Advertisement

The effects of technology transfers and institutional factors on economic growth: evidence from Europe and Oceania

  • Joao J. M. FerreiraEmail author
  • Cristina Fernandes
  • Vanessa Ratten
Article

Abstract

Most of the literature on technology transfers (TTs) has tended to focus on a country or regional level without looking at the cross-continent flows of knowledge that are becoming ever more important due to regional trading blocs. This study fills the gap on the role of cross-continent TTs and institutional factors by focusing on the impact of environment related patents on economic growth. The continents selected for comparison are Europe and Oceania, which differ in terms of economic climate, geography and sustainability policies. In this way, we contribute to the literature on cross-continent TT policies by examining how environmental patents influence the economic growth rate of continents. This will help provide government policy with better means of enhancing TT. We conclude with the implications for managers, theory and policy in conjunction with the limitations and suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Climate change Economic growth Environmental patents Europe Institutional factors Oceania Technology transfer 

JEL Classification

L26 M10 O3 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to NECE-Research Unit in Business Sciences funded by the Multiannual Funding Programme of R&D Centres of FCT-Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under the Project UID/GES/04630/2019.

References

  1. Acemoglu, D., Aghion, P., Bursztyn, L., & Hemous, D. (2012). The environment and directed technical change. American Economic Review, 102(1), 131–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Dechezlepretre, A., Hemous, D., Martin, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). Carbon taxes, path dependency and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry. Journal of Political Economy, 124(1), 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed, A., & Suardi, S. (2007). Sources of economic growth and technology transfer in sub-saharan Africa. South African Journal of Economics, 75(82), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alam, A., Uddin, M., & Yazdifar, H. (2017). Financing behaviour of R&D investment in the emerging markets: The role of alliance and financial system. R&D in Management.  https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alam, A., Uddin, M., & Yazdifar, H. (2018). Institutional determinants of R&D investment: Evidence from emerging markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvarez, C., & Urbano, D. (2011). Environmental factors and entrepreneurial activity in Latin America. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Adminstración, 48, 31–45.Google Scholar
  7. Aminullah, A., Fizzanty, T., Kusnandar, K., & Wijayanti, R. (2013). Technology transfer through OFDI: The case of Indonesian natural resource-based MNEs. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21, 104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aparicio, S., Urbano, D., & Audretsch, D. (2016). Institutional factors, opportunity entrepreneurship and economic growth: Panel data evidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Appiah-Adu, K., Okpattah, B., & Djokoto, J. (2016). Technology transfer, outsourcing, capability and performance: A comparison of foreign and local firms in Ghana. Technology in Society, 47, 31–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Archarya, R. C., & Keller, W. (2009). Technology transfer through imports. Canadian Journal of Economics, 42(4), 1411–1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arellano, M., & Bond, S. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. The Review of Economic Studies, 58(2), 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Arimura, T., Hibiki, A., & Johnstone, N. (2007). An empirical study of environmental R&D: What encourages facilities to be environmentally-Innovative? In N. Johnstone (Ed.), Corporate behaviour and environmental policy (pp. 142–173). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Audretsch, D., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1030–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004a). Entrepreneurship capital and economic performance. Regional Studies, 38(8), 949–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2004b). Does entrepreneurship capital matter? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(5), 419–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Audretsch, D., & Keilbach, M. (2008). Resolving the knowledge paradox: Knowledge-spillover entrepreneurship and economic growth. Research Policy, 37(10), 1697–1705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Australian Government. (2015). Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions. Issue paper, March 2015. https://www.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/publications/Issues_Paper_greenhouse_gas_1.pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2018.
  18. Barbosa, N., & Faria, A. P. (2011). Innovation across Europe: How important are institutional differences? Research Policy, 40, 1157–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Barge-Gil, A., & López, A. (2014). R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development. Research Policy, 43(9), 1634–1648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Björkman, I., Stahl, G., & Vaara, E. (2007). Cultural differences and capability transfer in cross-border acquisitions: The mediating roles of capability complementarity, absorptive capacity, and social integration. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 658–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bleaney, M., & Nishiyama, A. (2002). Explaining growth: A contest between models. Journal of Economic Growth, 7(1), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bond, S. R. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1(2), 141–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29(4), 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bozeman, B., Rimes, H., & Youtie, J. (2015). The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model. Research Policy, 44, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Brey, P. (2018). The strategic role of technology in a good society. Technology in Society, 52, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen, C., Link, A., & Oliver, Z. (2018). U.S. Federal laboratories and their research partners: A quantitative case study. Scientometrics, 115(1), 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chen, J., & Quang, T. (2014). The impact of international financial integration on economic growth: New evidence on threshold effects. Economic Modelling, 42, 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Choi, Y. R., Yoshikawa, T., Zahra, S. A., & Han, B. H. (2014). Market-oriented institutional change and R&D investments: Do business groups enhance advantage? Journal of World Business, 49, 466–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Coe, D., & Helpman, E. (1995). International R&D Spillovers. European Economic Review, 39, 859–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Coe, D. T., Helpman, E., & Hoffmaister, A. W. (1997). North–south R&D spillovers. Economic Journal, 107, 134–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Constantini, V., & Liberati, P. (2014). Technology transfer, institutions and development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Danquah, M., Outtara, B., & Quartey, P. (2018). Technology transfer and national efficiency: Does absorptive capacity matter? African Development Review, 30(2), 162–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Daude, C., & Stein, E. (2007). The quality of institutions and foreign direct investment. Economics and Politics, 19, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dechezleprêtre, A., Martin, R., & Mohnen, M. (2017). Knowledge spillovers from clean and dirty technologies. Grantham Research Institute working series, paper no. 135.Google Scholar
  36. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dowrick, S., & Nguyen, D. (1989). OECD comparative economic growth 1950–1985: Catch up and convergence. American Economic Review, 79, 1010–1030.Google Scholar
  38. Engelbrecht, H. J. (1997). International R&D spillovers, human capital and productivity in OECD economies: An empirical investigation. European Economic Review, 41, 1479–1488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fabrizi, A., Guarini, G., & Meliciani, V. (2018). Green patents, regulatory policies and research network policies. Research Policy, 47, 1018–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fagerberg, J. (1994). Technology and international differences in growth rates. Journal of Economic Literature, 32, 1147–1175.Google Scholar
  41. Fagerberg, J., Srholec, M., & Knell, M. (2007). The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind. World Development, 35, 1595–1620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Falk, M. (2006). What drives business Research and Development (R&D) intensity across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries? Applied Economics, 38(5), 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Franco, C., Montresor, S., & Vittucci Marzetti, G. (2012). On indirect trade-related R&D spillovers: The “average propagation length” of foreign R&D. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 22, 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gandenberger, C., Bodenheimer, M., Schleich, J., Orzanna, R., & Macht, L. (2016). Factors driving international technology transfer: Empirical insights from a CDM project survey. Climate Policy, 16, 1065–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gerlagh, R., Kverndokk, S., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2009). Optimal timing of climate change policy: Interaction between carbon taxes and innovation externalities. Environmental and Resource Economics, 43(3), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. GGDC. (2009). The conference board total economy database, Groningen growth and development centre. http://www.conference-board.org/economics. Accessed 12 Nov 2018.
  47. Gholami, R., Lee, S. Y. T., & Heshmati, A. (2006). The causal relationship between information and communication technology and foreign direct investment. UNU-WIDER working paper, Helsinki.Google Scholar
  48. Greiner, M. A., & Franza, R. M. (2003). Barriers and bridges for successful environmental technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 522–544.Google Scholar
  49. Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 36(1), 16–38.Google Scholar
  50. Hart, R. (2008). The timing and balance of policies for CO2 abatement when technological change is endogenous. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 194–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hemmert, M. (2004). The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms: Survey results from Germany and Japan. Research Policy, 33, 1019–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hensengerth, O. (2015). Where is the power? Transnational networks, authority and the dispute over the Xayaburi dam on the Lower Mekong Mainstream. Water International, 40, 911–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hoekman, B., Maskus, K., & Saggi, K. (2004). Transfer of technology to developing countries: Unilateral and multilateral policy options. University of Colorado, PEC2004-0003.Google Scholar
  54. Howitt, P. (2000). Endogenous growth and cross-country income differences. American Economic Review, 90, 829–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. (2005). Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jaffe, A. B., Fogarty, M. S., & Banks, B. A. (1998). Evidence from patents and from patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 183–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Johnstone, N., & Labonne, J. (2006). Environmental policy, management and R&D. OECD Economic Study, 42(1), 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Karanikic´, P., Mladenovic´, I., Sokolov-Mladenovic´, S., & Alizamir, M. (2017). Prediction of economic growth by extreme learning approach based on science and technology transfer. Quality & Quantity, 51, 1395–1401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3), 752–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kirchherr, J., & Matthews, N. (2018). Technology transfer in the hydropower industry: An analysis of Chinese dam developers’ undertakings in Europe and Latin America. Energy Policy, 113, 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kirchherr, J., Matthews, N., Charles, J. J., & Walton, M. J. (2017). Learning it the hard way: Social safeguards norms in Chinese-led dam projects in Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia. Energy Policy, 102, 529–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kverndokk, S., & Rosendahl, K. E. (2007). Climate policies and learning by doing: Impacts and timing of technology subsidies. Resource and Energy Economics, 29(1), 58–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Laeven, L. (2003). Does financial liberalization reduce financing constraints? Financial Management, 32, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lai, Y.-L., Lin, F.-J., & Lin, Y.-H. (2015). Factors affecting firms R&D investment decisions. Journal of Business Research, 68, 840–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lanoie, P., Laurent Lucchetti, J., Johnstone, N., & Ambec, S. (2011). Environmental policy, innovation and performance: New insights on the porter hypothesis. Journal of Economy and Management Strategy, 20(3), 803–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lee, C., Park, G., & Kang, J. (2018). The impact of convergence between science and technology on innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 522–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lee, H., & Tan, H. (2006). Technology transfer, FDI and economic growth in the ASEAN region. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 11(4), 394–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lemola, T. (2002). Convergence of national science and technology policies: The case of Finland. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1481–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lerner, J. (1994). The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. The Rand Journal of Economics, 25(2), 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Link, A. N., Siegel, D. S., & Van Fleet, D. (2011). Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh–Dole Act. Research Policy, 40(8), 1094–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Loko, B., & Diouf, M. A. (2009). Revisiting the determinants of productivity growth: What’s new?. Geneva: International Monetary Fund.Google Scholar
  73. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National system of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  74. Madsen, J. (2007). Technology spillovers through trade and TFP convergence: 135 years of evidence for OECD countries. Journal of International Economics, 72, 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Malerba, F. (2006). Innovation and the evolution of industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economy, 16, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Markusen, J. R., & Venables, A. (1999). Foreign direct investment as a catalyst for industrial development. European Economic Review, 43, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Mayer, J. (2001). Technology diffusion, human capital and economic growth in developing countries. UNCTAD discussion papers no. 154, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  78. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Mohr, R. D. (2002). Technical change, external economies, and the porter hypothesis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 43(1), 158–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Nelson, R., & Phelps, E. (1966). Investment in humans, technological diffusion, and economic growth. American Economic Review, 56, 65–75.Google Scholar
  82. Niosi, J. (1999). Limited by design: R&D laboratories in the U.S. national innovation system. Journal of Policy Analysis of Management, 18(4), 717–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. OECD. (1963). Science and policies of the governments. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  86. OECD. (1971). Science, growth and society, a new perspective. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  87. OECD. (2009). OECD patent statistics manual. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264056442-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. OECD. (2018). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities Oslo manual 2018 guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  89. Ouardighi, J. (2011). Pro-development economic growth and international income mobility: Evidence worldwide. International Economics, 128, 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pattit, J. M., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. (2012). An institutional theory investigation of US technology development trends since the mid-19th century. Research Policy, 41(2), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pinkse, J., & Groot, K. (2015). Sustainable entrepreneurship and corporate political activity: Overcoming market barriers in the clean Energy sector. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(3), 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based theory a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Puig, D., Haselip, J., & Bakhtiari, F. (2018). The mismatch between the in-country determinants of technology transfer, and the scope of technology transfer initiatives under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. International Environment Agreements, 18, 659–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Quinn, D. (1997). The correlates of change in international financial regulation. American Political Science Review, 91, 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rosenzweig, S. (2017). The effects of diversified technology and country knowledge on the impact of technological innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 564–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Saggi, K. (2002). Trade foreign direct investment, and international technology transfer: A survey. The World Bank Research Observer, 17(2), 191–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Salomon, J.-J. (1977). Science policy studies and the development of science policy. In I. Spiegel-Rösing & D. de Solla Price (Eds.), Science, technology and society. a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43–70). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  99. Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review. Research Policy, 30(3), 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Samet, K. (2014). Brain gain, technology transfer and economic growth: Case of Tunisia. International Journal of Economic and Finance, 6(9), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Schmid, G. (2012). Technology transfer in the CDM: The role of host-country characteristics. Climate Policy, 12(6), 722–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Shih, H.-Y., & Chang, T.-L. S. (2009). International diffusion of embodied and disembodied technology: A network analysis approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 821–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sigmund, S., Semrau, T., & Wegner, D. (2015). Networking ability and the financial performance of new ventures: Moderating effects of venture size, institutional environment, and their interaction. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 266–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Solow, R. M. (2007). The last 50 years in growth theory and the next 10. Oxford Review Economic Policy, 23(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Soto, H. D. (1989). The other path: The invisible revolution in the Third World. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  107. Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Palacios-Marques, D. (2018). Social web knowledge sharing and innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 425–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Srholec, M. (2011). A multilevel analysis of innovation in developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1539–1569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stevens, A. J., Jensen, J. J., Wyller, K., Kilgore, P. C., Chatterjee, S., & Rohrbaugh, M. (2011). The role of public sector research in the discovery of drugs and vaccines. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(6), 535–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sucker, L. G. (1987). Institutional theories of organization. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 13, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tang, L., & Coveos, P. E. (2008). Embodied and disembodied R&D spillovers to developed and developing countries. International Business Review, 17, 546–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Teo, H. H., Wei, K. K., & Benbasat, I. (2003). Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: An institutional perspective. MIS Quarterly, 27, 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 22(1), 172–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Tran, T., Daim, T., & Kocaoglu, D. (2011). Comparison of technology transfer from government labs in the US and Vietnam. Technology in Society, 33, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. UNCTAD. (1999). Trade and development trade and development. In United Nations conference on trade development.Google Scholar
  118. UNCTAD. (2014). Transfer of technology and knowledge sharing for development science, technology and innovation issues for developing countries. In United Nations conference on trade development (Vol. 71).Google Scholar
  119. Urban, F., Nordensvard, J., Siciliano, G., & Li, B. (2015). Chinese overseas hydropower dams and social sustainability: The Bui dam in Ghana and the Kamchay dam in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Policy Studies, 2, 573–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Van Horne, C., & Dutot, V. (2017). Challenges in technology transfer: An actor perspective in a quadruple helix environment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Varsakelis, N. C. (2001). The impact of patent protection, economic openness and national culture on R&D investment: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research Policy, 30(7), 1059–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovation activity: A crosscountry empirical investigation. Research Policy, 35, 1083–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, K. (2017). How intermediary organizations facilitate university-industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  125. Vonortas, N. S. (2018). International perspectives on innovation: Introduction. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Waarden, F. V. (2001). Institutions and innovation: The legal environment of innovating firm. Organization Studies, 22(5), 765–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Walz, R., & Marscheider-Weidemann, F. (2011). Technology-specific absorptive capacities for green technologies in Newly Industrialising Countries. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 5(3/4), 212–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Wang, E. C. (2010). Determinants of R&D investment: The extreme-bounds analysis approach applied to 26 OECD countries. Research Policy, 39, 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Wang, C., Yi, J., Kafouros, M., & Yan, Y. (2015). Under what institutional conditions do business groups enhance innovation performance? Journal of Business Research, 68, 694–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Wooster, R. B., & Diebel, D. S. (2010). Productivity spillovers from foreign direct investment in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis. Review of Development Economics, 14(3), 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Wu, J., Wang, C., Hong, J., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhuo, S. (2016). Internationalization and innovation performance of emerging market enterprises: The role of host-country institutional development. Journal of World Business, 51(2), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Yi, J., Wang, C., & Kafouros, M. (2013). The effects of innovative capabilities on exporting: Do institutional forces matter? International Business Review, 22, 392–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Yousafzai, S., Saeed, S., & Muffatto, M. (2015). Institutional theory and contextual embeddedness of women’s entrepreneurial leadership: Evidence from 92 countries. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(3), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Dep. Gestão e Economia, NECE-UBI Research Center in Business SciencesUniversidade da Beira Interior (UBI)CovilhãPortugal
  2. 2.La Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations