The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&;D collaboration on firm innovation

A firm can improve its innovation either by its internal research and development (R&D) efforts or by forming external collaborative R&D alliances. While previous studies on R&D collaboration and knowledge diffusion mainly focus on various external sources of R&D collaboration, little effort has been made to investigate the joint impact of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaborations on firm innovation simultaneously. By examining the data of 165 Taiwanese firms in the information and communication technology industry, we find that: (1) non-competitive R&D collaborations with universities have a positive direct impact on firm’s innovation performance; and (2) both non-competitive and competitive R&D collaborations have a positively moderating effect on the relationship between a firm’s internal R&D efforts and firm innovation and the positive moderating effect is higher for non-competitive R&D collaborations than that of competitive R&D collaborations. These findings suggest that R&D collaborations, either non-competitive or competitive, exhibit the nature of a win–win situation. We also derive implications for firms’ selection of R&D alliance partners and government policies.     

Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: the smaller firm the better?

Mixed evidence has been found regarding how locating in a cluster or a park affects firms?? performance. This paper investigates how locating in different types of clusters and parks interacted by firm size or in-house R&D capability affects a firm??s innovation. Empirically testing the research hypotheses by the data of 165 Taiwan??s manufacturing firms in the information and communication technology sector and taking policy-driven parks (e.g., science parks and industrial parks) and spontaneously clusters as examples, we find that in emerging economies, firms with inferior in-house R&D capability gain more innovation benefits by locating in a science park or a spontaneous cluster while smaller firms gain more innovation benefits by locating in an industry park or a spontaneous cluster. Moreover, our findings also suggest that locating in a science park, smaller firms benefit more than larger firms in terms of innovation performance whereas larger firms benefit more than smaller firms in terms of market performance. The findings suggest that in emerging economies, compared to larger firms, smaller firms are less influenced by negative spillover effect when locating in clusters or parks.     

Never mind the quality feel the width: University–industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and the USA

In this paper we use a size and industry matched sample of over 1,900 UK and US businesses for the period 2004–05 in the manufacturing and business services sectors to analyse the relative “strength” of the university–industry ecosystems in which these firms operate in the two economies. Our analysis shows that in both countries universities per se play a quantitatively smaller role as a source of knowledge for business innovation than either the business sector itself or a variety of organisations intermediating between the university and business sectors. Our analysis reveals a much more diffuse university–industry ecosystem in the UK in which a higher proportion of businesses claim links external to themselves in their pursuit of knowledge for innovation and a higher proportion report directly connecting with universities. US firms are more likely to access knowledge through a combination of business and intermediary sources and are less likely to have established formal collaborative or partnership agreements in the 3 years prior to the survey. We also find, however, that a higher proportion of US firms place a very high value on the connections they have with universities and are much more likely to commit resources to support such innovation related university interactions. A similar pattern of diffuse but weaker links characterise the supply of public sector financial assistance for innovation in our sample firms. UK firms are more likely to be in receipt of assistance, but receive far less per firm in absolute terms and relative to their R&D expenditures. It appears that the UK university–industry ecosystem is characterised by a greater width than quality of interaction.     

The structure and dynamics of the global network of inter-firm R&D partnerships 1989–2002

Research and development (R&D) partnerships are formed to share the risks and benefits of R&D. At the macro level, they result in a globe-spanning network that can be a valuable source of international knowledge spillovers. This network is the subject of a considerable body of literature. Often-made claims are that R&D collaboration is an important activity in a competitive environment, but that the importance of international partnerships has declined over time. Furthermore, it is claimed that collaborations are disproportionally concentrated within the developed economies. However, this literature fails to account for variations in the sizes of underlying firm populations between countries and over time. We argue that these population sizes create an opportunity structure of available collaboration partners for firms, and that ignoring variations in this structure potentially leads to erroneous conclusions about the structure and dynamics of the R&D network. To address this problem, we study the structure and dynamics of the global R&D network on an international and cross-industry scale using longitudinal data for 1989?C2002. We integrate data on public firms and their R&D partnerships and confront earlier findings with our data and a set of methods, which enables us to correct for the structure and dynamics in the firm population. While our study confirms previous findings concerning the worldwide trend in collaborative activity, it also shows that results on individual countries need correction. In particular, the importance of R&D collaboration for US companies is overestimated, while their openness towards foreign partners is underestimated.     

Venture capital as a catalyst for commercialization and high growth

We use Canadian data linking information on venture capital (VC) financing with firm-level administrative data to compare performance of VC-backed and non-VC-backed firms. The richness of the data allows us to incorporate a wide range of firm-level information into creating a control group based on propensity-score matching. In particular, we use typical covariates reflecting firm performance and characteristics (e.g., size, age, industry, location) as well as measures of firm-level innovation such as research and development (R&D) expenditures that are often thought to be associated with the potential for high growth and the probability of receiving VC financing. Our results show R&D expenditures not only attract VC, but are also increased more intensely for VC-backed firms than non-VC-backed counterparts over the short-run. Further, we show VC-backed firms enjoy greater growth in wages and scale over the 5-year period. Overall, our results provide empirical evidence that VC financing is associated with the acceleration of the innovation and commercialization process accompanied by greater growth in wages and scale.     

Drivers for international innovation activities in developed and emerging countries

This paper aims to shed light on firm-specific drivers that lead firms to internationalise their innovation activities. The paper paints a comprehensive picture of driving forces by including firm capabilities, characteristics of the firm’s competitive environment and the influence of innovation obstacles in the home country. In particular the influence of potential driving forces on the probability to carry out different innovative activities abroad is assessed (R&D, design/conception of new products, manufacturing of innovative products and implementation of new processes). In a second stage these driving forces are observed with regard to their impact on the decision to locate innovation activities in various countries and regions (China, Eastern Europe, Western Europe and North America) as well as in groups of countries with similar levels of knowledge (“country clubs”). The analysis is based on the Mannheim Innovation Panel survey which represents the German CIS (Community Innovation Survey) contribution. Two survey waves have been combined, resulting in a sample of about 1,400 firms. The results show that the decision to perform innovation activities abroad is mainly driven by organisational capabilities such as absorptive capacities, international experience and existing technological competences of the respective firm. Innovation barriers at the German home base such as lack of labour and high innovation costs prompt the set-up of later-stage innovation activities abroad while the lack of demand demonstrates a barrier to the internationalisation decision for the development and manufacturing of new products. Location decisions receive the strongest influencing effects from the international experience of the firm. Firms which innovate in developing countries seem to require a more extensive level of international experience through international R&D cooperation.     

Measuring the economic impact of research joint ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme

The objective of this paper is to analyse the effects of international R&D cooperation on firms?? economic performance. Our approach, based on a complete data set with information about Spanish participants in research joint ventures supported by the EU Framework Programme during the period 1995?C2005, establishes a recursive model structure to capture the relationship between R&D cooperation, knowledge generation and economic results, which are measured by labour productivity. In the analysis we take into account that the participation in this specific type of cooperative projects implies a selection process that includes both the self-selection by participants to join the consortia and the selection of projects by the European Commission to award the public aid. Empirical analysis has confirmed that: (1) R&D cooperation has a positive impact on the technological capacity of firms, captured through intangible fixed assets and (2) the technological capacity of firms is positively related to their productivity.     

R&D subsidy games: a cost sharing approach vs. reward for performance

This paper investigates government subsidy games for private sector research and development (R&D) in a two-country two-firm intra-industry trade model. Two funding structures are compared: ??cost sharing?? vs. ??reward for performance.?? Both the theoretical evidence and the results of a Monte Carlo simulation suggest that cost sharing is associated with higher social surplus and quality improvement because it prompts the firm to do more R&D. In a cost sharing program government and firm R&D are always complements. In the reward for performance program government and firm R&D may be complements, but are usually substitutes. In the Monte Carlo results the average firm contribution to R&D expenditure is actually negative with a reward for performance funding structure??raising the question of whether it might be construed as corporate welfare. Finally, the paper characterizes funding priorities for both structures in the case when subsidy dollars are scarce and when they are not.     

Tax incentives for innovation: time to restructure the R&;E tax credit

The R&E tax credit has never been effective and subsequent attempts to restructure it have not addressed the major deficiencies. Moreover, in the 25 years since the R&E tax credit was enacted, a steadily increasing number of countries have implemented or expanded competing tax incentives, which in many cases are better structured and larger in size. As a result, the relative impact of the US credit is now negative in terms of incentives to conduct R&D within the domestic economy. The inadequacy of the credit stems largely from its small size and its incremental format. The impact of an R&D tax incentive is affected by its scope of coverage, the ability of industry to take advantage of it over the entire R&D cycle, the magnitude of the incentive relative to other nations’ tax policies, and its ease of implementation. In the end, a tax incentive must sufficiently lower the user’s cost of R&D to overcome barriers to allocation of private-sector resources commensurate with the potential rates of return on such investments. As a policy instrument, a tax incentive for R&D should be most effective if its form is a flat rate applied to all R&D.

