Abstract
Despite an increasing internationalization of R&D activities by multinational firms, a major portion of corporate R&D still tends to be concentrated in firms’ home countries. We examine the extent to which there exists a home-country bias in the location of R&D activities of 156 major R&D-intensive firms based in Europe, the United States, and Japan during 1995–2002, and develop hypotheses concerning the firm-level determinants of such home-country bias. We define this bias as a share of global R&D activities conducted in the home country that is not proportional to the general attractiveness of the country for multinational firms’ R&D activities. We find home bias to be the predominant pattern, but with substantial variation among firms. The extent of the bias increases with the degree of scale and scope economies in R&D, the coordination costs of international R&D, and the embeddedness of firms’ R&D in home countries’ innovation systems. Technology leadership is associated with greater home bias if the home country provides relatively strong intellectual property rights protection, and firms face potential knowledge dissipation abroad. Our findings imply that home-country bias is, to an important extent, a response to the economics of R&D and the centripetal forces favoring centralization of R&D.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Partial exceptions are case studies of, respectively, a small sample of Norwegian firms by Narula (2002), and major telecommunication firms by Di Minin and Bianchi (2011).
We excluded firms that are the product of large international mergers, because of the bias arising from their multiple home countries. An example is AstraZeneca, which was formed in 1999 as a merger of the British firm Zeneca and the Swedish firm Astra.
The patent grant rate at the EPO is, on average, 59% (Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, 2007). We discuss potential bias due to the use of EPO data in the final paragraph of the empirical results section.
These numbers are comparable to the numbers on foreign-owned patents published by the OECD (2009), and are derived with the same methodology. There is a non-trivial variation in the benchmark value (the foreign patent shares of countries) across main technology domains. For instance, 23% of foreign patents in chemical and pharmaceutical fields are invented in the United States during 1999–2002, whereas this share is only 14% in mechanical engineering and machinery.
This is the average across the two periods. We note that the numbers in Column 5 are very close, but not exactly equal, to the ratio between the numbers in Columns 3 and 4, because the numbers in Column 5 are derived as an average over individual firms’ home bias ratios. The average of a series of ratios is not exactly equal to the ratio of the averages of the nominator and denominator.
A similar approach – examining size distribution patterns to arrive at estimates of scale economies – has been commonly taken in industrial organization research, where firm/plant size distribution patterns within/across industries are used to assess the minimum efficient scale of operations (e.g., Acs & Audretsch, 1993; Rogers, 1993).
Using data on EPO patents and responses to the Community Innovation Survey for a sample of French firms, Duguet and MacGarvie (2005) find a positive correlation between the number of citations in firms’ patents and the intensity at which firms have sourced external knowledge, confirming the appropriateness of patent citations as an indicator of external knowledge flows.
Use of the patent protection index due to Park and Wagh (2002) gives qualitatively similar results.
We also estimated specifications with sector dummies included, but the sector dummies were never jointly significant.
In the case of firm age, the analysis includes the logarithm of age and the square of this logarithm.
Omitting R&D expenditure, or substituting it with an R&D intensity measure, does not materially change the empirical results.
We note that a specification that includes the main effect of IPR protection is less evident, as the variation in IPR values is captured largely by the home-country dummies. Inclusion of the main effect of IPR protection in the regressions nevertheless produced comparable results.
References
Acs, Z., & Audretsch, D. 1993. Small firms and entrepreneurship: An East-West perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6–7): 521–543.
Alcacer, J., & Chung, W. 2007. Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53 (5): 760–776.
Alcacer, J., & Zhao, M. 2012. Local R&D strategies and multi-location firms: The role of internal linkages. Management Science, 58 (4): 734–753.
Allen, T. J. 1977. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allred, B., & Park, W. 2007. Patent rights and innovative activity: Evidence from national and firm-level data. Journal of International Business Studies, 38 (6): 878–900.
Ambos, B. 2005. Foreign direct investment in industrial research and development: A study of German MNCs. Research Policy, 34 (4): 395–410.
Ambos, B., and Ambos, T. C. 2011. Meeting the challenge of offshoring R&D: An examination of firm- and location-specific factors. R&D Management, 41 (2): 107–119.
Andersson, U., Björkman, I., & Forsgren, M. 2005. Managing subsidiary knowledge creation: The effect of control mechanisms on subsidiary local embeddedness. International Business Review, 14 (5): 521–538.
Argyres, N. 1996. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (5): 395–410.
Argyres, N., & Silverman, B. 2004. R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8–9): 929–958.
Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Rios, L. A. 2011. The organization of R&D in American corporations. NBER Working Paper 17013, National Bureau of Economic Research.
Arundel, A., & Kabla, I. 1998. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates from European firms. Research Policy, 27 (2): 127–141.
Athukorala, P., & Kohpaiboon, A. 2010. Globalization of R&D by US-based multinational enterprises. Research Policy, 39 (10): 1335–1347.
Belderbos, R. A. 2003. Entry mode, organizational learning, and R&D in foreign affiliates: Evidence from Japanese firms. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (3): 235–259.
Belderbos, R. A., & Somers, D. 2012. Do technology leaders deter inward R&D investments? Paper presented at the EuroLio Seminar on the Geography of Innovation; 26–28 January, Saint Etienne.
Belderbos, R. A., Lykogianni, E., & Veugelers, R. 2008. Strategic R&D location in European manufacturing industries. Review of World Economics, 144 (2): 183–206.
Belderbos, R. A., Fukao, K., & Iwasa, T. 2009. Foreign and domestic R&D investment. Journal of the Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 18 (4): 369–380.
Berry, H. 2006. Leaders, laggards, and the pursuit of foreign knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2): 151–168.
Blomkvist, K., Kappen, P., & Zander, I. 2011. Quo vadis? The entry into new technologies in advanced foreign subsidiaries of the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (9): 1525–1549.
Branstetter, L. G., Fisman, R., & Foley, C. F. 2006. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121 (1): 321–349.
Cantwell, J. 1995. The globalization of technology: What remains of the product life cycle model. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1): 155–174.
Cantwell, J. 2009. Location and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (1): 35–41.
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (12): 1109–1128.
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. 2011. Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1 (3–4): 206–232.
Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. 2005. Recent location of foreign-owned research and development activities by large multinational corporations in the European regions: The role of spillovers and externalities. Regional Studies, 39 (1): 1–16.
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52 (1): 68–82.
Chacar, A., & Lieberman, M. 2003. Organizing for technological innovation in the US pharmaceutical industry. In O. Sorenson, & J. Baum (Eds), Advances in strategic management. Vol. 20. 317–340. Oxford: JAI/Elsevier.
Chen, N. 2004. Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: Why do national borders matter? Journal of International Economics, 63 (1): 93–118.
Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chung, W., & Alcacer, J. 2002. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48 (12): 1534–1554.
Chung, W., & Yeaple, S. 2008. International knowledge sourcing: Evidence from US firms expanding abroad. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (11): 1207–1224.
Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 128–152.
Criscuolo, P. 2009. Inter-firm reverse technology transfer: The home country effect of R&D internationalization. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18 (5): 869–899.
Criscuolo, P., & Verspagen, B. 2008. Does it matter where patent citations come from? Inventor versus examiner citations in European patents. Research Policy, 37 (10): 1892–1908.
Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Un, A. 2010. Why some firms never invest in formal R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (7): 759–779.
De Meyer, A. 1991. Tech talk: How managers are stimulating global R&D communication. Sloan Management Review, 32 (3): 49–58.
Deyle, H., & Grupp, H. 2005. Commuters and the regional assignment of innovative activities: A methodological patent study of German districts. Research Policy, 34 (2): 221–234.
Di Minin, A., & Bianchi, M. 2011. Safe nests in global nets: Internationalization and appropriability of R&D in wireless telecom. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (7): 910–934.
Driffield, N., Love, J. H., & Menghinello, S. 2010. The multinational enterprise as a source of international knowledge flows: Direct evidence from Italy. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (2): 350–359.
Duguet, E., & MacGarvie, M. 2005. How well do patent citations measure flows of technology? Evidence from French innovation surveys. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 14 (5): 375–394.
Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. 2008. Multinational enterprises and the global economy, 2nd edn. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (4): 660–679.
Feinberg, S. E., & Gupta, A. K. 2004. Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8–9): 823–845.
Fisch, J. H. 2003. Optimal dispersion of R&D activities in multinational corporations with a genetic algorithm. Research Policy, 32 (8): 1381–1396.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (8–9): 909–928.
Florida, R. 1997. The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26 (1): 85–103.
Freeman, C. 1987. Technology policy and economic performance. London: Pinter.
Frost, T. 2001. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (2): 101–124.
Frost, T. S., & Zhou, C. 2005. R&D co-practice and “reverse” knowledge integration in multinational firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 36 (6): 676–687.
Furman, J. 2003. Location and organizing strategy: Exploring the influence of location on the organization of pharmaceutical research. In J. A. C. Baum, & O. Sorenson (Eds), Geography and strategy: Advances in strategic management. Vol. 20, 49–88. Amsterdam: JAI Press.
Gertler, M., Wolfe, D., & Garkut, D. 2000. No place like home? The embeddedness of innovation in a regional economy. Review of International Political Economy, 7 (4): 688–718.
Griffith, R., Harrison, R., & Van Reenen, J. 2006. How special is the special relationship? Using the impact of US R&D spillovers on UK firms as a test of technology sourcing. American Economic Review, 96 (5): 1859–1875.
Griffith, R., Miller, H., & Connell, M. 2011. Corporate taxes and the location of IP. CEPR Discussion Paper no. DP8424, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (4): 1661–1707.
Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2004. From R&D to productivity growth: Do the institutional settings and the source of funds of R&D matter? Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 66 (3): 353–378.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 203–217.
Gupta, A., & Govindarajan, V. 2000. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (4): 473–496.
Håkanson, L., & Nobel, R. 1993. Foreign research and development in Swedish multinationals. Research Policy, 22 (5–6): 373–396.
Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. 2005. Market value and patent citations. Rand Journal of Economics, 36 (1): 16–38.
Haskel, J., Pereira, S., & Slaughter, M. 2007. Does inward foreign investment boost the productivity of domestic firms? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (3): 482–496.
Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. Rand Journal of Economics, 27 (1): 32–59.
Hewitt, G. 1980. Research and development performed abroad by US manufacturing multinationals. Kyklos, 33 (2): 308–327.
Hirschey, R., & Caves, R. 1981. Research and transfer of technology by multinational enterprises. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 43 (2): 115–130.
Howells, J. R. 1995. Going global: The use of ICT networks in research and development. Research Policy, 24 (2): 169–184.
Hymer, S. H., & Rowthorn, R. 1970. Multinational corporations and international oligopoly: The non-American challenge. In C. Kindleberger (Ed), The international corporation: A symposium, 57–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Iwasa, T., & Odagiri, H. 2004. Overseas R&D, knowledge sourcing, and patenting: An empirical study of Japanese R&D investment in the US. Research Policy, 33 (5): 807–829.
Jaffe, A. 1986. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76 (5): 984–1001.
Jaffe, A. 1989. Characterizing the “technological position” of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers. Research Policy, 18 (2): 87–97.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. 2004. Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review, 90 (2): 215–218.
Ke, D., Ng, L., & Wang, Q. 2009. Home bias in foreign investment decisions. Journal of International Business Studies, 40 (6): 960–979.
Kodama, F. 1992. Technology fusion and the new R&D. Harvard Business Review, 70 (4): 70–78.
Kogut, B. 1991. Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (1): 33–47.
Kuemmerle, W. 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Review, 75 (2): 61–70.
Kuemmerle, W. 1998. Optimal scale for research and development in foreign environments: An investigation into size and performance of research and development laboratories abroad. Research Policy, 27 (2): 111–126.
Lahiri, N. 2010. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: How does it affect innovation quality? Academy of Management Journal, 53 (5): 1194–1200.
Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (5): 461–477.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2): 131–150.
Leiponen, A., & Helfat, E. 2011. Location, decentralization and knowledge sources for innovation. Organization Science, 22 (3): 641–658.
Leten, B., Belderbos, B., & Van Looy, B. 2007. Technological diversification, coherence and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24 (6): 567–579.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14 (Winter Special Issue): 95–112.
Lewis, K. 1999. Trying to explain home bias in equities and consumption. Journal of Economic Literature, 37 (2): 571–608.
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. 1996. Emergence of a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23 (5): 279–286.
Li, J., Poppo, L., & Zhou, K. 2010. Relational mechanisms, formal contracts, and local knowledge acquisition by international subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31 (4): 349–370.
Lundvall, B. A. 1992. National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
Marin, A., & Bell, M. 2010. The local/global integration of MNC subsidiaries and their technological behaviour: Argentina in the late 1990s. Research Policy, 39 (7): 919–931.
Murmann, J. P. 2003. Knowledge and competitive advantage: The co-evolution of firms, technology and national institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242–266.
Narula, R. 2002. Innovation systems and “inertia” in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Research Policy, 31 (5): 795–816.
Nelson, R. R. 1993. National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nesta, L., & Saviotti, P. 2005. Coherence of the knowledge base and the firm’s innovative performance: Evidence from the US pharmaceutical industry. Journal of Industrial Economics, 53 (1): 123–142.
Nieto, M. J., & Rodriguez, A. 2011. Offshoring of R&D: Looking abroad to improve innovation performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (3): 345–361.
Nobel, R., & Birkinshaw, J. 1998. Innovation in multinational corporations: Control and communication patterns in international R&D operations. Strategic Management Journal, 19 (5): 479–496.
OECD. 1994. Using patents as science and technology indicators: Patent manual. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2007. Intellectual assets and international investment: A stocktaking of the evidence. Report to the OECD Investment Committee DAF/INV/WD(2007)6. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2009. Patent statistics manual. Paris: OECD.
Park, W. G., & Wagh, S. 2002. Index of patent rights. In J. Gwartney, & R. Lawson (Eds) Economic freedom of the world: 2002 annual report, 33–42. Vancouver: The Fraser Institute.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. 1991. Large firms in the production of the world’s technology: An important case of “non-globalisation”. Journal of International Business Studies, 22 (1): 1–21.
Pavitt, K., & Patel, P. 1999. Global corporations and national systems of innovation: Who dominates whom? In D. Archibugi, J. Howells, & J. Michie (Eds), Innovation policy in a global economy, 94–120. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearce, R. 1989. The internationalization of research and development by multinational enterprises. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Pearce, R. 1999. Decentralised R&D and strategic competitiveness: Globalised approaches to generation and use of technology in multinational enterprises (MNEs). Research Policy, 28 (2–3): 157–178.
Penner-Hahn, J., & Shaver, M. 2005. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of Japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (2): 121–140.
Perrino, A. C., & Tipping, J. W. 1991. Global management of technology: A study of 16 multinationals in the USA, Europe and Japan. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 3 (1): 87–98.
Phene, A., & Almeida, P. 2008. Innovation in multinational subsidiaries: The role of knowledge assimilation and subsidiary capabilities. Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (5): 901–919.
Pouder, R., & St John, C. 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4): 1192–1225.
Rogers, R. 1993. The minimum optimal steel plant and the survivor technique of cost estimation. Atlantic Economic Journal, 21 (3): 30–37.
Rowthorn, R., & Hymer, S. 1971. International big business 1957–1967: A study of comparative growth. Department of Applied Economics Occasional Paper 24, University of Cambridge.
Rugman, A. 1981. Research and development by multinational and domestic firms in Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 7 (4): 604–616.
Santangelo, G. 2012. The tension of information sharing: Effects on subsidiary embeddedness. International Business Review, 21 (2): 180–195.
Shaver, J., & Flyer, F. 2000. Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (12): 1175–1193.
Shimizutani, S., & Todo, Y. 2008. What determines overseas R&D activities? The case of Japanese multinational firms. Research Policy, 37 (3): 530–544.
Singh, J. 2008. Distributed R&D, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy, 37 (1): 77–96.
Song, J., Asakawa, K., & Chu, Y. 2011. What determines knowledge sourcing from host locations of overseas R&D operations? A study of global R&D activities of Japanese multinationals. Research Policy, 40 (3): 380–390.
Song, J., & Shin, J. 2008. The paradox of technological capabilities: What determines knowledge sourcing from overseas R&D operations? Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2): 291–303.
Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., Pich, M., McKendrick, D. G., & Stout, S. K. 2002. Factors that influence technical communication in distributed product development: An empirical study in the telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49 (1): 45–58.
Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. 2006. Here or there? A survey of factors in multinational R&D location. Report to the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable. Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Todo, Y., & Shimizutani, S. 2008. Overseas R&D activities and home productivity growth: Evidence from Japanese firm-level data. Journal of Industrial Economics, 56 (4): 752–777.
UNCTAD. 2005. World investment report 2005. New York: United Nations.
Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. 2007. Hot patent issues: Quantitative evidence. In D. Guellec, & B. Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (Eds), The economics of the European patent system, 184–215. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vernon, R. 1979. The product cycle hypothesis in a new international environment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 41 (4): 255–267.
Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. 2004. Foreign subsidiaries as channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct firm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, 48 (2): 455–476.
von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. 2002. Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: Four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31 (4): 569–588.
Webb, C., Dernis, H., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. 2005. Analyzing European and international patent citations: A set of EPO patent database building blocks. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2005/9, OECD Publishing.
Wolf, H. C. 2000. Intranational home bias in trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82 (4): 555–563.
Zanfei, A. 2000. Transnational firms and the changing organisation of innovative activities. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24 (5): 515–542.
Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection. Management Science, 52 (8): 1185–1199.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge financial support from EU FP7 grant number SSH7-CT-2008-217436 and KU Leuven grant number DYK-B9640-G.0468.09. We are grateful to the editors, Paul Almeida and John Cantwell, to Leo Sleuwaegen, Reinhilde Veugelers, and Rajneesh Narula, to two anonymous referees, and to participants at the 2010 AIB Conference and the 2010 SMS Conference for comments on earlier drafts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Accepted by Paul Almeida, Area Editor, and John Cantwell, Editor-in-Chief, 29 May 2013. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Belderbos, R., Leten, B. & Suzuki, S. How global is R&D? Firm-level determinants of home-country bias in R&D. J Int Bus Stud 44, 765–786 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.33
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.33