Foreign direct investment plays a particularly crucial role for the processes of technological catch-up in Central East Europe. Whilst most countries of this region have received considerable direct investments, the composition of kinds of subsidiaries is different between countries and hence will the prospects for intense technology transfer also differ between countries. This contribution aims to compare the potentials for internal and external technology transfer across countries of Central East Europe by analysing the management-relationship between subsidiaries and their parents and the market-relationships between subsidiaries and their host economy. For this, a firm-level database of some 458 subsidiaries in Estonia, Poland, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Slovenia is analysed empirically.

The second empirical analysis is based on a fieldwork project conducted between 2002 and 2003, which generated a large and unique database on 438 foreign subsidiaries in a selection of CEECs, namelay the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The field work was done between 2002 and 2003 by the use of a concise, two-page questionnaire, sent out to the largest foreign investment subsidiaries in the countries named. The questionnaire is presented in the Appendix to this book.In terms of methodology, the field work analysis focuses on the relationship between subsidiaries of MNEs which invested in CEE and their parent network, on the one hand, and the relationship between the subsidiaries and the local host economy, on the other.

Industrial productivity levels of formerly socialist economies in Central East Europe (including East Germany) are considerably lower than in the more mature Western economies. This research aims at assessing the reasons for lower productivities at the firm level: what are the firm-specific determinants of productivity gaps. To assess this, we have conducted an extensive field study and focussed on a selection of two important manufacturing industries, namely machinery manufacturers and furniture manufacturers, and on the construction industry. Using the data generated in field work, we test a set of determinant-candidates which were derived from theory and prior research in that topic. Our analysis uses the simplest version of the matched-pair approach, in which first hypothesis about relevant productivity level-determinants are tested. In a second step, positively tested hypothesis are further assessed in terms of whether they also constitute firm-specific determinants of the apparent gaps between the firms in our Eastern and such in our Western panels. Our results suggest that the quality of human capital plays an important role in all three industrial branches assessed. Amongst manufacturing firms, networking activities and the use of modern technologies for communication are important reasons for the lower levels of labour productivity in the East. The intensity of long-term strategic planning on behalf of the management turned out to be relevant only for machinery manufacturers. Product and process innovations unexpectedly exhibit an ambiguous picture, as did the extent of specialisation on a small number of products in the firms’ portfolio and the intensity of competition.