تاثیر فساد بر نوآوری: مطالعه تطبیقی کشورهای با فساد بالا و پایین آسیایی
محورهای موضوعی : فصلنامه اقتصاد محاسباتی
فریبا حسینی مرام
1
,
احمد سرلک
2
,
غلامعلی حاجی
3
1 - دانشجوی دکتری اقتصاد، دانشکده ی مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اراک، اراک، ایران.
2 - استادیار اقتصاد، دانشکده ی مدیریت، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد اراک، اراک، ایران
3 - گروه اقتصاد،دانشکده مدیریت،دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،اراک،ایران
کلید واژه: فساد, نوآوری, پانل دیتا, کشورهای آسیایی,
چکیده مقاله :
نوآوری از مهمترین عوامل تأثیرگذار بر رشد وتوسعه اقتصادی کشورها محسوب می¬شود. از طرفی فساد در اقتصاد، سابقه طولانی دارد که بر متغیرهای مهم اقتصادی از جمله نوآوری تاثیر گذار است که این تاثیر با توجه به شرایط اقتصادی کشورها می¬تواند مثبت و منفی باشد. هدف این مقاله بررسی تاثیر فساد بر نوآوری در کشورهای با فساد بالا و پایین آسیایی در دوره زمانی2022-2008 و مقایسه نتایج، با استفاده از روش رگرسیونی پانل دیتا می¬باشد. نتایج نشان می¬دهد که اثر فساد بر نوآوری در کشورهای آسیایی با فساد بالا مثبت و برای کشورهای آسیایی با فساد پایین منفی است. در کشورهای با فساد بالا بدلیل طولانی بودن وپیچده¬گی فرایند¬ها و کیفت پایین نهادی، فساد منجر به سرعت بخشیدن به انجام فعالیت¬های نوآورانه شده است. فساد در این کشورها به حذف موانع سخت برای سرمایه¬گذاری و تقویت نوآوری کمک نموده و توانسته چرخ اقتصادی را روغنکاری کند. لیکن در کشورهای با درجه فساد پایین از طریق تخصیص نادرست منابع، انگیزه¬ها نوآوری و زمینه¬های رقابت فعالیت¬های نوآور را کاهش داده و بر آن اثر منفی دارد. سیاست¬های کاهش فساد و اصلاح شرایط سخت بازار، کاهش بوروکراسی¬های اداری ﻃوﻻنی و همسویی قوانین با حمایت از فعالیت¬ها¬ی نوآور، می¬تواند در بهبود نوآوری موثر باشد.
Extended Abstract
Purpose
Innovation is one of the most important factors affecting economic growth. On the other hand, economic corruption affects important changes, including innovation, which can be positive or negative depending on the economic conditions of the government. The purpose of this article is to investigate the impact of corruption on innovation in Asia with high and low corruption for the period of 2008-2022. During the review period based on the classification of Transparency International, 15 countries Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Bhutan, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, occupied Palestine, South Korea, Brunei, Qatar, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malaysia and Armenia are classified as less corrupt and other Asians as more corrupt. The results of some studies state that corruption is an obstacle to growth and innovation, while others consider it as a booster of innovation, and corruption has a positive relationship with innovation, which can remove hard obstacles for capital. Help to establish and strengthen innovation. Therefore, it can be important to investigate whether corruption leads to improved innovation in Asian countries with high and low corruption. This study tests the hypothesis that corruption enhances innovation or that it slows down innovation.
Methodology
According to the theoretical foundations, in order to investigate the impact of corruption on innovation, the following model, which is taken from the studies of Al-Balushi (2020), Zakari, Vincent Tavi and Raphael (2022), has been used.
IN indicates the number of patents registered as a substitute for innovation, the information of which is collected from the intellectual property organization (Yolka, 2004). Corp represents corruption. pop the population of the country (indicating the size of the country), gdp indicating the gross domestic product (at constant 2015 prices), 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 indicating the openness of trade, nat indicating the rent of natural resources, hc the human capital index (number of university graduates) required information The research was extracted from the World Bank and Transparency International.
Finding
To check the significance of the variables. Due to the cross-sectional dependence between them, the mean test of boys was used, and the results show that the variables are maximum in the first order difference. Also, according to the results of the Kao test, the co-accumulation between the variables is confirmed and the model can be estimated without worrying about false regression. The results of the fixed effects test show that it is not possible to reject the hypothesis that the coefficients for all years are equal to zero, so there is no need for time fixed effects in this research and the Chow test is performed only with spatial effects. accepted According to the results of Limer and Hausman's F test, estimating the model in the form of panel data and using the fixed effects method will have a more appropriate fit.
The findings show that corruption has a negative effect on innovation in countries with low corruption (coefficient -0.4417) and a slight positive effect on innovation (coefficient 0.0391) in countries with high corruption. The negative impact of corruption on innovation in countries with low corruption can be expressed through the misallocation of resources. Reducing corruption in countries with low levels of corruption leads to the improvement of innovation in these countries. Gross domestic product has a positive and significant effect on innovation in both groups of countries, but the intensity of its effect on innovation is greater in countries with low corruption than in countries with high corruption.
The effect of population on corruption is positive in countries with less corruption and negative in countries with more corruption. The existence of a larger population provides the necessary potential for creating creativity and innovation, but its quality and capabilities, as well as creating a context for the flourishing of talents, are important. The results indicate the positive and significant impact of the abundance of natural resources on innovation in both groups of countries, but the intensity of its impact is greater in countries with less corruption. In these countries, suitable fields have been provided with more of these resources.
The intensity of the impact of trade liberalization on innovation in countries with less corruption with a coefficient of 0.2416 is greater than this effect in countries with high corruption with a coefficient of 0.1915. Commercial liberalization in countries with less corruption has made innovative entrepreneurs in these countries have more opportunities to invest and expand the market and sell more products.
According to the findings of the model, human capital has an impact on innovation, which, like most of the research variables, the intensity of its influence in countries with less corruption (coefficient 0.2691), is greater than the intensity of influence in countries with more corruption (0.0124). is Due to the higher quality of human resources in countries with less corruption and the availability of more competition in these countries, the impact of human capital on innovation is greater than in countries with more corruption.
Conclusion
The results of the research showed that corruption has increased the possibility of innovation in countries with high corruption, and the main reason for its positive effect is the lack of infrastructure suitable for innovation, the complexity and length of the bureaucratic process in these countries, and in other words Another is the low institutional quality of market operators in this field. Therefore, in line with the reduction of corruption, governments should consider effective policies to correct the harsh conditions of the market, which, in addition to aligning the laws with the support of these activities, will also reduce long administrative bureaucracies and provide the necessary legal support for entrepreneurship and innovation. can be done. It seems that in countries with a high degree of corruption, due to the quality of official and informal institutions in them and the lack of necessary legal and support infrastructures, paying bribes and circumventing many laws still slows down innovation-related activities.
Extended Abstract
Purpose
Innovation is one of the most important factors affecting economic growth. On the other hand, economic corruption affects important changes, including innovation, which can be positive or negative depending on the economic conditions of the government. The purpose of this article is to investigate the impact of corruption on innovation in Asia with high and low corruption for the period of 2008-2022. During the review period based on the classification of Transparency International, 15 countries Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Bhutan, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, occupied Palestine, South Korea, Brunei, Qatar, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Malaysia and Armenia are classified as less corrupt and other Asians as more corrupt. The results of some studies state that corruption is an obstacle to growth and innovation, while others consider it as a booster of innovation, and corruption has a positive relationship with innovation, which can remove hard obstacles for capital. Help to establish and strengthen innovation. Therefore, it can be important to investigate whether corruption leads to improved innovation in Asian countries with high and low corruption. This study tests the hypothesis that corruption enhances innovation or that it slows down innovation.
Methodology
According to the theoretical foundations, in order to investigate the impact of corruption on innovation, the following model, which is taken from the studies of Al-Balushi (2020), Zakari, Vincent Tavi and Raphael (2022), has been used.
IN indicates the number of patents registered as a substitute for innovation, the information of which is collected from the intellectual property organization (Yolka, 2004). Corp represents corruption. pop the population of the country (indicating the size of the country), gdp indicating the gross domestic product (at constant 2015 prices), 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒 indicating the openness of trade, nat indicating the rent of natural resources, hc the human capital index (number of university graduates) required information The research was extracted from the World Bank and Transparency International.
Finding
To check the significance of the variables. Due to the cross-sectional dependence between them, the mean test of boys was used, and the results show that the variables are maximum in the first order difference. Also, according to the results of the Kao test, the co-accumulation between the variables is confirmed and the model can be estimated without worrying about false regression. The results of the fixed effects test show that it is not possible to reject the hypothesis that the coefficients for all years are equal to zero, so there is no need for time fixed effects in this research and the Chow test is performed only with spatial effects. accepted According to the results of Limer and Hausman's F test, estimating the model in the form of panel data and using the fixed effects method will have a more appropriate fit.
The findings show that corruption has a negative effect on innovation in countries with low corruption (coefficient -0.4417) and a slight positive effect on innovation (coefficient 0.0391) in countries with high corruption. The negative impact of corruption on innovation in countries with low corruption can be expressed through the misallocation of resources. Reducing corruption in countries with low levels of corruption leads to the improvement of innovation in these countries. Gross domestic product has a positive and significant effect on innovation in both groups of countries, but the intensity of its effect on innovation is greater in countries with low corruption than in countries with high corruption.
The effect of population on corruption is positive in countries with less corruption and negative in countries with more corruption. The existence of a larger population provides the necessary potential for creating creativity and innovation, but its quality and capabilities, as well as creating a context for the flourishing of talents, are important. The results indicate the positive and significant impact of the abundance of natural resources on innovation in both groups of countries, but the intensity of its impact is greater in countries with less corruption. In these countries, suitable fields have been provided with more of these resources.
The intensity of the impact of trade liberalization on innovation in countries with less corruption with a coefficient of 0.2416 is greater than this effect in countries with high corruption with a coefficient of 0.1915. Commercial liberalization in countries with less corruption has made innovative entrepreneurs in these countries have more opportunities to invest and expand the market and sell more products.
According to the findings of the model, human capital has an impact on innovation, which, like most of the research variables, the intensity of its influence in countries with less corruption (coefficient 0.2691), is greater than the intensity of influence in countries with more corruption (0.0124). is Due to the higher quality of human resources in countries with less corruption and the availability of more competition in these countries, the impact of human capital on innovation is greater than in countries with more corruption.
Conclusion
The results of the research showed that corruption has increased the possibility of innovation in countries with high corruption, and the main reason for its positive effect is the lack of infrastructure suitable for innovation, the complexity and length of the bureaucratic process in these countries, and in other words Another is the low institutional quality of market operators in this field. Therefore, in line with the reduction of corruption, governments should consider effective policies to correct the harsh conditions of the market, which, in addition to aligning the laws with the support of these activities, will also reduce long administrative bureaucracies and provide the necessary legal support for entrepreneurship and innovation. can be done. It seems that in countries with a high degree of corruption, due to the quality of official and informal institutions in them and the lack of necessary legal and support infrastructures, paying bribes and circumventing many laws still slows down innovation-related activities.
Aldieri, L., Barra, C., Ruggiero, N., (2022). Corruption and firms’ efficiency: international evidence using an instrumental variable approach. Economic Politcal. 40(1). 731-759.
Alawamleh, M., Bani Ismail, L., Aqeel, D., (2019). The bilateral relationship between human capital investment and innovation in Jordan. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship.8(6).1-17.
Al Bulushi, M., (2020). Essays on innovation and corruption: a cross-country analysis, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Bath.
Iorio, R., Segnana, M.L.,(2022). Is paying bribes worthwhile? Corruption and innovation in middle-income countries. Eurasia Business and Economics Society, 12(3), 475–504.
Athanasauli, D., & Goujard, A., (2015). Corruption and management practices: Firm level evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(4), 1014–1034.
Ayyagari, M., Demirgüç-Kunt, A., & Maksimovic, A.,(¬2014). Bribe payments and innovation in developing countries: Are innovating firms disproportionately affected? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(1), 51–75.
Acemoglu, D., and Verdier, T., (2000). The choice between market failures and corruption. American economic review, 90(1), 194-211.
Acs, Z., Anselin, L., and Varga, A., (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research policy, 31(7), 1069-1085.
Anokhin, S., and Schulze, W., (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 465-476.
Athanasauli, D., & Goujard, A. (2015). Corruption and management practices: Firm level evidence. Journal of Comparative Economics, 43(4), 1014–1034.
Bahoo, S., Ilan A., and Andrea P,. (2020). Corruption in international business: A review and research agenda. International Business Review 29: 101660.
Behor, Sh., Naderi, N., Fatahi, Sh., 2018. Economic freedom and innovative entrepreneurial activities, Scientific. Journal of Innovation Management,(2)7:1-20. (In Persian)
Berberi, M., Kalantari, A., Raghofer, H., Ghaffari, G.,(¬2016). The effect of natural resources on the development of countries, Jhagraqia and Environmental Sustainability 2(4) 81-96. (In Persian)
Bloom, N., Draca, M., and Van Reenen, J. (2016). Trade induced technical change? The impact of Chinese imports on innovation, IT and productivity. The Review of Economic Studies, 83(1), 87-117.
Bjornskov, C., (2011). Combating corruption: On the interplay between institutional quality and social trust. The Journal of Law & Economics 54: 135–59.
Bukari, C., & Anaman, E. A. (2021). Corruption and firm innovation: A grease or sand in the wheels of commerce? Evidence from Lower-Middle and Upper-Middle Income Economies. Eurasian Business Review, 11(2), 267–302.
Campos, N., Ralitza, D., & Saleh A.( 2010). Whither corruption? A quantitative survey of the literature on corruption and growth, CEPR Discussion Paper. No. 8140.
Cerdeira. J., Lourenço,D., (2022). Does Corruption Impact Firm Innovation? Evidence from Portugal, Economies, MDPI, vol. 10(7), 1-10,
Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2016). Corruption in international business. Journal of World Business, 51(1), 35–49.
De Rosa, D., Nishaal G., and Holger G., (2015). Corruption and productivity: Firm-level evidence. Journal of Economics and Statistics . 2(35). 115–38.
Dreher, A., & Gassebner, M., (2013). Greasing the wheels? The impact of regulations and corruption on firm entry. Public Choice, 155, 413–432.
Fan, P., (2014). Innovation in China. Journal of Economic Surveys, 28(4), 725-745.
Furman, J. L., and Hayes, R., (2004). Catching up or standing still?: National innovative productivity among ‘follower’countries, 1978–1999. Research policy, 33(9), 1329-1354.
Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., and Stern, S., (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy, 31(6), 899-933.
Faraz Riaz, M., & Cantner, U., (2020). Revisiting the relationship between corruption and innovation in developing and emerging economies. Crime Law and Social Change.7(12). 32-59.
Fisman, R., & Svensson, J., 2007. Are corruption and taxation really harmful to growth? Firm level evidence. Journal of Development Economics, 83(1), 63–75.
Goedhuys, M,. Janz P Mohnen (2008). what drives productivity in Tanzanian manufacturing firms: Technology or business environment? European Journal of Development Research, 20(2), 199–218.
Galindo, M & Mendez, M., (2013). Enterpreneurship, Economic Growth, and Innovation: Are Feedback Effects at Work? Journal of Business Research.9(6).62-91.
Goedhuys-DegelinMohnen, M. P., & Taha, T .(2016). Corruption, innovation and firm growth: firm level evidence from Egypt and Tunisia. Eurasian Business Review, 6(3), 299–322.
Hu, M.-C., and Mathews, J. A. (2005). National innovative capacity in East Asia. Research policy, 34(9), 1322-1349.
Huang, C.-J., (2016). Is corruption bad for economic growth? Evidence from Asia-Pacific countries. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 35, 247-256.
Hanousek, J., & Kochanova A., (2015). Bribery environment and firm performance: Evidence from Central and Eastern European Countries, Centre for Economic Policy Research.5(9).32-59.
Habiyaremye, A., & Raymond W., (2013). Transnational corruption and innovation in transition economies, MERIT Working Papers 5(11).14-31.
Huang, Q., and Yuan, T., (2016). Does political corruption impede firm innovation? Evidence from the United States. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.56(1).213-248.
Igami, M., and Subrahmanyam, J. (2019). Patent Statistics as an Innovation Indicator? Evidence from the Hard Disk Drive Industry. Evidence from the Hard Disk Drive Industry. The Japanese Economic Review, 70(3), 308-330
Iorio, R., Segnana, M.L., (2022). Is paying bribes worthwhile? Corruption and innovation in middle-income countries. Eurasian Business Review, 12(3), 475-504, .
