One or Two Poles of Attraction in the International Technological Cooperation Process?

  1. José Molero 2
  2. Antonio Hidalgo 1
  3. Inés Granda 1
  1. 1 Departamento de Ingeniería de Organización, Administración de Empresas y Estadística. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
  2. 2 Dep. Economía Industrial. Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Revista:
Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

ISSN: 1132-175X

Año de publicación: 2014

Número: 52

Páginas: 11-25

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.37610/DYO.V0I52.443 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Dirección y organización: Revista de dirección, organización y administración de empresas

Resumen

In recent years, international cooperation processes have become a key mechanism for companies to internationalise their innovative activities, particularly in the case of small businesses whose size reduces their possibilities of developing internationalisation strategies autonomously in the same way as larger companies. In Spain, the existence of two parallel programmes with similar structures oriented towards Europe (EUREKA) and Latin America (IBEROEKA) raises the question as to whether the fact that companies participate in only one (unipolar) or both (bipolar) of these programmes is the result of a selection process, which, in turn, results in the existence of different collectives with different efficiency parameters. The aim of this study is to provide a comparative analysis based on the final reports of Spanish companies that have participated in the EUREKA programme. Two groups of companies were compared: one comprising companies that have only had international experience in Europe (EUREKA); and another formed by companies that have also carried out IBEROEKA projects. The conclusions confirm that the behaviour of both groups of companies differs substantially and reveal the importance of geographical perspective in the analysis of international cooperation in technology. This disparate behaviour is a relevant aspect that must be taken into account when designing policies to promote international technological cooperation

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ABRAMOVSKY, L., KREMP, E., LOPEZ, A., SCHMIDT, T., and SIMPSON, H. (2009). Understanding co-operative R&D activity: Evidence from four European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 18 (3), pp. 243- 265.
  • ALONSO, J. A., and DONOSO, V. (1998). Competir en el Exterior : la Empresa Española y los Mercados Internacionales, Instituto Español de Comercio Exterior, Madrid.
  • ARCHIBUGI. D., and IAMMARINO, S. (2002). The globalization of technological innovation: definition and evidence. Review of International Political Economy l9 (1), pp. 98-122.
  • ARCHIBUGI, D. and MICHIE, J. (1995). The Globalisation of Technology: a New Taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, pp.121-140.
  • BARAJAS, A. and HUERGO, E. (2006). La cooperación tecnológica internacional: una aproximación desde la literatura, DT. 02, Departamento de Estudios, CDTI.
  • BARAJAS, A. and HUERGO, E. (2010). International R&D cooperation within the EU Framework Programme: Empirical evidence for Spanish firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 19 (1-2), pp. 87-111.
  • BARAJAS, A., HUERGO, E., and MORENO, L. (2011). Measuring the economic impact of research joint ventures supported y the EU Framework Programe. The Journal of Technology Transfer (5 June 2011): 1-26, doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9222-y.
  • BAYONA, C. and GARCÍA-MARCO, T. (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program. Research Policy 39, pp. 1375-1386.
  • BAYONA, C ., GARCÍA-MARCO, T., and HUERTA, E. (2001). Firms’ motivations for cooperative R&D: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy 30, pp. 1289-1307.
  • BENFRATELLO, L. and SEMBENELLI, A. (2002). Research joint ventures and firm level performance. Research Policy 31, pp. 493–507.
  • BRESCHI, S. and CUSMANO, L. (2006). Unveiling the texture of a European research area. Emergence of oligarchic networks under the EU Framework Programmes, in Y. Caloghirou, A. Constantelou, and N. S. Vonortas(eds) Knowledge flows in European industry, Routledge.
  • CANTWELL, J. and MOLERO, J. (2003) (Eds.). Multinational Enterprises, Innovative Strategies and Systems of Innovation, London: Edward Elgard.
  • CASSIMAN, B. and VEUGELERS, R. (1998). R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Working Paper, No. 328.
  • CASSIMAN, B. and VEUGELERS, R. (2002). R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review 92 (4), pp. 1169-1184.
  • FORAY, D. (1991). Économie et politique de la science: les développements théoriques récents. Revue Française d’Économie, 6 (4), pp. 53-87.
  • FRITSCH, M. and LUKAS, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D?. Research Policy 30, pp. 297-312.
  • GALLINI, N. and SCOTCHMER, S. (2002). Intellectual Property: When is it the best incentive mechanism?. Innovation Policy and the Economy 2, pp. 51-78.
  • GAMBARDELLA, A., HARHOFF, D. and VERSPAGEN, B. (2008). The value of European patents. European Management Review, 5, pp.69-84.
  • GEORGHIUS, L. and ROESSNER, D. (2000). Evaluating technology programmes: tools and methods. Research Policy, 29, pp. 657-678.
  • GEMÜNDEN, H.G., HEYDEBRECK, P., and HERDEN, R. (1992). Technological interweavement: a means of achieving innovation success. R&D Management, 22 (4), pp. 359-375.
  • HAGEDOORN, J. (1990). Organizational modes of interfirm cooperation and technology transfer. Technovation, 10 (1), pp. 17-30.
  • HAGEDOORN, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D par tnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31, pp. 477-492.
  • HAGEDOORN, J., LINK, A. N., and VONORTAS, N. S. (2000). Research par tnerships. Research Policy, 29, pp. 567-586.
  • HAGEDOORN, J. and NARULA, R. (1996) Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology par tnering: international and sectoral differences, Journal of International Business Studies. 27 (2), pp. 265-284.
  • HAGEDOORN, J. and SCHAKENRAAD, J. (1994). The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15, pp. 291- 309.
  • HIDALGO, A. and ALBORS, J. (2004). La internacionalización de la tecnología a través de los proyectos de innovación Iberoeka. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 20, pp. 57-82.
  • LUKKONEN, T. (1998). The difficulties in assesing the impact of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 27, pp. 559-610.
  • LUKKONEN, T. (2000). Additionality of EU Framework Programmes. Research Policy, 29, pp. 711-724.
  • LUNDIN, P., FRINKING, E., and WAGNER, C. (2004), International collaboration in R&D. Structure and dynamics of private sector actors, Helsinki: Gaia Group Oy.
  • NARULA, R. (2003). Globalisation and trends in international R&D alliances, MERIT-Infonomics research memorando series, Doc. 2003-001.
  • NARULA, R., and HAGEDOORN, J. (1998). Innovating through strategic alliances: moving towards international par tnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation, 19, pp. 283-294.
  • PAVITT, K. (1998). The inevitable limits of EU R&D funding. Research Policy, 27, pp. 559-568.
  • ROBERTSON, T. and GATIGNON, H. (1998). Technology development mode: a transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 19, pp. 515-531.
  • ROEDIGER-SCHLUGA, T., and BARBER, M. J. (2006). The structure of R&D collaboration networks in the European framework programmes, UNU-Merit Working Paper Series 2006-36.
  • SIEBERT, R. (1996). The impact of research joint ventures on firm performance: An empirical assessment. WZB Working Paper FS IV, 96-13.
  • SORENSEN, H.B. and REVE, T. (1998). Forming strategic alliances for asset development. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14 (3), pp. 151-165.
  • TEECE, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15, pp. 285-305.
  • TEECE, D. J., PISANO, G., and SHUEN, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18 (7), pp. 509-533.
  • TETHER, B. (2002). Who cooperates for innovation and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, pp. 947- 967.
  • TSANG, E. (1998). Motives for strategic alliances: a resource-based perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 14 (3), pp. 207-221.
  • VEUGELERS, R. (1998). Collaboration in R&D: An assessment of theoretical and empirical findings. The Economist, 146, pp. 419–443.
  • WILLIAMSON, O. (1996). The Mechanisms of Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet