Role of human resource practices in absorptive capacity and R&D cooperation

This paper reconceptualises absorptive capacity as a strategic human resource construct and analyses its role in determining R&D cooperation and innovation in firms. In spite of widespread consensus on the role of absorptive capacity in innovation, the literature has so far concentrated only on traditional R&D and human capital based indicators of absorptive capacity. Furthermore, most firm-level studies investigating this relationship are cross-sectional in nature and there is need for longitudinal evidence. Employing the IAB Establishment Panel Survey on about 1200 private sector establishments in Germany during 2007–2011, we apply a structural model that links firms’ human resource practices, R&D collaboration strategies and finally their innovation outcome. Findings from the first stage of the empirical analysis suggest that adoption of employment practices positively affects horizontal, institutional and consulting-based R&D cooperation, while compensation programs positively affect only horizontal R&D cooperation. In the second stage, the effect of cooperative R&D conditioned upon human resource practices on innovation performance is examined. Results indicate that firms having institutional and consulting-based R&D cooperation relationships are more often associated with higher incremental product, process and new-to-market innovation, whereas the effect is relatively weaker in case of horizontal R&D cooperation.     

Firm size and types of innovation

We propose a general theory of innovation that illustrates the relative benefits of performing process versus product R&D when firm size is endogenous. A firm's size, scope, and R&D portfolio are shown to reflect the same underlying characteristic of the firm, namely manufacturing efficiency. We demonstrate that efficient firms become larger, have greater scope, and perform more of both process and product R&D. In light of decreasing returns to R&D, this implies small firms obtain more product innovations per dollar of R&D than large firms, which is consistent with evidence we present that small firms are more innovative than large firms as they obtain more patent counts and citations per dollar of R&D.     

On the impact of public policies and wage formation on business investment in research and development

Against the backdrop of mediocre growth prospects in many countries, governments should do more to promote private investment in research and development (R&D). Public fiscal policies and the characteristics of wage formation are key as they affect both the incentives that firms face and their resources. This paper studies their impact at the macro level in a panel of 14 OECD countries since 1981, while we also account for the impact of unobserved common factors like the world level of knowledge. Tax incentives, government intramural expenditures on R&D, public R&D subsidies (if they are not too low nor too high) and especially investment in tertiary education, encourage business R&D investment. Wage moderation may also contribute to innovation, but only in fairly closed economies and in economies with flexible labour markets. In highly open economies with rigid labour markets, high wage pressure promotes investment in R&D. Innovation may then be the only competitive strategy for firms.     

Low-cost innovation and technology-driven innovation in China’s machinery industry

ABSTRACT

The political concept of indigenous innovation in China sets out a guiding principle for the country’s major transformation towards becoming an innovation nation. However, firms’ innovation strategies and capabilities in middle-income countries are usually heterogeneous, making a uniform response to this concept at the company level highly unlikely. The paper’s empirical contribution is based on analysing survey data on technologically advanced machinery firms in China. It uses a multinomial model approach to establish which drivers of innovation go hand-in-hand with the different innovation strategies. This paper identifies different innovation strategies and forms of innovation that co-emerge as part of this transformation, leading to four firm groups: low-cost producers, technology-oriented producers, user-oriented innovators and technology-oriented innovators. It thus contributes to a more differentiated view of the effects of China’s innovation-focused transformation. We find that R&D investments, governmental R&D support and scientific collaborations are key factors to distinguish between the above-mentioned groups.     

The role of contracts and intellectual property rights in open innovation

Our exploratory empirical study, based on interviews and a survey of firms, addresses a number of questions on the role of formal contracts and intellectual property rights (IPR) in the context of firm-to-firm open innovation (OI). We find that firms active in OI have a very strong preference for the governance of their OI relationships with other firms through formal contracts. Also, despite the open nature of OI, firms still see IPR as highly relevant to the protection of their innovative capabilities. We find the degree of openness of firms, their formal legal attitude, and the competitive dynamics of their product market environment to be related to the preference of OI firms for IPR. Furthermore, the strength of firms’ internal R&D capabilities increases the positive relationship between openness and the preference for IPR.     

Evidence on the impact of R&D and ICT investments on innovation and productivity in Italian firms

Both research and development (R&D) and information and communication technology (ICT) investment have been identified as sources of relative innovation underperformance in Europe vis-à-vis the USA. In this article, we investigate the R&D and ICT investment at the firm level in an effort to assess their relative importance and to what extent they are complements or substitutes. We use data on a large unbalanced panel data sample of Italian manufacturing firms constructed from four consecutive waves of a survey of manufacturing firms, to estimate a version of the CDM model of R&D, innovation, and productivity [Crépon–Duguet–Mairesse 1998. Research, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7, no. 2: 115–58] that has been modified to include ICT investment and R&D as the two main inputs into innovation and productivity. We find that R&D and ICT are both strongly associated with innovation and productivity, with R&D being more important for innovation, and ICT investment being more important for productivity. For the median firm, rates of return to both investments are so high that they suggest considerably underinvestment in both these activities. We explore the possible complementarity between R&D and ICT in innovation and production, but find none, although we do find complementarity between R&D and worker skill in innovation.     

Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter?

In this paper we propose a simulation model aimed at describing the emergence and the dynamics of innovation networks, with particular emphasis on the role of open knowledge disclosure. It is argued that firms that widely disclose knowledge to other firms are more likely to enter innovation networks and to acquire a central position within these networks. By disclosing knowledge, firms increase their reputation, which indicates to other organizations that they are competent, and that it is worth starting a partnership with them. The higher a firm reputation, the higher its probability of entering new R&D partnerships with other firms. Our model provides, therefore, a rationale for behaviors of open knowledge disclosure by showing that such strategies, although risky in the short run, may pay in the long run by enabling firms to access external sources of knowledge more easily.     

Innovation in R&D service firms: evidence from the UK

Research and Development (R&D) service firms make significant contributions to innovation in other businesses. The extant literature considers these firms a homogenous sub-group of Knowledge Intensive Business Service firms (KIBS). The objective of this study is to investigate how R&D service firms innovate and the variety of innovation practices within these firms. Employing data from semi-structured interviews with senior managers from 32 UK-based R&D service firms, we suggest that there are two different modes of innovation: in the first mode, R&D service firms innovate similarly to KIBS whose innovation is ad-hoc in nature and driven by customers’ requests; another group of R&D service firms innovate like New Technology-based Firms (NTBFs) relying more on structured in-house R&D activities.     

R&D strategy and innovation performance: the role of standardization

Firms now increasingly recognise the important role of R&D strategy in building technological advantage. However, few attempts have linked standardisation with specific R&D strategies in explaining innovation performance. To bridge this gap, this study empirically examines the relationships between R&D strategies, standardisation, and firms’ innovation performance. Based on a sample of 371 firms in China, we use structural equation modelling (SEM) and find that novelty-oriented R&D strategy generates greater accumulation of standardisation knowledge and standards diversity, while R&D openness only positively relates to this standardisation knowledge accumulation. Moreover, standardisation knowledge accumulation is positively related to both administrative and technical innovation performance, while a greater variety of standards only leads to higher administrative innovativeness. More importantly, our results reveal that accumulation of standardisation knowledge mediates the relationships between R&D novelty and administrative and technical innovation performances. Both the theoretical and practical implications that arise from these findings are discussed.     

R&D cooperation with scientific institutions: a difference-in-difference approach

Economists and business managers have long been interested in the impact of research and development (R&D) cooperation with scientific institutions on the innovation performance of firms. Recent research identifies a positive correlation between these two variables. This paper aims to contribute to the identification of the relationship between R&D cooperation with scientific institutions and the product and process innovation performance of firms by using a difference-in-difference approach. In doing so, we distinguish between two different types of scientific institutions: universities and governmental research institutes. For the econometric analyses, we use data from the German Community Innovation Survey. In total, data from up to 560 German service and manufacturing firms are available for the difference-in-difference analyses. The results suggest that R&D cooperation with universities and governmental research institutes has a positive effect on both product innovation and process innovation performance of firms.     

R&D subsidies in a model of growth with dynamic market structure

This paper presents the effects of an R&D subsidy in a Schumpeterian general equilibrium model with rich industry dynamics. R&D subsidies raise the long-run growth rate, but they also raise the level of industry concentration. In the model firms compete for market share through process R&D endogenously determining the market structure within and across industries. Endogeneity of the market structure allows for analysis of changes in the moments of the firm size distribution in response to policy. R&D subsidies primarily benefit large incumbent firms who increase their innovation rates creating a greater technological barrier to entry. Concentration increases with fewer firms and a higher variance in the market shares. In general equilibrium, the greater distortions in the product market cause the wage rate to fall which leads to increased turnover rates. In addition, the analysis demonstrates that the model captures a large number of empirical regularities described in the industrial organization literature, but absent from most endogenous growth models. These features, such as entering firms are small relative to incumbents, the hazard rate of exit is negatively related to firm size, and large firms spend more on R&D than small firms play important roles in understanding the impact of R&D subsidies on the economy.     

Industrial innovation and governmental policy: A review and proposal based on observation of the U.S. electronic sector

The U.S. electronics sector has been particularly successful at technological innovation since the 1940s. This paper addresses governmental policies that influence the process of technological innovation, drawing on aspects of the history of the electronics sector. Three topics receive particular attention—(1) uncertainties, ideas, and imperfect appropriability, (2) returns to R&D and associated investments, and (3) competition and selection environments. As a foundation for this discussion, several conceptual frameworks are briefly described and some classifications for innovation are explored, i.e., by importance (basic/improvement), by locus of change (process/product), by area of application (peaceful/dangerous), by locus of choice (private/public), and by value (worthwhile/not worthwhile). The discussion is underscored by the observation that better links between conceptual understanding and policy formulation are needed in order to derive practical insights into useful actions. One specific policy recommendation is tendered: an income tax credit on earnings of all employees (including salaried staff and managers) of R&D intensive firms. Such a policy would be appropriate from the standpoint of the topics outlined above (i.e., uncertainties, returns to R&D, and competition); the policy would also delegate responsibility for effective use of the subsidy to the employees and firms affected and would directly acknowledge and reward the contributions of individuals—whether in R&D, production, marketing, or support areas—to the innovative capabilities of their firms and the society at large.     

Innovation or imitation? The effect of spillovers and competitive pressure on firms’ R&D strategy choice

In this paper a firm’s R&D strategy is assumed to be endogenous and allowed to depend on both internal firm characteristics and external factors. Firms choose between two strategies, either they engage in R&D or abstain from own R&D and imitate the outcomes of innovators. This yields three types of equilibria, in which either all firms innovate, some firms innovate and others imitate, or no firm innovates. Firms’ equilibrium strategies crucially depend on external factors. We find that the efficiency of intellectual property rights protection positively affects firms’ incentives to engage in R&D, while excessive competitive pressure has a negative effect. In addition, smaller firms are found to be more likely to become imitators when the product is homogeneous and the level of spillovers is high. Regarding social welfare our results indicate that strengthening intellectual property protection can have an ambiguous effect. In markets characterized by a high rate of innovation a reduction of intellectual property rights protection can discourage innovative performance substantially. However, a reduction of patent protection can also increase social welfare because it may induce imitation. This indicates that policy issues such as the optimal length and breadth of patent protection cannot be resolved without taking into account specific market and firm characteristics.     

Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition

We investigate the relationship between process and product R&D and compare the incentives for both types of R&D under different modes of market competition (Bertrand versus Cournot). It is shown that: (i) process R&D investments increase with the degree of product differentiation and firms invest more in product R&D when they can do process R&D than when they cannot; (ii) Bertrand firms have a stronger incentive for product R&D whereas Cournot firms invest more in process R&D; and (iii) cooperation in product R&D promotes both types of R&D relative to competition whereas cooperation in both types of R&D discourages R&D relative to cooperation in just product R&D.     

Converging scientific fields and new technological paradigms as main drivers of the division of scientific labour in drug discovery process: the effects on strategic management of the R&D corporate change

The thesis of this study is that the convergence of genetics, genomics and proteomics spurs new technological paradigms in medicine, which are generating a R&D corporate change: division of scientific labour of the drug discovery process by strategic alliances among firms in order to reinforce the integrative capabilities in different biomedical research fields and collective and cumulative learning between in-house R&D and external sources of innovation. This study shows, by key a case study of pharmaceutical companies, as scientific and technological paradigms in medicine are main drivers of industrial and R&D corporate change to enhance and accelerate the discovery process of ground-breaking drugs for more and more personalised healthcare.     

How do housing cycles influence listed firms’ R&D investment: evidence from the collateral channel

ABSTRACT

Firm innovation is essential to long-run economic growth. Financially constrained R&D firms may use firm-owned properties as collateral to finance their R&D projects. Therefore, the housing price cycle can affect firms’ R&D investment through influencing their real estate value. By examining listed R&D firms during the housing boom period 2002–2006 in the U.S., we find that a $1 increase in real estate value leads a firm to increase its R&D investment by $0.38. We also find that this collateral effect is more pronounced among financially constrained R&D firms than that among unconstrained ones. Additionally, we examine the housing bust period 2008–2012, and find that real estate depreciation retarded R&D investment, especially among constrained R&D firms.     

Structural Change And Innovation In U.S. Telecommunications

This paper reexamines broadly. from the standpoint of innovation, the arguments for vertical integration in the U.S. telecommunications industry in light of structural change since the breakup of the Bell System. While basic and applied research became the casualty of the 1984 breakup and the 1995 AT&T split, there is no evidence that the pace of innovative activity and productivity has slowed. Evidence from R&D and patent data suggests some acceleration of innovative activity. However. the service segment of the industry ceased to be the center of technological innovation. The source of future innovation seems to lie in the telecommunications and Internet equipment firms and independent software firms. The emergence of the competitive stand-alone software industry, combined with a trend towards open operating systems and customer demand for greater flexibility, and growing substitution of technology alliances for in-house R&D appear to have undermined the case for vertical integration in the telecommunications industry. From the standpoint of business strategy, the question of whether a firm like AT&T, notwithstanding its huge investments in cable facilities, can develop distinctive and sustainable capabilities through horizontal expansion and ubiquity and one-stopshopping marketing alone remains open.     

Human capital and firms’ innovation: evidence from emerging economies

ABSTRACT

We explore the relationship between human capital and firms’ innovation in emerging economies. Most papers consider the formal knowledge developed in R&D laboratories as a major source of innovation. However, a critical portion of knowledge required for innovation resides in human resources and is created outside any formalised R&D activity. We consider that, to improve their technological capabilities, firms should invest in different forms of human capital, namely highly educated workforce and experienced managers, but also in strategic human resource (HR) practices aimed at developing human capital by increasing employees’ firm-specific technical skills and competences. Besides looking at the type of innovation outcomes, we place greater emphasis on the strategies of innovation development, as these should signal an improved firms’ ability, not just to innovate, but to put their own creative effort in the development of innovation. Our results contrast with the traditional view of firms in emerging economies as mainly relying on the external acquisition of innovations, by showing their actual ability to develop new technologies. In this respect, HR practices aimed at fostering employees’ learning and autonomy at work appear more important than the educational attainment of workers, whilst the experience of managers does not seem effective.     

Innovation strategy and the patenting behavior of firms

This paper investigates whether firms’ innovation strategies affect their patenting behavior, as measured by both the probability of having a patent portfolio and the number of active patents held. Three main dimensions of an innovation strategy are taken into account: the relative importance of basic research, applied research and development work in total R&D activities, the product or process orientation of innovation efforts, and the extent to which firms enter into collaborative R&D with other institutions. The major findings can be summarized as follows: (1) taking into account the various dimensions of an innovation strategy turns out to approximate the patenting behavior of firms better than the traditional Schumpeterian hypotheses related to firm size and market power; (2) there is a positive relationship between the patent portfolio of firms and an outward-oriented innovation strategy characterized by R&D partnerships with external organizations - scientific institutions and competitors in particular; (3) process-oriented innovators patent less than product-oriented innovators; (4) a stronger focus on basic and applied research is associated with a more active patenting behavior; (5) firms that perceive high barriers to innovation (internal, risk-related or external barriers) have smaller patent portfolios; (6) the perceived limitations of the patent system do not significantly influence the patenting behavior, suggesting that firms patent for other strategic reasons than merely protecting innovation rents.     

Firm's objective function and product and process R&D

Firms undertake different kinds of R&D activities. They do product R&D (R&D aimed at improving the quality of existing products, and creating new products). They also do process R&D (R&D aimed at lowering the cost of making existing and new products). Moreover, firms often do both product and process R&D simultaneously. As far as the objective of firms is concerned, this need not be limited to profit-maximization only. Rather, firms may have a broader objective, where they care about profits as well as consumer surplus. This paper studies effects of a firm having a general objective function (that takes into consideration both profits and consumer surplus) on its product and process R&D choices, and corresponding implications.I consider product and process R&D choices of firms in an infinite horizon set-up with discrete time. Firms in my framework can simultaneously do both product and process R&D in every period, face a discrete-choice model of consumer demand with vertical product differentiation, and maximize a discounted, weighted sum of their profits and consumer surplus over the infinite time horizon.I show how process and product R&D differ from each other in my framework, and the role of a firm's objective function in this regard. I compare process and product R&D choices across firms that differ in their objective function, and illustrate effects of providing general R&D subsidies (subsidies given for any R&D, regardless of whether it is product or process R&D) to firms. I also characterize how in my framework, the choice of process R&D in total R&D — R&D composition — by an individual firm varies over time, and how process and product R&D choices, process and product R&D productivity, and the choice of R&D composition vary across firms that differ in size but are otherwise similar.