Leaders,laggards, and the pursuit of foreign knowledge

This paper analyzes how firms in different technological and market share positions use foreign R&D to augment their technological capabilities. Technology transfer issues and absorptive capacity arguments are examined to analyze the different technological capabilities of leading and lagging firms. In addition, a new strategic rationale (in terms of non‐dominant market share firms) that has not been considered in prior studies analyzing knowledge‐seeking FDI is offered. From a panel dataset which includes information on all foreign R&D investments made by publicly traded Japanese manufacturing firms (from 1974 to 1994), I show that Japanese firms investing in foreign R&D tend to be the non‐dominant market share firms, but also the technologically leading firms across fairly diverse industries. By considering both the technological and market share positions of firms, this study reveals important characteristics that influence when firms use foreign R&D as part of a strategy to augment their technological capabilities. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Financing behaviour of R&D investment in the emerging markets: the role of alliance and financial system

This paper examines the financing behaviour of research and development (R&D) investments in emerging markets. Drawing on institutional theory and using panel data of generalized methods of moment estimation for a sample of 302 firms from 20 countries during the period 2003–2015, we find that emerging market firms tend to use internal funds for financing R&D investments. Interesting results emerged when the sample was divided as alliance and non‐alliance firms, and bank‐based and market‐based financial systems. The results show that R&D financing behaves differently for alliance and non‐alliance firms. Alliance firms use both internal and external funds for R&D investments, while non‐alliance firms do not use external funds. We also document that a country's financial system influences the choice of available sources of finance. Firms from countries that follow a bank‐based financial system tend to rely on external funds while firms from countries that follow a market‐based financial system depend more on internal funds for financing R&D investments. This study is important as it provides new evidence on financing R&D investments in emerging countries taking into account the institutional arguments of financing choices, and so should guide stakeholders about appropriate sources of R&D financing.     

Profitability Goals,Control Goals,and the R&D Investment Decisions of Family and Nonfamily Firms

Research and development (R&D) investments can help build sustainable competitive advantages and improve firm performance. Nevertheless, managers also acknowledge the difficulties associated with managing R&D and the low chances of success of innovation programs. For this reason, researchers have long been interested in understanding how managers make R&D investment decisions. Research grounded in the behavioral theory of the firm suggests that a primary driver of R&D investment decisions is profitability: when profitability goals have not been met, managers are more likely to initiate a problemistic search through increasing R&D investments. While emphasizing profitability goals and their relationship with R&D investments, prior research largely downplays the role of goals beyond profitability that exist in a significant number of firms (family firms) that are owned and managed by family members whose primary concern is preserving their control over the organization. Research indicates that these family‐centered noneconomic goals lead family managers to minimize R&D investments and that the coexistence of multiple goals produces highly variable R&D investment behavior. Yet, how family‐centered goals for control and profitability enter decision‐making in family firms is not fully understood. In this study, we propose that family managers form distinctive reference points that capture supplier bargaining power and are used to evaluate the degree of external obstruction to their managerial control. The empirical analysis of panel data on 431 private Spanish manufacturing firms observed over the period 2000–2006 shows that the importance of profitability and control goals follows a sequential logic in family firms, such that family firms react more strongly to increasing supplier bargaining power when their profitability reference points have been reached. This study extends current understanding of the distinctive organizational processes engendered by family management in business organizations leading to new research opportunities at the intersection of the innovation management and family business literatures.     

Overlapping ownership and product innovation

We characterize the effect of overlapping ownership (OO) on investments in drastic product innovation. The success probability of innovation increases with investment. We analyse two opposing forces: (1) OO induces firms to internalize that success on their own behalf erodes the rivals’ business, reducing investments; (2) OO softens competition in the product market, enhancing investments. Our analysis reveals that the competition-softening effect, by stimulating investments, can induce OO to benefit consumers, in particular when the R&D projects are complex. We also show that an incumbent technology raises the threshold required for OO to stimulate investments in innovation.     

Patent Protection and R&D with Endogenous Market Structure

In a model with endogenous number of innovating firms, we show that whether patent protection increases R&D investment is ambiguous, and depends on the market demand function and the cost of R&D. If the market size increases with number of firms, patent protection reduces R&D investment if the cost of R&D is sufficiently high, and higher product differentiation increases the possibility of lower R&D investment under patent protection. If the market size does not increase with number of firms, patent protection never reduces R&D investment. We find that welfare is lower under patent protection than under no patent protection.     

A Note on Endogenous Market Structure under Heterogeneous Firms*

Industries, such as semiconductors and biotechnology, are characterized by heterogeneous research productivity and vertically differentiated products. In this note, I relax the assumption of symmetric R&D costs in Sutton [1998] and derive the lower bounds to market concentration when entry and R&D investments in product quality are jointly determined. I show that the lower bound to concentration depends on the degree of vertical differentiation, which is a function of market size and quality choices. My findings imply that empirical applications that fail to account for differences in quality will be biased towards the null hypothesis of exogenous entry costs otherwise.     

COLLUSION AND RESEARCH JOINT VENTURES*

I examine the question whether cooperation in R&D among firms producing similar products leads to product market collusion. Suppose that firms engage in a stochastic R&D race while maintaining the collusive equilibrium in a repeated‐game framework. Innovation under non‐cooperative R&D leads to an inter‐firm asymmetry, destabilizing collusion in pre‐discovery and post‐discovery periods. Innovation sharing under cooperative R&D preserves the symmetry and also increases total profit, thereby facilitating collusion. However, welfare may increase with cooperative R&D. I also examine the condition for collusion under licensing and compare the results.     

MARKET COMPETITION,R&D AND FIRM PROFITS IN ASYMMETRIC OLIGOPOLY*

We investigate a Cournot model with strategic R&D investments wherein efficient low‐cost firms compete against less efficient high‐cost firms. We find that an increase in the number of high‐cost firms can stimulate R&D by the low‐cost firms, while it always reduces R&D by the high‐cost firms. More importantly, this force can be strong enough to compensate for the loss that arises from more intense market competition: the low‐cost firms' profits may indeed increase with the number of high‐cost firms. An implication of this result is far‐reaching, as it gives low‐cost firms an incentive to help, rather than harm, high‐cost competitors. We relate this implication to a practice known as open knowledge disclosure, especially Ford's strategy of disclosing its know‐how publicly and extensively at the beginning of the 20th century.     

Non‐R&D innovation and firms’ new product performance: the joint moderating effect of R&D intensity and network embeddedness

Non‐R&D innovation increasingly plays a critical role in explaining firms’ new product performance. Yet, there has been little research on the consequences and contingent mechanisms of non‐R&D innovation for firms embedded in collaborative network environments. To address this research gap, we investigated a conceptual framework of non‐R&D innovation using data drawn from Chinese manufacturing firms. First, we found that non‐R&D innovation positively affects firms’ new product performance. Second, we discovered that high R&D intensity positively strengthens the impact of firms’ non‐R&D innovation on new product performance. Third, we provided critical analysis of the role of non‐R&D innovation in promoting new product performance, accomplished by enhancing R&D investment while simultaneously improving the degree of network embeddedness. Our findings extend both the non‐R&D innovation literature and open innovation literature while providing managers with several key recommendations.     

MNE competence‐creating subsidiary mandates

The determinants of R&D intensity differ between subsidiaries in a multinational enterprise (MNE). Previous literature suggests that whether a subsidiary achieves a competence‐creating output mandate depends on the qualities of its location. R&D strategies in competence‐creating subsidiaries are supply‐driven while those in purely competence‐exploiting subsidiaries are demand‐driven. Using data on U.K. subsidiaries of non‐U.K. MNEs, we find that the level of subsidiary R&D depends on MNE group‐level and subsidiary‐level characteristics as well as locational factors. The R&D of mandated subsidiaries rises with acquisition, but for non‐mandated subsidiaries R&D falls upon acquisition. MNEs that grow through acquisition have more inter‐subsidiary R&D diversity. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

R&D Cooperation,Partner Diversity,and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Analysis

Existing literature on research and development (R&D) alliances focuses on formation motives and performance impacts of these alliances but hardly on diversity of the partners' portfolio. Cooperation with a diverse set of partners leads to learning opportunities with regard to both cooperation and innovation skills and hence is expected to enhance the firm's innovation performance. This paper examines two research questions: (1) the impact of functional and geographical diversity of R&D partners on radical and incremental innovation performance of product innovating firms, and (2) the organizational determinants of partner diversity in R&D alliances. The empirical analysis is based on data from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey, R&D and Information and Communication Technology Surveys, and Production Statistics, which lead to a representative sample of 12,811 innovating firms in the period 1994–2006. Through random‐effects panel Tobit estimates, econometric models for both research questions are estimated. The results indicate that functional and geographical diversity act through different channels. Functional diversity leads to a variety of knowledge intake and synergetic effects necessary to develop and commercialize novel products. Geographical diversity results in successful adaption of existing products to different local requirements such as technical standards, market regulations, and customer preferences. The organizational determinants of both kinds of partner diversity are prior experience, patenting, and information technology infrastructure.     

Risk abatement as a strategy for R&D investments in family firms

The behavioral agency model suggests family firms invest less in R&D than nonfamily firms to protect their socioemotional wealth. Studies support this contention but do not explain how family firms make R&D investments. We hypothesize that when performance exceeds aspirations, family firms manage socioemotional and economic objectives by making exploitative R&D investments that lead to more reliable and less risky sales levels. However, performance below aspirations leads to exploratory R&D investments that result in potentially higher but less reliable sales levels. Using a risk abatement model, our analyses of 847 firms over 10 years supports our hypotheses. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

Do non‐competition agreements lead firms to pursue risky R&D projects?

This study investigates the impact of non‐competition agreements on the type of R&D activity undertaken by companies. Non‐competition agreements, by reducing outbound mobility and knowledge leakages to competitors, make high‐risk R&D projects relatively more valuable than low‐risk ones. Thus, they induce companies to choose riskier R&D projects, such that corporate inventions are more likely to lie in the tails of the inventions' value distribution (as breakthroughs or failures) and be in novel technological areas. This study uses data about U.S. patent applications from 1990 to 2000 and considers longitudinal variation in the enforcement of non‐compete clauses. The results indicate that in states with stricter enforcement, companies undertake riskier R&D paths than in states that do not enforce non‐compete agreements as strictly. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

R &D investments and profitability during the crisis: evidence from Greece

Innovation and Research and Development (R&D) investments have been considered in the literature as a significant determinant of corporate development and sustainability. Previous studies have examined the impact of intangibles on financial performance but not extensively within economic environments of intense financial turmoil. The scope of this study is to shed further light on this issue and examine whether R&D investments had an impact on the profitability of Greek firms especially during the sovereign debt crisis. We collected a sample of Greek corporations that have capitalized their R&D investments and paid significant amounts on R&D expenses during the period 2003–2016. Panel regression results indicated that R&D investments and R&D expenses had a negative impact on the profitability of sample firms before the crisis, but during the crisis (2011–2016) firms which managed to sustain or enhance their level of R&D investments achieved to improve their profitability. These findings corroborate our hypotheses that during a period of limited lending and hearse financial turmoil, R&D investments could be a vital tool for sustaining firms' financial performance. The study offers useful implications for managers and regulators, and contributes to the ongoing debate about the impact of R&D investments on corporate performance.     

How do country‐level governance characteristics impact the relationship between R&D and firm value?

This article addresses the question of how country‐level governance characteristics moderate the market valuation of research and development (R&D). Using a valuation model and panel data from companies in the European Union, United States, and Japan, we find that effective corporate governance allows the market to better assess a firm's R&D investments. This finding is the conjunction with the effect of the legal system, the financial system, and mechanisms of control. First, as effectiveness of investor protection increases, the market valuation of R&D projects also increases. Second, more developed financial systems do a better job assessing R&D. Third, effective control mechanisms reinforce the positive effect of R&D on a firm's market value. In sum, our findings shed light on how policymakers can increase the benefits from firms' R&D spending and thus foster economic growth and social welfare using these country‐level governance characteristics.     

