Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multinationals and R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from the Italian R&D survey

  • Published:
Economia Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data on R&D performers active in Italy, we explore the effects of multinationality on the propensity to R&D cooperation. A fundamental departure from previous empirical literature is that we do not consider only subsidiaries of foreign MNEs but also domestic owned MNEs active in the observed country. First, the whole subset of firms active in Italy represented by multinationals—both foreign and domestic MNEs—exhibits the highest propensity to R&D cooperation. Second, foreign MNEs are better at R&D cooperating with foreign partners, but it is domestic owned MNEs that exhibit the highest propensity to R&D collaboration with local firms. By contrast, foreign MNEs have much the same propensity to enter local R&D cooperation as non-MNEs. This might reveal that the multinationality advantages of foreign MNEs—their superior technology and economies of common governance—are more than compensated by their “liabilities of foreignness” due to the extra-costs and risks of dealing with a relatively unfamiliar context. Third, when considering international R&D cooperation, foreign MNEs exhibit the highest premium, while domestic owned MNEs appear to have a lower propensity to collaborate abroad. Altogether, our results for Italy show that it is not foreignness but the specific combination of advantages and disadvantages of multinationality that explain R&D cooperation with both local and international partners.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The first pilot CIS has been conducted in selected EU countries at the beginning of 1990 s, while the last edition concerns year 2014 for all EU Member States and some associate countries. Also other OECD countries, such as South Korea, follow the same approach in their innovation surveys, in accordance to the Oslo Manual (OECD 2005).

  2. The positive effect of incoming spillovers, also depends on the type of partner, and plays a key role in R&D cooperation with universities, and no significant role in cooperative arrangements with suppliers or customers (Veugelers and Cassiman 2005). The distinction by partner type is even more explicitly addressed by Belderbos et al. (2004), who match two waves of the Dutch CIS (1996 and 1998). They find that cooperation determinants are different across various R&D partners. In particular, “the positive impact of firm size, R&D intensity, and incoming source-specific spillovers is weaker for competitor cooperation, reflecting greater appropriability concerns. Institutional spillovers are more generic in nature and positively impact all cooperation types” (p. 1237).

  3. R&D surveys are conducted in OECD countries according to the standard guidelines of the Frascati Manual (OECD 2015) since 1963. The use of R&D surveys is the basis for calculating the national statistics on BERD (Business Expenditures in R&D) across OECD and EU countries. However, the use of micro-data gathered via this type of questionnaire for analytical purposes has always been very limited, mainly for confidentiality issues. In this section, works using R&D surveys data coming from Belgium are cited. Only such data have therefore the same origin as those from Italy used in the current paper.

  4. Bureau van Dijk data are usually available for the last year only. For the data in this paper, information on firm ownership has been checked at the end of the period under observation and also using a previous version of the same Bureau van Dijk data. However, it must be recalled that the ISTAT RS1 survey itself includes yearly information on group belonging and on the eventual foreign ownership of the parent company. As a result, only for a limited number of firms in Italian groups it might be supposed a problematic assignment to the DMN vs. the NMN category, based on Bureau van Dijk information available for a different year. In the majority of cases, the ISTAT RS1 survey is sufficient to provide an unambiguous definition of firm ownership.

  5. This hierarchy has been tested in Cozza and Zanfei (2016).

References

  • Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8), 1237–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. (1998). Multinational corporations and spillovers. Journal of Economic surveys, 12(3), 247–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonaccorsi, A., & Perani, G. (2014). Investing in R&D in Italy: Trends and firms’ strategies, 2001–2010. Economia e Politica Industriale—Journal of Industrial and Business Economics.

  • Cantwell, J. (2001). Innovation and information technology in MNE. In A. M. Rugman & T. L. Brewer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international business (pp. 431–456). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Narula, R. (2001). The eclectic paradigm in the global economy. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8(2), 155–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson, B. (2006). Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35(1), 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, D., Montresor, S., Schubert, T., & Vezzani, A. (2017). Multinationality, R&D and productivity: Evidence from the top R&D investors worldwide. International Business Review, 26(3), 405–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2004). Choosing international linkage strategies in electronics industry. The role of multinational experience. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation, 53, 447–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2006). Multinationals, innovation and productivity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chun, H., & Mun, S. B. (2012). Determinants of R&D cooperation in small and medium-sized enterprises. Small Business Economics, 39(2), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal, 99, 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35, 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cozza, C., & Zanfei, A. (2016). Firm heterogeneity, absorptive capacity and technical linkages with external parties in Italy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(4), 872–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dachs, B., Stehrer, R., & Zahradnik, G. (Eds.). (2014). The internationalisation of business R&D. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bondt, R., & Veugelers, R. (1991). Strategic investment with spillovers. European Journal of Political Economy, 7(3), 345–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1993). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Reading: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, B. C., & Eswaran, M. (1997). Technology-trading coalitions in supergames. The Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erramilli, M. K. (1991). The experience factor in foreign market entry behavior of service firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 22(3), 479–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, C., & Gussoni, M. (2014). The role of firm and national level factors in fostering R&D cooperation: A cross country comparison. Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(6), 945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, C., Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2014). Absorptive capacity, proximity in cooperation and integration mechanisms. Empirical evidence from CIS data. Industry and Innovation, 21(4), 332–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Lukas, R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, 30(2), 297–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Sánchez, A., Molero, J., & Rama, R. (2015). Are ‘the best’ foreign subsidiaries cooperating for innovation with local partners? The case of an intermediate country. Science and Public Policy, 43(4), 532–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia Sánchez, A., Molero, J., & Rama, R. (2016). Local cooperation for innovation: Food and beverage multinationals in a peripheral European country. International Journal of Multinational Corporation Strategy, 1(2), 107–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimón, J., & Salazar-Elena, J. C. (2015). Collaboration in innovation between foreign subsidiaries and local universities: Evidence from Spain. Industry and Innovation, 22(6), 445–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head, K., & Ries, J. (2003). Heterogeneity and the FDI versus export decision of Japanese manufacturers. Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 17(4), 448–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M. A., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. (2004). The institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition economies: China vs. Russia. Organization Science, 15(2), 173–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holl, A., & Rama, R. (2014). Foreign subsidiaries and technology sourcing in Spain. Industry and Innovation, 21(1), 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S. H. (1960). The international operations of national firms: A study of direct foreign investment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesteloot, K., & Veugelers, R. (1995). Stable R&D cooperation with spillovers. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 4(4), 651–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knell, M., & Srholec, M. (2005). Innovation cooperation and foreign ownership in the Czech Republic. Norway: Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU-STEP).

    Google Scholar 

  • Krammer, M. S. (2016). Partnering in international technological alliances: The role of institutional distance, colonial and economic ties. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 1113. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, J. T., Tian, L., & Wan, G. (2015). Contextual distance and the international strategic alliance performance: A conceptual framework and a partial meta-analytic test. Management and Organization Review, 11(2), 289–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(1), 113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1989). New developments in US technology policy: Implications for competitiveness and international trade policy. California Management Review, 32(1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2014). Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. (2005). Globalisation of innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), Handbook of innovation (pp. 318–345). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005). Oslo Manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD Publishing.

  • OECD (2015). Frascati Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. OECD Publishing.

  • Perri, A., Andersson, U., Nell, P. C., & Santangelo, G. D. (2013). Balancing the trade-off between learning prospects and spillover risks: MNC subsidiaries’ vertical linkage patterns in developed countries. Journal of World Business, 48(4), 503–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T., & Gatignon, H. (1998). Technology development mode: A transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal, 19(6), 515–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srholec, M. (2009). Does foreign ownership facilitate cooperation on innovation? Firm-level evidence from the enlarged European Union. The European Journal of Development Research, 21(1), 47–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srholec, M. (2015). Understanding the diversity of cooperation on innovation across countries: Multilevel evidence from Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 24(1–2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1977). Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Economic Journal, 87, 242–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teirlinck, P., & Spithoven, A. (2013). Research collaboration and R&D outsourcing: Different R&D personnel requirements in SMEs. Technovation, 33(4), 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. (2005). Transnational Corporations and the Internationalization of R&D, World Investment Report 2005. New York and Geneva: United Nations Conference for Trade and Development.

  • Veugelers, R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23(5), 355–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, S. (1995). Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 341–363.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Bernard Dachs and Bernardo Balboni for useful and encouraging comments on previous versions of this paper. Ilaria Gandin and Chiara Franco are acknowledged for useful suggestions on the econometric test. Funds from the Department of Economics, Society and Politics (University of Urbino) are also gratefully acknowledged. Usual disclaimers apply.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Ricerche, Area Science Park, Padriciano 99, 34149, Trieste, Italy

    Claudio Cozza

  2. ISTAT, Via Balbo 16, Rome, Italy

    Giulio Perani

  3. DESP, University of Urbino “Carlo Bo”, Via Saffi 42, Urbino, Italy

    Antonello Zanfei

Authors
  1. Claudio Cozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giulio Perani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonello Zanfei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudio Cozza.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cozza, C., Perani, G. & Zanfei, A. Multinationals and R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from the Italian R&D survey. Econ Polit 35, 601–621 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-018-0104-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-018-0104-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation