From Firms to Ecosystems: Institutional Complementarities and the Uneven Digital Development of Small-Firm Economies in Post-Soviet Transition States
Main Article Content
Abstract
Why do national and regional economies composed largely of small firms diverge so sharply in their capacity to digitalize, even when individual firms face broadly similar technologies and price signals? This paper shifts the level of analysis from the single enterprise to the institutional ecosystem in which small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are embedded. It argues that the digital development of a small-firm economy is not the arithmetic sum of individual adoption decisions but an emergent property of institutional complementarities -the mutually reinforcing fit among finance, skills formation, digital public infrastructure, and regulatory quality. Drawing on the varieties-of-capitalism tradition, institutional economics, and the resource-dependence view of the firm, the paper develops an ecosystem-complementarity framework and applies it comparatively to post-Soviet transition economies (Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and the Baltic states). It contends that where complementary institutions co-evolve, individual firm-level resource constraints are relaxed at the population level; where they do not, public investment in any single institution yields disappointing returns because the binding constraint lies elsewhere. The paper contributes to social and economic development studies by reframing the "digital divide" between transition economies as an institutional-complementarity gap, and it closes with implications for sequencing development policy and an agenda for comparative empirical research.
Article Details
Section
References
1) Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown.
2) Aldrich, H. E., & Auster, E. R. (1986). Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 165–198.
3) Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
4) Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage.Oxford University Press.
5) North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
6) OECD. (2021). The digital transformation of SMEs. OECD Publishing.
7) Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective.Harper & Row.
8) Ragin, C. C. (1987). The comparative method. University of California Press.
9) World Bank. (2016). World Development Report 2016: Digital dividends. World Bank Publications.
10) Yevsiukova, V. (2023). Small and medium-sized businesses in the post-Soviet space under resource constraints: A
11) comparative analysis and application of the Value-Yield Optimization (VYO) methodology. Nauka Online, (11).