Towards a Taxonomy of Firms Engaged in International R&D Networksan Evaluation of the Spanish Participation in Eureka

  1. Fischer, Bruno B. 1
  2. Molero, José 2
  1. 1 Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales, Universidad Complutense de Madrid/Grupo de Investigación en Economía y Política de la Innovación (GRINEI) Universidad Complutense de Madrid
  2. 2 Professor of Applied Economics Universidad Complutense de Madrid Head of Grupo de Investigación en Economía y Política de la Innovación (GRINEI)
Revista:
Journal of Technology Management & Innovation

ISSN: 0718-2724

Año de publicación: 2012

Volumen: 7

Número: 3

Páginas: 121-134

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.4067/S0718-27242012000300011 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Journal of Technology Management & Innovation

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Innovation is increasingly becoming an internationalized process and a strategy that has recently been playing a central role in this scenario is that of R&D collaboration. To assess the outcomes of this strategy we develop an evaluation of Eureka Programme’s impact for the case of Spanish companies participating in this initiative and that had projects finished in the period 2000-2005. A total of 77 firms were assessed through statistical association methods and cluster analysis. Company size, Role in the Project, Firm Sector and R&D intensity are significantly associated with the projects’ impacts on Spanish participants. A consistent taxonomy is offered in which three clusters are built: (1) Risky Innovators; (2) Inventors; and (3) Consistent Innovators.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ARCHIBUGI, D., Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalization of innovation. Research Policy, 28, 317-336.
  • BAGELLA, M., Becchetti, L. (1998). The optimal financing strategy of a high-tech firm:The role of warrants. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35, 1-23.
  • BARAÑANO,A. (1995).The Spanish innovative firm and the ESPRIT, RACE and EUREKA programmes: an organizational approach.Technovation, 15(6), 339-350.
  • BAYONA, C., García-Marco,T., Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Span- ish firms. Research Policy, 30, 1289-1307.
  • BAYONA-SÁEZ, C., García-Marco, T. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program. Research Policy, 39, 1375-1386.
  • BEATTY,A., Berger, P. G., Magliolo, J. (1995). Motives for forming research & development financing organizations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19, 411-442.
  • BELDERBOS, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, 33, 1477-1492.
  • BENFRATELLO, L., Sembenelli,A. (2002). Research joint ventures and firm level performance. Research Policy, 31, 493-507.
  • BIN, A. and Salles-Filho, S. (2012). Science, technology and innovation management: contributions to a methodological framework. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 7(2), 73-86.
  • COHEN,W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity:A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
  • CRÉPON, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J. (1998). Research, Innovation and Productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. NBER Working Paper Series. http://www.nber.org/papers/w6696 [Accessed January 23rd, 2012]
  • DE JONG, J.P.J., Freel, M. (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy, 39, 47-54.
  • EDLER, J. (2010). International Policy Coordination for Collaboration in S&T. Manchester Business School Working Paper. www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/image. aspx?a=197 [Accessed March 11th, 2012]
  • EDWARDS-SCHACHTER, M., Castro-Martínez, E., Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2011). International co-operation between firms on innovation and R&D: empirical evidence from Argentina and Spain. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 6(3), 126-147.
  • ETAN Expert Working Group (1998). Internationalisation of Research and Technology: Trends, Issues and Implications for S&T Policies in Europe. ETAN Working Paper. ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/etan/docs/int.pdf [Accessed December 17th, 2011]
  • EUREKA (2005). The Impact of Eureka. Eureka Secretariat, Brussels.
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2011). From challenges to opportunities: towards a common strategic framework for EU research and innovation funding – Green Paper. European Commission, Brussels.
  • EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2010). European Innovation Scoreboard 2009. European Commission, Brussels.
  • FERNÁNDEZ, E., Junquera, B., Vázquez, C.J. (1996). Government support for R&D: The Spanish case. Technovation, 16(2), 59-65.
  • FORAY, D., Lhuillery, S. (2010). Structural changes in industrial R&D in Europe and the US: towards a new model? Science and Public Policy, 37(6), 401-412.
  • FÖLSTER, S. (1995). Do subsidies to cooperative R & D actually stimulate R& D investment and cooperation? Research Policy, 24, 403-417.
  • FRITSCH, M., Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30, 297-312.
  • GEORGHIOU, L. (1997). Issues in the evaluation of innovation and technology policy. Proceedings of the Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, June 25th to 27th, Paris, France, 35-47.
  • GEORGHIOU, L. (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, 27, 611-626.
  • GEORGHIOU, L. (2001). Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Research Policy, 30, 891-903.
  • GEORGHIOU, L., Roessner, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, 657-678.
  • HAGEDOORN, J., Narula, R. (1996). Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: international and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(2), 265-284.
  • HAGEDOORN, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, 477-492.
  • HERSTAD, S.J., Bloch, C., Ebersberger, B., van de Velde, E. (2010). National innovation policy and global open innovation: exploring balances, tradeoffs and complementarities. Science and Public Policy, 37(2), 113-124.
  • HUGGINS, R. (2001). Inter-firm network policies and firm performance: evaluating the impact of initiatives in the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 30, 443-458.
  • JANNEY, J.J., Folta, T.B. (2003). Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 361-380.
  • JONKERS, K., Castro, L.C. (2010).The internationalization of public sector research through international joint laboratories. Science and Public Policy, 37(8), 559-570.
  • KATZ, M.L. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. The RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), 527- 543.
  • KATZ, J. S., Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
  • KLETTE, T.J., Moen, J., Griliches, Z. (2000) Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, 29, 471-495.
  • LARANJA, M., Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K. (2007). Policies for Science, Technology and Innovation: Translating Rationales into Regional Policies in a Multilevel Setting. Manchester Business School Working Paper. http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/index.aspx?AuthorId=2595 [Accessed January 25th, 2012]
  • LÓPEZ, A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial organization, 26, 113-136.
  • LUUKKONEN, T. (1998). The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework Programmes. Research Policy, 27, 599-610.
  • MANJÓN, J.V.G. (2010). A proposal of indicators and policy framework for innovation benchmark in Europe. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(2), 13-23.
  • MARÍN, P.L., Siotis, G. (2008). Public policies towards Research Joint Venture: Institutional design and participants’ characteristics. Research Policy, 37, 1057-1065.
  • MIOTTI, L., Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32, 1481-1499.
  • NARULA, R. (1999). Explaining the growth of strategic R&D alliances by European firms. Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(4), 711-723.
  • NARULA, R. (2001). Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities: some technological and economic factors. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(3), 365-387.
  • NARULA, R. (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization. Technovation, 24, 153-161.
  • NARULA, R., Santangelo, G.D. (2009). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. Research Policy, 38, 393-403.
  • PAVITT, K. (2002). Innovating routines in the business firm: what corporate tasks should they be accomplishing? Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(1), 117-133.
  • PELLEGRIN, I., Balestro, M.V., Valle Júnior, J.A., Dias, S.L.V. (2010). Dynamizing innovation systems through induced innovation networks: a conceptual framework and the case of the oil industry in Brazil. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(3), 15-35.
  • PLEHN-DUJOWICH, J.M. (2009). Endogenous growth and adverse selection in entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33, 1419-1436.
  • SAKAKIBARA, M. (1997). Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: an empirical examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 143-164.
  • SAVITSKAYA, I., Salmi, P.,Torkkeli, M. (2010). Barriers to open innovation: Case China. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(4), 10-21.
  • SILIPO, D.B. (2008). Incentives and forms of cooperation in research and development. Research in Economics, 62, 101-119.
  • STUBBS, P. (2001). Science and Technology Policy. In: Artis, Mike & Nixson, Frederick (eds) The Economics of the European Union: Policy and Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York.
  • SUURNA, M., Kattel, R. (2010). Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe. Science and Public Policy, 37(9), 646-664.
  • TAKALO, T., Tanayama, T. (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies? Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 16-41.
  • TRABADA, F. (2000). Food technology in Spain: CDTI’s and EUREKA’s perspectives. Food Research International, 33, 299-304.
  • VEGA-JURADO, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2008). ¿Cómo innovan las empresas españolas? Una evidencia empírica. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 3(3), 100-111.
  • VEUGELERS, R. (1998). Collaboration in R&D: an assessment of theoretical and empirical findings. De Economist, 146(3), 419-443.
  • WAGNER, K., Edelmann, C. (2002). Knowledge-intensive Cooperation in Regional Production Networks. In: Pawar, K. S.; Weber, F.; Thoben, K.-D. (Eds.): ICE 2002. Proceedings of the 8th Int. Conf. on Concurrent Enterprising: Ubiquitous Engineering in the Collaborative Economy. Rome, Italy, 17-19 June 2000, pp. 167-174.
  • ZENG, S. X., Xie, X. M., Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs.Technovation, 30, 181-194.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet