Complementarity between Internal R&D and R&D Cooperation in the Context of Spanish Technological Opportunities

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we analyse the existence of complementarity between the internal R&D activities and the R&D cooperative agreements of Spanish innovative manufacturing firms. This analysis is conducted concerning to the context of technological opportunities (industrial and non-industrial) and companies’ protection mechanisms (legal and strategic). The database used is the Community Innovation Survey referring to the Spanish economy. The discussion about the results is performed once the coefficients have been obtained by the Heckman correction method. The results indicate evidence of substitutability between internal R&D and R&D cooperation, and non-industrial technological opportunities and strategic protection mechanisms have no influence on innovation output. In addition, we found that non-industrial technological opportunities increase the probability of innovation in companies, although they have no influence on their innovative performance. In contrast, industrial technological opportunities do not contribute to increasing the likelihood of innovation, but influence their innovative performance.

Keywords:
Complementarity; Internal R&D; R&D cooperation; Technological opportunities; Appropriability conditions

RESUMO

Neste artigo analisamos a existência de complementaridade entre o desenvolvimento interno de P&D e os acordos de cooperação em P&D das empresas industriais inovadoras. A análise é feita no contexto das oportunidades tecnológicas espanholas (industriais e não industriais) e dos mecanismos de proteção (legais e estratégicos). O banco de dados utilizado é o Community Innovation Survey, baseada na economia espanhola, ea técnica de regressão empregada é a correção de Heckman em dois estágios. Os resultados mostram que há evidências de substituibilidade entre a P&D interna e os acordos de cooperação em P&D e que as oportunidades tecnológicas não industriais e os mecanismos estratégicos de proteção não mostram nenhuma influência estatística sobre o desempenho inovador das empresas. Nós também achamos que as oportunidades tecnológicas não industriais aumentam a probabilidade de inovar das empresas. Por outro lado, as oportunidades tecnológicas industriais não têm efeito sobre a probabilidade de inovar das empresas, mas elas mostram influência sobre o desempenho inovador.

Palavras-chave:
Complementaridade; P&D interna; Cooperação em P&D; Oportunidades tecnológicas; Condições de apropriabilidade

RESUMEN

En este trabajo analizamos la existencia de complementariedad entre el desarrollo interno de I+D y los acuerdos de cooperación en I+D de las empresas manufactureras innovadoras. El análisis es realizado en el contexto de las oportunidades tecnológicas españolas (industriales y no industriales) y de los mecanismos de protección (legales y estratégicos). La base de datos utilizada es la Community Innovation Survey, referida a la economía española, y la técnica de regresión empleada ha sido la Corrección de Heckman en dos etapas. Los resultados señalan que existen evidencias de sustituibilidad entre la I+D interna y los acuerdos de cooperación en I+D y que las oportunidades tecnológicas no industriales y los mecanismos de protección estratégicos no ejercen influencia estadística sobre el desempeño innovador de las empresas. Asimismo, encontramos que las oportunidades tecnológicas no industriales incrementan la probabilidad de innovar de las empresas. Por el contrario, las oportunidades tecnológicas industriales no influyen sobre la probabilidad de innovar de las empresas, pero sí lo hacen sobre su desempeño innovador.

Palabras clave:
Complementariedad; I+D interna

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

REFERENCES

• ABRAMOVSKY, L. et al. Understanding co-operative innovative activity: evidence from four European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, [S. l.], v. 18, n. 3, p. 243-265, 2009.
• AMIT, R.; SCHOEMAKER, P. J. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 14, n. 1, p. 33-46, Jan. 1993.
• ARORA, A.; GAMBARDELLA, A. Evaluating technological information and utilizing it. Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, Amsterdam, v. 24, n. 1, p. 91-114, June 1994.
• BARNEY, J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, Thousand Oaks, v. 17, n. 1, p. 99-120, 1991.
• BECKER, W.; DIETZ, J. R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms-evidence for the German industry. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 33, n. 2, p. 209-223, Mar. 2004.
• BECKER, W.; PETERS, J. Technological opportunities, absorptive capacities, and innovation. May 2000. Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics. University of Augsburg. Augsburg. n. 195.
• BELDERBOS, R.; CARREE, M.; LOKSHIN, B. Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, [S. l.] v. 33, n. 10, p. 1477-1492, Dec. 2004.
• BELDERBOS, R.; CARREE, M.; LOKSHIN, B. Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization, Dordrecht, v. 28, n. 4, p. 401-426, June 2006
• BÖNTE, W.; KEILBACH, M. Concubinage or marriage? Informal and formal cooperations for innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam, v. 23, n. 3-4, p. 279 - 302, 2005.
• BOUGRAIN, F.; HAUDEVILLE, B. Innovation, collaboration and SMEs’ internal research capacities. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 31, n. 5, p. 735-747, July 2002.
• BRUSONI, S.; PRENCIPE, A.; PAVITT, K. Knowledge specialization and the boundaries of the firm: why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca, v. 46, n. 4, p. 597-621, Dec. 2001.
• CASSIMAN, B.; VEUGELERS, R. R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, Nashville, v. 92, n. 4, p. 1169-1184, Sep. 2002.
• CASSIMAN, B.; VEUGELERS, R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, Linthicum, v. 52, n. 1, p. 68-82, Jan. 2006.
• CHAVAS, J. P. et al. Analysis and decomposition of scope economies: R&D at U.S. research universities. Applied Economics, London, v. 44, n. 11, p. 1387-1404, 2012.
• COHEN, W. M. Empirical studies of innovative activity. In: STONEMAN, P. (Ed.). Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995, p. 182-264.
• COHEN, W. M. Fifty years of empirical studies of innovative activity and performance. In: HALL, B. H.; ROSENBERG, N. (Eds.). Hand book of the economics of innovation. North-Holland: Elsevier, 2010. v. 1.
• COHEN, W. M.; KLEPPER, S. A reprise of size and R&D. The Economic Journal, [S. l.], v. 106, n. 437 p. 925-951, July 1996.
• COHEN, W. M.; LEVINTHAL, D. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, [S. l.], v. 99, n. 397, p. 569-596, Sept. 1989.
• COHEN, W. M.; LEVINTHAL, D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, Ithaca, v. 35, n. 1, p. 128-152, Mar. 1990.
• COLOMBO, M. G. Firm size and cooperation: the determinants of cooperative agreements in information technology industries. International Journal of the Economics of Business, London, v. 2, n. 1, p. 3-29, 1995.
• COLOMBO, M. G.; GRILLI, L.; PIVA, E. In search of complementary assets: the determinants of alliance formation of high-tech start-ups. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 35, n. 8, p. 1166-1199, Oct. 2006.
• CONTE, A.; VIVARELLI, M. Succeeding in innovation: key insights on product and process innovations drawn from company data. Empirical Economics, Heidelberg, v. 47, n. 4, p. 1317-1340, Dec. 2014.
• CZARNITZKI, D.; KRAFT, K. Firm leadership and innovative performance: evidence from seven EU countries. Small Business Economics, Dordrecht, v. 22, n. 5, p. 325-332, June 2004.
• GEROSKI, P. A. Innovation, technological opportunity, and market structure. Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford, v. 42, n. 3, p. 586-602, July 1990.
• GRIMPE, C.; HUSSINGER, K. Pre-empting technology competition through firm acquisitions. Economics Letters, Amsterdam, v. 100, n. 2, p. 189-191, Aug. 2008.
• GUISADO-GONZÁLEZ, M.; GUISADO-TATO, M.; FERRO-SOTO, C. Ayudas públicas como determinante de la cooperación en investigación y desarrollo. Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, Maracaibo, v. 18, n. 64, p. 631-648, oct./dic. 2013.
• GUISADO-TATO, M.; VILA-ALONSO, M.; GUISADO-GONZÁLEZ, M. Financiación pública de la innovación. Cooperación en I+D y pertenencia al sector gráfico. DYNA, Ingeniería e Industria, Bilbao, v. 85, n. 9, p. 760-767, dic. 2010.
• HARABI, N. Appropriability of technical innovations: an empirical analysis. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 24, n. 6, p. 981-992, Nov. 1995.
• HENNART, J. F. A transaction cost theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 9, n. 4, p. 361-74, July/Aug. 1988.
• INKPEN, A. C. Learning, knowledge acquisition and strategic alliances. European Management Journal, Oxford, v. 16, n. 2, p. 223-229, Apr. 1998.
• INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADÍSTICA (INE). Encuesta de innovación tecnológica en las empresas (CIS3). Madrid: Base de datos, 2000.
• JIRJAHN, U.; KRAFT, K. Do spillovers stimulate incremental or drastic product innovations? Evidence from German establishment data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Oxford, v. 73, n. 4, p. 509-538, Aug. 2011.
• JORDE, T. M.; TEECE, D. J. Innovation and cooperation: implications for competition and antitrust. Journal of Economic Perspectives, Nashville, v. 4, n. 3, p. 75-96, Summer 1990.
• KIM, L. The dynamics of technological learning in industrialization. International Social Science Journal, Paris; Oxford, v. 53, n. 168, p. 297-308, June 2001.
• KLEVORICK, A. K. et al. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 24, n. 2, p. 185-205, Mar. 1995.
• LANE, P. J.; LUBATKIN, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 19, n. 5, p. 461-477, May 1998.
• LEVIN, R. C. et al. Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Washington, D. C., v. 3, p. 783-820, 1987.
• LEIPONEN, A. Skills and innovation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam, v. 23, n. 5-6, p. 303-323, 2005.
• LIN, E. S.; HSIAO, Y. C.; LIN, H. L. Complementarities of R&D strategies on innovation performance: evidence from Taiwanese manufacturing firms. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Abingdon, v. 19, p .134-156, 2013. Supplement 1.
• LOVE, J. H.; ROPER, S. Location and network effects on innovation success: evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 30, n. 4, p. 643-661, Apr. 2001.
• LÓPEZ, A. Determinants of R&D cooperation: evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam, v. 26, n. 1, p. 113-136, Jan. 2008.
• LUCENA, A. The organizational design of R&D activities and their performance implications: empirical evidence for Spain. Industry & Innovation, [S. l.], v. 18, n. 2, p. 151-176, May 2009.
• McDONALD, R. P. Test theory: a unified treatment. New York: Routlege Taylor & Francis Group, 1999.
• MARKIDES, C. C.; WILLIAMSON, P. J. Corporate diversification and organizational structure: a resource-based view. Academy of Management Journal, New York, v. 39, n. 2, p. 340-367, Apr. 1996.
• MILGROM, P.; ROBERTS, J. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, Nashville, v. 80, n. 3, p. 511-528, Jun. 1990.
• MIRAVETE, E. J.; PERNÍAS, J. C. Innovation complementarity and scale of production. The Journal of Industrial Economics, [S. l.], v. 54, n. 1, p. 1-29, Mar. 2006.
• MOHNEN, P.; RÖLLER, L. Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, Amsterdam, v. 49, n. 6, p. 1431 - 1450, 2005.
• MOWERY, D.; OXLEY, J.; SILVERMAN, B. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 17, n. 52, p. 77-91, Winter 1996.
• NIETO, M.; QUEVEDO, P. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation, [S. l.], v. 25, n. 10, p. 1141-1157, Oct. 2005.
• OECD. Oslo-Manual: proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, Paris, 1997.
• PARK, N. K.; MEZIAS, J. M.; SONG, J. A resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, Thousand Oaks, v. 30, n. 1, p. 7-27, Feb. 2004.
• PETERAF, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 14, n. 3,p. 179-191, Mar. 1993.
• ROSENKOPF, L.; ALMEIDA, P. Overcoming local search through alliances and Mobility. Management Science, Linthicum, v. 49, n. 6, p. 751-766, June 2003.
• ROTHAERMEL, F.; HILL, C. W. Technological discontinuities and complementary assets: A longitudinal study of industry and firm performance. Organization Science, Linthicum, v. 16, n. 1, p. 52-70, Jan./Feb. 2005.
• SCHMIEDEBERG, C. Complementarities of innovation activities: an empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 37, n. 9, p. 1492-1503, Oct. 2008.
• SCHOENMAKERS, W.; DUYSTERS, G. Learning in strategic technology alliances. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, [S. l.], v. 18, n. 2, p. 245-264, May 2006.
• SERRANO-BEDIA, A.M.; LÓPEZ-FERNÁNDEZ, M.C.; GARCÍA-PIQUERES, G. Complementarity between innovation activities and innovation performance: evidence from Spanish innovative firms. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Bradford, v. 23, n.5, p. 557-577, 2012.
• TEECE, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 15, n. 6, p. 285-305, Dec. 1986.
• TEECE, D. J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation: organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Bradford, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1-25, June 1992.
• TOPKIS, D. L. Minimizing a submodular function on a lattice. Operations Research, Baltimore, v. 26, n. 2, p. 305-321, Mar./Apr. 1978.
• TRIGUERO, A.; CÓRCOLES, D. Understanding innovation: an analysis of persistence for Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 42, n. 2, p. 340- 352, Mar. 2013.
• VASUDEVA, G.; ANAND, J. Unpacking absorptive capacity: a study of knowledge utilization from alliance portfolios. Academy of Management Journal, New York, v. 54, n. 3, p. 611-623, June 2011.
• VEGA-JURADO, J. et al. The effect of external and internal factors on firms’ product innovation. Research Policy, [S. l], v. 37, n. 4, p. 616-632, May 2008.
• VEUGELERS, R.; CASSIMAN, B. Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, [S. l.], v. 28, n. 2, p. 63-79, Jan. 1999.
• WERNERFELT, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester, v. 5, n. 2, p. 171-180, 1984.
• WOOLDRIDGE, J.M. Introductory econometrics: a modern approach. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 2009.

• Evaluation process: Double Blind Review

• 1
  . The Oslo Manual 1997 is a guide for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data. It is edited jointly by OECD and Eurostat. As a guide, defines concepts and clarifies the activities that are part of the innovation process and the types of innovation and the impact of these innovations on firm perform.
• 2
  . We ruled out the consideration of innovative activities in progress and frustrated activities, because both, by definition, have no impact on the variable % SALESNEWP.
• 3
  . This result regarding the complementarity coincides with that obtained by Schmiedeberg (2008) for the German manufacturing industry when she used as the innovation output the sales of new products (as we do in this study).
• 4
  . In Spain, and generally throughout the European Union, is usual to grant public aid for innovation under the conditionality of establish cooperation agreements with other companies. However, apply this policy to all kinds of businesses seems incorrect. In Spain, a large portion of the companies belong to sectors of medium and low technological intensity. These companies do not have a sufficiently well developed R&D department. Therefore, such companies are not able to absorb the knowledge, skills and routines that the more advanced companies achieve through the implementation of cooperation agreements with other companies. For this kind of companies the innovation aid should not be conditional on the establishment of cooperative agreements (GUISADO-GONZÁLEZ; GUISADO-TATO; FERRO-SOTO, 2013).

APPENDIX A - Variable definitions

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Oct-Dec 2014

History

• Received
  07 Aug 2012
• Accepted
  18 Nov 2014