La junta en Rapa Nui, entre modernidad y nueva dominación

The different variables measuring barriers to internationalization turn out negative, as expected. They clearly affect the firms in how they internationalize. The negative relation means the firms internationalize less when the barriers are present. Given the scale by which these indicators are measured, this negative sign should be read as a positive relationship between the relevance of each obstacle and the internationalization outcome. Also, it is plausible to assume that the firms which are international also are more affected and concerned by these variables. However, the effect of these barriers on the different dependent variables differs considerably.

Sectoral dummies are also included to further investigate if the barriers affect the different service industries. Table 4.2 (export) does not include any slope dummies.

Lack of infrastructure has a negative impact on international cooperation (Table 4.4), but does not seem to affect FDI and export too much. According to Narula and Zanfei (2005) R&D activities and international cooperation tend to require a higher quality of the local infrastructure, compared to just exporting and FDI. Lack of sufficient infrastructure would surely also lower the effectiveness of (global) innovation systems (Carlsson 2006). This effect seem to be weaker for the group of advanced knowledge providers (AKP). This group may be more able to overcome this sort of barriers than the other goups.

Policy discrimination negatively affects export and FDI, and turns out as an even stronger barrier for the groups of advanced knowledge providers (AKP) and physical infrastructure services (PIS). The output of physical infrastructure services can be public infrastructure development. If governments give preferential treatments to local or national firms, foreign companies may loose the incentives to internationalize.

Policy discrimination may also impose laws that are more strict. Policy liberalization is one factor increasing internationalization of services (Aharoni and Nachtum 2000;

Miozzo and Miles 2002). This is clearly present here.

If the costs of building networks are too high, it may reduce the propensity of a firm to internationalize. This seems to be an important barrier to both export and international cooperation (Table 4.2 and 4.4), and even stronger for network infrastructure services (NIS). External networks of local counterparts are expensive and time consuming to develop (Narula and Zanfei 2005). Maintaining and establishing strong linkages with government-funding institutions, suppliers, universities, informal networks and other advanced knowledge providers

are costly. Network infrastructure services (i.e. telecommunications and banks) depend even more on the costs of building networks for exports and international cooperation. The costs of integrating activities in local contexts affect the concentration and dispersion of innovative activities (Narula and Zanfei 2005). This partly explains the limits to growth of global management consulting firms (Miozzo and Grimshaw 2006). Even if the largest firms are more cost effective, local niche consultancies may arise and capture the market from US or London based consultancies. The same logic applies in developing countries, or when encountering less stable regimes. The costs of setting up local networks can surpass the potential profits, and the local market is left for the smaller firms. In addition, the multinational consultancies are also left with the costs of communicating and coordinating between the subsidiaries.

The growing importance of networks in successful innovation are emphasized by Powell and Grodal (2005). 50% in the group of network infrastructure services have introduced an innovation in the year 2004-2006, see Figure 4.1 and the results from the ANOVA testing of sectoral groups (Table 4.1). Out of all the groups who were tested in the regressions, this group were affected most by the barrier measuring network building costs. The slope dummy reported a negative coefficient as the average of the group in Table 4.4. The group is apparently more dependent on setting up successful networks in order to export their services and have international cooperation. Networks are also part of the absorptive capacity of the firm (Levin and Cohental 1990).

Lack of qualified workers negatively affect the use of FDI or subsidiaries (Table 4.3) and R&D outsourcing (Table 4.5). In order to set up and maintain efficient subsidiaries, educated people with the right resources would be needed. When this input factor is not present, it becomes harder to benefit from these internationalization channels, especially for R&D, which is considered highly human capital intensive. Lack of qualified workers has a much stronger negative effect for the advanced knowledge providers (AKP). This makes sense, since this group, more than the three other sectoral groups, employs people who are highly educated professionals (e.g. management consultants), and the output usually is complex knowledge. Their internationalization is also highly dependent on the location of the right people (Miozzo and Grimshaw 2006).

Geographical distance does not turn out to have any significant effect overall, but seems to increase the degree of international cooperation. On the other hand, without geographical distance, there would not be any barriers either. Blanc and Sierra (in Narula and Zanfei 2005:327) point to the tacit nature of knowledge.

Physical and geographical proximity may be important to harvest the tacit knowledge embedded in the production and innovation activities. “The marginal cost of transmitting codified knowledge across geographic space does not depend on distance, but the marginal cost of transmitting, accessing and absorbing tacit knowledge increases with distance” (Narula and Zanfei 2005:327).

4.2.4 Conclusion and summary of the main findings from the