Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2013, 59(9):430-438 | DOI: 10.17221/24/2013-AGRICECON

Open characters of innovation management in the Hungarian wine industryOriginal Paper

Áron TÖRÖK, József TÓTH
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary

The paper examines the relationship between the use of specific knowledge and economic success among Hungarian grape growers and wine makers. In the last decade, Hungary has been left behind by world trends as represented by the increasing share of the premium and super-premium wines (which utilise higher knowledge) in the export development. According to our survey, one cause of this might be the inappropriate use and management of knowledge and skills which is 'conditio sine qua non' for wine making. The Hungarian wine regions (usually with resource-based, fordist type resource endowment) are rather knowledge users. We have found (based on the PCA estimation) that two principal components cover 77% of the total variance: 'Size' and 'Innovation capabilities'. However, although the use and spread of skills is a basic component in explaining the differences of variation among the companies, it is not unambiguous in formulating the business success measured in different indicators. Because the small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) have limited resources in capital accumulation and knowledge creation, they need to maintain living network connections in order to expand their constrained innovation capabilities. Instead of the 'closed' type of innovation and knowledge accumulation, they utilise the 'open' way of acquiring knowledge, where they necessarily share their specific information with their partners, but at the same time, they are supplied with new knowledge which might be vital for their own progress. The majority of the Hungarian vine- and wine makers are not open enough in the different phases of the innovation process. However, our analysis proves that if they showed up mutuality especially in knowledge sharing with their competitors, they could improve their positions significantly. We conclude that the Hungarian wine enterprises - keeping the idea generation as well as its further development, elaboration and the adequate use within the frame of the company - can achieve market success.

Keywords: Hungarian SMEs, open innovation, principal component analysis, vine- and wine sector

Published: September 30, 2013  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
TÖRÖK Á, TÓTH J. Open characters of innovation management in the Hungarian wine industry. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2013;59(9):430-438. doi: 10.17221/24/2013-AGRICECON.
Download citation

References

  1. Adamou A., Sasidharan S. (2008): The Impact of R&D and FDI on Firm Growth in Emerging-Developing Countries: Evidence from Indian Manufacturing Industries. Working Paper 37/2008. Madras School of Economics, Chennai. Go to original source...
  2. Alston J.M. (2010): The Benefits from Agricultural Research and Development, Innovation, and Productivity Growth. Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers No. 31. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km91nfsnkwg-en Go to original source...
  3. Anderson K., Nelgen S. (2011): Global Wine Markets, 1961 to 2009: a Statistical Compendium. University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide. Go to original source...
  4. Birchler U., Bütler M. (2007): Information Economics. Volume 2. Routledge, New York.
  5. Chládková H., Tomšík P., Sedlo J. (2012): Changes of the varietal structure of vineyards in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economic - Czech, 58: 557-565. Go to original source...
  6. Del Monte A., Papagni E. (2003): R&D and the growth of firms: Empirical analysis of a panel of Italian firms. Research Policy, 32: 1003-1014. Go to original source...
  7. Demirel P., Mazzucato M. (2009): Survey of the Literature on Innovation and Economic Performance. Discussion Paper. EU Framework 7 project, FINNOV.
  8. Dobrai K., Farkas F. (2009): Knowledge-intensive business services: a brief overview. Perspectives of Innovations, Economics & Business, 3: 15-17. Go to original source...
  9. Freel M. (2000): Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing SMEs: The case of an English region. Small Business Economics, 15: 27-45. Go to original source...
  10. George D., Mallery P. (2003): SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th ed. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
  11. Harmsen H., Grunert K., Declerck F. (2000): Why did we make that cheese? An empirically based framework for understanding what drives innovation activity. R&D Management, 30: 51-166. Go to original source...
  12. Heshmati A., Lööf H. (2006): Investment and Performance of Firms: Correlation or Causality? Centre of excellence for Science and Innovation Studies, Electronic Working Paper Series No. 72. Royal Institute of Technology CESIS, Stockholm.
  13. Kühne B., Gellynck X. (2010a): Chain networks as a leverage for innovation capacity: the case of food SMEs. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 4: 279-294.
  14. Kühne B., Gellynck X. (2010b): Horizontal and vertical networks for innovation in the traditional food sector. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 4: 123-132.
  15. Leiponen A. (2000): Competencies, innovation and profitability of firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 9: 1-24. Go to original source...
  16. Maurel C. (2009): Determinants of export performance in French wine SMEs. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 21: 118-142. Go to original source...
  17. Mihailovic B., Hamovic V., Parausic V. (2009): Knowledge Economy and Innovations as Factors of Agrarian Competitiveness. In: 113th EAAE Seminar 'The role of knowledge, innovation and human capital in multifunctional agriculture and territorial rural development'. Beograd, Serbia, 9-11 December, 2009.
  18. Oliveira B., Fortunato A. (2005): Firm Growth and Persistence of Chance: Evidence from Portuguese Microdata. Estudos do GEMF No. 10. Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra.
  19. Park H.M. (2008): Estimating Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using SAS, STATA, LIMDEP and SPSS. Technical Working Paper. Indiana University, Bloomington.
  20. Stoneman P., Kwon M. (1996): Technology Adoption and Firm Profitability. Economic Journal, 106: 952-962. Go to original source...
  21. Tichá I., Havlíček J. (2008): Knowledge transfer: a case study approach. APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, 2: 18-26. Go to original source...
  22. Tóth J. (2011): Tudjuk milyen bort iszunk? Tudásteremtés és használat a magyarországi borvidékeken. (Do we know what kind of wine do we drink? Knowledge creation and usage in the Hungarian wine regions.) In: Lázár E. (ed.): Gazdasági és üzleti kihívások a Kárpát-medencében. Csíkszereda, Státus Kiadó.
  23. Yeboah A.K., Owens J.P., Bynum J.S., Boisson D. (2010): Validation of Factors Influencing Successful Small Scale Farming in North Carolina. Selected paper prepared for presentation at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Orlando, 6-9 February, 2010.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.