Dependency, resource depth, and supplier performance during industry downturn

This paper examines the effects of supplier dependency and resource depth on the performance of telecommunications suppliers during an industry downturn. It is shown that the R&D carried out independently by a supplier relates positively to the technological depth of the supplier's offering, which is further positively linked to performance. In contrast, the dependency of a supplier shows a negative curvilinear relationship (inverted U) to performance. The research policy implication of our finding is that, in addition to collaborative R&D, a supplier should also be encouraged to initiate its own independent R&D in order to reduce the potential distress on the business during an industry downturn.     

The impact of R&D spillovers on UK manufacturing TFP: A dynamic panel approach

One of the benefits claimed for investment in Research and Development (R&D) is that there is a spillover effect. Industries benefit from both their own R&D efforts as well as the efforts of other national and overseas industries. The present research presents new evidence on the long-term impact of R&D investment upon UK industry's productivity performance and on the nature of these “R&D spillovers”. The results suggest that R&D efforts from the industry itself and from other national industries have a positive impact on the industry's productivity but, interestingly, there is no gain from foreign R&D investment.     

Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?

The various strands of extant empirical research are inconclusive about the complementarity or substitutability between different innovation mechanisms, such as internal and external R&D. Using a panel sample of 83 incumbent pharmaceutical firms covering the period 1986-2000, our empirical analysis suggests that, instead of a clear-cut answer to the question of whether internal and external R&D are complementary or substitutive innovation activities, there appears to be a contingent relationship between internal and external R&D strategies in shaping a firm's innovative output. The results from our study indicate that the level of in-house R&D investments, which is characterized by decreasing marginal returns, is a contingency variable that critically influences the association between internal and external R&D strategies. In particular, internal R&D and external R&D, through either R&D alliances or R&D acquisitions, are complementary innovation activities at higher levels of in-house R&D investments, whereas at lower levels of in-house R&D efforts, internal and external R&D turn out to be substitutive strategic options.     

Impacts of internal R&D on firms’ performance and energy consumption: Evidence from Ethiopian firms

In recent decades, with the rapid development of the knowledge economy and science, countries have embraced technical innovation and have gradually increased investment in research and development (R&D). A vast literature indicates that the relationship between R&D and firm performance is highly complex. The evidence suggests that R&D positively influences firm performance, yet findings on the process by which this happens are mixed. Rigorous analyses are required on how R&D investments affect energy consumption. This study explores the impact of R&D investment on the performance and energy consumption of 476 firms in Ethiopia by employing a combination of fixed-effect, propensity score matching, and endogenous treatment effect estimation methods. The empirical results reveal that investment in R&D positively influences both innovation and long-term financial performance but negatively impacts short-term financial performance and energy consumption. The results also show that the impacts of R&D activities vary significantly across different categories of firms, confirming that heterogeneity may be an issue among the firms considered. The results also indicate that the availability of credit is a more important moderating factor in the relationship between R&D investment and firm performance than the legal system is. These results have important implications for firms with growing R&D operations, especially those in developing countries such as Ethiopia. Ethiopian firms should invest more in R&D activities, such as in fundamental and applied research, to improve performance and enhance competitiveness.     

Dimensions of R&D location in the United States

R&D activities in the United States, as in other advanced economies, are geographically concentrated in certain types of locations. This study presents data on the location of four dimensions of R&D in the U.S.: industrial R&D laboratories, scientists and engineers engaged in R&D, scientists and engineers employed by the federal government, and research universities. Industrial R&D is much more concentrated in large urban areas than the other dimensions, and appears to locate more in response to the location of manufacturing activity than to the location of research universities and federal research facilities. The location of R&D employment, which includes government university, and industrial employees, is associated with facilities for all three types of R&D. Because of these factors, R&D in the U.S. is found on a significant per capita basis in 44 of 177 urban areas, most of them in the northeastern portion of the country. When two dimensions, industrial R&D laboratories and R&D employees, are combined as a measure of R&D concentration, the locational pattern is less clustered regionally. Ten urban areas in all regions of the U.S. are identified as important complexes of R&D. Since the location of R&D is a major indicator of comparative advantage for technological activities and the economic potential of urban regions, only a few areas of the U.S. are likely to remain important in the generation of innovations.     

A comparative evaluation of regional subsidies for collaborative and individual R&D in small and medium-sized enterprises

We analyse whether public subsidies supporting collaborative research and development (R&D) projects in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are able to encourage persistent R&D investment and interorganisational networking more than subsidies supporting individual R&D projects. Adopting a counterfactual approach to policy evaluation, we compare subsidies for collaborative R&D and for individual R&D implemented in the same Italian region in the same period. Our findings suggest that, once public support is no longer available, the two subsidies have different effects on different types of SMEs. If the policymakers’ objective is to increase the number of R&D-performing SMEs over time, they should provide subsidies for collaborative R&D to firms with modest R&D experience. If their objective is to increase the amount of spontaneous R&D investment over time, they should target SMEs with some prior R&D experience, using either subsidy. Finally, if their objective is to induce SMEs to network with external organisations, subsidies for collaborative R&D projects should be preferred to subsidies for individual R&D projects.     

How retaining different inside directors on the board influences R&D-intensity: An extension of agency-theory applied to the high-tech sectors

Agency theory views board independence, retaining a high fraction of outside directors, as a hallmark of effective corporate governance. Consequently, many boards have become so “independent” that over 50% of S&P 1500 firms only have one inside director, the ‘lone-CEO’. A small but quickly growing body of ‘pro-insider’ research in agency theory stresses the value of retaining a few additional inside directors to ensure that outside directors are better informed about R&D investments, and to help guide the CEO's long-term technology strategy. We extend agency theory by showing how and why different executive roles, namely the CEO, CTO, and CFO result in contradictory motivations towards R&D investments, due to each inside director's unique resource dependency with key stakeholders. Specifically, we argue that a conflict exists between the CTO's strategic control role and the CFO's financial control role and that the conflict has contrasting consequences for R&D investments. We use panel data analysis to test our theory on a sample of 390 S&P 1500 firms from the high-tech industries, over the period 2002–2015. We find that R&D-intensity increases significantly when a CEO is accompanied by a CTO inside director. Conversely, we find that R&D-intensity substantially decreases when a CEO is joined with a CFO inside director. In fact, a lone-CEO only board is associated with a higher R&D-intensity than a board with both the CEO and CFO. Therefore, whether the CTO or CFO accompanies the CEO on the board matters for preserving R&D expenditure.     

Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies

National defense represents a significant share of most OECD governments’ R&D budgets and an even higher share of their mission-oriented R&D spending. This public R&D investment has focused on research and innovation supporting defense missions, and in many cases the military services of these governments have purchased weapons systems incorporating the resulting technologies. Defense-related R&D investment has influenced innovation in the broader civilian economy of several OECD nations, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. The scope and nature of this influence remains uncertain and subject to considerable debate. Nonetheless, policymakers throughout the industrialized economies have expressed interest in “applying the lessons” of defense-related and other mission-oriented R&D programs to such challenges as climate change. This paper examines the characteristics of defense-related mission R&D programs in the industrial economies, with particular attention to the subset of nations for which reliable longitudinal data on defense R&D spending are available. I highlight the characteristics that distinguish mission-oriented R&D in this field from mission-oriented R&D in other sectors and to point out some significant differences among OECD economies in the structure of their defense-related R&D programs. The discussion also emphasizes the ways in which the unique structure of defense-related R&D limit its utility as a model for mission-oriented R&D programs aimed at other goals.     

Do subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest more in R&D than domestic firms?

Despite the growing involvement of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in foreign-based research and development (R&D), there has been little research comparing R&D investments of subsidiaries of foreign MNEs to domestic firms. Subsidiaries of foreign MNEs enjoy advantages that help them compete against domestic firms. However, when deciding on R&D investments, these advantages exert competing influences on their R&D investment decision. On the one hand, better access to and transfer of knowledge and technologies from the MNE and other subsidiaries and centers of excellence may encourage the subsidiary of a foreign MNE to invest less in R&D relative to a domestic firm. On the other hand, better access to sources of capital through the MNE and other subsidiaries may induce the subsidiary to invest more in R&D in comparison to domestic firms. We find that subsidiaries of foreign MNEs invest less in total R&D than domestic firms. The reason is that they invest less in external R&D than domestic firms; however, they have similar internal R&D investments compared to domestic firms. These findings support the notion that the transfer of technology and knowledge from other parts of the MNE acts as a substitute for the purchase of external R&D while internal R&D acts as a complement to the technology and knowledge transferred from other parts of the MNE.     

Measuring the economic benefits from R&D: improvements in the MMI model of the United Kingdom National Measurement System

The benefits and priorities of public funding of R&D programmes are the subject of considerable research and debate and a number of methodologies have been suggested which might allow us to arbitrate on the issues involved. This paper looks at one method that is actually used in practice to evaluate and rank publicly funded R&D programmes in the UK. We describe the improvements that have been made to the mapping measurement impact (MMI) model, which is used by the UK Department of Trade and Industry to assess the economic benefit to industry of different research projects funded as part of the United Kingdom National Measurement System. The model has been in use for more than 5 years as a means to compare publicly funded R&D programmes. It allows evaluation of their benefit and prioritisation of future funding schemes and has potential for wider application in other areas of public R&D investment both inside and outside the UK.     

Secrets to shield or share? new dilemmas for military R&D policy in the digital age

The US Department of Defense (DOD) normally pursues a closed approach to technological development. It captures results from its own sponsored research and development (R&D), and the results are kept shielded by restrictions on related publications and exports. This R&D strategy is no longer viable. Now most military technology has commercial origins, the US no longer dominates all relevant technological fields, and sophisticated dual-use technology is accessible to adversaries in open global markets. DOD can address this dilemma by drawing on external R&D that tests a technology’s general capabilities against a variety of potential uses and by placing more of its internal emphasis on technology integration. Historically, this approach to military R&D also yields more commercial spin-offs.     

Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: Evidence and policy implications

Do firms in the same sector converge towards the same R&D intensities? Previous research has often assumed this to be true. A closer examination, using microdata from the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard for the years 2000–2015, shows considerable heterogeneity in R&D intensities among firms in the same sector, and that this heterogeneity persists over time. Statistical tests of convergence show that the variation in R&D intensities does not decrease over time (i.e. no σ-convergence), although firms with an R&D intensity below the industry average do seem to catch up with the leaders (i.e. evidence of β-convergence). Overall, firms in the same industry do not converge to a common R&D intensity. Policy implications are discussed.     

R&D priority-setting for global catastrophic risks: The case of the NASA planetary defense mission

"Mission-oriented" public research organizations invest in R&D to improve decision-making around complex policy problems from climate change to asteroid impacts, thus producing public value. However, the estimation of benefits produced by such R&D projects is notoriously difficult to predict and measure - a challenge that is magnified for global catastrophic risks (GCRs). GCRs are highly uncertain risks that may pose enormous negative consequences for humanity. This article explores how public research organizations systematically reduce key uncertainties associated with GCRs. Building off of recent literature highlighting the organizational and political factors that influence R&D priority-setting at public research organizations, this article develops an analytical framework for explaining R&D priority-setting outcomes that integrates the key stages of decision analysis with organizational and political dynamics identified in the literature. This framework is then illustrated with a case study of the NASA Planetary Defense Coordination Office, which addresses the GCR of near-Earth object (asteroid and comet) impacts. The case study reveals how organizational and political factors interact with every stage in the R&D priority-setting process - from initial problem definition to project selection. Lastly, the article discusses the extent to which the case study can inform R&D priority-setting at other public organizations, particularly those addressing GCRs.     

Innovation in economically developed and lagging European regions: A configurational analysis

Regional innovation in Europe is analyzed with Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, distinguishing between different economic development level categories and between innovation performance groups within each category. Different mechanisms were identified based on varying conjunctions of business and public sector R&D, spatial proximity to external R&D, networks of collaborations, tolerance and inclusion, and human capital. More developed regions present four main mechanisms that lead to regional innovation. Namely, a technologically driven mechanism, a business R&D driven technological mechanism, a mechanism driven primarily by internal R&D competencies and tolerance and inclusion, and a general path to regional innovation, supporting a public R&D driven technological mechanism. When the analysis focuses on moderate innovators, the absence of skilled human capital is added as a relevant condition owing primarily to the lack of technological and technical skills in some regions. For lagging regions, the relevant innovation definition excludes patenting as these regions focus on ‘softer’ innovation aspects than technological innovation. Innovation in lagging regions is primarily driven by public R&D supported by tolerance and inclusion or by networks of collaboration. The latter might work as a condition compensating for -often unfavorable- geography.     

Geographic dispersion and co-location in global R&D portfolios: Consequences for firm performance

We examine how the ways in which firms geographically configure their global portfolios of R&D units influence the effectiveness of firms’ own R&D investments and of external technical knowledge in enhancing firm performance. Our analysis indicates that the strength of these effects depends on the extent to which firms spread their R&D units across countries (geographic dispersion of R&D) and the extent to which firms establish multiple R&D units within each country (co-location of R&D). We show that geographic dispersion and co-location are associated with distinct value creation and value capture mechanisms and in turn lead to different performance outcomes. Although geographic dispersion enhances the effects of a firm’s own R&D on its performance, R&D co-location limits such effects. These relationships are reversed when we consider the effects of external technical knowledge on firm performance. R&D co-location, rather than geographic dispersion, is what renders the exploitation of external knowledge more effective in enhancing firm performance. Our results suggest that future research should shift its focus from the degree of R&D globalization to how a portfolio is globalized and geographically structured.     

Characteristics of research and development performing firms in Canadian manufacturing

The purpose of this paper is to examine some of the salient characteristics of R&D performing firms in Canadian manufacturing. The paper begins by presenting a brief overview of recent trends in R&D in the Canadian economy. The next section analyzes the main characteristics of those firms which undertake research and development activities in Canadian manufacturing industries. Various aspects are examined in this section including the R&D expenditure patterns of industries in the research-intensive and non-research-intensive sectors, R&D by size of firm and by size of program, levels of R&D intensity in terms of small, medium and large R&D performing firms. The importance of foreign ownership and its implication for the level of R&D activity is also considered. The paper concludes by summarizing the highlights of R&D performing firms and draws some implications for the structure of Canadian manufacturing based on the findings.     

Do firms in clusters invest in R&D more intensively? Theory and evidence from multi-country data

This study aims to evaluate whether firms located in clusters invest more intensively in research and development (R&D) than their non-clustered counterparts. Specifically, it proposes a model of firm R&D and tests empirically its implications for the effect of being located in a cluster on firm R&D intensity. The key ideas underlying the theory are as follows: (1) due either to natural excludability or to a high degree of stickiness of R&D-opportunity-bearing technological knowledge, geographical proximity per se is limited in the (automatic) spillover of knowledge with promising R&D opportunities to nearby firms; (2) geographical proximity may, however, help enhance the effectiveness or efficiency of knowledge exchange through market mechanisms (e.g., through contract R&D, R&D collaboration); (3) potential advantages (or disadvantages) in firm R&D of being located in a cluster also depend on the degree of asymmetry in technological competence among firms located in the cluster. The key ideas are supported by an empirical analysis of a multi-industry, multi-country data set compiled by the World Bank. In particular, the results show that being located in a cluster per se actually has a negative effect on firm R&D intensity, which is in contrast to the conventional wisdom of pure or automatic localized knowledge spillovers, as far as firm R&D intensity is concerned.     

Canadian R&D abroad management practices

In the 1980s, Canadian industrial R&D abroad has grown substantially. In 1995, R&D expenditures by Canadian affiliates, only in the United States, represented some US$1.4 billion and employed some 6300 persons. Nearly 60 Canadian-owned and -controlled corporations conduct overseas R&D, mostly in the US, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia. Canadian corporations are performing commercial R&D abroad in order to support their manufacturing subsidiaries and to come closer to customers and markets. A secondary motivation is to hire skilled personnel, monitor foreign technological development and increase the inflow of new ideas into the corporation. They also chose friendly socio-political environments from a regulatory point of view. Technology transfer and adaptation to local markets is also an important mission of the foreign R&D establishment. Foreign R&D activities of Canadian firms are fairly decentralized and autonomous. Most of the foreign subsidiaries undertook R&D abroad before they were acquired by the Canadian corporation; also the number of Canadian managers was reduced and the R&D projects were usually decided in the affiliate. Three main types of expatriate R&D were found: a majority of the subsidiaries were producing goods in the same or related industries as in Canada (such as machines, transportation equipment or housing equipment). A second group of firms were vertically integrated firms, that conducted process research in Canada and advanced materials and final products research abroad, closer to the markets for this type of goods; they were active in the chemical and metal industries. Only one truly global corporation was found, with an international division of labor among its many foreign laboratories. The degree of autonomy varied across the three types of expatriate R&D units. In the last 10 years, the internationalization of industrial research and development has increased very rapidly. Foreign-affiliated corporations operating in the United States represented some 9.3% of all company-funded R&D in that country in 1987, and close to 18% in 1995 (Dalton and Serapio, in this issue). Similarly, foreign R&D expenditures by US-affiliated companies abroad have more than tripled. Canadian industrial R&D abroad has grown at a similar pace. It now includes over 100 research facilities owned by some 60 Canadian corporations, with subsidiaries in the United States, western Europe, Japan, Australia, and several developing countries (China, Brazil, India, Mexico, and Turkey). However, little is known about the characteristics of this foreign R&D: missions, managerial practices, budgets or innovative activity. This study is the first to present original data from a survey of these facilities, complemented by secondary material from annual reports and the financial and technical press. It follows a previous study of Canadian patents abroad, which concluded that diversification into related activities was the overseas strategy of Canadian multinational corporations (MNCs) with foreign R&D activities [Niosi, J., 1997. The globalization of Canadian R&D, Management International Review 37 (4) (in print).]. The first section of this paper presents (1) a short summary of some relevant literature on the management of foreign R&D, (2) the design of the study, (3) the results, and (4) a comparison of theories with Canadian data. It offers conclusions about the existence of three distinctive types of internationalization in Canadian R&D, each with different strategies and outcomes.     

Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises

This paper examines patterns and determinants of overseas R&D investment by US-based manufacturing MNEs using a new panel dataset over the period 1990–2004. The analysis reveals that R&D intensity of operation of US MNE affiliates is determined mainly by the domestic market size, overall R&D capability and cost of hiring R&D personnel. There is no evidence to suggest that R&D specific incentives have a significant impact on inter-country differences in R&D intensity when controlled for other relevant variables. Overall, our findings cast doubts on the efficacy of efforts by host country governments to entice MNE affiliates to engage in domestic R&D activity, in a context where R&D is becoming a truly global activity.     

Post-Soviet science: Difficulties in the transformation of the R&D systems in Russia and Ukraine

In the late 1980s, the Soviet Union was among the foremost leaders of world science, thanks in large part to its heavy involvement in military programmes. The USSR developed a large research infrastructure but it lacked effective mechanisms for the commercialization of research results. The main aim of the transformation of R&D systems in the post-Soviet states in the 1990s and early 2000s was the re-orientation of scientific activities away from military and towards civilian goals. Analysis of statistical data at the macro-level suggests that this attempt was not particularly successful. Indeed, most newly independent states could not even preserve a ‘critical mass’ of scientific activities in order to remain among the list of significant producers of research results. In the post-Soviet countries (and in this paper we focus on Russia and Ukraine as the largest states of the region), inputs from the R&D system have failed to generate wealth-creating outputs because of a systemic inability to use the resources for generating commercially viable results effectively. All post-Soviet countries, including Russia and Ukraine, urgently need not only a major transformation within the R&D system, but also important changes in the wider ‘environment’. It is important to stress that, in recent years, changes in R&D have been determined not only by the general economic situation itself but also by the general policy of the post-Soviet states. While Russia has expressed ambitions to regain its former influence as a great power and to use S&T to achieve this goal, Ukraine has no clearly determined objectives for the development of its national science system. However, both countries face certain common problems. The development of relevant institutes and the stimulation of demand for R&D results from the side of industry, broader involvement in the international division of scientific work, and the introduction of adequate legal protection for intellectual property rights are all of critical importance for S&T institutes and other research organizations in Russia and Ukraine. This paper shows that the reforms in the R&D sector have been relatively modest and rather unsystematic over the last one and a half decades. The key challenges, which relate to the inertia and the negative aspects of the previous period (for example, a extremely low level of replacement of aging manpower, largely outdated scientific equipment in research laboratories, and institutional mechanisms that are not relevant to the market economy), pose serious problems for the transformation of the R&D systems in both countries, despite new possibilities and a willingness to increase financial support for R&D.