Innovation and firm growth over the business cycle

This paper investigates how the macroeconomic business cycle impacts the empirical relation between innovation and firm growth. Based on representative panel data of Swiss firms ranging from 1996 to 2014, the paper finds that firms with innovations based on R&D activities show higher sales growth rates than non-innovative firms in periods dominated by economic recessions. This finding is in line with the idea that recessions play an important role in the adaptation process of the economy towards the innovative. In contrast, the paper finds that firms with innovations based on other, non-R&D innovation activities show higher sales growth rates than non-innovative firms in periods dominated by economic booms. Hence, while firms with innovations based on R&D activities are more resilient to business cycle fluctuations than non-innovative firms, firms with innovations based on other, non-R&D innovations activities are more sensitive to business cycle fluctuations than non-innovative firms.     

Systemic aspects of R&D policy subsidies for R&D collaborations and their effects on private R&D

This paper analyses how context- and time-dependent factors determine the impact of R&D subsidies on firm behaviour with respect to private R&D expenditures. Based on German R&D survey data, we combine propensity score matching with a difference-in-difference estimator in order to measure the causal influence of public direct R&D project funding on firm behaviour. Our results indicate that (i) repeated participation in R&D projects on average leads to a higher increase in R&D expenditures than once-off funding; (ii) the aggregate effect of R&D funding on R&D expenditures of business firms is somewhat higher for business–business collaboration projects than for science–business collaboration projects; (iii) R&D expenditures of business firms that cooperate with science show a higher share of external R&D spending. Results of one particular cluster programme indicate that at least the short-term development of R&D does not so much depend on which programme direct R&D project funding is applied to.     

What determines firms’ R&D intensity in business groups with cross-ownership structures?

This paper examines the impact of group-controlling shareholders’ interests on the R&D decision of group-affiliated firms in business groups with cross-ownership structures, especially with regard to the impact of control-ownership disparities or cash-flow rights. We show that R&D intensity across group-affiliated firms, in business groups with cross-ownership structures, is higher when control-ownership disparities are low or when group-controlling shareholders have higher cash-flow rights. Particularly in publicly listed firms, we find that the cash-flow rights of group-controlling shareholders are one of the most important determinants of the R&D intensity for group-affiliated firms.     

Business Group Affiliation and R&D

This paper analyzes whether belonging to a business group enhances firms' propensity for and intensity of R&D based on the greater opportunities to finance and co-ordinate R&D strategies and internalize knowledge spillovers. Compared with the existing literature, this paper has the following novelties: (a) it examines how the organization and diversification of business groups influence the R&D investment of affiliated firms; (b) it analyzes the role of R&D spillovers among affiliated firms; and (c) it distinguishes between propensity for and intensity of R&D. We find that less diversified groups are more likely to centralize R&D, while in more diversified groups firms are more likely to be autonomous. We find that controlled companies are more likely to benefit from knowledge spillovers than firms at the head of the group. Finally, we find that R&D autonomy is significantly associated with both a higher propensity for and intensity of R&D in controlled companies.     

Post-Catch-Up Strategy for Medium-Sized South Korean Firms: Improving Technological Capabilities by Balancing R&D Intensity and Open Innovation

Abstract

This study examines how R&D intensity and open innovation affect the technological capabilities of firms in newly-developed countries, such as South Korea. East Asian latecomers are transitioning from a catch-up phase toward becoming leaders, and they are engaging in open innovation activities to drive this transition. This research quantitatively analyzes three kinds of open innovation activities—outside-in, inside-out, and coupled—to investigate their influence upon technological capabilities, while also considering the effect of R&D intensity. Data from 75 South Korean medium-sized firms were analyzed, and two major findings are reported. First, technological capabilities are enhanced by some open innovation activities and by R&D intensity. Second, R&D intensity negatively moderates the impact of open innovation activities on technological capabilities. Therefore, it may be concluded that firms with relatively low R&D intensity will gain the most benefit from increasing their open innovation activities.     

Innovation and Firm Growth: Is R&D Worth It?

The paper contributes to an emerging literature that critically questions the degree to which R&D, at the centre of national and transnational innovation policies, results in firm growth. The differences in how innovation affects firm growth is explored for small and large publicly quoted US pharmaceutical firms between 1950 and 2008. We observe that the positive impact of R&D on firm growth is highly conditional upon a combination of firm-specific characteristics such as firm size, patenting and persistence in patenting. For small firms, R&D boosts growth for only a subset of firms: namely, those that patent persistently for a minimum of five years. For large pharmaceutical firms, on the other hand, R&D may have a negative impact on growth; potentially resulting from the low R&D productivity these firms have suffered from since the mid-1990s. These results raise important issues around the R&D and firm growth relationship for small and large firms as well the role of persistence in innovation for boosting firm performance.     

The interaction mode and geographic scope of firms’ technology alliances: implications of balancing exploration and exploitation in R&D

This paper proposes that the interaction mode, i.e. interactive and iterative, and geographic scope, i.e. domestic and international, of technology alliances generate sources of exploration and exploitation for firms. An implication of this idea is that firms can use these sources for balancing its internal focus on exploratory and exploitative research and development activities (R&D). Then, the paper suggests that the use of this balancing strategy has positive effects on a firm’s innovative performance. Using panel data based on Spanish manufacturing companies for the period 2004–2012, the empirical results confirm that firms balancing their internal exploration or exploitation in R&D with sources of external exploitation or exploration in their technology alliances are the firms with better prospects to produce innovation streams. Implications for the literature on complementarities in innovation, ambidexterity and R&D alliance formation are derived from the analysis.     

R&D and firm performance in the semiconductor industry

While the semiconductor industry is still dominated by large vertically integrated firms, fabless firms, which outsource their manufacturing, are gaining market share. Fabless firms are considered to have an advantage in product innovation, as they can focus their innovation efforts on chip design and can benefit from investments in process innovation made by their manufacturing partners. However, there is little empirical evidence of the performance of fabless firms compared to vertically integrated firms. This research empirically examines the relationship between R&D and the financial performance of fabless and vertically integrated firms from 2000 to 2010. Our results show that fabless firms maintain higher gross and net margins, earn a higher return on assets (ROA) and have greater intangible value (Tobin’s q) than vertically integrated firms when controlling for size, capital intensity and R&D ratio (R&D/sales). This supports the argument that fabless firms achieve greater performance by focusing on one part of the innovation process. The relationship of R&D ratio to net margin is negative for the whole sample, suggesting that the industry may be overinvesting in R&D. Notably, the negative relationship is greater for fabless firms, which spend a higher amount of their sales on R&D. The relationship of R&D ratio to ROA and Tobin’s q is negative, and there is no significant difference between fabless and integrated firms. We conclude that fabless firms outperform integrated firms overall, but are somewhat worse in terms of increasing profits and creating value from their R&D investments.     

Relations between national research investment and publication output: Application to an American Paradox

The term “European Paradox” describes the perceived failure of the EU to capture full benefits of its leadership of science as measured by publications and some other indicators. This paper investigates what might be called the “American Paradox,” the decline in scientific publication share of the U.S. despite world-leading investments in research and development (R&D) — particularly as that decline has accelerated in recent years. A multiple linear regression analysis was made of which inputs to the scientific enterprise are most strongly correlated with the number of scientific papers produced. Research investment was found to be much more significant than labor input, government investment in R&D was much more significant than that by industry, and government non-defense investment was somewhat more significant than its defense investment. Since the EU actually leads the U.S. in this key component, this could account for gradual loss of U.S. paper share and EU assumption of leadership of scientific publication in the mid-1990s. More recently the loss of U.S. share has accelerated, and three approaches analyzed this phenomenon: (1) A companion paper shows that the SCI database has not significantly changed to be less favorable to the U.S.; thus the decline is real and is not an artifact of the measurement methods. (2) Budgets of individual U.S. research agencies were correlated with overall paper production and with papers in their disciplines. Funding for the U.S. government civilian, non-healthcare sector was flat in the last ten years, resulting in declining share of papers. Funding for its healthcare sector sharply increased, but there were few additional U.S. healthcare papers. While this inefficiency contributes to loss of U.S. share, it is merely a specific example of the general syndrome that increased American investments have not produced increased publication output. (3) In fact the decline in publication share appears to be due to rapidly increasing R&D investments by China, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Singapore. A model shows that in recent years it is a country’s share of world investment that is most predictive of its publication share. While the U.S. has increased its huge R&D investment, its investment share still declined because of even more rapidly increasing investments by these Asian countries. This has likely led to their sharply increased share of scientific publication, which must result in declines of shars of others — the U.S. and more recently, the EU.     

The impact of R&;D collaboration on innovative performance in Korea: A Bayesian network approach

It is well known from previous research activities that R&D collaboration among economic actors for knowledge production is very important. An accompanying analysis of the impact of R&D collaboration on innovative performance has to be conducted for transferring knowledge to the globalized knowledge-based economy. When we first investigated previous research concerning R&D collaboration, we found some limitations in the analysis methodology. In order to overcome these limitations in previous research, we applied a Bayesian network for analyzing the impact of R&D collaboration in Korean firms on their innovative performance.     

Economic crisis and company R&D in Spain: do regional and policy factors matter?

The economic crisis which began in 2008 has had a far-reaching impact, including effects on the innovation behaviour of firms. Many companies have reduced their innovation-related activities, although some firms have been more resilient than others. Using a representative microdata panel of Spanish firms, we study the probability of companies abandoning in-house R&D during the crisis and its relationship to regional and policy factors. We find significant regional heterogeneity related to regional economic size and the type of the regional innovation system; regional government R&D support only reduces R&D abandonment rates in regions where a strong system of knowledge exploitation is in place.     

Fusion of technology management and financing management - Amazon's transformative endeavor by orchestrating techno-financing systems

Amazon became the world R&D leader in 2017 by rapidly increasing R&D investment. Its R&D investment in 2017 was double that of 2015, 5 times that of 2012, and 10 times that of 2011. This rapid increase continued in 2018, and Amazon accomplished a skyrocketing increase in its market capitalization, closing to being the world's biggest company.Such a rapid increase in R&D and subsequent market value has raised questions about how to conduct R&D and secure a large amount of funds needed for high-risk investments. Amazon has provided hypothetical answers to both of these questions.Amazon has been conducting innovative R&D to transform routine or periodic alterations into significant improvements during the R&D process and claiming huge expenses for such transformation activities as expenses for R&D.The company's ample free cash flow generated by sophisticated cash conversion cycle (CCC) management endorsed a large amount of investment for such a high-risk strategy.Increased R&D induced business advancement and lean cost structure construction leading to a further increase in cash flow has stimulated interactions between vendors, customers, and Amazon via the Amazon marketplace. Activated interaction-accelerated CCC advancement, a subsequent free cash flow increase, and user-driven innovation have thus simultaneously accelerated R&D transformation.All of these components - R&D transformation and technopreneurial strategy consisting of technology management, as well as marketplace development and CCC-driven cash flow generation consisting of financing management - function together as a consolidated sophisticated machine. Thus, Amazon has succeeded in fusing technology management and financing management by orchestrating all techno-financing systems.In light of increasing concerns regarding R&D expansion without the dilemma of a productivity decline that most digital economies are now confronting, this paper demonstrates the above hypothetical answers.Following the authors' preceding analysis of Amazon's unique technology management toward a new concept of R&D in the digital economy, an intensive empirical analysis focusing on the development trajectory of Amazon's techno-financing system over the last two decades was conducted.An insightful suggestion as to neo-open innovation that fuses technology management and financing management is thus provided.     

R&D,worker training and innovation: firm-level evidence

Firms that invest in R&D and also in worker training are expected to be successful innovators; yet, the extent to which these investments are mutually reinforcing has not been established. This paper addresses that question by analysing the decision to innovate and the number of innovations introduced. Our findings, which are based on a sample of Spanish manufacturing firms, confirm that R&D is more effective when firms also invest in worker training. Moreover, for some smaller firms, investing in workers’ skills (via training programs) boosts innovation even in absence of R&D. Meanwhile, on-the-job training in large firms might serve mainly to reinforce the effects of R&D. Regarding the number of innovations, our result signals that a higher absorptive capacity via higher ability of qualified workers (through schooling or training) leads to improved innovation performance.     

The product cycle revisited: Knowledge intensity and firm internationalization

Abstract and Key Results

How to interpret the position of private sector institutions in bibliometric rankings of research institutions

This paper analyzes the positions of institutions from the private domain in bibliometric rankings of as many as 27,000 research institutions and highlights factors that are crucial for a proper interpretation of such positions. It was found that among the institutions with the largest output in terms of published research articles, private firms are underrepresented, whereas in the top quartile of institutions with the largest citation impact firms are overrepresented. A firm’s publication output is not a good indicator of its R&D investment: big firms in Pharmaceutics are both heavy investors in R&D and frequent publishers of scientific articles, whereas in Automobiles firms tend to invest heavily in R&D but their publication output is low. This is ascribed to the fact that the former need a validation of their results by the scientific community, while the latter do less so. Private institutions generating the largest citation impact tend to collaborate with the best public research institutions. This reflects the crucial importance of publicly funded research for the private sector.     

Determinants of internal and external R&D offshoring: evidence from Spanish firms

This paper analyses the determinants of R&D offshoring of Spanish firms using information from the Panel of Technological Innovation. We find that being an exporter, international technological cooperation, continuous R&D engagement, applying for patents, being a foreign subsidiary, and firm size are factors that positively affect the decision to offshore R&D. In addition, we find that a lack of financing is an obstacle relatively more important for independent firms than for firms that belong to business groups. For these latter, we also obtain that the factors that influence the decision to offshore R&D differ depending on whether the firm purchases the R&D services within the group or through the market: a higher degree of importance assigned to internal sources of information for innovation as compared to market sources increases (decreases) the probability of R&D offshoring only through the group (market).     

Firm size and compositions of R&D expenditures: evidence from a panel of R&D performing manufacturing firms

The effect of firm size on diverse compositions of R&D expenditures is analysed in detail using firm-level data on the Korean manufacturing sector. On the grounds that each type of R&D activity differs in terms of salability in disembodied form and growth potential due to innovation, a distinction between product vs. process, and new vs. incremental R&D is made. Empirical tests show that the firm size is significantly associated with both the new and incremental R&D. Moreover, firm size is found to be significantly associated with other types of R&D compositions such as the share of R&D devoted to incremental innovation and multidimensional combinations of product, process, new and incremental R&D. These findings support the idea that large firms possess innovative advantages over smaller firms and firm size is an important determinant for firms’ heterogeneous R&D activities. We also discuss the limitations and the implications of the findings.     

Heterogeneous Partners,R&D cooperation and corporate innovation capability: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms

In this paper, we examine the differential impact of cooperation with heterogeneous partners on firms' innovation capabilities. We use the number of joint patent applications of Chinese manufacturing firms from 2008 to 2018 to measure cooperation with different types of partners and the number of corporate patents to measure the innovation capability of firms. The results indicate that R&D cooperation with other enterprises, universities, and research institutions all have a significantly positive impact on the innovation capability of enterprises. However, R&D cooperation with universities or research institutions has a higher positive impact on innovation capability than that with other firms. Different internal and external factors moderate the relationship between heterogeneous partners and the innovation capability of firms. Specifically, firms with higher absorptive capacity will benefit more from R&D cooperation with corporate partners. In contrast, in industries with higher market concentration or where firms are at the technological frontier, cooperation with universities will positively impact their innovation capabilities. Further research demonstrates that absorptive capacity has a more positive moderating effect when the cooperation is between firms in the same industry, compared to R&D cooperation between firms in different industries.     

The more you spend, the more you get? The effects of R&D and capital expenditures on the patenting activities of biotechnology firms

This paper provides evidence on the mechanisms influencing the patent output of a sample of small and large, entrepreneurial and established biotechnology firms from the input of indirect knowledge acquired from capital expenditures and direct knowledge from in-house R&D. Statistical models of counts are used to analyse the relationship between patent applications and R&D investment and capital expenditures. It focuses on biotechnology in the period 2002–2007 and is based on a unique data set drawn from various sources including the EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard, the European Patent Office (EPO), the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The statistical models employed in the paper are Poisson distribution generalisations with the actual distribution of patent counts fitting the negative binomial distribution and gamma distribution very well. Findings support the idea that capital expenditures—taken as equivalent to technical change embodied in new machinery and capital equipment—may also play a crucial role in the development of new patentable items from scientific companies. For EPO patents, this role appears even more important than that played by R&D investment. The overall picture emerging from our analysis of the determinants of patenting in biotechnology is that the innovation process involves a well balanced combination of inputs from both R&D and new machinery and capital equipment.     

Disruptive Technologies and the Tax Law

Abstract

Recent studies of the innovation process within firms draw a distinction between “sustaining” and “disruptive” technological change. Government incentives designed to encourage research and development (R&D) activities may interact with the organizational structure of firms developing disruptive technologies. This study finds evidence from companies involved with design and manufacture of microelectromechanical-systems (MEMS) that practical concerns in raising capital may supersede utilizing tax incentives. This finding raises the policy issue of aligning R&D incentives with the most common organizational structures.