Skip to main content
Log in

Economics Performance Under Endogenous Knowledge Spillovers

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Asia-Pacific Financial Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. There are many excellent papers discuss complex networks (e.g., Albert and Barabsi 2002; Newman 2003; Strogatz 2001).

  2. Many others have investigated the impact of the small world network on the flow of the knowledge and presented the same conclusion (e.g., Fleming et al. 2007; Morone and Taylor 2004; Noh and Rieger 2004; Schilling and Phelps 2007; Verspagen and Duysters 2004).

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, R., & Barab́asi, A. L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Review of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alghamdi, M. (2016). Economic returns in forming stable R&D networks. Springerplus, 5, 1570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alghamdi, M. (2017a). Different strategies to obtain higher outcome. Journal of Informatics and Mathematical Science, 9, 161–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alghamdi, M. (2017b). Maximum total welfare versus growth of R&D networks. Journal of Mathematics in Industry, 7, 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2003). The dynamics of collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 52(4), 513–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557–1575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovative advantage. Organization Science, 18, 938–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goyal, S., & Moraga-Gonzalez, J. L. (2001). R&D networks. Rand Journal of Economics, 32, 686–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. (2008). Social and economic networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. O., & Wolinsky, A. (1996). A strategic model of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 71, 44–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morone, P., & Taylor, R. (2004). Knowledge diffusion dynamics and network properties of face-to-face interactions. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(3), 327–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Santangelo, G. D. (2009). Location, collocation and R&D alliances in the European ICT industry. Research Policy, 38(2), 393–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2003). The structure and function of complex networks. SIAM Review, 45, 167–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noh, J. D., & Rieger, H. (2004). Random walks on complex networks. Physical Review Letters, 92, 118701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strogatz, S. H. (2001). Exploring complex networks. Nature, 410(6825), 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verspagen, B., & Duysters, G. (2004). The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation, 24, 563–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zu, L., Dong, B., Zhao, X., & Zhang, J. (2011). International R&D networks. Review of International Economics, 19, 325–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by King Saud University, Deanship of Scientific Research, College of Science Research Center.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamad Alghamdi.

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 \(\upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} > \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\). \(\square\)

Fig. 11
figure 11

An illustrative example for proof of Proposition 2

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 \(\upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G')} \ge \upbeta ^{d_{ik} (G)}\). \(\square\)

Fig. 12
figure 12

An illustrative example for proof of Proposition 3

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).

Fig. 13
figure 13

The R&D investment and the profit of firms in the networks \({G}_{4}\) and \({G}_{5}\) given in Fig. 5. The parameters used to plot the figure are \(a=12, \ \overline{c}=10\) and \(\gamma =2\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-019-09288-y

Keywords

Navigation