Publication:
Towards a Taxonomy of Firms Engaged in International R&D Cooperation Programs: The Case of Spain in Eureka

Thumbnail Image
Files
WP01-11.pdf (987.79 KB)
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2011-03
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Instituto Complutense de Estudios Internacionales (ICEI)
Citations
Google Scholar
Exportar
DC QDC MarcXML RDF MODS METS ORE-ATOM
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Innovation is a process that faces several “market failure” situations and for this reason – and for being considered one of the main drivers of economic growth throughout the world – a large number of governmental and supranational policies are designed to foster technological progress. In Europe this situation could not be any different and the “European Paradox” is used as the main argument for the implementation of innovation related initiatives. Along with these policies, there is an increasing concern with their continuous evaluation aiming at providing valuable feedback for these program’s adaptation and adequacy to the player’s needs. In this sense, this paper develops 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 (analysis performed through the information contained in Eureka’s Final Reports). A total of 77 firms were assessed through quantitative methods, namely correlations, chi-square tests, discriminant models and cluster analysis. Findings show that Spain participates in Eureka mainly through SMEs, and that the overall rate of technological achievements is impressively good. Commercial achievements seem to be influenced mainly by the quality of the project’s functioning and the capacity of firm’s exploiting results in the industry by the end of the project. A basic typology of participants is offered in which three clusters are built: (1) Risky Innovators; (2) Inventors; and (3) Consistent Innovators.
El proceso innovador enfrenta una serie de fallos de mercado y por esta razón – y por ser considerado uno de los principales agentes del crecimiento económico en el mundo – un significativo número de políticas gubernamentales y supra-nacionales son diseñadas para promover el progreso tecnológico. En Europa la situación no podría ser diferente y la “Paradoja Europea” es utilizada como principal argumento para la implementación de iniciativas relacionadas a la innovación. Junto con estas políticas hay una creciente preocupación con su continua evaluación, teniendo como objetivo proveer feedbacks para la adaptación y adecuación de estos programas con las necesidades de los agentes involucrados. En este sentido, el presente paper desarrolla una evaluación de los impactos del Programa Eureka para el caso de las empresas españolas participantes en esta iniciativa y con proyectos concluidos entre los años 2000-2005 (a través de análisis de los informes finales de los proyectos). Un total de 77 empresas fueron abordadas con métodos cuantitativos (correlaciones, testes chi-cuadrado, análisis discriminante y análisis de cluster). Los resultados demuestran que la participación española en Eureka suele tener altos niveles de logros tecnológicos. Los logros comerciales parecen estar definidos por la calidad del funcionamiento del proyecto y por la capacidad de las empresas en explotar sus resultados en el mercado ya antes del fin del proyecto. Una tipología introductoria de los participantes es propuesta en 3 conglomerados: (1) Risky Innovators; (2) Inventors; y (3) Consistent Innovators.
Description
UCM subjects
Economía internacional , Empresas
Unesco subjects
5310 Economía Internacional , 5311 Organización y Dirección de Empresas
Keywords
Citation
Arnold, Erik (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 3-17. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. The Review of Economic Studies, v. 29, n. 3, pp. 155-173. Arrow, K.J.; Chenery, H.B.; Minhas, B.S. and Solow, R.M. (1961). Capital-labor substitution and economic efficiency. The Review of Economics and Statistics, v. 43, n. 3, pp. 225-250. Álvarez, Isabel (2004). The challenges of the internationalisation of innovation for science and technology policies. ICEI Policy Papers, Paper n. 2. Available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/icei/res/secciones/pdf/PP%2002-04.pdf . Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku (1996). Market Orientation and Innovation. Journal of Business Research, v. 35, pp. 93-103. Bagella, Michele & Becchetti, Leonardo (1998). The optimal financing strategy of a high-tech firm: The role of warrants. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, v. 35, 1-23. Barajas, Ascensión and Huergo, Elena (2006). La cooperación tecnológica internacional en el ámbito de la empresa: una aproximación desde la literatura. Documentos de Trabajo CDTI, Paper n. 2. Available at: http://www.cdti.es/index.asp?MP=35&MS=0&MN=1&TR=C&IDR=276&idCategoria=9&accion=si . Barañano, Ana María (1995). The Spanish innovative firm and the ESPRIT, RACE and EUREKA programmes: an organizational approach. Technovation, v. 15, n. 6, pp. 339-350. Bayona-Sáez, Cristina and García-Marco, Teresa (2010). Assessing the effectiveness of the Eureka Program. Research Policy, v. 39, n. 10, pp. 1375-1386. Beatty, Anne; Berger, Philip G. and Magliolo, Joseph (1995). Motives for forming research & development financing organizations. Journal of Accounting and Economics, v. 19, pp. 411-442. Belderbos, René; Carree, Martin and Lokshin, Boris (2004). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, v. 33, pp. 1477-1492. Benfratello, Luigi and Sembenelli, Alessandro (2002). Research joint ventures and firm level performance. Research Policy, v. 31, pp. 493-507. Bogliacino, Francesco and Pianta, Mario (2010). Profits, R&D and Innovation: a model and a test. IPTS Working Paper on Corporate R&D and Innovation, n. 05/2010. Available at: http://iri.jrc.ec.europa.eu/papers/2010_JRC58871_WP5.pdf . Cohen, Wesley M. and Levinthal, Daniel A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 128-152. Crépon, Bruno; Duguet, Emmanuel and Mairesse, Jacques (1998). Research, Innovation and Productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. NBER Working Paper Series, Paper n. 6696. Available at: http://www.nber.org/papers/w6696 . De Jong, Jeroen P. J. and Freel, Mark (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy, v. 39, pp. 47-54. Dosi, Giovanni, Llerena, Patrick and Sylos-Labini, Mauro (2006). The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy, v. 35, pp. 1450-1464. Durieux, L. and Fayl, G. (1997). The scheme used for evaluating the European research and technological development programmes. Proceedings of the Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technol34 ogy, June 25th to 27th, Paris, France, pp. 373-381. Ebersberger, Bernd; Edler, Jakob and Lo, Vivien (2006). Improving Policy Understanding by Means of Secondary Analyses of Policy Evaluation: A concept development. Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers – Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis, Paper n. 12. Available at: http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi en/p/publikationen/diskpap_innosysteme_policyanalyse.php . Edler, Jakob (2007). Demand-based Innovation Policy. Manchester Business School Working Paper, Paper n. 529. Available at: http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/ . Edler, Jakob (2010). International Policy Coordination for Collaboration in S&T. Manchester Business School Working Paper, Paper n. 590. Available at: www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/image.aspx?a=197 . ETAN Expert Working Group (1998). Internationalisation of Research and Technology: Trends, Issues and Implications for S&T Policies in Europe. ETAN Working Paper. Available at: ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/pub/etan/docs/int.pdf . Eureka Secretariat (1999). Strategic Review of Eureka: Building Europe’s Innovation Network. Brussels. Eureka Secretariat (2005). The Impact of Eureka. Brussels. Eureka Secretariat (2008). Eureka Review 2007. Brussels. European Commission (1995). Green Paper on Innovation. Brussels. European Commission (2004). Science and technology, the key to Europe's future - Guidelines for future European Union policy to support research. Brussels. European Commission (2010) European Innovation Scoreboard 2009, Brussels. Fölster, Stefan (1995). Do subsidies to cooperative R & D actually stimulate R& D investment and cooperation? Research Policy, v. 24, pp. 403-417. Fritsch, Michael and Lukas, Rolf (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, v. 30, pp. 297-312. Georghiou, Luke (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, pp. 35-47. Georghiou, Luke (1998). Global cooperation in research. Research Policy, v. 27, pp. 611-626. Georghiou, Luke (2001). Evolving frameworks for European collaboration in research and technology. Research Policy, v. 30, pp. 891-903. Georghiou, Luke (2008). Europe’s research system must change. Nature, v. 452, n. 4, pp. 935-936. Georghiou, Luke and Roessner, David (2000). Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods. Research Policy, v. 29, pp. 657-678. Gilbert, Brett Anitra, Audretsch, David B. and McDougall, Patricia P. (2004). The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy. Small Business Economics, v. 23, pp. 313-323. Grupp, Hariolf (2000). Indicator-assisted evaluation of R&D programmes: possibilities, state of the art and case studies. Research Evaluation, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 87-99. Hair, Joseph F.; Tatham, Ronald L.: Anderson, Rolph E. and Black, William (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. 5th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Hagedoorn, John and Narula, Rajneesh (1996). Choosing organizational modes of strategic technology partnering: international and sectoral differences. Journal of International Business Studies, v. 27, n. 2, pp. 265- 284. Hagedoorn, John (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, v. 31, pp. 477-492. Hidalgo, Antonio N; León, Gonzalo S. y Pavón, Julián M. (2002). La Gestión de la Innovación y la Tecnología en las Organizaciones. Ediciones Pirámide: Madrid. Janney, Jay J. and Folta, Timothy B. (2003). Signaling through private equity placements and its impact on the valuation of biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing, v. 18, pp. 361-380. Katz, Michael L. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. The RAND Journal of Economics, v. 17, n. 4, pp. 527-543. Katz, J. Sylvan and Martin, Ben R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, v. 26, pp. 1-18. Klette, Tor Jakob; Moen, Jarle and Griliches, Zvi (2000) Do subsidies to commercial R&D reduce market failures? Microeconometric evaluation studies. Research Policy, v. 29, pp. 471-495. Kline, J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986). An Overview of Innovation. In: R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (eds). The Positive Sum Strategies: harnessing Technology for Economic Growth, National Academic Press, Washington D.C. Langfeldt, Liv (2004). Expert panels evaluating research: decision-making and sources of bias. Research Evaluation, v. 13, n. 1, pp. 51-62. Laranja, Manuel; Uyarra, Elvira and Flanagan, Kieron (2007). Policies for Science, Technology and Innovation: Translating Rationales into Regional Policies in a Multi-level Setting. Manchester Business School Working Paper, Paper n. 527. Available at: http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/index.aspx?AuthorId=2595. León, Gonzalo S. (2006). Evolución de las políticas de investigación e innovación de la Unión Europea y su impacto en España. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid Lucas, Robert E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, v. 22, pp. 3-42. Lukas, Bryan A. and Ferrell, O. C. (2000). The Effect of Market Orientation on Product Innovation. Academy of Marketing Science, v. 28, n. 2, pp. 239-247. Luukkonen, Terttu (1998). The difficulties in assessing the impact of EU framework Programmes. Research Policy, v. 27, pp. 599-610. Luukkonen, Terttu (2002). Research Evaluation in Europe: state of the art. Research Evaluation, v. 11, n. 2, pp. 81-84. Marín,Pedro L. and Siotis, Georges (2008). Public policies towards Research Joint Venture: Institutional design and participants’ characteristics. Research Polciy, v. 37, pp. 1057-1065. Metcalfe, Stan J, and Georghiou, Luke (1997). Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy. CRIC Discussion Paper, Paper n. 3. Available at: http://www.cric.ac.uk/cric/Pdfs/dp3.pdf. Miotti, Luis and Sachwald, Frédérique (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, v. 32, pp. 1481-1499. Molero, José (2001). Innovación Tecnológica y Competitividad en Europa. Editorial Síntesis. Madrid. Molero, J.and Fonfría, A. (2008). Política de Innovación Tecnológica. In: L. Gamir (ed) and J. Casares and C. Velasco (coordinators). Política económica de España, 8th edition. Alianza, Madrid. Narula, Rajneesh (1999). Explaining the growth of strategic R&D alliances by European firms. Journal of Common Market Studies, v. 37, n. 4, pp. 711-723. Narula, Rajneesh (2001). Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities: some technological and economic factors. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 365-387. Narula, Rajneesh (2004). R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization. Technovation, v. 24, pp. 153-161. Narula, Rajneesh and Santangelo, Grazia D. (2009). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. Research Policy, v. 38, pp. 393-403. Nelson, Richard R. (1959). The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. The Journal of Political Economy, v. 67, n. 3, pp. 297-306. Nelson, Richard R. (2007). Building Effective “Innovation Systems” Versus Dealing with “Market Failures” as Ways of Thinking about Technology Policy. Manchester Business School Working Paper, Paper n. 548. Available at: http://www.mbs.ac.uk/research/workingpapers/index.aspx?AuthorId=4528. Nelson, Richard R. and Winter, Sidney G. (2002). Evolutionary Theorizing in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, v. 16, n. 2, pp. 23-46. Nesta, Lionel and Mangematin, Vincent (2004). The Dynamics of Innovation Networks. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper n. 114. Available at: http:// www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp114. Papaconstinou, G. and Polt, W. (1997). Policy evaluation in innovation and technology: an overview. Proceedings of the Conference on Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology, June 25th to 27th, Paris, France, pp. 9-14. Pavitt, Keith (2002). Innovating routines in the business firm: what corporate tasks should they be accomplishing? Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 11, n. 1, pp. 117-133. Pavitt, Keith (2003). The Process of Innovation. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, Paper n. 89. Available at: www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/sewp89. Pianta, Mario and Vaona, Andrea (2009). New ideas for innovation policies in Europe. ICEI Paper, Paper n. 11. Available at: http://www.ucm.es/info/icei/res/secciones/pdf/ICEIpaper11.pdf. Plehn-Dujowich, Jose M. (2009). Endogenous growth and adverse selection in entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, v. 33, pp. 1419-1436. Roessner, David (2000) Quantitative and qualitative methods and measures in the evaluation of research. Research Evaluation, v. 8, n. 2, pp. 125-132. Romer, Paul M. (1990). Endogenous Technological Change. The Journal of Political Economy, v. 98, n. 5, pp. S71-S102. Sakakibara, Mariko (1997). Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: an empirical examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal, v. 18, pp. 143-164. Sanz Menéndez, Luis (1995). Policy choices, Institutional constraints and policy learning: the Spanish Science and Technology policy in the eighties. International Journal of Technology Management, v. 10, pp. 622-641. Solow, Robert M. (1956). A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, v. 70, n. 1, pp. 65-94. Stubbs, Peter (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. Surroca Aguilar, Jordi and Santamaría Sánchez, Lluís (2006). La Cooperación Tecnológica como Determinante de los Resultados Empresariales. Documento de Trabajo – Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Paper n. 01. Available at: http://e archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/32/1/db060101.pdf. Takalo, Tuomas and Tanayama, Tanja (2010). Adverse selection and financing of innovation: is there a need for R&D subsidies? Journal of Technology Transfer, v. 35, pp. 16-41. Trabada, Fernando (2000). Food technology in Spain: CDTI's and EUREKA's perspectives. Food Research International, v. 33, pp. 299-304. Wagner, Kristina and Edelmann, Christina (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. and Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, v. 30, pp. 181-194.
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/48980
Collections
Documentos de trabajo e informes técnicos