Vertical integration and innovation

Innovation is a driving force for most industries, where it moreover affects many stages of the vertical chain. We study the impact of vertical integration on innovation in an industry where firms need to undertake risky R&D investments at both production and distribution stages. Vertical integration brings better coordination within the integrated firm, which boosts its investment incentive at both upstream and downstream levels. However, it is only mutually beneficial for firms to integrate when both upstream and downstream innovations are important. When innovation is irrelevant at one level, firms favor instead vertical separation. The analysis provides insights for the wave of mergers and R&D outsourcing observed in the pharmaceutical industry and other vertically related industries.     

Inter-firm complementarities in R&D: a re-examination of the relative performance of joint ventures

We compare duopoly outcomes between two alternative modes of research and development (R&D), viz. independent R&D and non-cooperative research joint ventures (RJVs), when there are complementarities between firm-specific R&D resources. When complementarity is high, RJVs lead to higher technological improvement and the reverse holds for low complementarity. In the intermediate range, the comparison depends on the relative imperfection in spillovers afflicting independent R&D. In sharp contrast to results on cooperative RJVs, non-cooperative RJVs lead to higher technological improvement when spillovers affecting independent R&D are low; the reverse holds for high spillovers. When RJVs yield higher technological improvement, they also yield higher industry profit and social welfare.     

Joint learning in R&D collaborations and the facilitating relational practices

The present study considers joint learning as a relational dynamic capability and examines the role of relational practices as enablers of joint learning in R&D collaboration between suppliers and their customers. The study applies a qualitative comparative case method to analyze seven dyadic cases, selected based on a quantitative dataset and cluster analysis. Our results indicate that in dyadic relationships, firms would benefit from developing practices related to relational investments, relational structures, and relational capital that facilitate joint learning and yield collaborative advantages from R&D interactions. This paper contributes to the existing literature on joint learning in R&D collaborations by defining joint learning as a relational dynamic capability and by focusing on the practices that facilitate it in R&D collaboration.     

The welfare effects of cooperative R&D in oligopoly with spillovers

This paper provides a more complete characterization of the welfare effects of cooperative cost-reducing R&D investments in Cournot oligopoly with spillovers. I show that R&D cooperation reduces both R&D spending and social surplus when the spillover rate in R&D is neither sufficiently high nor sufficiently low. As the elasticity of the slope of the inverse demand function increases, however, the set of spillover rates over which cooperative R&D reduces social welfare shrinks, and in the limit, cooperative R&D is socially beneficial for all spillover rates.     

Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies

We explore heterogeneities in the determinants of innovating firms' decisions to engage in R&D cooperation, differentiating between four types of cooperation partners: competitors, suppliers, customers, and universities and research institutes (institutional cooperation). We use two matched waves of the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (in 1996 and 1998) and apply system probit estimation. We find that determinants of R&D cooperation differ significantly across cooperation types. The positive impact of firm size, R&D intensity, and incoming source-specific spillovers is weaker for competitor cooperation, reflecting greater appropriability concerns. Institutional spillovers are more generic in nature and positively impact all cooperation types. The results appear robust to potential simultaneity bias.     

R&D in markets with network externalities

This paper studies the consequences of network externalities on R&D rivalry between an incumbent firm and a potential entrant. In the model, all differences between the R&D projects chosen in market equilibrium and the socially best projects are solely due to network externalities. From a welfare perspective, the incumbent chooses a too risky and the entrant a too certain R&D project. Rothschild and Stiglitz's mean preserving spread criterion is used as a measure of risk. Adoption of a new standard is more likely in equilibrium than in the social optimum.     

Types of R&D Collaborations and Process Innovation: The Benefit of Collaborating Upstream in the Knowledge Chain

This paper explains how research and development (R&D) collaborations impact process innovation; given the differences in innovation mechanisms, prior insights from studies of product innovation do not necessarily apply to process innovation. Extending the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper classifies four types of R&D collaborations—with universities, suppliers, competitors, and customers—in terms of two knowledge dimensions: position in the knowledge chain and contextual knowledge distance. Position in the knowledge chain is the position of the R&D collaboration partner in the knowledge chain of the industry—the input–output sequence of activities that result in the transformation of raw materials into products that are used by end customers. Based on this knowledge chain, this paper considers universities and suppliers as upstream R&D collaborators, and competitors and customers as downstream R&D collaborators. Contextual knowledge distance is the difference in industry‐related contexts of operation of the R&D collaboration partners and the firm. Based on this, this paper views R&D collaborators that are suppliers and competitors as having low contextual knowledge distance to the firm, and R&D collaborators that are customers and universities as having high contextual knowledge distance to the firm. Using this classification, this paper proposes a ranking of R&D collaborations in terms of their impact on process innovation: R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest impact, followed by R&D collaborations with universities, then R&D collaborations with competitors, and finally R&D collaborations with customers. These arguments are tested on a four‐year panel of 781 manufacturing firms. The results of the analyses indicate that R&D collaborations with suppliers and universities appear to have a positive impact on process innovation, R&D collaborations with customers appear to have no impact, and R&D collaborations with competitors appear to have a negative impact. As a consequence, the main driver of the impact of R&D collaborations on process innovation appears to be position in the knowledge chain rather than contextual knowledge distance. These novel ideas and findings contribute to the literature on process innovation. Even though process innovation tends to be internal and tacit to the firm, it can still benefit from external R&D collaborations; this paper is the first to analyze this relationship and provide a theoretical framework for understanding why this would be the case. This study also has important managerial implications. It suggests that managers need to be careful in choosing the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Engaging in R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers appears to be helpful for process innovation, whereas conducting R&D collaborations with competitors may potentially harm process innovation.     

R&D Collaborations and Product Innovation*

This paper studies the relative impact on product innovation of research and development (R&D) collaborations with universities, suppliers, customers, and competitors. It argues that each type of R&D collaboration differs in terms of the breadth of new knowledge provided to the firm and in the ease of access of this new knowledge, resulting in a different impact on product innovation. As a result, it proposes that R&D collaborations with universities are likely to have the highest impact on product innovation, followed by R&D collaborations with suppliers, customers, and, finally, competitors. These arguments are tested on the R&D collaborations undertaken by a sample of 781 manufacturing firms during 1998–2002. The tests find that R&D collaborations with suppliers have the highest positive impact on product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities. Surprisingly, R&D collaborations with customers do not appear to affect product innovation, and collaborations with competitors appear to harm it. Moreover, the positive influence of R&D collaborations with universities and suppliers is sustained over the long‐term, but the negative influence of R&D collaborations with competitors is, fortunately, short‐lived. These findings indicate that ease of knowledge access, rather than breadth of knowledge, appears to drive the success of R&D collaborations for product innovation. R&D collaborations with suppliers or universities, which are characterized by relatively easy knowledge access, have a positive influence on product innovation, whereas R&D collaborations with customers or competitors, which are characterized by reduced ease in knowledge access, are not related or are even negatively related to product innovation. Moreover, to achieve product innovation with the help of R&D collaborations, it appears that the collaboration must first have mechanisms in place to facilitate the transfer of knowledge; once these are in place, it is better if the partner has a relatively narrow knowledge base. Thus, while R&D collaborations with both suppliers and universities are positively related to product innovation, the narrow knowledge base provided by collaborations with suppliers appears to have a larger positive impact on product innovation than the wider knowledge base provided by collaborations with universities. These arguments and findings are important and novel. The paper is one of the first to theoretically explain and empirically show that various types of collaborations have a differential influence on product innovation. It goes beyond previous literature by providing a theoretical logic for ranking the likely impact of types of collaborations on product innovation. The study also suggests to managers to carefully select the partners for their firms' R&D collaborations. Collaborations with suppliers appear to be the most promising for product innovation, followed by collaborations with universities, whereas collaborations with competitors may be detrimental to product innovation.     

How does the partner type in R&D alliances impact technological innovation performance? A study on the Korean biotechnology industry

The number of strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry is sharply increasing. Some studies show that each alliance partner type has different alliance motives, resources and capabilities, organizational structures and cultures, and degrees of competition with partners, which can lead to different performances of strategic alliances. In this regard, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the different impact of each type of alliance partner on technological innovation performance and finds the moderating effect of absorptive capacity and potential competition by categorizing strategic alliances for R&D activities in the biotechnology industry into three types: vertical-downstream alliances, vertical-upstream alliances, and horizontal alliances. This study analyzed 206 Korean biotechnology firms and their strategic alliances for a total of 292 R&D activities. The results of the analysis showed that vertical alliances have a positive impact on technological innovation performance, while horizontal alliances have an inverted U-shaped relationship with technological innovation performance caused by the effect of competition. Additionally, it was confirmed that the R&D intensity of biotechnology firms has a moderating effect of increasing the impact of vertical-upstream alliances on technological innovation performance.     

R&D investment,business performance,and moderating role of Guanxi: Evidence from China

Conventional wisdom posits that a long-term orientation with important partners such as key suppliers and clients is essential for superior performance. This study critically examines this business tenet by studying the relationship between duration of partnerships with major suppliers and clients and company performance. Based on a dataset comprising over 10,000 Chinese manufacturing firms obtained through a probability sampling procedure, results show that relationship duration with major clients not only has a direct, negative effect on total income (sales), but also has a negative moderating effect on the association between research & development (R&D) and total income. However, relationship duration with major suppliers has a positive moderating effect on the association between R&D and total profits. Furthermore, relationship with government has a positive effect on total income, and it also has a negative moderating effect on the R&D-performance chain. Managerial and research implications are also discussed.     

Cooperative R&D and vertical product differentiation

A partial equilibrium model with vertical product differentiation, Coumot competition and quality determined by R&D expenses is analysed. Cooperative agreements on R&D entail higher levels of R&D, quality, output and welfare than at the non-cooperative equilibrium, under well denned conditions on spillover rates. This confirms, in a new setting, a well-known outcome of models with cost reducing R&D. Further, cooperation in R&D allows a larger number of firms to operate in the industry than in the non-cooperative case. Via a reduction in prices, a new source of social gains from cooperative research is identified.     

The Impact of Market Structure and Learning on the Tradeoff between R&D Competition and Cooperation

This paper compares R&D competition and cooperation when firms can devote resources to a ‘safe’ investment or a risky R&D investment. When the discovery of a new product creates positive externalities on non‐discovering firms, equilibrium investment flow, ex ante investment, and welfare under R&D competition are less than or equal to what they are under research cooperation. With negative externalities, R&D cooperation results in the same or lower ex ante investment than under R&D competition, and social welfare may also be less. Our results have relevance for empirical studies of the impact of R&D cooperation on R&D outcomes.     

Economic efficiency,antitrust and rate-of-return

This paper examines the economic consequences of using excessive rates-of-return to detect and prosecute cartels. We find that this policy leads to inefficient factor utilization, but always increases output and welfare. The rate-of-return policy may yield greater social gains than a welfare-based antitrust policy.     

Convergence and unbundling of corporate R&D in telecommunications: is software taking the helm?

This paper presents a view of the changing structure of corporate R&D in telecommunications – one that is close to Adam Smith’s insightful and enduring idea of division of labor – that perhaps we are witnessing the beginnings of vertical disintegration and unbundling of important segments of the industry’s R&D activity. The paper maintains that the emergence of an independent software industry – aided by the convergence of computer, telecommunications and imaging technologies – and the rapid growth of technology-based alliances are at the heart of this trend. So extensive is the vertical disintegration of R&D that, in 1997, the top 10 independent software vendors in the US spent more on R&D than the combined spending by AT&T and Lucent whose sales were well over three times as large. It appears that the source of future innovation in the telecommunications industry lies not in its services segment but rather in telecommunications and Internet equipment firms and independent software firms. Increasingly, the fortunes of large service providers like AT&T will depend less on innovation and more on their ability to configure and market complete one-stop-shopping solutions to customers by combining internal resources with outsourced technologies, products and services.     

Interorganizational collaboration strategies and innovation abandonment: The more the merrier?

Investments in innovation activities involve uncertainty. Abandonments of innovative projects are frequent and can entail great losses. Interorganizational collaboration can help a firm to leverage and complement its own competencies and technologies, contrasting the factors that may cause the abandonment of innovation activities. This article shows that firms collaborating with a wider network of external partners to conduct their innovation activities are less likely to abandon them. The article also analyses how different categories of partners among customers & suppliers, competitors, consultants & private R&D institutions, universities & public R&D institutions are associated with the risk of innovation abandonment. Finally, the results show that international collaborations are more likely associated with innovation abandonment than domestic ones. Strategic and theoretical implications are drawn.     

R&D-induced industry polarization and shake-outs

We consider the standard two-stage game of R&D and Cournot competition with ex ante identical firms but depart from the literature in assuming that R&D is characterized by mildly, instead of strongly, decreasing returns to scale. We establish that only extreme R&D levels are possible at equilibrium, and that for a broad range of parameters, equilibria are asymmetric in R&D levels, possibly leading one firm to endogenously exit. This provides a simple link between returns to scale in R&D and industry polarization, including shake-outs. A novelty is that exit may be triggered by positive opportunities in a strategic setting. Given the original nature of our R&D equilibrium, a complete welfare analysis is conducted, including a possible role for R&D subsidies.     

Creating relational rents: The effect of business groups on affiliated firms’ performance in Indonesia

This research attempts to extend the discussion of business groups in emerging economies by treating business groups as a form of interorganizational network that generates relational rents among affiliated firms by creating technological and managerial capabilities. Based on the relational view, this research investigates whether value created by business groups depends upon sharing, combining, and exchanging unique and specific resources or assets among affiliated firms. Results show that technological capabilities contribute to create relational rents in terms of affiliated firms’ investment in R&D and human capital. Managerial capabilities also contributed to generating relational rents through investment in managerial knowledge acquisition for affiliated firms without R&D units and in training for affiliated firms with R&D units. However, learning by exporting and learning from imported input do not yield relational rents within business groups. Overall, these findings reveal that business groups as interorganizational networks are contingent on their internal, unique, and specific capabilities, as social capital theory argues.

Complementarity in R&D Cooperation Strategies

This paper assesses the performance effects of simultaneous engagement in R&D cooperation with different partners (competitors, clients, suppliers, and universities and research institutes). We test whether these different types of R&D cooperation are complements in improving productivity. The results suggest that the joint adoption of cooperation strategies could be either beneficial or detrimental to firm performance, depending on firm size and specific strategy combinations. Customer cooperation helps to increase market acceptance and diffusion of product innovations and enhances the impact of competitor and university cooperation. On the other hand, smaller firms also face diseconomies in pursuing multiple R&D cooperation strategies, which may stem from higher costs and complexity of simultaneously managing multiple partnerships with different innovation objectives.The empirical analysis for this paper has been performed at CEREM/Statistics Netherlands. We thank Bert Diederen of CEREM for his assistance. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Statistics Netherlands. We thank two anonymous referees, the editor (Lawrence White), Bonnie Beerkens, Geert Duysters, Katrin Hussinger, and Pierre Mohnen for helpful comments on earlier drafts     

Consumer perceptions and the effects of country of origin labeling on purchasing decisions and welfare

The study develops a general analytical framework of heterogeneous consumer preferences to examine the effects of country of origin labeling (COOL) regulation on consumer purchasing decisions and welfare. We show that while differences in consumer perceptions about COOL information, namely, whether it is viewed as an attribute that differentiates products vertically or horizontally, do not alter the nature of the market and consumer welfare effects of mandatory COOL, the relative strength of consumer preferences for COOL are shown to be important in determining the magnitude of these effects. In addition, our results show that the benchmark used (a no COOL versus a voluntary COOL regime) is critical in evaluating the effects of the policy. We show that, under both horizontal and vertical product differentiation, a change from a no COOL to a mandatory COOL regime decreases (increases) the welfare of consumers with weak (strong) preference for COOL while a change from a voluntary to a mandatory COOL regime leads to an unambiguous loss in consumer welfare.     

FDI and quality-enhancing technology spillovers

When Northern firms undertake FDI in the South, their superior technology spills over to Southern firms and enables Southern firms to enhance their product quality. This paper explores quality-enhancing technology spillovers in an international duopoly model of vertical product differentiation. We find that the Northern firm strategically reduces its product quality to limit the amount of technology spillovers upon FDI. The trade-off between the Northern firm’s endogenous product quality choice and technology spillovers—similar to that between R&D and technology spillovers as discussed previously–plays a critical role in welfare consequences and policy implications of quality-enhancing technology spillovers.