Journal of Economics

, Volume 96, Issue 3, pp 193–222 | Cite as

Effects of coordinated strategies on product and process R&D

  • Elena Cefis
  • Stephanie Rosenkranz
  • Utz Weitzel
Open Access


Using a game theoretical model on firms’ simultaneous investments in product and process R&D, we advance and empirically test hypotheses on the role of externalities on the optimal R&D portfolio of cooperating firms and independently competing firms. We use Community Innovation Survey data on 3,696 Italian manufacturing firms. In line with our model we find that members of a group of firms invest significantly more into product, process, and aggregate R&D than independent firms. Further, their R&D portfolios tend to show a higher product versus process ratio. However, with regard to R&D performance and efficiency we find that independent firms are superior.


Coordination R&D Innovation Efficiency Cost reduction Product differentiation 

JEL Classification

C72 L1 L13 O32 



The authors wish to thank Rob Alessie, Karen Klomp, Hans Schenk, the participants at the ECIS seminar, Eindhoven University, March 2005, at the EARIE Conference, Porto, Portugal, 1–4 September 2005, and at the 2nd IASTED International Conference on Alliances, Mergers and Acquisitions, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 November 2004, for helpful comments and suggestions. This work has been accomplished with the cooperation of the Italian Statistical Office (ISTAT) and in particular of Andrea Mancini and Roberto Monducci, whose collaboration made this work possible. The research has been supported by the University of Bergamo (Elena Cefis, grant ex 60% n.60CEFI07, Department of Economics)

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.


  1. Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1979) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev 80: 41–47Google Scholar
  2. Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1982) Patterns of industrial innovation. In: Tushman ML, Moore WL (eds) Readings in the management of innovation. Pitman, Boston, pp 97–108Google Scholar
  3. Adams JD, Marcu M (2004) R&D sourcing, joint ventures and innovation: a multiple indicators approach, NBER 10474Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal R, Audretsch DB (2001) Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. J Ind Econ 1: 21–43Google Scholar
  5. Ahuja G, Katila R (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strat Manage J 22: 197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Amir R, Evstigniev I, Wooders J (2003) Noncooperative R&D and optimal R&D Cartels. Games Econ Behav 42: 183–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Allen JW, Phillips GM (2000) Corporate equity ownership, strategic alliances, and product market relationships. J Finance 55(6): 2791–2815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson P, Tushman M (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Adm Sci Quart 35: 604–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartoloni E, Baussola M (2001) The determinants of technology adoption in Italian manufacturing industries. Rev Ind Organ 19(3): 305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bartoloni E, Baussola M (2008) The persistence of profits, sectoral heterogeneity and firms’ characteristics. Int J Econ Bus (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  11. Blonigen B, Taylor C (2000) R&D activity and acquisitions in high technology industries: evidence from the US electronics industry. J Ind Econ 47(1): 47–71Google Scholar
  12. Bonnano G, Haworth B (1998) Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovation. Int J Ind Organ 16: 495–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brouwer E, Kleinknecht A (1999) Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data. Res Policy 28: 615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassiman B, Colombo M, Garrone P, Veugelers R (2003) The impact of M&A on the R&D process. An empirical analysis of the role of technological and market relatedness, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  15. Cassiman B, Veugelers R (2002) R&D cooperation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. Am Econ Rev 92(4): 1169–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen W, Levin R (1989) Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In: Schmalensee R, Willig R (eds) Handbook of industrial organisation, Chap. 18. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1060–1107Google Scholar
  17. Crosato L, Ganugi P (2007) Statistical regularity of firm size distribution: the pareto IV and truncated yule for Italian SCI manufacturing. Stat Methods Appl 16(1): 85–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. D’Aspremont C, Jacquemin A (1988) Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duoploy with spillovers. Am Econ Rev 78: 1133–1137Google Scholar
  19. De Bondt R (1996) Spillovers and innovative activities. Int J Ind Organ 15: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Bondt R, Veugelers R (1991) Strategic investment with spillovers. Euro J Polit Econ 7: 345–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Marchi M, Rocchi M (2000) Basic research in Italian industry. R&D Manage 30(1): 79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Duranton G (2000) Cumulative investment and spillovers in the formation of technological landscapes. J Ind Econ 2: 205–213Google Scholar
  23. Eswaran M, Gallini N (1996) Patent policy and the direction of technological change. RAND J Econ 27: 722–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eurostat (2003) Meeting of the Working Party on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) Statisticse, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  25. Filatotchev I, Piga C, Dyomina N (2003) Network positioning and R&D activity: a study of Italian groups. R&D Manage 33(1): 37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Evangelista R, Perani G, Rapiti F, Archibugi D (1997) Nature and impact of innovation in manufacturing industry: some evidence from the Italian innovation survey. Res Policy 26: 521–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evangelista R, Immarino S, Mastrostefano V, Silvani A (2002) Looking for regional systems of innovation: evidence form the Italian innovation survey. Reg Stud 36(2): 173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gugler P, Siebert R (2004) Market power versus efficiency effects of mergers and research joint ventures: evidence from the semiconductor industry, NBER Working Paper 10323Google Scholar
  29. Hagedoorn J, Cloodt M (2003) Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Res Policy 32: 1365–1379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall B (1990) The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research and development, Brookings Papers on Economic ActivityGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall B (1999) Mergers and R&D revisited, mimeoGoogle Scholar
  32. Hinloopen J (2003) R&D efficiency gains due to cooperation. J Econ 80(2): 107–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hitt MA, Hoskisson RE, Ireland RD, Harrison JS (1991) Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs. Acad Manage J 34(3): 693–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hitt M, Hoskisson R, Johnson R, Moesel D (1996) The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Acad Manage J 39: 1084–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Huber P (1967) The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions. In: Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 221–233Google Scholar
  36. Kamien MI, Muller E, Zang I (1992) Research joint ventures and R&D Cartels. Am Econ Rev 82: 1293–1306Google Scholar
  37. Katz ML, Shelanski HA (2004) Merger policy and innovation: must enforcement change to account for technological change? NBER Working Paper 10710Google Scholar
  38. Kleinknecht A, van Montfort K, Brouwer E (2002) The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Econ J Innovat New Technol 11(2): 109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kleinknecht A (1996) Determinants of innovation: the message from new indicators. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Klepper S (1996) Entry, exit, and innovation over the product life-cycle. Am Econ Rev 86: 562–583Google Scholar
  41. Klepper S, Graddy E (1990) The evolution of new industries and the determinants of market structure. RAND J Econ 21(1): 27–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mairesse J, Mohnen P (2002) Accounting for innovation and measuring innovativeness: an illustrative framework and an application. Am Econ Rev 92: 226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller D, Friesen P (1986a) Porter’s (1980) Generic strategies and performance: an empirical examination with American data. Part I: Testing Porter. Organ Stud 7: 37–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller D, Friesen P (1986b) Porter’s (1980) Generic strategies and performance. Part II: Performance implications. Organ Stud 7: 255–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD (1997) Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: the “Oslo” Manual. Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. Pavitt K (1984) Patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy 13(6): 343–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Piga CA, Vivarelli M (2004) Internal and external R&D: a sample selection approach. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 66(4): 457–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravenscraft DJ, Scherer FM (1987) Mergers, sell-offs, and economic efficiency. The Brookings Institution, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  50. Röller L-H, Stennek J, Verboven F (2001) Efficiency gains from mergers. Euro Econ 5: 31–128Google Scholar
  51. Rosenkranz S (2003) Simultaneous choice of process and product innovation when consumers have a preference for product variety. J Econ Behav Organ 50: 183–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Salant SW, Shaffer G (1999) Unequal treatment of identical agents in Cournot equilibrium. Am Econ Rev 89: 585–604Google Scholar
  53. Scarpetta S, Bartelsman E, Bassanini A, Haltiwanger J, Jarmin RS, Schank T (2004) The spread of ICT and productivity growth: is Europe really lagging behind in the new economy? In: Cohen D, Garibaldi P, Scarpetta S (eds) The ICT revolution: productivity differences and the digital divide: a report for the Fondazione Rodolfo Debenedetti. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1–112Google Scholar
  54. Scherer FM (1992) Schumpeter and plausible capitalism. J Econ Lit 30: 1416–1433Google Scholar
  55. Sirilli G, Evangelista R (1998) Technological innovation in services and manufacturing: results from Italian surveys. Res Policy 27: 881–899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Suarez F, Utterback J (1991) Dominant designs and the survival of firms, Sloan School of Management. MIT, Working Paper, pp 42–91Google Scholar
  57. Tushman M, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organization environments. Adm Sci Quart 31: 439–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Villalonga B, McGahan AM (2005) The choice among acquisitions, alliances, and divestitures. Strat Manage J 26: 1183–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48: 817–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yin X, Zuscovitch E (1998) Is firm size conducive to R&D choice? A strategic analysis of product and process innovations. J Econ Behav Organ 35: 243–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Cefis
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stephanie Rosenkranz
    • 2
    • 3
  • Utz Weitzel
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BergamoBergamoItaly
  2. 2.Utrecht School of EconomicsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.CEPRLondonUK

Personalised recommendations