Skip to main content

Government strategies to attract R&D-intensive FDI

Abstract

Competition among countries to attract the research and development (R&D) activities of multinational enterprises has increased substantially during the last years, but the strategies used by governments in this competition still remain largely unexplored. This paper addresses that gap by proposing a taxonomy of the policy instruments available to stimulate inward R&D-intensive foreign direct investment (FDI) and presenting the results of a comparative case study of two EU countries: Spain and Ireland. The main conclusion is that an efficient promotion of R&D-intensive FDI calls for a closer connection between innovation policy and inward investment promotion, which are two policy areas that have traditionally operated rather separately. In addition, investment promotion agencies targeting R&D-intensive FDI are advised to reconfigure the scope of services they provide by placing more emphasis on after-care, since R&D-intensive FDI tends to be evolutionary rather than purely greenfield.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Fiscal incentives consist in a favourable tax treatment to R&D expenditure and may take the form of accelerated depreciation, tax credits, tax holidays or import tariff exemptions. Financial incentives refer to the direct funding of enterprise R&D projects by the government through grants or subsidies, preferential loans (including interest allowances) or equity stakes (Mudambi 1999; IBFD 2004).

  2. 2.

    Creating a specific agency to promote and facilitate inward FDI has become a standard practice worldwide, but some governments (especially at the regional or local level) do not establish an independent agency but rather a department or directorate within the existing bureaucracy (OECD 2006).

  3. 3.

    For example, the Policy Framework for Investment of the OECD, the Investment Promotion Toolkit of the World Bank/MIGA, or the Guidelines for Investment Promotion Agencies of UNIDO.

  4. 4.

    The complete list of interviewees is available from the author upon request.

  5. 5.

    IDA Ireland has around 280 employees and its expenditure in 2005 was 150 million euro while INTERES had 20 employees in 2007 and an annual budget of around 3 million euro, and the biggest regional IPAs in Spain, Madrid and Catalonia, have 13 and 20 employees, respectively (and refused to disclose their annual budget during our interview).

  6. 6.

    This incentive has the advantage of being easier to apply for and to control, and of being more focused on creating employment in R&D. In addition, it is attractive not only for firms that declare a profit but also for those with losses (which would not benefit from a tax deduction).

  7. 7.

    Sources: interview with Sean Dorgan, CEO of IDA Ireland (January 2007) and Irish Ministry of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Press Release (March 14, 2006).

  8. 8.

    The complete list is available from the author upon request.

References

  1. Archibugi, D., & Iammarino, S. (1999). The policy implications of the globalisation of innovation. Research Policy, 28(3), 317–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atkinson, R. (2007). Expanding the R&D tax credit to drive innovation, competitiveness and prosperity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 24 July 2007.

  3. Barry, F. (2006). Future Irish growth: Opportunities, catalysts, constraints. In Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland, Proceedings of the Conference ‘Prospects for Productivity and Growth in Ireland and the Euro Area’, September 2006, Dublin.

  4. Bas, C., & Sierra, C. (2002). Location versus home country advantages in R&D activities: Some further results on multinationals’ location strategies. Research Policy, 31(4), 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Birkinshaw, J. (2003). Future directions in international business research: The MNE, subsidiary, host country agendas. In N. Hood (Ed.), The mutinational subsidiary. Palgrave, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Borrás, S., Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2007). The Challenges of Globalisation: Strategic Choices for Innovation Policy, Atlanta Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (Georgia Institute of Technology, October 2007). Conference Proceedings.

  7. Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2000). The location of MNE R&D activity: The role of investment incentives. Management International Review, 40(Special Issue 1), 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (2006). Globalization of Knowledge Production and Regional Innovation Policy: Supporting Specialized Hubs in Developing Countries, CIRCLE Electronic Working Paper 2006/15.

  10. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2004). Scattering the seeds of invention. The globalization of research and development. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). (2007). Sharing the idea: The emergence of global innovation networks. London: The Economist Intelligence Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edler, J. (2007). Creative internationalization: widening the perspectives on analysis and policy regarding international R&D activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 8 August 2007.

  13. Erken, H., Keijn, M., & Lantzendorffer, F. (2005). Improving the R&D investment climate: Sharpening a double-edged sword. Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Research Series, No. 050121.

  14. Gray A. (Ed.). (1997). International perspectives on the Irish economy. Dublin: Indecon.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2001). The internationalisation of technology analyzed with patent data. Research Policy, 30(8), 1253–1266.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Helmut, G., & Nones, B. (2007). Internationalisation of R&D and embeddedness: the case of Austria. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 13 July 2007.

  17. IBFD. (2004). Tax treatment of research and development expenses, December, available on http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/resources/documents/eu_rd_final_rep_dec_2004.pdf

  18. Inzelt, A. (2007). The inflow of highly skilled workers into Hungary: A by-product of FDI. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 24 July 2007.

  19. Ling, A., Floyd, S., & Baldridge, D. (2005). Towards a model of issue-selling by subsidiary managers in multinational organizations. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(6), 637–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Loewendahl, H. (2001). A framework for FDI promotion. Transnational Corporations, 10(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Mansfield, E., Teece, D., & Romeo, A. (1979). Overseas research and development by US-based firms. Economica, 46(182), 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mudambi, R. (1999). Multinational investment attraction: Principal-agent considerations. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 6(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mudambi, R., & Mudambi, S. (2005). Multinational enterprise knowledge flows: The effect of government inward investment policy. Management International Review, 45(Special Issue 2), 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  24. OECD. (2006). Policy framework for investment: A review of good practices. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  25. OECD. (2007). Science, technology and industry scoreboard 2007. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rama, R. (2007). Foreign investment innovation: A review of selected policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 14 July 2007.

  28. Tassey, G. (2007). Tax incentives for innovation: time to restructure the R&E tax credit. The Journal of Technology Transfer, Published online: 1 August 2007.

  29. Teece, D. (2000). Managing intellectual capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. UNCTAD. (2005). World investment report 2005. Geneva: United Nations Commission for Trade and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  31. UNCTAD. (2007). World investment report 2007. Geneva: United Nations Commission for Trade and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  32. University of Cambridge. (1997). Annual report 1996–1997. University of Cambridge. Available at http://www.admin.csm.uk/univ/annualreport/1996-7/e.html

  33. Zanatta, M.,Costa, I., & Filippov, S. (2006). Foreign direct investment: Key issues for promotion agencies. United Nations University, Policy Brief, No.10.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to the Institute of International Integration Studies (IIIS) of Trinity College Dublin for hosting me as a visiting researcher while developing this paper, and especially to Frances Ruane for her invaluable contribution.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Guimón.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Guimón, J. Government strategies to attract R&D-intensive FDI. J Technol Transf 34, 364–379 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-008-9091-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • R&D
  • FDI
  • Multinational enterprises

JEL Classifications

  • F23
  • O33