Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The debate on the industry-science cooperation has raised questions about what determines the successful interactions and their impact on a firm’s innovation performance. This paper discusses the relevance of traditional hypotheses on the relationship between industry and science to developing countries using the evidence from Russian manufacturing. We distinguish between several modes of cooperation (new-to-market innovation, new-to-firm innovation, acquisition of non-R&D services) and investigate a broad range of determinants, including competition regime, absorptive capacity, technological opportunities, appropriability conditions and public support. Our findings illustrate that in less-developed national innovation systems with below average levels of technological opportunity, the industry-science link is influenced more by the specificity of economic activity, firm size and maturity than a result of higher firm-level innovation effort. Public support should be specifically tailored to promote networking with R&D organizations and universities and must consider expanding the focus to account for non-R&D based cooperative activities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://raexpert.ru/project/topcompanies/2015/rankingQuery.

  2. https://www.hse.ru/en/monitoring/innproc/.

References

  • Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,120(2), 701–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Kruss, G., & Lee, K. (Eds.). (2015). Developing national systems of innovation: University-industry interactions in the global south. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristei, D., Vecchi, M., & Venturini, F. (2016). University and inter-firm R&D collaborations: propensity and intensity of cooperation in Europe. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(4), 841–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arranz, N., & de Arroyabe, J. C. F. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation,28(1), 88–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., & Woerter, M. (2008). Do specific forms of university-industry knowledge transfer have different impacts on the performance of private enterprises? An empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. The Journal of Technology Transfer,33(5), 504–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aschhoff, B., & Schmidt, T. (2008). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation—happy together? Review of Industrial Organization, 33(1), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badillo, E. R., & Moreno, R. (2016). What drives the choice of the type of partner in R&D cooperation? Evidence for Spanish manufactures and services. Applied Economics,48(52), 5023–5044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayona Sáez, C., García Marco, T., & Huerta Arribas, E. (2002). Collaboration in R&D with universities and research centres: an empirical study of Spanish firms. R&D Management,32(4), 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy,33(2), 209–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy,37(10), 1837–1853.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,22(8), 1237–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, J. (2008). A new way to measure competition. The Economic Journal,118, 1245–1261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal, 110(463), 388–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy,39(7), 858–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, L., Madeira, M.J., Carvalho, J., Moura, D.C. and Duarte, F.P. (2018), “Cooperation for Innovation in the European Union: Outlook and Evidences Using CIS for 15 European Countries”. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, pp. 1–20.

  • Castellacci, F. (2008). Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy,37(6–7), 978–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal,99(397), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science,48(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., & Pyka, A. (2008). Why do firms cooperate for innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS3 results. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy,4(3–4), 200–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Faria, P., Lima, F., & Santos, R. (2010). Cooperation in innovation activities: The importance of partners. Research Policy,39(8), 1082–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fuentes, C., & Dutrenit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy,41(9), 1666–1682.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Moraes Silva, D. R., Furtado, A. T., & Vonortas, N. S. (2018). University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: a sectoral approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer,43(2), 285–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy,11(3), 147–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). “Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation”. Journal of economic Literature, pp. 1120–1171.

  • Eom, B.-Y., & Lee, K. (2010). Determinants of industry–academy linkages and their impact on firm performance: The case of Korea as a latecomer in knowledge industrialization. Research Policy,39(5), 625–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiaz, M., & Naiding, Y. (2012). Exploring the barriers to R&D collaborations: a challenge for industry and faculty for sustainable UI collaboration growth. International Journal of u-and e-Service, Science and Technology,5(2), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, B. B., Schaeffer, P. R., Vonortas, N. S. and Queiroz, S. (2017), “Quality comes first: university-industry collaboration as a source of academic entrepreneurship in a developing country. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 1–22.

  • Gassmann, O. (2006). Opening up the innovation process: Towards an Agenda. R&D Management,36(3), 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershman, M., Gokhberg, L., Kuznetsova, T., & Roud, V. (2018). Bridging S&T and innovation in Russia: A historical perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Kuznetsova, T. (2015). Russian Federation. UNESCO science report: towards,2030, 343–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gokhberg, L., & Roud, V. (2016). Structural changes in the national innovation system: longitudinal study of innovation modes in the Russian industry. Economic Change and Restructuring,49(2–3), 269–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed., pp. 803–805). Boston: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayter, C. S., Nelson, A. J., Zayed, S., & O’Connor, A. C. (2018). Conceptualizing academic entrepreneurship ecosystems: A review, analysis and extension of the literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 1–44.

