laws and
Innovation, Journal of Law and Economics 56, pp.9971037.
Aghion, P. and P. Howitt (2005), Growth with Quality-Improving Innovations: An
Integrated Framework, in Handbook of Economic Growth by P. Aghion and
S.N. Durlauf, eds., Vol. 1A, Chapter 2, 67110. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Aw, B.Y., M.J. Roberts, and D.Y. Xu (2009), R&D Investment, Exporting, and
Productivity Dynamics, NBER Working Paper Series No. 14670, Cambridge,
MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Barbosa, N. and A.P. Faria (2011), Innovation across Europe: How Important Are
Institutional Differences, Research Policy 40, pp.11571169.
Bassanini, A., and E. Ernst (2002), Labour Market Institutions, Product Market
Regulation, and Innovation: Cross-Country Evidence, OECD Department of
Economics Working Paper No. 316. Paris: OECD.
Bassanini, A., L. Nunziata, and D. Venn (2009), Job Protection Legislation and
Productivity Growth in OECD countries, Economic Policy 24(58), pp.351
402.
Boeri, T. , B. Helppie, and M. Macis (2008), Labor Regulations in Developing
Countries: A Review of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research,
World Bank SP Discussion Paper No. 0833. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Botero, J., S. Djankov, R. La Porta, F. Lopez-De-Silanes, and A. Shleifer (2004), The
Regulation of Labor, Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(4), pp.13391382.
Cassiman, B., E. Golovko, and E. Martinez-Ros (2010), Innovation, Exports and
Productivity, International Journal of Industrial Organization 28, pp.372
376.
Damijan, J.P., C. Kostevc, and S. Polanec (2010), From Innovation to Exporting or
Vice Versa?, The World Economy, pp.374398.

29

Djankov, S. and R. Ramalho (2009), Employment Laws in Developing Countries,

Journal of Comparative Economics 37, pp.313.
Griffith, R. and G. Macartney (2014), Employment Protection Legislation,
Multinational Firms, and Innovation, Review of Economics and Statistics 96
(1), 135150.
Kleinknecht, A., K. van Montfort, and E. Brouwer (2002), The Non-trivial Choice
Between Innovation Indicators, Economics of Innovation and New
Technology, 11(2), pp. 109121.
Lee, C. and D. Narjoko (2015), Escaping the MiddleIncome Trap in Southeast Asia:
Micro Evidence on Innovation, Productivity, and Globalization, Asian
Economic Policy Review 10, pp.124147.
Manning, C. (2004), Labour Regulation and the Business Environment: Time to Take
Stock, in Basri, M.C., and P. van der Eng (eds.) Business in Indonesia, New
Challenges, Old Problems. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Murphy, G., I. Siedschlag, and J. McQuinn (2013), Employment Protection and
Innovation Intensity, Neujobs Working Paper No. D6.4.
Nicoletti, G. et al. (2001), Product and Labour Markets Interactions in OECD
Countries, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 312, OECD
Publishing.
OECD (2002), Economic Outlook, 1(71), June.
OECD (2005), OSLO Manual, 3rd edition. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009), Innovation in Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2013), Innovation in Southeast Asia. Paris: OECD.
Pierre, G and S. Scarpetta (2006), Employment protection: Do Firms Perceptions
Match with Legislation? Economics Letters 90, pp. 328334.
Romer, P.M. (1990), Endogenous Technological Change, Journal of Political
Economy, 98(5), pp.S71102.
Saint-Paul, G. (2002), Employment Protection, International Specialization and
Innovation, European Economic Review 46, pp.375395.
Scarpetta, S. and T. Tressel (2004), Boosting Productivity via Innovation and
Adoption of New Technologies: Any Role for Labour Market Institutions?,
World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3273. Washington, DC: World
Bank.
Tang, H. (2012), Labor Market Institutions, Firm-specific Skills and Trade Patterns,
Journal of International Economics 87, pp.337351.
Venn, D. (2009), Legislation, Collective Bargaining and Enforcement: Updating the
OECD Employment Indicators, OECD Social, Employment and Migration
Working Papers No. 89.
Wagner, J. (2007), Exports and Productivity: A Survey of the Evidence from Firmlevel Data, The World Economy, 30(1), pp.6082.

30

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2014), The Global Competitiveness Index 20142015.
Available
at:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GlobalCompetitivenessReport_201415.pdf
Yang C.-H. and Y.-H. Chen (2012), R&D, productivity & exports: Plant-level
evidence from Indonesia, Economic Modelling 29(2), pp.208216.

31

Appendix: Hausman Test Results

Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize
Highed
Infra

1
(F.E)
0.296***
(0.071)
0.108
(0.114)
0.158
(0.219)
0.288***
(0.082)
0.388**
(0.080)

Macro
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test

-1.847
(1.160)
160
0.950
0.000

Dependent variable:
Innovation capacity
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
0.275***
0.297***
(0.060)
(0.072)
0.198**
0.109
(0.093)
(0.115)
0.135
0.165
(0.086)
(0.232)
0.307***
0.288 ***
(0.073)
(0.082)
0.297***
0.387***
(0.067)
(0.081)
-0.003
(0.034)
-1.685***
-1.868
(0.565)
(1.189)
160
160
0.935
0.950
0.000
0.000

4
(R.E)
0.276***
(0.060)
0.204**
(0.099)
0.139
(0.086)
0.307***
(0.074)
0.294***
(0.067)
-0.009
(0.032)
-1.681***
(0.565)
160
0.934
0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000
Reject Ho. Use fixed effect
Reject Ho. Use fixed effect
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically
significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

32

Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize

1
(F.E)
2.490***
(0.471)
-3.247***
(0.656)
-5.038***
(1.804)

Highed
Infra
Constant
N
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman Test

33.818***
(9.482)
145
0.973
0.000

Dependent variable:
Number of venture deals
2
3
(R.E)
(F.E)
2.880***
2.136***
(0.332)
(0.472)
-2.486***
-2.059***
(0.415)
(0. 774)
-0.107
-4.032**
(0.290)
(1.781)
-1.552***
(0.546)
-0.379
(0.531)
2.357***
34.175***
(2.250)
(9.185)
145
145
0.701
0.974
0.000
0.000

4
(R.E)
2.826***
(0.073)
-2.753***
(0.515)
-0.239
(0.293)
-0.601
(0.388)
0.679**
(0.332)
4.043*
(2.369)
145
0.693
0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000
Reject Ho. Use fixed effect
Reject Ho. Use Fixed effect
Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically
significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

33

Lmefi
Gmefi
Mktsize
Highed
Infra

Dependent variable:
Employment in knowledge services
1
2
3
4
(F.E)
(R.E)
(F.E)
(R.E)
0.357**(0.150) 0.157 (0.137)
0.341**(0.156) 0.135 (0.134)
0.002 (0.172)
-0.535**
-0.369*
0.532***(0.19 0.648***(0.19 (0.247)
(0.215)
7)
4)
2.677***
0.316*(0.162)
2.708***
(0.486)
0.147 (0.161)
(0.482)
-0.196 (0.177) 0.383***(0.14
0.199 (0.173)
7)

Constant

-9.417***
(2.536)

-0.351 (1.273)

Observation
s
Rho
Prob > F or
Prob>Chi2
Hausman
Test

155
0.989
0.000

155
0.935
0.006

9.205***(2.55
4)
155
0.989
0.000

0.534 (1.108)

155
0.884
0.000

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000 (Reject Ho)

Prob >Chi2 = 0.000 (Reject Ho)

Use fixed effect

Use fixed effect

Notes: Standard errors are in parentheses. Based on them ***, **,* mean coefficients statistically
significant at 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

34

ERIA Discussion Paper Series

No.

2015-48

2015-47

Author(s)
Siwage Dharma
NEGARA

Hank LIM, Bernard

AW, LOKE Hoe
Yeong

Title
How Labour Market Policies Affect Innovation and
Trade Competitiveness

Year
July
2015

AEC Scorecard Phase IV: Furthering the

June
Implementation of the AEC Blueprint Measures
2015
The Singapore Country Report

Saowaruj
RATTANAKHAMFU
Sumet
ONGKITTIKUL
2015-46

Nutthawut
LAKSANAPUNYAK
UL

Thailand Country Study

June
ASEAN Economic Community
2015
Blueprint Mid-term Review Project

Nichamon
THONGPAT
Natcha O-CHAROEN
2015-45

2015-44

2015-43

2015-42

2015-41

2015-40

Evolving Informal Remittance Methods of

June

Myanmar Migrant Workers in Thailand

2015

Monitoring the Implementation of Services Trade

Reform towards an ASEAN Economic Community

May

Shandre
THANGAVELU

FDI Restrictiveness Index for ASEAN:

Implementation of AEC Blueprint Measures

May

Rully PRASSETYA
and Ponciano S.
INTAL, Jr.

AEC Blueprint Implementation Performance and

Challenges: Standards and Conformance

May

AEC Blueprint Implementation Performance and

Challenges: Trade Facilitation

May

Ponciano INTAL Jr.

Technology Transfer in ASEAN Countries: Some

Evidence from Buyer-Provided Training Network
Data

May

Koji KUBO

Philippa DEE

Fukunari KIMURA,
Tomohiro
MACHIKITA, and
Yasushi UEKI

35

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

No.

Author(s)

2015-39

Dionisius NARJOKO

2015-38

2015-37

2015-36

2015-35

2015-34

2015-33

2015-32

2015-31

2015-30

Title

Year

AEC Blueprint Implementation Performance and

Challenges: Services Liberalization

May

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPANYAK
UL, Shujiro URATA

Measuring the Costs of FTA Utilization: Evidence

from Transaction-level Import Data of Thailand

May

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPANYAK
UL, Pisit PUAPAN,
Sastra SUDSAWASD

Government Strategy and Support for Regional

Trade Agreements: The Case of Thailand

May

Dionisius A.
NARJOKO

AEC Blueprint Implementation Performance and

Challenges: Non-Tariff Measures and Non-Tariff
Barriers

May

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Tadashi ITO, and
Fukunari KIMURA

Trade Creation Effects of Regional Trade

Agreements: Tariff Reduction versus Non-tariff
Barrier Removal

Apr

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Tadashi ITO

Tarrif Pass-through of the World-wide Trade:

Empirical Evidence at Tarriff-line Level

Apr

Kazubobu
HAYAKAWA,
Nuttawut
LAKSANAPNYAKU
L, and Shujiro
URATA

Firm-level Impact of Free Trade Agreements on

Import Prices

Apr

AEC Blueprint Implementation Performance and

Challenges: Investment Liberalization

Apr

Ponciano INTAL, Jr.

Emily Christi A.
CABEGIN

The Challenge of China and the Role of Deepening

ASEAN Integration for the Philippine
Semiconductor Industry

Apr

Venkatachalam
ANBUMOZHI, Alex
BOWEN and
Puthusserikunnel
Devasia JOSE

Market-Based Mechanisms to Promote Renewable

Energy in Asia

Apr

36

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

2015

No.
2015-29

2015-28

2015-27

Author(s)

Title

Year

Venkatachalam
ANBUMOZHI

Low Carbon Green Growth in Asia: What is the

Scope for Regional Cooperation?

Apr

Tan LI and Larry D.

QIU

Beyond Trade Creation: Free Trade Agreements

and Trade Disputes

Mar

Exporting and Firm-Level Credit Constraints

Evidence from Ghana

Mar

Mai Anh NGO

2015

2015

2015

Sunghoon CHUNG,
Joonhyung LEE,
Thomas OSANG

Did China Tire Safeguard Save U.S. Workers?

Esther Ann BLER,

Beata JAVORCIK,
Karen Helene
ULLTVEI-MOE

Globalization: A Womans Best Friend? Exporters

and the Gender Wage Gap

2015-24

Tristan Leo Dallo

AGUSTIN and Martin
SCHRDER

Mar
The Indian Automotive Industry and the ASEAN
Supply Chain Relations
2015

2015-23

Hideo KOBAYASHI
and Yingshan JIN

The CLMV Automobile and Auto Parts Industry

2015-22

Hideo KOBAYASHI

Mar
Current State and Issues of the Automobile and Auto
Parts Industries in ASEAN
2015

2015-21

Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA

Mar
Assessing the Progress of ASEAN MRAs on
Professional Services
2015

2015-20

Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Hikari ISHIDO

Mar
Values and Limitations of the ASEAN Agreement
on the Movement of Natural Persons
2015

2015-26

2015-25

Mar
2015
Mar
2015

Mar
2015

Mar
2015-19

Nanda NURRIDZKI

Learning from the ASEAN + 1 Model and the ACIA

2015-18

Patarapong
INTARAKUMNERD
and Pun-Arj
CHAIRATANA and
Preeda
CHAYANAJIT

Global Production Networks and

Industrial Upgrading: The Case
Semiconductor Industry in Thailand

2015-17

Rajah RASIAH and

Yap Xiao SHAN

Institutional Support, Regional Trade Linkages and Feb

Technological Capabilities in the Semiconductor
2015
Industry in Singapore

37

2015

Host-Site Feb
of the
2015

No.

Author(s)

2015-16

Rajah RASIAH and

Yap Xiao SHAN

2015-15

Xin Xin KONG, Miao

ZHANG and Santha
Chenayah RAMU

2015-14

Tin Htoo NAING and

Yap Su FEI

2015-13

2015-12

2015-11

2015-10

2015-09

2015-08

2015-07

2015-06

2015-05

2015-04

Title

Year

Institutional Support, Regional Trade Linkages and Feb

Technological Capabilities in the Semiconductor
2015
Industry in Malaysia
Feb
Chinas Semiconductor Industry in Global Value
Chains
2015
Feb
Multinationals, Technology and Regional Linkages
in Myanmars Clothing Industry
2015

The Garment Industry in Laos: Technological Feb

Vanthana NOLINTHA
Capabilities, Global Production Chains and
and Idris JAJRI
2015
Competitiveness
Feb
Miao ZHANG, Xin
The Transformation of the Clothing Industry in
Xin KONG, Santha
China
2015
Chenayah RAMU
NGUYEN Dinh Chuc,
Feb
NGUYEN Ngoc Anh, Host-site institutions, Regional Production
Linkages and Technological Upgrading: A study of
NGUYEN Ha Trang
2015
Automotive Firms in Vietnam
and NGUYEN Ngoc
Minh
Pararapong
Feb
INTERAKUMNERD Intra-industry Trade, Product Fragmentation and
Technological Capability Development in Thai
and Kriengkrai
2015
Automotive Industry
TECHAKANONT
Feb
Auto and Car Parts Production: Can the Philippines
Rene E. OFRENEO
Catch Up with Asia
2015
Rajah RASIAH, Rafat
Beigpoor
SHAHRIVAR,
Abdusy Syakur AMIN
Yansheng LI, Xin Xin
KONG, and Miao
ZHANG
Mukul G. ASHER and
Fauziah ZEN
Lili Yan ING, Stephen
MAGIERA, and
Anika WIDIANA
Gemma ESTRADA,
James ANGRESANO,
Jo Thori LIND, Niku
MTNEN,
William MCBRIDE,
Donghyun PARK,

Host-site Support, Foreign Ownership, Regional

Linkages and Technological Capabilites: Evidence
from Automotive Firms in Indonesia

Feb

Industrial Upgrading in Global Production

Networks: Te Case of the Chinese Automotive
Industry

Feb

Social Protection in ASEAN: Challenges and

Initiatives for Post-2015 Vision
Business Licensing: A Key to Investment Climate
Reform

Fiscal Policy and Equity in Advanced Economies:

Lessons for Asia

38

2015

2015
Feb
2015
Feb
2015

Jan
2015

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year

Motohiro SATO, and

Karin SVANBORGSJVALL
2015-03

Erlinda M.
MEDALLA

Towards an Enabling Set of Rules of Origin for the

Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Jan
2015

Archanun
KOHPAIBOON and
Juthathip
JONGWANICH

Use of FTAs from Thai Experience

Misa OKABE

Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Trade in East

Asia

Hikari ISHIDO

Coverage of Trade in Services under ASEAN+1

FTAs

2014-25

Junianto James
LOSARI

Dec
Searching for an Ideal International Investment
Protection Regime for ASEAN + Dialogue Partners
2014
(RCEP): Where Do We Begin?

Dayong ZHANG and

David C. Broadstock

Impact of International Oil Price Shocks on

Consumption Expenditures in ASEAN and East
Asia

Nov

2014-24

Dandan ZHANG,
Xunpeng SHI, and Yu
SHENG

Enhanced Measurement of Energy Market

Integration in East Asia: An Application of
Dynamic Principal Component Analysis

Nov

2014-22

Yanrui WU

Nov
Deregulation, Competition, and Market Integration
in Chinas Electricity Sector
2014

2014-21

Yanfei LI and
Youngho CHANG

Infrastructure Investments for Power Trade and Nov

Transmission in ASEAN+2: Costs, Benefits, Long2014
Term Contracts, and Prioritised Development

2015-02

2015-01

2014-26

2014-23

2014-20

2014-19

2014-18

2014-17

Yu SHENG, Yanrui
WU, Xunpeng SHI,
Dandan ZHANG
Andindya
BHATTACHARYA
and Tania
BHATTACHARYA

Jan
2015
Jan
2015
Dec
2014

2014

2014

Market Integration and Energy Trade Efficiency: An Nov

Application of Malmqviat Index to Analyse Multi2014
Product Trade
Nov
ASEAN-India Gas Cooperation: Redifining Indias
Look East Policy with Myanmar
2014
Sep

Olivier CADOT, Lili

Yan ING

How Restrictive Are ASEANs RoO?

Sadayuki TAKII

July
Import Penetration, Export Orientation, and Plant
Size in Indonesian Manufacturing
2014

39

2014

No.
2014-16

2014-15

Author(s)
Tomoko INUI, Keiko
ITO, and Daisuke
MIYAKAWA
Han PHOUMIN and
Fukunari KIMURA

Title
Japanese Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Export Decisions: The Role of Overseas Market
Information
Trade-off Relationship between Energy Intensitythus energy demand- and Income Level: Empirical
Evidence and Policy Implications for ASEAN and
East Asia Countries

Year
July
2014
June
2014

Cassey LEE

May
The Exporting and Productivity Nexus: Does Firm
Size Matter?
2014

2014-13

Yifan ZHANG

May
Productivity Evolution of Chinese large and Small
Firms in the Era of Globalisation
2014

Offshoring and the Shortening of the Quality

Ladder:Evidence from Danish Apparel

May

2014-12

Valria SMEETS,
Sharon
TRAIBERMAN,
Frederic
WARZYNSKI

May

Inkyo CHEONG

Koreas Policy Package for Enhancing its FTA

Utilization and Implications for Koreas Policy

Sothea OUM,
Dionisius NARJOKO,
and Charles HARVIE
Christopher
PARSONS and PierreLouis Vzina
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA and
Toshiyuki
MATSUURA

Constraints, Determinants of SME Innovation, and

the Role of Government Support

May

Migrant Networks and Trade: The Vietnamese

Boat People as a Natural Experiment

May
2014

Dynamic Tow-way Relationship between

Exporting and Importing: Evidence from Japan

May
2014

DOAN Thi Thanh Ha

and Kozo KIYOTA

Firm-level Evidence on Productivity Differentials

and Turnover in Vietnamese Manufacturing

Apr

Larry QIU and

Miaojie YU

Multiproduct Firms, Export Product Scope, and

Trade Liberalization: The Role of Managerial
Efficiency

Apr

Han PHOUMIN and

Shigeru KIMURA

Analysis on Price Elasticity of Energy Demand in

East Asia: Empirical Evidence and Policy
Implications for ASEAN and East Asia

Apr

Youngho CHANG and

Yanfei LI

Non-renewable Resources in Asian Economies:

Perspectives of Availability, Applicability,
Acceptability, and Affordability

Feb

Yasuyuki SAWADA
and Fauziah ZEN

Disaster Management in ASEAN

Jan

2014-14

2014-11

2014-10

2014-09

2014-08

2014-07

2014-06

2014-05

2014-04

2014-03

40

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

2014

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year
2014
Jan

2014-02

2014-01

2013-38

2013-37

2013-36

2013-35

2013-34

2013-33

2013-32

2013-31

2013-30

2013-29

2013-28

Cassey LEE

Competition Law Enforcement in Malaysia

Rizal SUKMA

ASEAN Beyond 2015: The Imperatives for Further

Institutional Changes

Toshihiro OKUBO,
Fukunari KIMURA,
Nozomu TESHIMA

Asian Fragmentation in the Global Financial Crisis

Xunpeng SHI and

Cecilya MALIK

Assessment of ASEAN Energy Cooperation within

the ASEAN Economic Community

Dec

Tereso S. TULLAO,
Jr. And Christopher
James CABUAY

Eduction and Human Capital Development to

Strengthen R&D Capacity in the ASEAN

Dec

Dec

Paul A. RASCHKY

Estimating the Effects of West Sumatra Public

Asset Insurance Program on Short-Term Recovery
after the September 2009 Earthquake

Nipon
POAPONSAKORN
and Pitsom
MEETHOM

Impact of the 2011 Floods, and Food Management

in Thailand

Nov

Nov

Mitsuyo ANDO

Development and Resructuring of Regional

Production/Distribution Networks in East Asia

Mitsuyo ANDO and

Fukunari KIMURA

Evolution of Machinery Production Networks:

Linkage of North America with East Asia?

Nov

Mitsuyo ANDO and

Fukunari KIMURA

What are the Opportunities and Challenges for

ASEAN?

Nov

Nov

Simon PEETMAN

Standards Harmonisation in ASEAN: Progress,

Challenges and Moving Beyond 2015

Jonathan KOH and

Andrea Feldman
MOWERMAN

Towards a Truly Seamless Single Windows and

Trade Facilitation Regime in ASEAN Beyond 2015

Nov

Nov

Rajah RASIAH

Stimulating Innovation in ASEAN Institutional

Support, R&D Activity and Intelletual Property
Rights

2014
Jan
2014
Dec
2013

41

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

2013

No.
2013-27

2013-26

2013-25

2013-24

Author(s)
Maria Monica
WIHARDJA

2013-22

Financial Integration Challenges in ASEAN

beyond 2015

Year
Nov
2013

Who Disseminates Technology to Whom, How,

Tomohiro MACHIKIT
and Why: Evidence from Buyer-Seller Business
A and Yasushi UEKI
Networks

Nov

Reconstructing the Concept of Single Market a

Production Base for ASEAN beyond 2015

Oct

Streamlining NTMs in ASEAN:

Oct

The Way Forward

2013

Small and Medium Enterprises Access to Finance:

Evidence from Selected Asian Economies

Oct

Toward a Single Aviation Market in ASEAN:

Regulatory Reform and Industry Challenges

Oct

Fukunari KIMURA
Olivier CADOT
Ernawati MUNADI
Lili Yan ING
Charles HARVIE,

2013-23

Title

Dionisius NARJOKO,
Sothea OUM
Alan Khee-Jin TAN

2013

2013

2013

2013

Hisanobu SHISHIDO,
2013-21

2013-20

2013-19

2013-18

2013-17

2013-16

Moving MPAC Forward: Strengthening PublicShintaro SUGIYAMA,

Private Partnership, Improving Project Portfolio
Fauziah ZEN
and in Search of Practical Financing Schemes
Barry DESKER, Mely
CABALLEROANTHONY, Paul
TENG

Oct
2013

Thought/Issues Paper on ASEAN Food Security:

Towards a more Comprehensive Framework

Oct

Toshihiro KUDO,
Making Myanmar the Star Growth Performer in
Satoru KUMAGAI, So ASEAN in the Next Decade: A Proposal of Five
UMEZAKI
Growth Strategies

Sep

2013

2013

Managing Economic Shocks and Macroeconomic

Coordination in an Integrated Region: ASEAN
Beyond 2015

Sep

Cassy LEE and

Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA

Competition Policy Challenges of Single Market

and Production Base

Sep

Growing an ASEAN Voice? : A Common Platform

in Global and Regional Governance

Sep

Simon TAY

Ruperto MAJUCA

42

2013

2013

2013

No.

2013-15

2013-14

2013-13

2013-12

2013-11

2013-10

Author(s)
Danilo C. ISRAEL
and Roehlano M.
BRIONES

Title
Impacts of Natural Disasters on Agriculture, Food
Security, and Natural Resources and Environment
in the Philippines

Year
Aug
2013

Allen Yu-Hung LAI

and Seck L. TAN

Impact of Disasters and Disaster Risk Management

in Singapore: A Case Study of Singapores
Experience in Fighting the SARS Epidemic

Aug

Impact of Natural Disasters on Production

Networks and Urbanization in New Zealand

Aug

Brent LAYTON

Impact of Recent Crises and Disasters on Regional

Production/Distribution Networks and Trade in
Japan

Aug

Economic and Welfare Impacts of Disasters in East

Asia and Policy Responses: The Case of Vietnam

Aug

Mitsuyo ANDO

Le Dang TRUNG

Sann VATHANA,
Sothea OUM, Ponhrith Impact of Disasters and Role of Social Protection
KAN, Colas
in Natural Disaster Risk Management in Cambodia
CHERVIER

2013

2013

2013

2013
Aug
2013

Sommarat
CHANTARAT, Krirk
PANNANGPETCH,
Nattapong
PUTTANAPONG,
Preesan RAKWATIN,
and Thanasin
TANOMPONGPHAN
DH

Index-Based Risk Financing and Development of

Natural Disaster Insurance Programs in Developing
Asian Countries

Aug

Ikumo ISONO and

Satoru KUMAGAI

Long-run Economic Impacts of Thai Flooding:

Geographical Simulation Analysis

July

2013-07

Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Hikaru ISHIDO

Assessing the Progress of Services Liberalization in May

the ASEAN-China Free Trade Area (ACFTA)
2013
A CGE Study of Economic Impact of Accession of
Hong Kong to ASEAN-China Free Trade
Agreement

May

2013-06

Ken ITAKURA,
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA, and
Ikumo ISONO
Misa OKABE and
Shujiro URATA

The Impact of AFTA on Intra-AFTA Trade

May

2013-09

2013-08

2013-05

43

2013

2013

2013

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year
2013

2013-04

2013-03

2013-02

Kohei SHIINO
Cassey LEE and
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA
Yoshifumi
FUKUNAGA and
Ikumo ISONO

How Far Will Hong Kongs Accession to ACFTA

will Impact on Trade in Goods?

May

ASEAN Regional Cooperation on Competition

Policy

Apr

2013

2013
Jan

Taking ASEAN+1 FTAs towards the RCEP:

2013
A Mapping Study

2013-01

Ken ITAKURA

Impact of Liberalization and Improved

Connectivity and Facilitation in ASEAN for the
ASEAN Economic Community

Jan
2013

2012-17

Sun XUEGONG, Guo

LIYAN, Zeng
ZHENG

Market Entry Barriers for FDI and Private

Investors: Lessons from Chinas Electricity Market

Aug
2012

2012-16

Yanrui WU

Electricity Market Integration: Global Trends and

Implications for the EAS Region

Aug
2012

2012-15

Youngho CHANG,
Yanfei LI

Power Generation and Cross-border Grid Planning

for the Integrated ASEAN Electricity Market: A
Dynamic Linear Programming Model

Aug
2012

2012-14

Yanrui WU, Xunpeng

SHI

Economic Development, Energy Market

Integration and Energy Demand: Implications for
East Asia

Aug
2012

2012-13

Joshua AIZENMAN,
Minsoo LEE, and
Donghyun PARK

The Relationship between Structural Change and

Inequality: A Conceptual Overview with Special
Reference to Developing Asia

July
2012

2012-12

Hyun-Hoon LEE,
Minsoo LEE, and
Donghyun PARK

Growth Policy and Inequality in Developing Asia:

Lessons from Korea

July
2012

2012-11

Cassey LEE

Knowledge Flows, Organization and Innovation:

Firm-Level Evidence from Malaysia

June
2012

2012-10

Jacques MAIRESSE,
Pierre MOHNEN,
Yayun ZHAO, and
Feng ZHEN

Globalization, Innovation and Productivity in

Manufacturing Firms: A Study of Four Sectors of
China

June
2012

44

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year

2012-09

Ari KUNCORO

Globalization and Innovation in Indonesia:

Evidence from Micro-Data on Medium and Large
Manufacturing Establishments

2012-08

Alfons
PALANGKARAYA

The Link between Innovation and Export: Evidence June

from Australias Small and Medium Enterprises
2012

2012-07

Chin Hee HAHN and

Chang-Gyun PARK

Direction of Causality in Innovation-Exporting

Linkage: Evidence on Korean Manufacturing

June
2012

2012-06

Keiko ITO

Source of Learning-by-Exporting Effects: Does

Exporting Promote Innovation?

June
2012

2012-05

Rafaelita M.
ALDABA

Trade Reforms, Competition, and Innovation in the

Philippines

June
2012

The Role of Trade Costs in FDI Strategy of

Heterogeneous Firms: Evidence from Japanese
Firm-level Data

June

2012-04

Toshiyuki
MATSUURA and
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA

2012-03

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Hyun-Hoon LEE

How Does Country Risk Matter for Foreign Direct

Investment?

Feb
2012

Agglomeration and Dispersion in China and

ASEAN:
A Geographical Simulation Analysis

Jan

2012-02

Ikumo ISONO, Satoru

KUMAGAI, Fukunari
KIMURA

How Did the Japanese Exports Respond to Two

Crises in the International Production Network?:
The Global Financial Crisis and the East Japan
Earthquake
Interactive Learning-driven Innovation in
Upstream-Downstream Relations: Evidence from
Mutual Exchanges of Engineers in Developing
Economies

2012-01

Mitsuyo ANDO and

Fukunari KIMURA

2011-10

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA and
Yasushi UEKI

2011-09

Joseph D. ALBA,
Wai-Mun CHIA, and
Donghyun PARK

Foreign Output Shocks and Monetary Policy

Regimes in Small Open Economies: A DSGE
Evaluation of East Asia

2011-08

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA and
Yasushi UEKI

Impacts of Incoming Knowledge on Product

Innovation: Econometric Case Studies of
Technology Transfer of Auto-related Industries in
Developing Economies

45

June
2012

2012

2012
Jan
2012

Dec
2011

Dec
2011

Nov
2011

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year

2011-07

Yanrui WU

Gas Market Integration: Global Trends and

Implications for the EAS Region

Nov
2011

Philip AndrewsSPEED

Energy Market Integration in East Asia: A

Regional Public Goods Approach

Nov

2011-06

Yu SHENG,

Energy Market Integration and Economic

Convergence: Implications for East Asia

Oct
2011

2011-05
Xunpeng SHI

2011-04

Why Does Population Aging Matter So Much for

Sang-Hyop LEE,
Andrew MASON, and Asia? Population Aging, Economic Security and
Donghyun PARK
Economic Growth in Asia
Xunpeng SHI,
Shinichi GOTO

Harmonizing Biodiesel Fuel Standards in East Asia:

Current Status, Challenges and the Way Forward

Hikari ISHIDO

Liberalization of Trade in Services under

ASEAN+n :

2011-03

2011-02

2011

Aug
2011
May
2011
May
2011

A Mapping Exercise

2011-01

Kuo-I CHANG,
Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA

Location Choice of Multinational Enterprises in

China: Comparison between Japan and Taiwan

Mar
2011

Toshiyuki
MATSUURA
2010-11

Charles HARVIE,
Dionisius NARJOKO,
Sothea OUM

Firm Characteristic Determinants of SME

Participation in Production Networks

Oct
2010

2010-10

Mitsuyo ANDO

Machinery Trade in East Asia, and the Global

Financial Crisis

Oct
2010

International Production Networks in Machinery

Industries: Structure and Its Evolution

Sep
2010

Fukunari KIMURA
2010-09
Ayako OBASHI

2010-08

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA, Shoichi Detecting Effective Knowledge Sources in Product
MIYAHARA,
Innovation: Evidence from Local Firms and
Masatsugu TSUJI, and MNCs/JVs in Southeast Asia
Yasushi UEKI

Aug
2010

2010-07

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA,
How ICTs Raise Manufacturing Performance:
Masatsugu TSUJI, and Firm-level Evidence in Southeast Asia
Yasushi UEKI

Aug
2010

46

No.

Author(s)

2010-06

Xunpeng SHI

2010-05

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and

Title

Year

Carbon Footprint Labeling Activities in the East

Asia Summit Region: Spillover Effects to Less
Developed Countries

July
2010

Firm-level Analysis of Globalization: A Survey of

the Eight Literatures

Mar
2010

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA

2010-04

2010-03

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
and Yasushi UEKI

Upstream-Downstream Relations

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA

Innovation in Linked and Non-linked Firms:

and Yasushi UEKI

2010-02

2010-01

2009-23

The Impacts of Face-to-face and Frequent

Interactions on Innovation:

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA

Effects of Variety of Linkages in East Asia

and Yasushi UEKI

Search-theoretic Approach to Securing New

Suppliers: Impacts of Geographic Proximity for
Importer and Non-importer

Tomohiro
MACHIKITA

Spatial Architecture of the Production Networks in

Southeast Asia:

and Yasushi UEKI

Empirical Evidence from Firm-level Data

Dionisius NARJOKO

Foreign Presence Spillovers and Firms Export

Response:

Feb
2010

Feb
2010

Feb
2010

Feb
2010

Nov
2009

Evidence from the Indonesian Manufacturing

2009-22

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Daisuke
HIRATSUKA, Kohei
SHIINO, and Seiya
SUKEGAWA

Who Uses Free Trade Agreements?

Nov
2009

2009-21

Ayako OBASHI

Resiliency of Production Networks in Asia:

Evidence from the Asian Crisis

Oct
2009

2009-20

Mitsuyo ANDO and

Fukunari KIMURA

Fragmentation in East Asia: Further Evidence

Oct
2009

2009-19

Xunpeng SHI

The Prospects for Coal: Global Experience and

Implications for Energy Policy

Sept
2009

47

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year

2009-18

Sothea OUM

Income Distribution and Poverty in a CGE

Framework: A Proposed Methodology

Jun
2009

2009-17

Erlinda M.
MEDALLA and Jenny
BALBOA

ASEAN Rules of Origin: Lessons and

Recommendations for the Best Practice

Jun
2009

2009-16

Masami ISHIDA

Special Economic Zones and Economic Corridors

Jun
2009

2009-15

Toshihiro KUDO

Border Area Development in the GMS: Turning the May

Periphery into the Center of Growth
2009

2009-14

Claire HOLLWEG
and Marn-Heong
WONG

Measuring Regulatory Restrictions in Logistics

Services

Apr
2009

2009-13

Loreli C. De DIOS

Business View on Trade Facilitation

Apr
2009

2009-12

Patricia SOURDIN
and Richard
POMFRET

Monitoring Trade Costs in Southeast Asia

Apr
2009

Barriers to Trade in Health and Financial Services

in ASEAN

Apr
2009

Philippa DEE and

2009-11
Huong DINH
2009-10

The Impact of the US Subprime Mortgage Crisis on

Apr
the World and East Asia: Through Analyses of
2009
Cross-border Capital Movements

Sayuri SHIRAI

Akie IRIYAMA

International Production Networks and

Export/Import Responsiveness to Exchange Rates:
The Case of Japanese Manufacturing Firms

Mar
2009

2009-08

Archanun
KOHPAIBOON

Vertical and Horizontal FDI Technology

Spillovers:Evidence from Thai Manufacturing

Mar
2009

2009-07

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Toshiyuki
MATSUURA

Gains from Fragmentation at the Firm Level:

Evidence from Japanese Multinationals in East
Asia

Mar
2009

2009-06

Dionisius A.
NARJOKO

Plant Entry in a More

Mar
LiberalisedIndustrialisationProcess: An Experience
2009
of Indonesian Manufacturing during the 1990s

2009-05

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,

Firm-level Analysis of Globalization: A Survey

Mitsuyo ANDO

and

2009-09

48

Mar
2009

No.

Author(s)

Title

Year

and Tomohiro
MACHIKITA
2009-04

Chin Hee HAHN and

Chang-Gyun PARK

Learning-by-exporting in Korean Manufacturing:

A Plant-level Analysis

Mar
2009

2009-03

Ayako OBASHI

Stability of Production Networks in East Asia:

Duration and Survival of Trade

Mar
2009

2009-02

Fukunari KIMURA

The Spatial Structure of Production/Distribution

Networks and Its Implication for Technology
Transfers and Spillovers

Mar
2009

2009-01

Fukunari KIMURA
and Ayako OBASHI

International Production Networks: Comparison

between China and ASEAN

Jan
2009

2008-03

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA and
Fukunari KIMURA

The Effect of Exchange Rate Volatility on

International Trade in East Asia

Dec
2008

2008-02

Satoru KUMAGAI,
Toshitaka GOKAN,
Ikumo ISONO, and
Souknilanh KEOLA

Predicting Long-Term Effects of Infrastructure

Development Projects in Continental South East
Asia: IDE Geographical Simulation Model

Dec
2008

2008-01

Kazunobu
HAYAKAWA,
Fukunari KIMURA,
and Tomohiro
MACHIKITA

Firm-level Analysis of Globalization: A Survey

Dec
2008

49