Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative innovation in emerging innovation systems: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe

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

Abstract

Firms often lack competences and capabilities for creation and commercialization of innovations. The solution to this problem lies in sharing or acquisition of relevant resources through collaboration. The success of collaborative relationships depends on the type and the quality of partners involved and proximity between them. This is particularly true in emerging innovation systems of countries in transition from middle to high income levels. The objective of this paper is to explore whether collaboration with suppliers, customers, universities and research institutes and intra-group collaboration with partners of different origin in nine emerging innovation systems of Central and Eastern Europe facilitates commercialization of existing marginally modified, incrementally novel and radically novel products. Results of treatment analysis on a sample of over 10.000 firms from the Eurostat’s Community Innovation Survey reveal that domestic innovation competences and capabilities mostly fuel commercialization of existing products and that firms rely on a diverse network of collaborators. We find evidence of positive impact of collaboration on commercialization of existing products and to a lesser extent on incremental and radical innovations. Relevance of individual collaboration channels differs over countries. Among foreign partners, collaboration with entities from other European Union member states facilitates commercialization of existing products while partners from United States, China and India have positive effects on commercialization of incremental and radical innovations suggesting that cognitive proximity is more important than geographical, social, organizational and institutional proximities. Recommendations for formulation of innovation policies in emerging innovation systems are provided.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To verify the soundness of theoretical assumption about the existence of individual types of non-spatial proximities between analysed countries, an exploratory analysis was undertaken. Details can be found in Sect. 3 of an Online appendix to the paper.

References

  • Amoroso, S., Coad, A., & Grassano, N. (2018). European R&D networks: A snapshot from the 7th EU framework programme. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(5–6), 404–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1374037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ardito, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Albino, V. (2015). From technological inventions to new products: A systematic review and research agenda of the main enabling factors. European Management Review, 12, 113–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arya, B., & Lin, Z. (2007). Understanding collaboration outcomes from an extended resource-based view perspective: The roles of organizational characteristics, partner attributes, and network structures. Journal of Management., 33(5), 697–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Associated Press. (2018). US, EU and China vie for influence in Eastern Europe. Retrieved January 2nd, 2020 from https://apnews.com/3f6d8e2140fb4e318cac56f342eb8d2f/US,-EU-and-China-vie-for-influence-in-Eastern-Europe.

  • Baldwin, C., & von Hippel, E. A. (2011). Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science, 22(6), 1399–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barros, H. M. (2016). Exploring the use of patents in a weak institutional environment: The effects of innovation partnerships, firm ownership, and new management practices. Technovation, 45–46, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.05.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehm, N. D., & Hogan, T. (2013). Science-to-business collaborations: A science-to-business marketing perspective on scientific knowledge commercialization. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(4), 564–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brettel, M., & Cleven, N. (2011). Innovation culture, collaboration with external partners and NPD performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4), 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucic, T., & Ngo, L. V. (2012). Examining drivers of collaborative inbound open innovation: Empirical evidence from Australian firms. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16(4), 1250017. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919611003660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, M. D. (2010). Efficient semiparametric estimation of multi-valued treatment effects under ignorability. Journal of Econometrics, 155(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2009.09.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. (1937). The nature of the firm. Economica, 4(16), 386–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da-Chang, P., Chun-Yao, T., & Cheng-Hwai, L. (2012). Collaborative innovation in emerging economies: Case of India and China. Innovation, 14(3), 467–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Maggio, M., Gloor, P. A., & Passiante, G. (2009). Collaborative innovation networks, virtual communities and geographical clustering. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2009.022729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Guidice, M., Scuotto, V., Garcia-Perez, A., & Petruzzelli, A. (2019). Shifting Wealth II in Chinese economy. The effect of the horizontal technology spillover for SMEs for international growth. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 307–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., & Nelson, R. (1994). An introduction to evolutionary theory in economics. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 4(3), 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Chatenier, E., Verstegen, J. A. A. M., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Omta, O. (2009). The challenges of collaborative knowledge creation in open innovation teams. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 350–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and source of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elia, S., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Piscitello, L. (2019). The impact of cultural diversity on innovation performance of MNC subsidiaries in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 98, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Sastre, J., & Martin-Mayoral, F. (2017). Assessing the impact of public support for innovation in an emerging innovation system. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 9(1), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTLID.2017.082755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times. (2017). Central and Eastern Europe unveils its tech ambitions. Special report. Retrieved October 6, 2019 from https://www.ft.com/content/889422a8-09ad-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43.

  • Fu, X., & Li, J. Z. (2016). Collaboration with foreign universities for innovation: Evidence from Chinese manufacturing firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 70(2–3), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2016.075162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goñi, E., & Maloney, W. F. (2017). Why don’t poor countries do R&D? Varying rates of factor returns across the development process. European Economic Review, 94, 126–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry-university collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, T., & Mattes, J. (2017). Proximity and power in collaborative innovation projects. Regional Studies, 52(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1263387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardeman, S., Frenken, K., Nomaler, O., & Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2015). Characterizing and comparing innovation systems by different “modes” of knowledge production: A proximity approach. Science and Public Policy., 42, 530–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashi, I., & Stojcic, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the Community Innovation Survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. The Review of Economic Studies., 65(2), 261–294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937x.00044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holm, J. R., Timmermans, B., Østergaard, C. R., Coad, A., Grassano, N., Vezzani, A. (2019). Labor mobility from R&D-intensive multinational companies: Implications for knowledge and technology transfer. Paper presented at DRUID Society Conference 2019, Copenhagen, Denmark.

  • Horbach, J. (2016). Empirical determinants of eco-innovation in European countries using the community innovation survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 19, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K. F., & Yu, C. M. J. (2011). The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9155-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iammarino, S., Piva, M., Vivarelli, M., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2012). Technological capabilities and patterns of innovative cooperation of firms in the UK regions. Regional Studies, 46(10), 1283–1301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. G. M., Folkeringa M., de Jong, J. P. J., Wubben E. F. M. (2003). Innovation and firm performance. Scales research reports. Zoetermeer: EIM business and policy research. Retrieved from http://ondernemerschap.panteia.nl/pdf-ez/n200213.pdf on 30 September 2019.

  • Kirby, D., & El Hadidi, H. (2019). University technology transfer efficiency in a factor driven economy: The need for a coherent policy in Egypt. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09737-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen, L., & Nielsen, B. (2010). Collaborative capability in R&D alliances: Exploring the link between organisational- and individual-level factors. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies., 4(2), 152–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • KPMG. (2015). Global manufacturing outlook: Preparing for battle—manufacturers get ready for transformation, KPMG International Cooperative 2015.

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K., & Malerba, F. (2017). Catch-up cycles and changes in industrial leadership: Windows of opportunity and responses of firms and countries in the evolution of sectoral systems. Research Policy, 42(1), 338–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, M. J., & Huang, C. H. (2013). The impact of customer participation on NPD performance: The mediating role of inter-organisation relationship. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 28(1), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Arya, B. (2009). Alliance partners and firm performance: Resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 921–940. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A., & Scott, J. T. (2019). The economic benefits of technology transfer from U.S. federal laboratories. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09734-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mairesse, J., & Mohnen, P. (2004). The importance of R&D for innovation: A reassessment using French survey data. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(1–2), 183–197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-004-4365-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & McKelvey, M. (2018). Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems. Small Business Economics, 1, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, J. (2003). Competitive dynamics and economic learning: An extended resource-based view. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(1), 115–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mention, A. L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: Which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michalek, J., Ciaian, P., & Kancs, D. A. (2016). Investment crowding out: Firm-level evidence from northern Germany. Regional Studies, 50(9), 1579–1594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(3), 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C., & Soete, L. (1988). Catching up in technology: Entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In G. Dosi, et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 458–479). London: Francis Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkman, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Brostrom, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perri, A., Scalera, V. G., & Mudambi, R. (2017). What are the most promising conduits for foreign knowledge inflows? innovation networks in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(2), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtx004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, priorties and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31, 309–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radošević, S. (2015). Synthesis report: Innovation, entrepreneurship and industrial dynamics. Technology Upgrading and Innovation Policy in Central and Eastern Europe, GRINCOH Working Paper Series, No. 3

  • Radošević, S. (2017). Upgrading technology in Central and Eastern European Economies. IZA World of Labor., 338, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritala, P., & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition: The role of absorptive capacity and appropriability. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosell, D., & Lakemond, N. (2012). Collaborative innovation with suppliers: A conceptual model for characterising supplier contributions to NPD. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 8(2), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTIP.2012.048477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1977). Assignment to treatment group on the basis of a covariate. Journal of Educational Statistics, 2(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saranga, H., Schotter, A. P. J., & Mudambi, R. (2019). The double helix effect: Catch-up and local-foreign co-evolution in the Indian and Chinese automotive industries. International Business Review, 28(5), 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2018.03.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srhoj, S., Škrinjarić, B., & Radas, S. (2019). Bidding against the odds? The impact evaluation of grants for young micro and small firms during the recession. Small Business Economics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00200-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojcic, N., Anic, I. D., & Aralica, Z. (2019). Spatio–temporal determinants of structural and productive transformation of regions in Central and East European Countries. Economic Systems., 43(3–4), 100715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2019.100715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojcic, N., & Orlic, E. (2019). Spatial dependence, foreign investment and productivity spillovers in new EU member states. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1653451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stojcic, N., Srhoj, S., & Coad, A. (2020). Innovation procurement as capability-building: Evaluating innovation policies in eight Central and Eastern European countries. European Economic Review., 121, 103330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2019.103330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Švarc, J., & Dabić, M. (2019). The Croatian path from socialism to European membership through the lens of technology transfer policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer., 44, 1476–1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09732-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(73), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K.-H. (2009). Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy, 38, 765–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Un, C. A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A., & Asakawa, K. (2010). R&D collaborations and product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(5), 673–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Tunzelmann, N., & Wang, Q. (2003). An evolutionary view of dynamic capabilities. Economie Appliquée, 6, 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S. (2012). Tapping supplier innovation. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(2), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., Wang, X., & Philipsen, N. J. (2017). Network structure of scientific collaborations between China and the EU member states. Scientometrics, 113, 765–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2488-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 91–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost (Grant No. IP-2016-06-3764).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics and Business, University of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik, Croatia

    Nebojša Stojčić

  2. Business School, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, UK

    Nebojša Stojčić

Authors
  1. Nebojša Stojčić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nebojša Stojčić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 113 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stojčić, N. Collaborative innovation in emerging innovation systems: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. J Technol Transf 46, 531–562 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09792-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09792-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation