Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Legal, Normative, and Cultural-Cognitive Institutions on Innovation in Technology Alliances

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Management International Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

  • Adopting an institutional lens, this paper examines the interaction between different levels of legal, normative and cultural-cognitive institutions on the level of innovation associated with the choice of alliance governance mechanism as equity or contractual.

  • Using patent data, this paper undertakes multilevel modelling of 314 technology alliance portfolios located in Europe, North America and the Asia-Pacific region.

  • Key findings indicate normative and cultural-cognitive institutions do affect the performance outcomes of alliances. Equity alliances provide supporting mechanisms that quell fears about organizational risk in alliances under conditions of uncertainty avoidance as the dominant cultural-cognitive frame, and hence contribute to better innovation performance. Contractual alliances are associated with higher levels of innovation under normative contexts that value collectivism rather than individualism.

  • Contrary to expectation, the results do not support the literature of a fit between equity alliances and weak intellectual property rights protection on innovation. However, the presence of highly formalized legal processes for enforcing contracts is associated with higher levels of innovation from alliances.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Almeida, P. (1996). Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry.Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter), 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2008). Innovation in multinational firms: Does cultural fit enhance performance?Management International Review, 48(2), 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anand, B. N., & Khanna, T. (2000). The structure of licensing contracts.The Journal of Industrial Economics, 48(1), 103–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beise, M. (2004). Lead markets: country-specific drivers of the global diffusion of innovations.Research Policy, 33(6/7), 997–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A. (1991).Conditioning diagnostics: Collinearity and weak data in regression. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boylaud, O., & Nicoletti, G. (2000).Regulation, market structure and performance in telecommunications. OECD Economics Working Paper 237.http://www.oecd.org/eco/eco. Accessed 28 June 2006.

  • Boyle, E. H. (2000). Is law the rule? Using political frames to explain cross-national variation in legal activity.Social Forces, 79(2), 385–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P., & Venaik, S. (2011). Individualism-collectivism in Hofstede and GLOBE.Journal of International Business Studies, 42(3), 436–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busenitz, L. W., Gomez, C., & Spencer, J. W. (2000). Country institutional profiles: Unlocking entrepreneurial phenomena.Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 994–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, S. (2001). The legal framework for corporate governance: The influence of contract law on company strategies in Germany and the United States. In P. A. Hall & D. Soskice (Eds.)Varieties of capitalism. The institutional foundations of comparative advantage (pp. 387–416). Oxford: O.U.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. C., Chen, X., & Meindl, J. R. (1998). How can cooperation be fostered? The cultural effects of individualism-collectivism.Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor, F. J., & Lorange, P. (1988). Why should firms co-operate? The strategy and economics basis for co-operative ventures. In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds.),Co-operative strategies in international business (pp. 3–30). Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B-S. (1996). Risk types and inter-firm alliance structures.Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 827–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Luque, M. S., & Javidan, M. (2004). Uncertainty avoidance. In R. J. House et al. (Eds.),Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 602–653). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djankov, S., La Porta, R., López-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Courts.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(2), 453–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory.Administrative Science Quarterly, 30(4), 514–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, G. R., & Richey, R. G. (2010). Improving generalizations from multicounty comparison in international business research.Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1275–1293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R.H., Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1991). Cultural roots of economic performance.Strategic Management Journal, 12(Summer), 165–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1995). R&D productivity: Econometric results and measurement issues. In P. Stoneman (Ed.),Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change (pp. 52–89). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances.Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), 781–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences.Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions.Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Hesen, G. (2007). Contract law and the governance of inter-firm technology partnerships: An analysis of different modes of partnering and their contractual implications.Journal of Management Studies, 44(3), 342–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, D., & Van Kranenburg, H. (2005). Intellectual property rights and the governance of international R&D partnerships.Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2), 175–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry, 1979–1995.Rand Journal of Economics, 32(1), 101–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennart, J.-F. (1988). A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures.Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 361–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L. (1995). National institutional structures, transaction cost economizing and competitive advantage: The case of Japan.Organization Science, 6(1), 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J. P. (2004).Generalized linear models: An applied approach. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001).Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004).Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Husted, B. W. (2000). The impact of national culture on software piracy.Journal of Business Ethics, 26(3), 197–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Javidan, M., House, R. J., Dorfman, P. W., Hanges, P. J., & de Luque, M. S. (2006). Conceptualizing and measuring cultures and their consequences: A comparative review of GLOBE’s and Hofstede’s approaches.Journal of International Business Studies, 37(6), 897–914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, G. K., & Davis, H. J. (2000). National culture and innovation: Implications for locating global R&D operations.Management International Review, 40(1), 11–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan, R. A. (2003). On surveying the whole legal forest.Law and Social Enquiry, 28(3), 833–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital.Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of an organizational practice by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: institutional and relational effects.Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Porta, R, Lopez-de-Silanes, F., & Shleifer, A. (2008). The economic consequences of legal origins.Journal of Economic Literature, 46(2), 285–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M, & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for future research.Journal of International Business Studies, 36(4), 357–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Licht, A. N., Goldschmidt, C., & Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Culture, law, and corporate governance.International Review of Law & Economics, 25(2), 229–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2005). Transactional characteristics, institutional environment and joint venture contracts.Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2), 209–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989).Rediscovering institutions. The organizational basis of politics. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects.Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990).Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1994).The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators.Patent Manual 1994. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, J. E. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanisms of governance: the impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances.Journal of Economic Behaviour & Organization, 38(3), 283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parboteeah, K. P., Hoegl, M., & Cullen, J. B. (2008). Manager’s gender role attitudes: a country institutional profile approach.Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5), 795–813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, W. G., & Wagh, S. (2002). Index of patent rights. In J. Gwartney & R. Lawson,Economic freedom of the world: 2002 Annual report.http://www.cato.org/pubs/efw/index.html. Accessed 28 June 2006.

  • Reuer, J. J. & Ariño, A. (2002). Contractual re-negotiations in strategic alliances.Journal of Management, 28(1), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf, L. & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility.Management Science, 49(6), 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, J., & Oliver, C. (2009). International joint venture partner selection: The role of the host-country legal environment.Journal of International Business Studies,40(5), 779–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAS Institute Inc. (2010).SAS/STAT® 9.22 user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 2001.Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2008). Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory.Theory & Society, 37(5), 427–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation.Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (1994). The effect of national culture on the choice between licensing and direct foreign investment.Strategic Management Journal, 15(8), 627–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences in innovation championing strategies.Journal of Management, 21(5), 931–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry.Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K., & Corley, K. G. (2000). On the performance of technology sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes.Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1045–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steensma, H. K., Marino, L., Weaver, K. M., & Dickson, P. H. (2000). The influence of national culture on the formation of technology alliances by entrepreneurial firms.Academy of Management Journal, 43(5), 951–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1987). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. In D. J. Teece (Ed.),The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal (pp. 185–219). Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (1995).Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. C., & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: Organizational renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. In M. L. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds.),Managing strategic innovation and change (pp. 3–23). New York: O.U.P.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasudeva, G. (2005).How national institutional environments influence firms’ knowledge building strategies. Unpublished Dissertation, George Washington University, Washington DC.

  • Venaik, S., & Brewer, P. (2010). Avoiding uncertainty in Hofstede and GLOBE.Journal of International Business Studies, 41(8), 1294–1315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassmer, U. (2010). Alliance portfolios: A review and research agenda.Journal of Management, 36(1), 141–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(2), 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (2000). The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead.Journal of Economic Literature, 38(3), 595–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bristol Business School, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK

    Elizabeth A. Alexander

Authors
  1. Elizabeth A. Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. Alexander.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alexander, E. The Effects of Legal, Normative, and Cultural-Cognitive Institutions on Innovation in Technology Alliances. Manag Int Rev 52, 791–815 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0123-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-011-0123-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation