Abstract
There is now widespread empirical and theoretical evidence that disparities in the speed of diffusion of new technologies across national borders help to explain differences in the level of per capita income across countries (Comin and Hobijn 2010; Keller 2010). As was presented in the first part in Chaps. 3 and 4, there is vast academic interest in the effectiveness of particular channels of diffusion, with particular attention given to the role of trade in intermediate goods (Eaton and Kortum 2006; Rivera-Batiz and Romer 1991a), exporting (Wagner 2007), and FDI (Lichtenberg and Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie 2001).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It is referred to the extended discussion of theoretical channels and empirical analyses of these in Chap. 4.
- 2.
- 3.
According to the European Commission, Spain is considered a moderately innovative country (European Innovation Scoreboard 2009). Similarly when the countries, for which acquisitions can be identified within the present dataset, are ranked according to their ‘business enterprise R&D expenditures to GDP’ ratio, Spain ranks 20th out of 27 countries (including Spain).
- 4.
All data are freely downloadable from the PITEC website (http://icono.fecyt.es/contenido.asp?dir=05)Publi/AA)panel).
- 5.
Appendix A provides a complete list of all subcategories.
- 6.
R&D services are defined as: ‘Creative work to increase the volume of knowledge and to create new or improved products and processes (including the development of software)’.
- 7.
Headquarters dislocation within a 2-year period are accounted for. This means that e.g. when the headquarters is moved to abroad only 1 year after the equity change, this is also considered as foreign acquisition. The definition of foreign acquisition does not include mergers i.e. the fusion of two firms to a single one where the target firm ceases to exist as separate entity. Firms that face such an incident leave the data panel. This does also hold true for firms that duplicate or split.
- 8.
Criscuolo et al. (2010) also state that using the 10 % or the 50 % threshold makes little differences in the categorisation of firms in their dataset.
- 9.
Entrants cannot be excluded as e.g. in Bandick et al. (2010) since this is not reported in the dataset.
- 10.
Since data of 2003 is not observed, acquisitions in 2004 cannot be identified.
- 11.
OECD Structural Analysis Statistics.
- 12.
Mind that all variables are in logarithms, except size and patent numbers.
- 13.
This is largely due to the fact that from the whole dataset only the ones with continuous innovation expenditures are analysed. It would be unlikely that these firms do heavily really on external sources.
- 14.
Concerning labour productivity.
- 15.
The model presented here is used for identifying the right control group by propensity score matching (PSM). As was explained in detail in Chap. 5, matching variables must not be affected by treatment or the anticipation of treatment because otherwise the ‘conditional independence assumption’ (CIA) is vitiated. This is accommodated by using pre-treatment values of the variables \( X \), as Imbens (2004) affirms that lagged outcome variables can be included in the vector of covariates.
- 16.
The approach is pooled cross-sectional; however, observations from acquired firms after acquisition are excluded.
- 17.
Here acquisitions can take the two forms of either an extension of foreign control from below to above the 50 % foreign equity threshold or the acquisition of a subsidiary of a different MNE, whereas the latter is more likely, given the dominant share of outright and majority M&A in all M&A already discussed.
- 18.
In robustness tests also the skill-intensity of the R&D labour force measured as compensation of R&D personnel (researchers and technicians) divided by their number as well as the number of patent applications were used. While not changing sign and significance of the other covariates, these trials led to a loss of observations not acceptable for the subsequent analysis.
- 19.
Again it is referred to the problem of international tacit knowledge dissemination and its avoidance via internalisation (Sect.4.1.5).
- 20.
Mayer and Ottaviano (2007) also report that exporters are more likely to be foreign-owned.
- 21.
A result not reported here is that by further dividing external R&D expenditures into subgroups, it is found that this negative effect is attributable to external domestic R&D expenditures not external foreign.
- 22.
Indicating perhaps that foreign owners seek to enlarge control rights in order to hedge an already established tacit knowledge transfer channel or to hedge an intended widening of this knowledge flow.
- 23.
Caliendo and Kopeinig (2008) point out that there is little advice in the literature regarding model choice for the case of a binary treatment. Using probit, logit or a linear probability model depends on researchers’ preferences and the well-known advantages and shortcoming of the respective models.
- 24.
Matching is carried out with the STATA ado PSMATCH2 by Leuven and Sianesi (2003).
- 25.
There is a small problem with internal R&D in the year 2008. Given that the equality of means can only be rejected here at the 10 % level however, this is not seen as problematic.
- 26.
Again with the exception of with internal R&D in the year 2008.
- 27.
All in logarithms.
- 28.
See for example Swenson (2008).
- 29.
For a discussion see i.a. Moulton (1990).
- 30.
Only in model (1) for external domestic R&D a statistically significant negative effect is reported.
- 31.
It is only sure that R&D acquisition from foreign non-private sources is reduced.
- 32.
Compared to other industrialised countries Spain is seen as non-frontier.
- 33.
For an indication that this ranking has changed in recent years see for example BDI (2011).
- 34.
It has to be kept in mind, that firms that started or stopped R&D activity upon acquisition are excluded.
References
Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., & Zilibotti, F. (2006). Distance to frontier, selection, and economic growth. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4, 37–74.
Altomonte, C., Mauro, F. D., Ottaviano, G., Rungi, A., & Vicard, V. (2011). Global value chains during the great trade collapse. Mimeo.
Arnold, J. M., & Javorcik, B. S. (2009). Gifted kids or pushy parents? Foreign direct investment and plant productivity in Indonesia. Journal of International Economics, 79, 42–53.
Balsvik, R., & Haller, S. A. (2010). Picking “lemons” or picking “cherries”? Domestic and foreign acquisitions in Norwegian manufacturing. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 112, 361–387.
Bandick, R., Görg, H., & Karpaty, P. (2010). Foreign acquisitions, domestic multinationals, and R&D. Kiel Working Papers 1651, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
BDI. (2011). Innovation indicator 2011, Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI), Deutsche Telekom Stiftung, Fraunhofer ISI, Available at: http://www.innovationsindikator.de/themen/im-fokus/derinnovationsindikator-2011/.
Benfratello, L., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Foreign ownership and productivity: Is the direction of causality so obvious? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 733–751.
Bertrand, O. (2009). Effects of foreign acquisitions on R&D activity: Evidence from firm-level data for France. Research Policy, 38, 1021–1031.
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22, 31–72.
Chen, W. (2011). The effect of investor origin on firm performance: Domestic and foreign direct investment in the United States. Journal of International Economics, 83, 219–228.
Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2010). An exploration of technology diffusion. American Economic Review, 100, 2031–2059.
Conyon, M. J., Girma, S., Thompson, S., & Wright, P. (2002). The productivity and wage effects of foreign acquisition in the United Kingdom. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50, 85–102.
Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J. E., & Slaughter, M. J. (2010). Global engagement and the innovation activities of firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 28, 191–202.
Dunning, J. H. and Lundan, S. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Cheltenham [i.a.]: Edward Elgar.
Eaton, J., & Kortum, S. (2006). Innovation, diffusion, and trade. NBER Working Papers 12385, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
European Commission (2010): European Innovation Scoreboard (EIS) 2009, European Commission Enterprise and Industry.
Evenett, S., & Voicu, A. (2003). Picking winners or creating them? Revising the benefits of FDI in the Czech Republic. Oxford University, Mimeo.
Griffith, R. (1999b). Using the ARD establishment level data to look at foreign ownership and productivity in the United Kingdom. Economic Journal, 109, F416–F442.
Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Reenen, J. V. (2004a). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 883–895.
Griffith, R., Harrison, R., & Reenen, J. V. (2006). How special is the special relationship? Using the impact of U.S. R&D spillovers on U.K. firms as a test of technology sourcing. American Economic Review, 96, 1859–1875.
Griliches, Z. (1979). Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 92–116.
Guadalupe, M., Kuzmina, O., & Thomas, C. (2010). Innovation and foreign ownership. NBER Working Paper 16573, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Harris, R. (2002). Foreign ownership and productivity in the United Kingdom – Some issues when using the ARD establishment level data. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 49, 318–335.
Hering, L., Inui, T., & Py, L. (2011). Overseas R&D and performance abroad: Evidence from Japanese multinational firms. Mimeo.
Imbens, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 4–29.
IMF. (2009). Balance of payments and international investment position manual. BPM6, International Monetary Fund (IMF). Washington, DC: IMF Publication Services.
Jaffe, A. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value. American Economic Review, 75, 984–1002.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.
Javorcik, B. S. (2010). Foreign direct investment and international technology transfer. in Encyclopaedia of financial globalization.
Javorcik, B. S., & Spatareanu, M. (2011). Does it matter where you come from? Vertical spillovers from foreign direct investment and the origin of investors. Journal of Development Economics, 96, 126–138.
Keller, W. (2002b). Trade and the transmission of technology. Journal of Economic Growth, 7, 5–24.
Keller, W. (2010). International trade, foreign direct investment, and technology spillovers. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier North-Holland.
Keller, W., & Yeaple, S. R. (2008). Global production and trade in the knowledge economy. NBER Working Paper 14626, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Inc.
Leuven, E. & Sianesi, B. (2003), PSMATCH2: Stata Module to perform full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing; Statistical Software Components, Boston College Department of Economics, http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html, this version: version 4.0.4 10nov2010.
Lichtenberg, F. R., & Van Pottelsberghe De La Potterie, B. (2001). Does foreign direct investment transfer technology across borders? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 490–497.
Mayer, T., & Ottaviano, G. I. P. (2007). The happy few: The internationalisation of European firms. Bruessels: Bruegel Blueprint Series.
Moulton, B. R. (1990). An illustration of a pitfall in estimating the effects of aggregate variables on micro unit. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 334–338.
Nocke, V., & Yeaple, S. (2007). Cross-border mergers and acquisitions vs. greenfield foreign direct investment: The role of firm heterogeneity. Journal of International Economics, 72, 336–365.
Nocke, V., & Yeaple, S. (2008). An assignment theory of foreign direct investment. Review of Economic Studies, 75, 529–557.
Rivera-Batiz, L. A., & Romer, P. M. (1991a). Economic integration and endogenous growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 531–555.
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.
Stiebale, J., & Reize, F. (2011). The impact of FDI through mergers and acquisitions on innovation in target firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 29, 155–167.
Swenson, D. L. (2008). Transfer pricing. In R. S. Rajan & K. A. Reinert (Eds.), Princeton encyclopaedia of the world economy. Princeton University Press.
Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2004). Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct firm-level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, 48, 455–476.
Wagner, J. (2006a). Exports, foreign direct investment, and productivity: Evidence from German firm-level data. Applied Economics Letters, 13, 347–349.
Wagner, J. (2006b). International firm activities and innovation: Evidence from knowledge production functions for German firms. Papers on Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy 2006–15, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy Group.
Wagner, J. (2007). Exports and productivity: A survey of the evidence from firmlevel data. The World Economy, 30, 60–82.
Warda, J. (2001). Measuring the value of R&D tax treatment in OECD countries. STI Review 27, OECD.
Winkler, D. (2009). Services offshoring and its impact on the labor market – Theoretical insights, empirical evidence, and economic policy recommendations for Germany. Heidelberg: Springer/Physika-Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hofmann, P. (2013). International Technology Transfer within Multinational Enterprises: What the Distance to the Technology Frontier Matters. In: The Impact of International Trade and FDI on Economic Growth and Technological Change. Contributions to Economics. Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34581-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34581-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Physica, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-34580-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-34581-4
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)