Search results

This paper aims to discuss the firm productivity premium for servitized firms. It discusses servitization across the product value chain and estimates the effects of the range and extent of servitization on productivity premium in manufacturing firms.

This paper develops a conceptual framework and tests the hypotheses on the effects of servitization on productivity premium using linear regression models with a sample of 20,837 Russian manufacturing firms gathered from the Ruslana Bureau van Dijk database and the Russian customs service.

Servitized firms exhibit higher total factor productivity and labor productivity. The labor productivity premium increases with the number of services offered. However, the impact of services on productivity varies along the product value chain: postmanufacturing and postsales services enhance productivity premium, while manufacturing and back-office services diminish them. The effect of establishment services remains ambiguous.

This paper offers an analytical framework for firms to assess their servitization strategies. These strategies should be gradual, focused on enhancing firm efficiency rather than being an end goal. Firms should initiate the process by introducing services at the postproduction and postsales stages of the product creation chain to achieve productivity premium.

The paper extends the evidence on firm-level productivity drivers and contributes to the servitization theory. A servitization strategy should be portfolio-based, considering both the potential gains and losses in productivity resulting from the implementation of specific services.

The chapter is devoted to the analysis of industrial development in Russia since 2005. Characteristic features of the Russian industry are considered. It is shown that the Russian industry is specific both by its structure and its high heterogeneity. The mining and quarrying sector and related manufacturing industries play a significant role in the Russian economy and major role in industrial production. In the foreseeable future, these sectors can strengthen their leading positions.

Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of the industrial policy of the Russian government, which has traditionally been one of the leading actors of industrial development. The main directions of industrial policy are singled out: compensation of negative changes, catching-up, and advance development. It is noted that the role of the government is ambivalent: on the one hand, it seeks to develop high-performing companies, including new and fast-growing ones, and on the other hand, it often supports large, low-performing enterprises. With the declared continuous emphasis of industrial policy on innovation and modernization, low innovativeness of Russian companies remains. Based on the analysis of modern conditions, as well as new objects and instruments of industrial policy, some prospects for future industrial development have been revealed.

For at least the last 10 years, the Russian authorities have been declaring the need to move to an innovative path of economic development. The government actively initiates and applies various instruments and measures to promote innovation. However, the effectiveness of the Russian innovation policy is still in question. The chapter examines the evolution of state policy to foster innovation growth in Russia since 2000 and describes some sets of achievements and problems for different stages of this policy. In addition to analysis of changes in the innovation sphere at the macro-level, we discuss the primary motivations and limitations at the micro-level (firm level). As a result, the critical institutional barriers to innovation-based growth are revealed. In the same time, certain successes have been achieved in some sectors, and we consider various opportunities to improve Russian technological and innovation policy.