We study the impact of formal and informal institutions perceived and experienced by firms on their innovation using the 2012 World Bank Enterprise Survey data in China. We propose a framework to identify different innovator types of firms. Our analysis shows that (1) perceived constraints from the governmental system make firms more likely to be innovators than non-innovators; (2) perceived constraints from the legal system make firms more likely to be imitators than innovators; (3) lack of formal finance makes firms more likely to be non-innovators than innovators; (4) prevalence of bribery makes firms more likely to be non-innovators than innovators but less likely to be innovation pretenders than innovators. Our study enriches institutional theory and innovation research by establishing a framework that encompasses multiple dimensions of formal and informal institutions perceived and experienced by firms and the impacts of such perception and experience on firms’ propensity to become certain type of innovator.

This paper explores the concept of knowledge networks in order to disclose how firms are able to increase innovative performance as a result of network structure and network content, which concern how firms connect with network partners (network structure), what the essence of exchange is for firms to acquire knowledge in the network (knowledge heterogeneity), and why firms need to cooperate with others (knowledge cognition). By using a sample of 144 high-technology firms in Taiwan’s science parks to test the hypotheses, the results of this study show that, while network structures do impact on a firm’s innovative performance, access to heterogeneous knowledge and increasing a firm’s knowledge in terms of defining and recognizing novel knowledge should be considered, since both play critical roles in facilitating innovative performance. These findings suggest that knowledge flow through a firm’s relationships must be understood in terms of network structure and content.

The objective of this study is to analyze the different role that efficacy beliefs play in the prediction of learning, innovative and risky performances. We hypothesize that high levels of efficacy beliefs in learning and innovative performances have positive consequences (i.e., better academic and innovative performance, respectively), whereas in risky performances they have negative consequences (i.e., less safety performance). To achieve this objective, three studies were conducted, 1) a two-wave longitudinal field study among 527 undergraduate students (learning setting), 2) a three-wave longitudinal lab study among 165 participants performing innovative group tasks (innovative setting), and 3) a field study among 228 construction workers (risky setting). As expected, high levels of efficacy beliefs have positive or negative consequences on performance depending on the specific settings. Unexpectedly, however, we found no time × self-efficacy interaction effect over time in learning and innovative settings. Theoretical and practical implications within the social cognitive theory of A. Bandura framework are discussed.