Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ISSS - 2008, Madison, Wisconsin, Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the ISSS

Font Size:  Small  Medium  Large


Ricardo Andres Frias, Ricardo Barrera


Firm size is relevant in discussions on competition policy, integration, market structure and size. And undeveloped countries differ from developed countries in being relatively more dependent on technology imports and foreign competition, hence results from large countries may not hold.
In the other hand, small firms, say the others, advantages are more related to entrepreneurial dynamism, internal flexibility, responsiveness to changing circumstances and specialized expertise , which contribute to higher innovation efficiency in skill-intensive sectors enjoying rapid technological development. And Audretsch (1995, p.178) saw small enterprises be the engine of innovative activity in certain industries, despite an obvious lack of formal R&D activities.
Geoffrey West (2007) showed evidence from the US, those small firms to be less likely to patent than large firms. In contrast, in related areas, such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, etc., so called serial innovators, with an accumulated portfolio of technologically important and scientifically linked patents, were more likely to be small than large firms (CHI Research, 2003).
Organization and efficiency, together, remind us, frequently, a factory surrounded by a high brick wall and manned by a force of people working in eight hours shifts. And, of course, in this wisdom we are afraid that in an effort to increase the efficiency, the freedom of working out the innovation in its own way, and at its own convenience will be curtailed.
Red tape is not confined exclusively to the business of the government, but may be found entangling the work and impeding progress in any large organization. It is safe to say that the greatest difficulties which the average innovator has to overcome are not involved in his task itself, but are those thrown in his way by man-made organizations. Usually these obstacles are constructed in the name of efficiency and by those who are employed to assist, not to obstruct.
The danger in any organization of innovation & change lies in the tendency to submerge the individuality of the worker. In such organization it is not dealing with machines, or with pieces workers. In innovation & change the unit of the organization is a developed human mind. The product which this organization turns out is the result of the thought of the workers, and just so far as the organization inhibits or distracts these minds from their true course is inefficient. On the other hand, the organization promotes efficiency so far as it tends to permit and to stimulate originality and freedom of thought in any worker, and at the same time to coordinate and concentrate the activities of the several workers on the problem on hand.
Many processes which work well in small scale develop defects when tried on a large scale, and vice versa. Many methods of real value have never gotten beyond his scale, because there was no one with sufficient interest, or technical knowledge to adapt the process to the new scale. Thus there is a great economic loss which can be overcome by proper organization.
We believe there is not sufficient support to the thesis about the advantage of larger than small firms. And we remembered the words of Illya Prigogine (1997): “The little groups can give changes to society as a hole. Minorities had show remarkable power in the past. Thinking the change only succeed by majorities is wrong. It’s wrong to think that conscious is determined by economic and social structures, and they are here now and ever. What will be tomorrow could be totally different from today”.

Full Text: PDF