What the design of an R&;D tax incentive tells about its effectiveness: a simulation of R&;D tax incentives in the European Union

Most industrialized countries apply special tax incentives to boost the R&D expenditures of firms. This study considers the design of such R&D tax incentives as applied in the European Union and simulates its effect on the post-tax R&D expenditures of firms in different industries and different profit/loss-situations by means of the simulation model European Tax Analyzer. Any restrictions and progressive tax incentives are explicitly taken into account. Our results indicate that for designing and measuring public support to R&D it is often not sufficient to focus only on tax rate effects of R&D tax incentives and the design of a tax incentive must be in accordance with the framing tax system in order to be effective. As soon as there are any limitations in place, our results suggest a considerably lower impact of R&D tax incentives on the post-tax R&D expenditures than the commonly used B-Index by the OECD. The results clearly illustrate the beneficial impact of immediate cash refunds for unused tax incentives.     

Assessing the relationship between R&D subsidy,R&D cooperation and absorptive capacity: an investigation on the manufacturing Spanish case

Private companies want to eliminate outgoing spillovers while policymakers seek to maximize them. With subsidized R&D cooperation agreements both agents partially achieve their objectives. For this reason, in Europe, policymakers grant subsidies for R&D activities with the condition of establishing R&D cooperation agreements. This study explores the relationship of complementarity between R&D subsidy, R&D cooperation and absorptive capacity in the context of its contribution to labor productivity of enterprises. The data used comes from the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC), managed by the Spanish National Statistics Institute. We selected manufacturing companies in the period 2008–2013. We evaluate the existence of complementarity through the systems approach and the interaction approach. The econometric technique that we used to estimate the coefficients of our empirical model was maximum-likelihood random effects. As a consequence of the low absorptive capacity of Spanish manufacturing firms we find that R&D subsidies and R&D cooperation agreements are not complementary variables, i.e., receiving public subsidies as a result of establishing R&D cooperation agreements has a lower impact on productivity than the sum of the individual impacts of R&D cooperation and R&D subsidies. In consequence, this result calls into question the convenience of using subsidized R&D cooperation agreements as a tool for promoting innovation in EU countries as there are notable differences between the companies in these countries in terms of absorption capacity.     

Industrial R&D Laboratories: Windows on Black Boxes?

This paper provides an overview of the survey-based literature on industrial Research and Development (R&D) laboratories, beginning with the work of Edwin Mansfield. Topics covered include R&D projects, new products, and new processes; the appropriability of intellectual property; the limits of the firm in R&D; and spillovers of knowledge from other firms and universities into the laboratories. I discuss the value of collecting information from industrial R&D managers, who participate in a wide range of R&D decisions and are the natural best source of information on these decisions. I also emphasize gaps in our knowledge concerning R&D from past studies, such as the private and social returns to R&D, the nature of firms' R&D portfolios, and other topics. The paper closes with a discussion of the benefits from building a national database on R&D laboratories that could be shared among researchers and that could take this area of research to a new and higher level of achievement.     

The generation and exploitation of technological change: market value and total factor productivity

In this paper we articulate and test the hypothesis that TFP is a reliable and relevant measure of firm’s innovation capabilities, and, as such, accounts for Tobin’s q indicator. With this aim, we investigate empirically the relationship between firm level total factor productivity and the Tobin’s q. Measuring Tobin’s q allows inferring the actual value of knowledge capital from stock market valuation. We use a panel of companies listed on UK and the main continental Europe financial markets (Germany, France and Italy) for the period 1995–2005. Our results confirm that TFP is a reliable indicator of firm’s innovative capabilities. When we control for firm’s R&D investments and intangible assets, the effects of TFP on market value remain highly significant. This suggests that TFP is a broader measure of innovation capability than R&D is. The validation of the Tobin’s q and TFP relationship has important implications concerning firm’s technological innovation measurement.     

The science commons in health research: structure,function, and value

The “science commons,” knowledge that is widely accessible at low or no cost, is a uniquely important input to scientific advance and cumulative technological innovation. It is primarily, although not exclusively, funded by government and nonprofit sources. Much of it is produced at academic research centers, although some academic science is proprietary and some privately funded R&D enters the science commons. Science in general aspires to Mertonian norms of openness, universality, objectivity, and critical inquiry. The science commons diverges from proprietary science primarily in being open and being very broadly available. These features make the science commons particularly valuable for advancing knowledge, for training innovators who will ultimately work in both public and private sectors, and in providing a common stock of knowledge upon which all players—both public and private—can draw readily. Open science plays two important roles that proprietary R&D cannot: it enables practical benefits even in the absence of profitable markets for goods and services, and its lays a shared foundation for subsequent private R&D. The history of genomics in the period 1992–2004, covering two periods when genomic startup firms attracted significant private R&D investment, illustrates these features of how a science commons contributes value. Commercial interest in genomics was intense during this period. Fierce competition between private sector and public sector genomics programs was highly visible. Seemingly anomalous behavior, such as private firms funding “open science,” can be explained by unusual business dynamics between established firms wanting to preserve a robust science commons to prevent startup firms from limiting established firms’ freedom to operate. Deliberate policies to create and protect a large science commons were pursued by nonprofit and government funders of genomics research, such as the Wellcome Trust and National Institutes of Health. These policies were crucial to keeping genomic data and research tools widely available at low cost.

Linking technological and educational level diversities to innovation performance

In this study, we explore the extent to which diversity of educational levels among research scientists and engineers (RSEs) in the context of a firm’s level of technological diversity influences innovation performance. We used data from the 2004–2008 National R&D Survey in Singapore. The results from 366 firms across different industries indicate that when a firm’s technological domains are heterogeneous, those firms with an RSE workforce comprising similar educational levels have positive innovation performance, measured as the number of patent applications, while those comprising diverse educational levels have negative innovation performance. Our further exploration of the positive interaction between technological domain heterogeneity and similarity of educational levels suggests that firms that had a high ratio of RSEs with lower educational levels had more positive patent outcomes compared to those that had a high ratio of RSEs with higher educational levels. The results show that there are limits to the strength of technological diversity in a firm’s absorptive capacity as explained by organizational demography.     

Measurement and Growth of R&D Within the Service Economy

Twenty-five years ago, industrial performance of research and development (R&D) was primarily an activity undertaken by large traditional manufacturing firms. Only about 3 percent of the R&D conducted in industrial labs was done by service sector firms. By the late 1990s, however, such firms accounted for approximately 30 percent of the Nation's total industrial R&D expenditures, with a fairly large amount of the effort being directed toward the development and use of information technologies. Industry's increasing reliance on research and technology outsourcing also apparently has contributed to the service sector's substantial R&D expansion. This paper documents recent trends in US non-manufacturing R&D expenditures, highlighting their growth and focus and the difficulties in measuring these trends, as available from national R&D statistics. Broad comparisons with trends and concerns identified through other countries' surveys of service sector R&D are presented.     

Firm heterogeneity,absorptive capacity and technical linkages with external parties in Italy

While it is widely acknowledged that internal R&D is a fundamental source of the ability to absorb, select and use external knowledge, severe data limitations prevent from capturing differences across firms in this respect. Using a novel dataset supplied by the Italian Bureau of Statistics, we highlight that, when controlling for internal R&D efforts, not all firms are equally prone to gain access to external technology, and to the knowledge provided by universities in particular. We find that firms which do not only perform R&D activities but also belong to a group exhibit a higher propensity to access external knowledge by either contracting out R&D or cooperating with external parties, as compared to independent firms that are not organized into groups. This premium persists when controlling for different measures of internal R&D efforts. Furthermore, the differential in the propensity to access external knowledge is particularly high in the case of R&D performers belonging to foreign groups, i.e. Italian affiliates of foreign owned companies; and it is even higher in the case of the few Italian firms that have R&D activities abroad. The relative dis-advantage of independent firms, which represent the bulk of the Italian industry and include most small and medium sized enterprises, appears to be less of an obstacle in the case of linkages with universities, especially when R&D contracting out is considered.     

University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case

We investigate the determinants of University–Industry (U–I) interactions in the biopharmaceuticals in Italy over the period 2004–2010, choosing co-publishing as a proxy of U–I partnerships. We construct a novel dataset of co-published articles, that contains measures of proximities, agglomeration, firms’ and universities’ characteristics. Following a consolidated methodology, we integrate our dataset of effective interactions with the set of all potential interactions, to estimate probabilistic models for the occurrence and the intensity of U–I interactions. Our main findings confirm and extend the predictions of the previous literature: (1) geographical proximity and prior partnership increase the probability and the intensity of co-publication; (2) the proximity of a firm to other biopharmaceutical firms and universities attenuates the relevance of geographical proximity; (3) there exists complementarity between prior partnerships and geographical proximity. A novel result is that firms’ and Universities’ size, firms’ R&D and patents expenditure and the composition of the academic staff as well as quality of academic research exert a significant impact on the intensity of co-publishing.     

R&D consortia: Impact on competitiveness?

This research examines the impact of research and development (R&D) consortia on the competitiveness of American companies. It also concludes that since passage of the 1984 National Collaborative Research Act, which allows companies to jointly perform research, only a few R&D consortia have been formed and they do not have much impact on companies through applications of new technology. It is suggested that R&D consortia may have more impact on firms that are catching-up technologically or for which the particular research is tangential to their core business. He holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University (1988), and has worked for the National Science Foundation, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and the National Academy of Sciences. His interests focus on technology, economic competitiveness, and government policy. He has recently published on these topics in Research Policy (August 1990), and Policy Studies Review (Spring 1991, forthcoming).