Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation

  • Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the determinants of international knowledge flow. From a resource-based perspective, it evaluates the impact of cross-national knowledge transfer on firm innovative performance. Based on 56,027 US patents owned by 53 selected firms in the US-based pharmaceutical industry, the results suggest that innovative performance is a curvilinear function of the international knowledge content used by a firm to innovate. As hypothesized, it was found that at (1) low and moderate levels of international knowledge content, a firm's strategy to transfer international knowledge improves its innovative performance, and at (2) higher levels of international knowledge content, there are diminishing marginal returns to transferring knowledge from overseas.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Performance slips because members miscode performance situations. Habitual routines reduce the likelihood of innovative performance processes. A group can get into habitual patterns of behavior by importing those patterns, by creating them early in its life, or by gradually evolving them over time. When identifying the conditions under which a group will break out of a habitual routine, three factors are relevant: (1) the impetus for change; (2) the timing of the possible change and (3) the tenacity of the routine itself (Gersick and Hackman, 1990).

  2. Although published patents are, by definition, a depository of explicit knowledge, organizational knowledge is created through a social dynamic and continuous dialogue/process between a range of tacit and explicit components (Nonaka, 1991). While there are certainly tacit components associated with the patents, implicit/tacit costs are also assumed during the learning and knowledge transfer. Some of these costs include: (1) efforts by qualified researchers to read between the explicit lines of the published patent to produce a practice/process that delivers identical results; and (2) the opportunity costs of committing resources in the direction of research that a particular patent takes. According to Roberts (1999), there are some tacit components associated with patents that cannot be detached from their human and social contexts. We argue that patents are an intermediate form of knowledge and are expected to vary in their degree of codifiability and complexity (Kogut and Zander, 1993).

  3. By law, the patent applicant is obligated to list all ‘prior art’. Patent applicants must therefore go through a rigorous process of providing the patent examiner with a list of all relevant patent documents (prior art) that aided in the development of their patents. ‘Actual referral’ refers to the existing patents that were actually used in the development of a new innovation for which the patent applicant is seeking a patent.

  4. Endogenous sunk costs in the form of R&D decisions do play a crucial role in several industries, such as in the global pharmaceutical industry (Matraves, 1999).

  5. We thank an anonymous reviewer for this comment.

References

  • Abrahamson, E. and Fombrun, C.J. (1994) ‘Macrocultures: determinants and consequences’, Academy of Management Review 19(4): 728–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albert, M.B., Avery, D., McAllister, P. and Narin, F. (1991) ‘Direct validation of citation counts as indicators of industrially important patents’, Research Policy 20(3): 251–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P. (1996) ‘Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry’, Strategic Management Journal 17(Winter Special Issue): 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., Song, J. and Grant, R. (2002) ‘Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building’, Organization Science 13(2): 147–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2001) ‘Tacit knowledge: some suggestions for operationalization’, Journal of Management Studies 38(6): 811–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, O. (1993) ‘On the internationalization process of firms: a critical analysis’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(2): 209–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriani, P. (2001) ‘Diversity, knowledge and complexity theory: some introductory issues’, International Journal of Innovation Management 5(2): 257–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon (1998) ‘CHI Research, Inc. Introduces tech-line analysis tool technology’, Information Today 15(9): 66.

  • Arrow, K. (1962) ‘The economic implications of learning by doing’, Review of Economic Studies 29(3): 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asakawa, K. (2001) ‘Evolving headquarters–subsidiary dynamics in international R&D: the case of Japanese multinationals’, R&D Management 31(1): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J., Wright, M. and Ketchen Jr, D. (2001) ‘The resource-based view of the firm: ten years after 1991’, Journal of Management 27(6): 625–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J.B. (1991) ‘Looking inside for competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Executive 9(4): 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1990) ‘Managing Innovation in the Transnational Corporation’, in C.A. Bartlett, Y. Doz and G. Hedlund (eds.) Managing the Global Firm, Routledge: New York, pp: 215–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Managing Across Border: The Transnational Solution, 2nd edn Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergh, D.D. (1993) ‘Don’t “Waste” Your Time The effects of time series errors in management research: the case of ownership concentration and research and development spending’, Journal of Management 19(4): 897–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J. and Hood, N. (2001) ‘Unleash innovation in foreign subsidiaries’, Harvard Business Review 79(3): 131–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnman, H., Birkinshaw, J. and Nobel, R. (1999) ‘Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions’, Journal of International Business Studies 30(3): 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley, P.J. and Carter, M.J. (1999) ‘Managing cross-border complementary knowledge’, International Studies of Management and Organization 29(1): 80–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calori, R., Johnson, G. and Sarnin, P. (1994) ‘CEOs’ cognitive maps and the scope of the organization’, Strategic Management Journal 15(6): 437–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J.A. (1989) Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations, Basil Blackwell: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J.A. (1992) ‘The Internationalisation of Technological Activity and Its Implications for Competitiveness’, in O. Grandstand, L. Hakanson and S. Sjolander (eds.) Technology Management and International Business Internationalisation of R&D and Technology, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, pp: 75–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. and Kotecha, U. (1997) ‘The Internationalization of Technological Activity: The French Evidence in a Comparative Setting’, in J. Howells and J. Michie (eds.) Technology, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar: Aldershot, pp: 126–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, M.P. and Narin, F. (1983) ‘Validation study: patent citations as indicators of science and foreign dependence’, World Patent Information 5(3): 180–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casson, M., Pearce, R.D. and Singh, S. (1992) ‘Business Culture and International Technology: Research Managers’ Perceptions of Recent Changes in Corporate R&D’, in O. Grandstand, L. Hakanson and S. Sjolander (eds.) Technology Management and International Business: Internationalization of R&D and Technology, John Wiley & Sons: New York, pp: 117–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R. (1982) Multinational Enterprise and Economic Analysis, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caves, R.E. (1971) ‘International corporations: the industrial economics of foreign investment’, Economica 38(141): 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J.L.C. and Bolon, D.S. (1993) ‘The management of multinational R&D: a neglected topic in international business research’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, J.L.C. and Kesner, I.F. (1997) ‘Organizational slack and response to environment shifts: the impact of resource allocation patterns’, Journal of Management 23(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V. (1996) ‘Strategies for global R&D’, Research Technology Management 39(5): 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V. and Manzini, R. (1996) ‘Managing knowledge transfer within multinational firms’, International Journal of Technology Management 12(4): 462–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockburn, I. and Griliches, Z. (1988) ‘Industry effects and appropriability measures in the Stock Market's valuation of R&D and patents’, American Economic Review 78(2): 419–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. (1998) ‘Toward a knowledge context: report on the first annual UC Berkeley Forum on knowledge and the firm’, California Management Review 40(3): 22–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. and Klepper, S. (1996) ‘A reprise of size and R & D’, Economic Journal 106(437): 925–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.G. (1979) ‘The dimensions of industrial new products success and failure’, Journal of Marketing 43(3): 93–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L.J. (1987) ‘Statistical tests for moderator variables: flaws in analyses recently proposed’, Psychological Bulletin 102(3): 414–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, J.D. and Brackner, J. (1989) ‘Profit performance: do foreign operations make a difference?’ Management International Review 29(1): 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P.A. (1988) ‘Path-dependency: putting the past into the future’, Technical Report of The Economic Series No. 553, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, California, USA, November.

  • Deeds, D.L., Decarolis, D. and Coombs, J. (1997) ‘The impact of timing and firm capabilities on the amount of capital raised in an initial public offering: evidence from the biotechnology industry’, Journal of Business Venturing 12(1): 31–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., Glass, J.T. and Ensing, I.M. (2002) ‘Organizational designs for R&D’, Academy of Management Executive 16(3): 55–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988) ‘The Nature of the Innovative Process’, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Francis Pinter: London, pp: 221–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Teece, D. and Winter, S. (1991) ‘Toward a Theory of Corporate Coherence’, in G. Dosi, G. Giannetti and P.A. Toninelli (eds.) Technology and the Enterprise in a Historical Perspective, Oxford University Press: Oxford, pp: 186–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D. (2000) ‘A note on psychological distance and export market selection’, Journal of International Marketing 8(1): 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.H. (1980) ‘Towards an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests’, Journal of International Business Studies 11(1): 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.H. (1993) The Globalization of Business, Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J.H. (1998) ‘Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor?’ Journal of International Business Studies 29(1): 45–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. and Mavondo, F.T. (2002) ‘Psychic distance and organizational performance: an empirical examination of international retailing operations’, Journal of International Business Studies 33(3): 515–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franko, L.G. (1989) ‘Global corporate competition: who's winning, who's losing and the R&D factor as one reason why’, Strategic Management Journal 10(5): 449–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, T.S. (2001) ‘The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations’, Strategic Management Journal 22(2): 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geringer, J.M., Beamish, P.W. and DaCosta, R.C. (1989) ‘Diversification strategy and internationalization: implications for MNE performance’, Strategic Management Journal 10(2): 109–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C.J. and Hackman, R.J. (1990) ‘Habitual routines in task-performing groups’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47(1): 65–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. (1987) ‘Global strategy: an organizing framework’, Strategic Management Journal 8(5): 425–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. and Bartlett, C. (1988) ‘Creation, adoption and diffusion of innovations by subsidiaries of multinational corporations’, Journal of International Business Studies 19(3): 365–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S. and Nohria, N. (1993) ‘Horses for courses: organizational forms for multinational corporations’, Sloan Management Review 34(2): 23–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, O. (2001) ‘Multicultural teams: increasing creativity and innovation by diversity’, Creativity and Innovation Management 10(2): 88–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, L. and Ramaswamy, K. (1999) ‘An empirical examination of the form of the relationship between multinationality and performance’, Journal of International Business Studies 30(1): 173–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M.S. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R.M. (1987) ‘Multinationality and performance among British Manufacturing Companies’, Journal of International Business Studies 18(3): 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1981) ‘Market value, R&D and patents’, Economic Letters 7(2): 183–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A.K. and Govindarajan, V. (1991) ‘Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations’, Academy of Management Review 16(4): 768–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haar, J.A. (1989) ‘Comparative analysis of the profitability performance of the largest US, European and Japanese Multinational Enterprises’, Management International Review 29(3): 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakanson, L. and Nobel, R. (2001) ‘Organizational characteristics and reverse technology transfer’, Management International Review 41(4): 395–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakanson, L. and Zander, U. (1988) ‘International management of R&D: the Swedish experience’, R&D Management 18(3): 217–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. (1993) ‘The stock market's valuation of R&D investment during the 1980s’, American Economic Review 83(2): 259–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (2000) ‘Market value and patent citations: a first look’, NBER, Working Paper Series, June 2000, revised June 2001, MIT Press: Cambridge.

  • Hall, B., Jaffe, A. and Trajtenberg, M. (2005) ‘Market value and patent citations’, RAND Journal of Economics 36(1): 16–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedlund, G. (1986) ‘The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?’ Human Resource Management 25(1): 9–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, M.A., Hoskisson, R.E. and Kim, H. (1997) ‘International diversification: effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms’, Academy of Management Journal 40(4): 767–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2000) ‘International coordination of technology flows and knowledge activity in innovation’, International Journal of Technology Management 19(7/8): 806–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G.T., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater, S.F. (2002) ‘A longitudinal study of the learning climate and cycle time in supply chains’, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 17(4): 302–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hymer, S.H. (1976) ‘The international operations of national firms: a study of direct investment’, published PhD Dissertation (written in 1960), MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.

  • IMS Global Insights (2006) ‘New Products and Markets Fuel Growth in 2005’, IMS Midas Quantum, [www document.] http://www.imshealth.com/web/content/0,3148,64576068_63872702_70260998_77974518,00.html. (accessed 6 June 2006).

  • Iwasa, T. and 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): 807–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M. and Forgarty, M.S. (2000) ‘Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: evidence from a survey of inventors’, American Economic Review 90(2): 215–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M. and Henderson, R. (1993) ‘Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(3): 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977) ‘The internationalization process of the firm: a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments’, Journal of International Business Studies 8(1): 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, B.E. and Onken, M.H. (2002) ‘Communication technology in international technology transfer: breaking time and cost barriers’, American Business Review 20(2): 17–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W.C., Hwang, P. and Burgers, W.P. (1993) ‘Multinationals’ diversification and the risk-return tradeoff’, Strategic Management Journal 14(4): 275–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1989) ‘A note on global strategies’, Strategic Management Journal 10(4): 383–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Singh, H. (1988) ‘The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode’, Journal of International Business Studies 19(3): 411–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1992) ‘Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology’, Organization Science 3(3): 383–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) ‘Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(4): 625–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. (1992) ‘A comparative study of the US and Japanese patent systems’, Journal of International Business Studies 23(1): 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. (1998) ‘Efficiency vs. effectiveness orientation of global sourcing strategy: a comparison of US and Japanese Multinational Companies’, Academy of Management Executive 12(4): 107–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. and Omura, G.S. (1989) ‘Sourcing strategies of European and Japanese Multinationals: a comparison’, Journal of International Business Studies 20(1): 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M.S. (1984) Growth, Acquisition and Investment, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) ‘Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development’, Strategic Management Journal 13(Summer Special Issue): 111–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993) ‘The myopia of learning’, Strategic Management Journal 14(Winter Special Issue): 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988) ‘Organizational learning’, Annual Review of Sociology 14(Winter): 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M. and von Hippel, E. (2002) ‘Performance assessment of the lead user idea-generation process for new product development’, Management Science 48(8): 1042–1060.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lord, M.D. and Ranft, A.L. (2000) ‘Organizational learning about new international markets: exploring the internal transfer of local market knowledge’, Journal of International Business Studies 31(4): 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, C. (1983) ‘Managing a $1 billion R&D budget’, Europe Profile 32: 15–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Francis Pinter: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998) ‘From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new product development as knowledge management’, Journal of Marketing 62(4): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. and Romeo, A. (1980) ‘Technology transfer to overseas subsidiaries by US based firms’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 95(4): 737–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G. (1991) ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science 2(1): 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matraves, C. (1999) ‘Market structure, R&D and advertising in the pharmaceutical industry’, Journal of Industrial Economics 47(2): 169–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKern, B. (1993) ‘An Evolutionary Approach to Strategic Management in the International Firm’, in P. Lorange, B. Chakravarthy, J. Roos and A. Van de Ven (eds.) Implementing Strategic Processes: Change, Learning and Co-operation, Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, pp: 349–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, S.J. and Glynn, M.A. (1993) ‘The three faces of corporate renewal: institution, revolution’, Strategic Management Journal 14(2): 77–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michie, J. (1998) ‘Introduction: the internationalisation of the innovation process’, International Journal of the Economics of Business 5(3): 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. and Chen, M.J. (1996) ‘The simplicity of competitive repertoires: an empirical analysis’, Strategic Management Journal 17(6): 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morck, R. and Yeung, B. (1991) ‘Why investors value multinationality’, Journal of Business 64(2): 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E. and Silverman, B.S. (1998) ‘Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm’, Research Policy 27(5): 507–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1991) ‘The knowledge-creating company’, Harvard Business Review 69(6): 96–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Grady, S. and Lane, H.W. (1996) ‘The psychic distance paradox’, Journal of International Business Studies 27(2): 309–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogawa, S. (1998) ‘Empirical studies of the sticky information hypothesis’, Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

  • Parise, S. and Henderson, J.C. (2001) ‘Knowledge resource exchange in strategic alliances’, IBM Systems Journal 40(4): 908–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. and 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, V.L., Kaufman, D.R. and Madger, S.A. (1996) ‘The Acquisition of Medical Expertise in Complex Dynamic Environments’, in A. Ericsson (ed.) The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports and Games, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, pp: 127–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1988) ‘Uses and Abuses of Patent Statistics’, in A.F.J. van Raan (ed.) Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier Science Publishers: Amsterdam, pp: 509–536.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. (1998) ‘Clusters and the new economics of competition’, Harvard Business Review 76(6): 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M.E. and Stern, S. (2001) ‘Innovation: location matters’, Sloan Management Review 42(4): 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., Koput, K. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) ‘Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 116–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C.K. and Doz, Y. (1987) The Multinational Mission: Balancing Local Demands and Global Vision, The Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redding, S. (2002) ‘Path dependence, endogenous innovation and growth’, International Economic Review 43(4): 1215–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P.W. (1999) ‘Product innovation, product–market competition and persistent profitability in the US’, Strategic Management Journal 20(7): 655–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, R.D. (1988) The International Transfer of Technology: Theory, Issues and Practice, Ballinger Publishing Company: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horsley, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A. and Townsend, J. (1974) ‘SAPPHO updated: project Sappho phase II’, Research Policy 3(3): 258–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. and Porter, M.E. (2001) ‘Competing at home to win abroad: evidence from Japanese industry’, Review of Economics and Statistics 83(2): 311–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F.M. (1982) ‘Inter-industry technology flows and productivity growth’, Review of Economics and Statistics 64(4): 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1955) ‘A behavioral model of rational choice’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1): 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1985) ‘What We Know About the Creative Process’, in R.L. Kuhn (ed.) Frontiers in Creative and Innovative Management, Ballinger: Cambridge, pp: 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, J., Almeida, P. and Wu, G. (2003) ‘Learning-by-hiring: when is mobility likely to facilitate interfirm knowledge transfer?’ Management Science 49(4): 351–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song, J. and Shin, J. (2002) ‘The Paradox of Technological Capabilities: What Determines Knowledge Sourcing from Overseas R&D Operations’, Proceedings of the 28th European International Business Academy (EIBA) Conference, Athens.

  • Stock, G.N., Greis, N.P. and Fischer, W.A. (2001) ‘Absorptive capacity and new product development’, Journal of High Technology Management Research 12(1): 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swamidass, P.M. and Kotabe, M. (1993) ‘Component sourcing strategies of multinationals: an empirical investigation’, Journal of International Business Studies 24(1): 81–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, J.H. (1991) ‘Determinants of the foreign R&D locational decision in the pharmaceutical industry’, R&D Management 21(3): 229–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. (1988) ‘Technological Change and the Nature of the Firm’, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Francis Pinter: London, pp: 256–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990) ‘A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations’, RAND Journal of Economics 21(1): 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trent, R.J. and Monczka, R.M. (2002) ‘Pursuing competitive advantage through integrated global sourcing’, Academy of Management Executive 16(2): 66–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development (2006) ‘Outlook 2006’, [www document.] http://csdd.tufts.edu/InfoServices/OutlookPDFs/Outlook2006.pdf. (accessed 5 June 2006).

  • United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry (2002) ‘R&D Scoreboard’, [www document.] http://www.innovation.gov.uk/projects/rd_scoreboard/introfr.html. (accessed 5 December 2002).

  • Vernon, R. (1966) ‘International investment and international trade in the product cycle’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(2): 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1998) ‘Economics of product development by users: the impact of “Sticky” local information’, Management Science 44(5): 629–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J.P. (1995) ‘Managerial and organizational cognition: notes from a trip down memory lane’, Organization Science 6(3): 280–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984) ‘A resource-based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal 5(2): 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S.G. (1987) ‘Natural Selection and Evolution’, in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman (eds.) The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Macmillan: London, pp: 614–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S.A., Ireland, R.D. and Hitt, M.A. (2000) ‘International expansions by new venture firms: international diversity, mode of market entry, technological learning and performance’, Academy of Management Journal 43(5): 925–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, I. (1997) ‘Technological diversification in the multinational corporation: historical evolution and future prospects’, Research Policy 26(2): 209–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the three JIBS reviewers and G. Tomas M. Hult for their constructive comments throughout the revision process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Masaaki Kotabe

  2. Widener University, Chester, PA, USA

    Denise Dunlap-Hinkler

  3. School of Business, Rutgers University, Camden, NJ, USA

    Ronaldo Parente

  4. School of Business, State University of New York, New Paltz, NY, USA

    Harsh A Mishra

Authors
  1. Masaaki Kotabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Denise Dunlap-Hinkler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ronaldo Parente
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harsh A Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masaaki Kotabe.

Additional information

Accepted by G. Tomas M. Hult, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, 2 August 2006. This paper has been with the authors for two revisions.

Appendix

Appendix

Table A1

Table a1 Existing literature and nature of research gap
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kotabe, M., Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Parente, R. et al. Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation. J Int Bus Stud 38, 259–282 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400261

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400261

Keywords

Search

Navigation