  • HSE. (2017a). Science and Technology Indicators: 2017. Data Book. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • HSE. (2017b). Indicators of Innovation Activities: 2017. Data Book. Moscow: National Research University Higher School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, R. A., Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2003). Disclosure and licensing of University inventions: ‘The best we can do with the s** t we get to work with’. International Journal of Industrial Organization,21(9), 1271–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. I., & Schwartz, N. L. (1982). Market structure and innovation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,30(5), 791–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In N. Rosenberg & R. Landau (Eds.), The positive sum strategy. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, J., Meissner, D., & Roud, V. (2017). Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes the difference. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,119, 128–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudrin, A., & Gurvich, E. (2015). A new growth model for the Russian economy. Russian Journal of Economics,1(1), 30–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy,33(8), 1201–1215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer,25(2), 111–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lööf, H., & Broström, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer,33(1), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • López, A. (2008). Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization,26(1), 113–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7), 1341–1359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1997). Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Industrial and Corporate Change,6(1), 83–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research Policy,26(7), 773–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy,32(8), 1481–1499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohnen, P., & Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics,24(2–3), 133–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2016). OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD and Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrilli, M. D., & Heras, H. A. (2016). STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances. Research Policy,45(4), 747–756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,9(4), 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polischuk, L. I. (2013). Institutional performance. The Oxford handbook of the Russian economy (pp. 189–220). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapini, M. S., Albuquerque, E. da M., Chave, C. V., Silva, L. A., De Souza, S. G. A., Righi, H. M., et al. (2009). University–industry interactions in an immature system of innovation: Evidence from Minas Gerais, Brazil. Science & Public Policy,36(5), 373–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy,31(3), 303–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S. (2013). Universities as knowledge nodes in open innovation systems: more than just knowledge providers. In R. Capello, A. Olechnicka, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Universities, cities and regions: Loci for knowledge and innovation creation (pp. 82–99). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T., & Salomo, N. (2007). The modes of industry-science links. In: DRUID summer conference on appropriability, proximity, routines and innovation in Copenhagen, Denmark, 2007.

  • Schwab, K. (2017). The global competitiveness report 20172018. World Economic Forum.

  • Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford review of economic policy,23(4), 640–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Srholec, M. (2016). Persistence of cooperation on innovation: econometric evidence from panel micro data. Prague Economic Papers,25(1), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,18(7), 509–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teirlinck, P., & Spithoven, A. (2012). Fostering industry-science cooperation through public funding: Differences between universities and public research centres. The Journal of Technology Transfer,37(5), 676–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy,31(6), 947–967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy,37(6–7), 1079–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurner, T., & Zaichenko, S. (2015). Knowledge inputs to science- and development-based regimes: Evidence from the behavior of Russian RTOs. International Journal of Innovation Management,19(1), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornatzky, L. G., Waugaman, P. G., & Gray, D. O. (2002). Innovation U: New university roles in a knowledge economy. Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Technology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization,23(5), 355–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., & Han, Y. (2011). Linking properties of knowledge with innovation performance: the moderate role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Knowledge Management,15(5), 802–819.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M. (2014). Academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and society: Where next? The Journal of Technology Transfer,39(3), 322–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yakovlev, A. (2014). Russian modernization: Between the need for new players and the fear of losing control of rent sources. Journal of Eurasian Studies,5(1), 10–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review,27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaichenko, S. (2018). The human resource dimension of science-based technology transfer: lessons from Russian RTOs and innovative enterprises. The Journal of Technology Transfer,43(2), 368–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zudin, N., Kuzyk, M., & Simachev, Yu. (2017). Science-industry cooperation in Russia: current status, problems, effects of government support. In: Russian Economy in 2016. Trends and Outlooks. (Issue 38). Gaidar Institute Publishers, Moscow, pp. 393–415.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of implementation of the HSE 5–100 Program Roadmap.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vitaliy Roud.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10.

Table 7 Sample characteristics
Table 8 Definition of the explanatory variables
Table 9 Descriptive statistics for explanatory variables
Table 10 Selection of the mode of interaction: key determinants (multinomial logit model)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roud, V., Vlasova, V. Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector. J Technol Transf 45, 870–907 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9703-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9703-3

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation