Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
ATZ-Fachkongress

Chassis.tech plus 2024


4 Kongresse in einer Veranstaltung

Treffen Sie in München die Fachleute von Chassis, Lenkung, Bremsen sowie Reifen/Räder.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Management International Review
Erschienen in: Management International Review 2/2012

01.04.2012 | Research Article

Do Overseas R&D Laboratories in Emerging Markets Contribute to Home Knowledge Creation?

An Extension of the Double Diamond Model

verfasst von: Dr. Lorena M. D’Agostino, Prof. Grazia D. Santangelo

Erschienen in: Management International Review | Ausgabe 2/2012

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

  • The double diamond model contends that both home and host locations affect MNE’s international competitiveness. Drawing on the view that multinationals act as a link between home and host, we extend this framework and investigate theindirect impact of host on home location with reference to R&D internationalisation in emerging economies.
  • By resorting to a sample of 221 large OECD regions from which R&D investments departed to the top six host emerging economies, we evaluate the contribution of different OECD R&D laboratories to the home knowledge creation of the OECD investing region.
  • We test the complementarity between domestic R&D and different value-added R&D activities carried out by different technology-intensive R&D laboratories in terms of home knowledge creation of OECD investing regions.
  • Our findings suggest that the activity of R&D laboratories focusing onadaptation complements domestic R&D in terms of knowledge creation regardless of the technological intensity of their operations, while the activity of medium technology-intensive R&D laboratories focusing ondevelopment is complementary to domestic R&D.
Vorheriger Artikel Firm Specific Advantage in Developed Markets Dynamic Capability Perspective
Nächster Artikel Knowledge Mobility in Cross-Border Buyer-Supplier Relationships

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Management International Review

MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL REVIEW is a double-blind refereed journal that aims at the advancement and dissemination of research in the fields of International Management.

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
Figure 1 also reports theindirect effects of home on host LAs, which we will not discuss as the literature on inward FDI and spillovers has investigated them extensively (Smarzynka Javorcik2004).
 
2
The 21 OECD countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, South Korea, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Due to missing data, we excluded 9 regions (2 Canadian regions, 2 Spanish autonomous regions and the Canary Islands, 2 Italian autonomous provinces, and Alaska and Hawaii in the US).
 
3
For the majority of the European Union countries, the Territorial Levels are equivalent to the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics developed by Eurostat (see Maraut et al.2008).
 
4
Information availability prevented us from adopting a finer classification of R&D laboratories (e.g., Pearce and Papanastassiou1999).
 
5
When multiple inventors participate to the patent, the patent is equally shared among them. None of the sample regions records zero patents.
 
6
An alternative measure of economic size could be GDP. However, GDP is highly correlated with population size in logarithm.
 
7
SuchN × N matrix (whereN is the number of regions) takes value 1 when the pair of regions share a border or are separated by few kilometres of sea- or lake-water (e.g., the US and the Canadian states along the Great Lakes area), 0 otherwise.
 
8
An alternative solution to collinearity would be to drop the constant. However, thespatreg STATA command used does not allow this option. Consequently, our complementarity test is performed on three categories (Homehost kz , Onlyhost kz andOnlyhome kz ) according to the following rule:
$${{\theta }_{{1}{1}}}-{{\theta }_{{1}{0}}}\ge {{\theta }_{{0}{1}}}$$
(3)
. WhenNohomehost kz is used as the benchmark against the three other dummies,\({{\theta }_{00}}=0.\) Accordingly, the inequality tests involving four (Eq.  (2)) or three categories (Eq. (3)), respectively, are equivalent.
 
Literatur
Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31(7), 1069–1085.CrossRef
Altenburg, T., Schmitz, H., & Stamm, A. (2008). Breakthrough China’s and India’s transition from production to innovation. World Development, 36(2), 325–344.CrossRef
Ambos, T. C., Ambos, B., & Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2006). Learning from foreign subsidiaries: An empirical investigation of headquarters’ benefits from reverse knowledge transfers.International Business Review, 15(3), 294–312.CrossRef
Andersson, U., Forsgren, M., & Pedersen, T. (2001). Subsidiary performance in multinational corporations: The importance of technology embeddedness. International Business Review, 10(1), 3–23.CrossRef
Anselin, L. (1988).Spatial econometrics: Methods and models. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations.Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.CrossRef
Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (2006).From underdogs to tigers: The rise and growth of the software industry in Brazil, China, India, Ireland, and Israel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arora, A., Arunachalam, V. S., Asundi, J., & Fernandes, R. (2001). The Indian software services industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1267–1287.CrossRef
Athreye, S., & Cantwell, J. (2007). Creating competition? Globalisation and the emergence of new technology producers.Research Policy, 36(2), 209–226.CrossRef
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1990). The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 603–625.
Birkinshaw, J., & Hood, N. (1998). Multinational subsidiary evolution: Capability and charter change in foreign-owned subsidiary companies.The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 773–795.
Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (2004). Globalization, economic geography and the strategy of multinational enterprises.Journal of International Business Studies, 35(2), 81–98.CrossRef
Cantwell, J. (1989).Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Cantwell, J., & Iammarino, S. (2003).Multinational corporations and European regional systems of innovation. London: Routledge.
Cantwell, J., & Janne, O. (1999). Technological globalisation and innovative centres: The role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, 28(2/3), 119–144.CrossRef
Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. (2005). MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates.Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1109–1128.CrossRef
Cantwell, J., & Santangelo, G. D. (1999). The frontier of international technology networks: Sourcing abroad the most highly tacit capabilities. Information Economics and Policy, 11(1), 101–123.CrossRef
Cantwell, J., & Santangelo, G. D. (2000). Capitalism, profits and innovation in the new techno-economic paradigm.Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10(1/2), 131–157.CrossRef
Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search for complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition.Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.CrossRef
Chesbrough, H. (2003)Open innovation: The new Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring ‘Globalisation 2’: A new model of industry organisation.Research Policy, 34(8), 1128–1149.CrossRef
Cooke, P., Uranga, G. M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions.Research Policy, 26(4/5), 475–491.CrossRef
D’Agostino, L., Laursen, K., & Santangelo, G. D. (2010).The impact of R&D offshoring on the home knowledge production of OECD investing regions. DRUID Working paper.
Doh, J. P. (2005). Offshore outsourcing: Implications for international business and strategic management theory and practice.Journal of Management Studies, 42(3), 695–704.CrossRef
Dossani, R., & Kenney, M. (2003).Went for cost, stayed for quality? Moving the back office to India. Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy (BRIE) Research Paper. University of California, Berkley.
Dunning, J. H. (1977). Trade, location of economic activity and the MNE: A search for an eclectic approach. In: B. Ohlin et al. (Eds.),The international allocation of economic activity (pp. 395–431). London: Macmillan.
Dunning, J. H. (1993).Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Dunning, J. H., & Narula, R. (1995). The R&D activities of foreign firms in the United States.International Studies of Management and Organisation, 25(1/2), 39–73.
Enright, M. J. (2009). The location of activities of manufacturing multinationals in the Asia-Pacific.Journal of International Business Studies, 40(5), 818–839.CrossRef
Ernst, D. (2006).Innovation offshoring: Asia’s emerging role in global innovation networks. Honolulu: East-West Center Special Report.
Eurostat (2005).Eurostat, statistics in focus, science and technology, 4/2005, R&D Statistics. Luxembourg: EUROSTAT.
Feldman, M. P. (2003). The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis.Industry & Innovation, 10(3), 3111–3329.
Feldman, M. P., & Audretsch, D. B. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition.European Economic Review, 43(2), 409–429.CrossRef
Fifarek, B. J., & Veloso, F. M. (2010). Offshoring and the global geography of innovation.Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4), 559–578.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
Forsgren, M., Holm, U., & Johanson, J. (2005).Managing the embedded multinational: A business network view. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Freeman, C. (1987).Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Ghoshal, S., & Nohria, N. (1997).The differentiated MNC: Organizing multinational corporation for value creation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Griliches, Z. (1984)R&D, patents and productivities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1701.
Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1994). Organizing for knowledge flows within MNCs.International Business Review, 3(4), 443–457.CrossRef
Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preference for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions.Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 167–188.CrossRef
Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997).Revision of the high-technology sector and product classification. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Hood, N., & Young, S. (1982). US multinational R&D: Corporate strategies and policy implications for the UK. Multinational Business, 2(2), 10–23.
Hymer, S. H. (1990). The large multinational ‘corporation’: An analysis of some motives for the international integration of business In: M. Casson (Ed.),Multinational Corporations (pp. 6–31). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillover as evidenced by patent citations.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRef
Johansson, J. K., & Vahlne, J.-E. (1977). The international process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments.Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.CrossRef
Khan, M., & Dernis, H. (2006).Global overview of innovative activities from the patent indicators perspective. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2006/3. OECD Publishing.
Kuemmerle, W. (1999). Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries: Results from a survey of multinational firms.Research Policy, 28(2/3), 179–193.CrossRef
Kuemmerle, W. (2005). The entrepreneur’s path to global expansion. Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 42–49.
Lall, S. (2003). Indicators of the relative importance of IPRs in developing countries. Research Policy, 32(9), 1657–1680.CrossRef
Le Bas, C., & Sierra, C. (2002). Location versus home country advantages’ in R&D activities: Some further results on multinationals’ locational strategies.Research Policy, 31(4), 589–609.CrossRef
Lewin, A., Massini, S., & Peeters, C. (2009). Why are companies offshoring innovation? The emerging global race of talent.Journal of International Business Strategy, 40(6), 901–925.CrossRef
Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992).National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Manning, S., Massini, S., & Lewin, A. Y. (2008). A dynamic perspective on next-generation offshoring: The global sourcing of science and engineering talent.Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(3), 35–54.CrossRef
Mansfield, E. (1984). R&D and innovation: Some empirical findings. In: Z. Griliches (Ed.),R&D, patents and productivity (pp. 127–154). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Maraut, S., Dernis, H., Webb, C., Spiezia, V., & Guellec, D. (2008).The OECD REGPAT database: A presentation. OECD science, technology and industry working papers. OECD Publishing.
Mohnen, P., & Röller, L.-H. (2005). Complementarities in innovation policy.European Economic Review, 49(6), 1431–1450.CrossRef
Moreno, R., Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2005). Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environment and Planning, 37(10), 1793–1812.CrossRef
Mudambi, R. (2008). Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries.Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5), 699–725.CrossRef
Nachum, L. (2000). Economic geography and the location of MNEs: Financial and professional service FDI to the US.Journal of International Business Studies, 31(3), 367–386.CrossRef
Nolan, P. (2004).China at the crossroads. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Oxelheim, L., & Ghauri, P. N. (2003).European Union and the race for inward foreign direct investment in Europe. Oxford: Elsevier.
Papanastassiou, M. (1999). Technology and production strategies of multinational enterprise (MNE) subsidiaries in Europe.International Business Review, 8(2), 213–232.CrossRef
Pearce, R. D. (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.CrossRef
Pearce, R. D., & Papanastassiou, M. (1999). Overseas R&D and the strategic evolution of MNEs: Evidence from laboratories in the UK.Research Policy, 28(1), 23–41.CrossRef
Pearce, R., & Singh, S. (1992).Globalizing research and development. London: Macmillan.CrossRef
Porter, M. E. (1990).The competitive advantage of the nations. New York: Free Press.
Ramamurti, R. (2004). Developing countries and MNEs: Extending and enriching the research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(4), 277–283.CrossRef
Ramamurti, R. (2009). What have we learned about emerging market MNEs? In R. Ramamurti et al. (Eds.),Emerging multinationals from emerging markets (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Ronstadt, R. (1977).Research and development abroad by U.S. multinationals. New York: Praeger.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1993). Foreign subsidiaries and multinational strategic management: An extension and correction of Porter’s single diamond framework.Management International Review, 33(2), 71–84.
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001a). Location, competitiveness, and the multinational enterprise. In: A. M. Rugman, et al. (Eds.),The Oxford Handbook of International Business (pp. 150–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2001b). Subsidiary-specific advantages in multinational enterprises.Strategic Management Journal, 22(3), 237–250.CrossRef
Santangelo, G. D. (2000). Inter-European regional dispersion of corporate ICT research activity: The case of German, Italian and UK regions.International Journal of Economics of Business, 7(3), 275–295.
Santangelo, G. D. (2001). The impact of the information technology and communications technology revolution on the internationalisation of corporate technology.International Business Review, 10(6), 701–726.CrossRef
Santangelo, G. D. (2002). The regional geography of corporate patenting in information and communications technology (ICT): Domestic and foreign dimension.Regional Studies, 36(5): 495–514.
Santangelo, G. D. (2004). FDI and local capabilities in peripheral regions: The Etna Valley case.Transnational Corporations, 13(1), 73–106.
Sauvant, P. (2008).The rise of transnational corporations from emerging markets. Threat or opportunity? Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Scherer, F. M. (1983). The propensity to patent.International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1(1), 107–128.CrossRef
Smarzynka Javorcik, B. (2004). Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages.The American Economic Review, 94(3), 605–627.
Sterlacchini, A. (2008). R&D, higher education and regional growth: Uneven linkages among European regions.Research Policy, 37(6/7), 1096–1107.CrossRef
UNCTAD (2005).World Investment Report: TNCs and the internationalization of R&D. Geneva: United Nations.
Usai, S. (2010). The geography of inventive activity in OECD regions.Regional Studies, 45(6), 711–731.
Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle.Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.CrossRef
Von Zedtwitz, M. (2006). International R&D strategies of TNCs from developing countries: The case of China. In UNCTAD (Ed.),Globalization of R&D and developing countries Proceedings of an Expert Meeting (pp. 117–140). New York: United Nations.
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.CrossRef
Zhao, M. (2006). Conducting R&D in countries with weak intellectual property rights protection.Management Science, 52(8), 1185–1199.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Do Overseas R&D Laboratories in Emerging Markets Contribute to Home Knowledge Creation?
An Extension of the Double Diamond Model
verfasst von
Dr. Lorena M. D’Agostino
Prof. Grazia D. Santangelo
Publikationsdatum
01.04.2012
Verlag
SP Gabler Verlag
Erschienen in
Management International Review / Ausgabe 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0938-8249
Elektronische ISSN: 1861-8901
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11575-012-0135-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2012

Management International Review 2/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Research Article

Knowledge Mobility in Cross-Border Buyer-Supplier Relationships

Research Article

Cross-Regional Patenting

Research Article

Product Diversification and International Expansion of Business Groups

Research Article

The Impact of Turbulent Events on Knowledge Acquisition

Research Article

EMNEs and Knowledge-seeking FDI

Research Article

Firm Specific Advantage in Developed Markets Dynamic Capability Perspective

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise