How Do Innovations Affect Mergers and Acquisitions—Evidence from Finland?

Article

Abstract

We have analysed whether innovations in a firm's possession increase a firm's propensity to buy other firms and, on the other hand, whether this possession attracts other firms so that they buy the firm concerned. Our results suggest that in the heavily investing processing industries high entry costs and the incumbency of all the firms make more efficient firms—the possessors of innovations—acquire inefficient firms. On the other hand, in the non-processing industries innovators become, according to our findings, easily purchased by the other firms whose strength obviously lies in other areas than in innovative activity.

Keywords

Innovations mergers acquisitions 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D., Innovation and Small Firms. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. Aghion, P. and Tirole, J., “The management of innovation,” Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, vol. 109 pp. 1185–1210, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. Blonigen, B. and Taylor, C., “R&D intensity and acquisitions in high-technology industries: evidence from the US electronic and electrical equipment industries,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 48 pp. 47–70, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. Cabral, R. and Leiblein, M., “Adoption of a process innovation with learning-by-doing: evidence from the semiconductor industry,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 49 pp. 269–280, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. Choi, J., “Technology transfer with moral hazard,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 19 pp. 249–266, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, W. and Klepper, S., “Firm size and the nature of innovation within industries: the case of process and product R&D,” The Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 78 pp. 232–243, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. Gallini, N. and Winter, R., “Licensing in the theory of innovation,” Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 16 pp. 237–252, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. Granstrand, O. and Sjölander, S., “The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms,” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 13 pp. 367–386, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hart, O., Firms, Contracts and Financial Structure. Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. Hausman, J., Hall, B. and Griliches, Z., “Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship,” Econometrica, vol. 52 pp. 909–938, 1984.Google Scholar
  11. Hämäläinen, T. and Schienstock, G., “The comparative advantage of networks in economic organization: efficiency and innovation in highly specialized and uncertain environments,” in: Innovative Networks, Co-operation in National Innovative Systems. OECD Proceedings, pp. 17–45, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. Jensen, M., “Takeovers: their causes and consequences,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 2 pp. 21–48, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Katz, M. and Shapiro, C., “On the licensing of innovations,” Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 16 pp. 504–520, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Kogut, B. and Zander, U., “Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology,” Organization Science, vol. 3 pp. 383–397, 1992.Google Scholar
  15. Lehto, E. and Lehtoranta, O., “Becoming an acquirer and becoming acquired,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 51 pp. 635–650, 2004.Google Scholar
  16. Leppälahti, A., “Comparisons of Finnish innovation surveys,” Science, Technology and Research 2000:1. Statistics Finland, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. Palmberg, C., Leppälahti, A., Lemola, T. and Toivanen, H., “Towards a better understanding and industrial renewal in Finland—a new perspective,” VTT, Group for Technology. Working Papers 41/99, 1999.Google Scholar
  18. Pisano, G., “The R&D boundaries of the firm: an empirical analysis,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35 pp. 153–176, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. Radnor, M., “Technology acquisition strategies and processes: a reconsideration of the make versus buy decision,” International Journal of Technology Management, pp. 113–135, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. Spender, J.-C., “Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 17 pp. 45–62, Winter Special Issue, 1996.Google Scholar
  21. Teece, D., “Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaborating, licensing and public policy,” Research Policy, vol. 15 pp. 285–305, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Torbett, R., “Technological collaboration, firm size and innovation: a study of UK manufacturing firms,” in: Innovative Networks, Co-operation in National Innovative Systems. OECD Proceedings, pp. 101–122, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Tremblay, V. and Tremblay, C., “The determinants of horizontal acquisitions: evidence from the U.S. brewing industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 37 pp. 21–45, 1988.Google Scholar
  24. Williamson, O., Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. Free Press: New York, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Williamson, O., The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, Free Press: New York, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Labour Institute for Economic ResearchHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Statistics FinlandHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations