Advertisement

Journal of Evolutionary Economics

, Volume 16, Issue 1–2, pp 85–108 | Cite as

Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter?

  • Paul MullerEmail author
  • Julien Pénin
Regular Article

Abstract

In this paper we propose a simulation model aimed at describing the emergence and the dynamics of innovation networks, with particular emphasis on the role of open knowledge disclosure. It is argued that firms that widely disclose knowledge to other firms are more likely to enter innovation networks and to acquire a central position within these networks. By disclosing knowledge, firms increase their reputation, which indicates to other organizations that they are competent, and that it is worth starting a partnership with them. The higher a firm reputation, the higher its probability of entering new R&D partnerships with other firms. Our model provides, therefore, a rationale for behaviors of open knowledge disclosure by showing that such strategies, although risky in the short run, may pay in the long run by enabling firms to access external sources of knowledge more easily.

Keywords

Open knowledge disclosure Inter-firm cooperation Reputation Network simulation 

JEL classification

D85 L14 L16 L23 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was presented at the Druid 2004 summer conference in Copenhagen and at the International Schumpeter Society 2004 conference in Milan, where the authors were awarded the ISS best poster prize, sponsored by Industrial and Corporate Change. We are particularly grateful to Uwe Cantner for helpful comments.

References

  1. Allen RC (1983) Collective inventions, J Econ Behav Organ 4:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boivin C (2000) Protection et Partage des Connaissances dans l’Economie du Savoir, Paper presented at L’Economie du Savoir: Enjeux Economiques et Enjeux de Gestion, école des HEC, Montréal, 5-6 mai 2000Google Scholar
  3. Callon M (1998) Les Pouvoirs Publics Doivent-ils Soutenir la Recherche Académique? Ann Mines :59–64Google Scholar
  4. Cockburn I, Henderson R (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organisation of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ 46:157–182Google Scholar
  5. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99:569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy. Ind Corp Change 10:945–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Fraja G (1993) Strategic spillovers in patent races. Int J Ind Organ 11:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eaton BC, Eswaran M (2001) Know-how sharing with stochastic innovations. Can J Econ 34:525–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gambardella A (1992) Competitive advantage from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s’. Res Policy 21:391–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbons M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science & research in contemporary societies, London edGoogle Scholar
  11. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Granovetter M (1974) Getting a job: a study of contacts and careers. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Grosseti M, Bès M-P (2002) Proximité Spatiale et Relations Science-Industrie: Savoirs Tacites ou Encastrement (‘Polanyi ou Polanyi’)? Revue d’Economie Rurale et Urbaine, no. 5, pp. 777–788.Google Scholar
  14. Harhoff D (1996) Strategic spillovers and incentives for R&D. Manage Sci 42:907–925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harhoff D, Henkel J, von Hippel E (2003) Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovation. Res Policy 32:1753–1769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effect in pharmaceutical research. Strateg Manage J 15:63–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hicks D (1995) Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Ind Corp Change 4:401–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hicks D, Ishizuka T, Keen P, Sweet S (1994) Japanese corporations, scientific research and globalization. Res Policy 23:375–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hicks D, Isard PA, Martin BR (1996) A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks. Res Policy 25:359–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koenig M (1983) A bibliometric analysis of pharmaceutical research. Res Policy 12:15–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kogut B (2000) The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strateg Manage J 21:405–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lim K (2000) The Many Faces of Absorptive Capacity: Spillovers of Copper Interconnect Technology for Semiconductor Chips, working paper 4110, MIT Sloan School of ManagementGoogle Scholar
  23. Maskell P, Lorenzen M (2003) The Cluster as Market Organization, Druid working paper 2003-14Google Scholar
  24. Muller P (2003) The role of authority in the governance of knowledge communities, Paper presented at DRUID Winter 2003 PhD Conference, Hotel Comwell Rebild Bakker, Aalborg, Denmark, January 16–18Google Scholar
  25. Pénin J (2003) Endogénéisation des Externalités de Recherche: Le Rôle de la Capacité d’Emission des Connaissances. Rev Econ Ind 102:7–28Google Scholar
  26. Pénin J (2004) Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview of the Empirical Evidences and Economic Motivations, presented at the third EPIP meeting in Pisa, 2–3 April, 2004Google Scholar
  27. Scotchmer S (1991) Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law. J Econ Perspect 5:29–41Google Scholar
  28. von Hippel E (1987) Cooperation between rivals: informal know how trading. Res Policy 16:291–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Watts DJ (1999) Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Williamson O (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BETAUniversity Louis PasteurStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.Département des sciences économiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations