**3. Development of the research model and hypotheses**

More contemporary empirical studies using variations of the approach were employed by [38], but, unlike them, focusing on one particular industry is also of interest for studying the similarities and differences between exporting and non-exporting companies [41, 42]. [32] studied differences between firms based on another fact: whether firms engaged in exports enter developed or developing countries. In developing countries, foreign companies earn more substantial profits than national markets, with an opposite effect observed in developed countries.

Thus, our first hypothesis has been formulated.

*H1: Innovation-active firms more often become exporters compared with firms that do not engage in active innovation.*

The second hypothesis is devoted to the role of learning by exporting: exporting companies are more efficient than companies that are only present in the national market. [43]. Flows of knowledge between international foreign buyers, suppliers, and competitors help novice exporters improve their activities (higher postentry performance), adopt positive business experience, promote products and services faster, implement technological innovations to keep the acquired niche, and expand the zone of influence [42]. In addition, firms that enter foreign markets face more intense and fierce competition and must develop faster to survive in the future.

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

**2.2 Jacobs spillovers**

emergence [26].

industry base).

domestic market [13].

*Source: developed by the authors.*

mining the formation of technological clusters [25].

accordingly, to a different result, end product [28].

and innovation. Employees of different companies of the same sector (industry) exchange ideas of new products and processes. That is, the higher the concentration of employees of the same specialization on that territory, the higher the possibility of idea exchange that can further lead to innovative solutions. Frequently the latest data on technological breakthrough and know-how keeps its value for a very short period of time, spreading among the professional community afterward. That is why firms aim to locate their R&D centers close to the sources of such data deter-

In 1969 Jane Jacobs developed another knowledge spillover effect theory [26]. Jacobs believes that knowledge spillover effects are connected with differentiation of industries on the territory. In her opinion, concentration of different industries in one place stimulates innovation by uniting people having different knowledge and professional experience, forming the ground for idea exchange from different perspectives. Also reasoning on the competition, Jacobs claims that developed markets with a large number of players are the most positive environment for innovation. At the same time, high monopolization level restrains innovations from

Jacobs inter-sectoral effects occur between companies belonging to different sectors: knowledge flows occur between complementary sectors of industry or suppliers and customers [27]. It is not clustering but the diversity of industries that triggers mutual, cross-enriching spillovers: movement, flow of ideas, techniques, tools to other industries lead to their different, completely new application, and,

**Table 2** below provides a systematization of knowledge spillover effects based on "location within/outside the industry," where the horizontal axis displays two main types of market structures by a degree of competition (competitive and monopolistic environment), while the vertical axis shows industry-specific characteristics of the geographical concentration of firms (cluster type, diversified

The abovementioned theories of dynamic spillover effects formulate a kind of a hypothesis on the nature of a diversified and concentrated industry base and which of the industries is more likely to experience the flow of knowledge and the fastest growth. The role of exports as a factor driving growth in general and productivity in particular was empirically proven quite a long time ago using aggregated crosscountry and cross-industry data in time (macro level) [29]. And it was just recently that researchers decided to test longitudinal data at the inter-company level (micro and meso level) by reviewing the difference in productivity and efficiency between exporting companies and their opposites—companies that only operate in the

One of the most well-known, frequently cited papers investigating this phenomenon at the macro level is [30]. The paper is based on 45 econometric models built

Technological cluster Porter effects MAR effects

Diversity of industries Jacobs effects —

*Classification of knowledge spillover effects by industry geographical concentration.*

**Competitive environment Monopolistic environment**

**6**

**Table 2.**

Export orientation and innovation are alternative, competing investment projects. Perhaps, firms that have already entered a foreign market do not need additional investments in innovation development, since they are anyway borrowing the best, new things from abroad. To answer this question, the second hypothesis has been formulated.

*H2: Exporting companies are more likely to implement innovations (including organizational innovations) than firms oriented toward the local market (a positive learning effect of international interaction). Export activities, however, are not a linchpin of growth in the company's productivity.*

The abovementioned hypotheses serve as a proof of the existence of a two-way link between export activities and innovation and effectiveness [13]. As a result of implementing innovations, stronger, more durable companies start to export (are self-selected in an attempt to expand abroad), which makes them even more competitive and productive through learning by exporting. Some researchers have proven [21] that companies' export orientation still leads to productivity growth even where there is a "self-selection" effect.