Localization and overseas R&D activity: the case of Taiwanese multinational enterprises in China

This study investigates the determinants of overseas research and development (R&D) and the influences of various aspects of localization on affiliates' R&D intensity. Using a dataset of Taiwanese multinational enterprises (MNEs) in China, the empirical estimations find that MNEs with a larger firm size, more R&D expenditure, and a higher outward foreign direct investments intensity tend to undertake R&D. Host regions' characteristics, particularly market size and R&D resources, do matter for attracting MNEs to conduct R&D locally. Crucially, affiliates' R&D intensity is related to the degree of localization. The degree of market localization and localization of the R&D network has a positive association with affiliates' R&D intensity. From the perspective of R&D policy, a country with healthy R&D infrastructures helps attract the establishment of R&D labs of MNEs.     

Sunk Costs,Extensive R&D Subsidies and Permanent Inducement Effects

Using firm‐level data on Spanish manufacturing firms we estimate a model of the firm's optimal R&D decisions (whether to perform R&D and how much to invest). We quantify the fixed (proper fixed costs plus firms' outside option) and sunk costs of R&D and find the former to be substantially higher than the latter. While sunk costs act as a barrier to entry into R&D for some firms, fixed costs are the binding obstacle for many more firms. Simulation based on the estimated model reveals that one‐shot trigger subsidies cause a substantial increase in both the share of R&D firms and average R&D expenditures. This effect shows persistence over time, but totally fades away after seven years as firms are gradually hit by negative R&D profitability shocks.     

Interplay between internal investment and alliance specialization in R&D and marketing

A firm's efforts to build its technological and marketing capabilities are not limited to internal investments but can be extended to include external knowledge acquisitions. We examine the interaction between a firm's specialization in R&D or marketing through its internal investments and its alliances in two different industrial contexts. Our results, based on secondary data sources such as Compustat and SDC Platinum from 1985 to 2009, show that the interaction effects of internal specialization and alliance specialization are contingent on the types of tasks (i.e., R&D and marketing) and the industrial context (i.e., high- and low-tech industries). Our findings indicate that a firm in a high-tech industry is able to achieve greater gains by complementing its internal focus on R&D with its external focus on marketing or by focusing on R&D both internally and externally. In contrast, a firm in a low-tech industry is able to achieve greater performance when R&D and marketing complement each other, without regard for how they are aligned through internal investments and alliances. The firm is also able to improve its performance by focusing on marketing both internally and externally. These findings provide new insights into the complementarity between internal investments and alliances.     

Allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems

This paper examines the allocation of inventive effort in complex product systems. I argue that complex product systems, e.g., personal computers (PCs), are distinguished by functional interaction among several components, each guided by a relatively autonomous bundle of technical and economic characteristics. I try to explore whether the dynamics of such interactions between components of complex product systems can help us understand changes in the relative allocation of inventive effort. I advance and empirically test three hypotheses: (1) emergence of component constraints (bottlenecks) in product systems will trigger research and development (R&D) investment to resolve the constraints; (2) slack component firms have a strong incentive to invest in resolving component constraints; and (3) the incentive of slack component firms to invest in resolving component constraints is increasing in their prior sunk R&D investments in slack components. In sum, I argue that interactions between components in a product system conditions the R&D incentives of firms and also that the incentives are increasing in their prior investments or capabilities. Using product reviews from technical journals, I trace the constraint components in the PC from 1981 to 1998 and attempt to predict shifts in the allocation of inventive effort in the subsequent period. The empirical results strongly support all three hypotheses. This study highlights the paradoxical effect of modularity in complex product systems. Modular design architectures, while contributing to accelerating the pace of technical change, also tend to limit the economic benefits of firms' component R&D efforts, especially when different components technologies are progressing at different rates. This often creates an impetus to enlarge the scope of firm R&D activities beyond the component product markets that firms operate in. Other implications for R&D decision making are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.