Johari, I., and Ibrahim, S. (2017). Innovation and Corruption. Research policy, 44(8), 112-149.
Khani, R., Nasrallahi, Z.,( 2012). The impact of population growth on innovation in Iran and selected developing countries, Applied and Macro Policy Quarterly (1) 4: 106-87 .(In Persian)
Krammer, S. M., (2019). Greasing the wheels of change: Bribery, institutions, and new product introductions in emerging markets. Journal of Management, 45(5), 1889–1926.
Krammer, SMS., (2013). Greasing the wheels of change: The impact of corruption on firms? in Innovation in Transition Economies, 35th DRUID Celebration Conference, Barcelona, Spain. June 17–19 .
Katz, J. S., (2016). What is a complex innovation system? PloS one, 11(6), e0156150.
Lambsdorff, J. G., (2007). The institutional economics of corruption and reform: Theory, evidence and policy: Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511492617
Lau, C. K. M., Yang, F. S., Zhang, Z., and Leung, V. K., (2015). Determinants of innovative activities: evidence from Europe and Central Asia region. The Singapore Economic Review, 60(01), 1550004.
Mahagaonkar, P., (2008). Corruption and Innovation: A Grease or Sand relationship? Jena Economic Research Papers, University Jena.
Najafi, S. M., Fath Elahi, J., Mohammadpour, F.,( 2018), the role of good governance in realizing the knowledge-based economy in Iran (in the form of the quadruple spiral model). Economic research sustainable growth and development. (1) 19:160-129. (In Persian)
Nguyen, T. V., and Pham, L. T., (2011). Scientific output and its relationship to knowledge economy: an analysis of ASEAN countries. Scientometrics, 89(1), 107-117.
Nguyen, N. A., Doan, Q. H., Nguyen, N. M. & Tran-Nam, B.,( 2016). The impact of petty corruption on firm innovation in Vietnam, MPRA Paper No. 71902.
Ramzanian, B., Salimifar, M., Naji Maidani, A., Salimifar, M., (2016). Investigating the relationship of causality and the effect of innovation on economic growth in selected countries, two quarterly journal of monetary and financial economics,(13)40.22-24. (In Persian)
Rose-Ackerman, S., & Palifka, B. J. (2016). Corruption and Government (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Shahabadi, A., Moradi, Ali., Momiwand, Q., (2019). Cross effect of financial development and good governance on innovation in selected efficiency oriented countries. Innovation Management, (4) 9: 88 -67. (In Persian)
Shahabadi, A., and Salimi, S., 2014. The effect of good governance on the intensity of research and development in selected developed and developing countries. Science and Technology Policy, (2) 7: 46-35. (In Persian)
Smith, N., Thomas, E., and Antoniou, C. (2014). Multi-national firms, corruption and innovation in Russia. Transitional firms, markets and institutions, ed. R. Van Tulder S. Lundan and A. Verbeke, 9, 347-371.
Veracierto, M. (2008). Corruption and innovation. Economic Perspectives, 32(1).
Wu, Jiamei & Chen, Zhibin & Guo, Chong, 2022. "How does anti-corruption affect green innovation? Evidence from China," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 405-424.
Wang, Y., and You, J. (2012). Corruption and firm growth: Evidence from China. China Economic Review, 23(2), 415-433.
Wathne, C., & Stephenson, M.C. (2021) The credibility of corruption statistics. A critical review of ten global estimates, April, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, https://www.u4.no/publications/the-credibility-of-corruption-statistics.
Wen, Jun & Mingbo Zheng & Gen-Fu Feng & Sunwu Winfred Chen & Chun-Ping Chang, (2020). "Corruption And Innovation: Linear And Nonlinear Investigations Of Oecd Countries," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 65(01), 103-129,.
yousefe Babadi , E,. Nasrollahi, Z,. Sazvar, M.,(2023). The relationship between shadow economy and corruption and innovation. Journal of Iranian Economic Issues, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies (IHCS) Biannual Journal, 9(2), 365-393. (In¬Persian). Doi: 10.30465/ce.2022.39089.1725 The
Zakari, Abdulrasheed & Vincent Tawiah, Babajide Oyewo & Rafael Alvarado (2022) the impact of corruption on green innovation: the case of OECD and non-OECD countries, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2022.2027234
