Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine the impact of growing R&D cooperation networks on R&D knowledge spillovers and equilibrium outcomes. We find that as the cooperation in the network grows, the graph theoretic distances between competitors decrease. This allows the R&D spillovers between non-cooperators to increase. Moreover, we find that increasing the cooperation in the network improves the payoffs of firms. This indicates that developing the cooperation network is individually desirable to remain active in the industry.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As mentioned in Sect. 2, the number of networks increases with the growing quantity of firms in the industry and this makes the presentation of the outcomes difficult.
References
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administration Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.
Albert, R., & Barab́asi, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Review of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.
Alghamdi, M. (2016). Economic returns in forming stable R&D networks. Springerplus, 5, 1570.
Alghamdi, M. (2017a). Different strategies to obtain higher outcome. Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Science, 9, 161–180.
Alghamdi, M. (2017b). Maximum total welfare versus growth of R&D networks. Journal of Mathematics in Industry, 7, 11.
Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 495–519.
Bischi, G.-I., & Lamantia, F. (2012a). A dynamic model of oligopoly with R&D externalities along networks. Part I. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 84, 51–65.
Bischi, G.-I., & Lamantia, F. (2012b). A dynamic model of oligopoly with R&D externalities along networks. Part II. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 84, 66–82.
Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2003). The dynamics of collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52(4), 513–532.
Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557–1575.
D’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1137.
Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovative advantage. Organization Science, 18, 938–954.
Goyal, S., & Moraga-Gonzalez, J. L. (2001). R&D networks. Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 686–707.
Jackson, M. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jackson, M. O., & Wolinsky, A. (1996). A strategic model of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 44–74.
Morone, P., & Taylor, R. (2004). Knowledge diffusion dynamics and network properties of face-to-face interactions. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 327–351.
Narula, R., & Santangelo, G. D. (2009). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. Research Policy, 38(2), 393–403.
Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256.
Noh, J. D., & Rieger, H. (2004). Random walks on complex networks. Physical Review Letters, 92, 118701.
Sanou, F. H., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2016). How does centrality in coopetition networks matter? An empirical investigation in the mobile telephone industry. British Journal of Management, 27(1), 143–160.
Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126.
Strogatz, S. H. (2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature, 410(6825), 268–276.
Tomasello, M. V., Napoletano, M., Garasz, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2013). The rise and fall of R&D networks. arXiv:1304.3623v1.
van der Pol, J., & Rameshkoumar, J. P. (2018). The co-evolution of knowledge and collaboration networks: The role of the technology life-cycle. Scientometrics, 114(1), 307–323.
Verspagen, B., & Duysters, G. (2004). The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation, 24, 563–571.
Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.
Zirulia, L. (2011). Economics of innovation and new technology: The role of spillovers in R&D network formation. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21, 83–105.
Zu, L., Dong, B., Zhao, X., & Zhang, J. (2011). International R&D networks. Review of International Economics, 19, 325–340.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by King Saud University, Deanship of Scientific Research, College of Science Research Center.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Appendix 1: Proofs of Propositions
Proof of Proposition 1
Since spillover \(\upbeta \in [0, 1)\) is applied between non-linked firms i and k, then the length of the geodesic between the two firms is \(d_{ik} \ge 2\). To continue applying the spillover after decreasing the distance, we assume \(d_{ik} > 2\). Thus, the function \({\mathbf {B}} \ = \ e^{d_{ik} \ln \upbeta }\) increases as the distance \(d_{ik}\) decreases. \(\square\)
Proof of Proposition 2
Assume firms i and k are connected by a path such that \(d_{ik} > 2\). Let firm \(\ell\) be linked to k and let \(G'\) be a network generated by linking firms i and \(\ell\) (see Fig. 11). Then, the distance between firms i and k in \(G'\) reduces to \(d_{ik} = 2\) which implies \(\upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} > \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\). \(\square\)
Proof of Proposition 3
Assume firms i and k are connected by a path such that \(d_{ik} > 2\). Let firms i and \(\ell\) be connected in the cooperation network G by a path such that \(d_{i \ell }>2\). Let \(G'\) be a network generated by linking firms i and \(\ell\) (see Fig. 12). Then, we have two cases:
case 1: if \(d_{ik} (G') = d_{ik} (G) \Rightarrow \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} = \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\),
case 2: if \(d_{ik} (G') < d_{ik} (G) \Rightarrow \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} > \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\).
This implies \(\upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} \ge \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\). \(\square\)
1.2 Appendix 2: Numerical Simulation of the Original Model
In the following, we repeat Example 2 under the model of Jackson (2008).
Example 5
Assume six firms sell homogeneous goods and compete by their quantities and assume the cooperation of firms in R&D forms network \(G_4\) given in Fig. 5. Let network \(G_5\) generated from \(G_4\) by adding a link between firms 2 and 4, and between firms 3 and 6. Figure 13 shows the equilibrium outcomes in the two networks \(G_4\) and \(G_5\) under the model of Jackson (2008).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alghamdi, M. Economics Performance Under Endogenous Knowledge Spillovers. Asia-Pac Financ Markets 27, 175–192 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-019-09288-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-019-09288-y