Internal and external R&D: complements or substitutes? Evidence from a dynamic panel data model.

We examine the impact of internal and external R&D on labor productivity in a 6-year panel of 304 innovating firms. We apply a dynamic linear panel data model that allows for decreasing returns to scale in internal and external R&D with a non-linear approximation of changes in the knowledge stock. We find complementarity between internal and external R&D, with a positive impact of external R&D only evident in case of sufficient internal R&D. The findings confirm the role of internal R&D in enhancing absorptive capacity and hence the effective utilization of external knowledge. These results suggest that empirical studies examining complementarities between continuously measured practices should adopt more general non-linear specifications to allow for correct inferences.R&D; Panel data; Innovating firms; Knowledge; Empirical study; Specifications;

Testing for complementarity and substitutability in the case of multiple practices.

Recent empirical studies of firm-level performance have been concerned with establishing potential complementarity between more than two organizational practices. These papers have drawn conclusions on the basis of potentially biased estimates of pair-wise interaction effects between such practices. In this paper we develop a consistent testing framework based on multiple inequality constraints that derives from the definition of (strict) supermodularity as suggested by Athey and Stern (1998). Monte Carlo results show that the multiple restrictions test is superior for performance models with high explanatory power. If practices explain only a minor part of organizational performance no test is able to identify complementarity or substitutability in a satisfactory manner.Complementarity; Constraint; Effects; Empirical study; Firm performance; Framework; Interaction effects; Model; Models; Performance; Power; Studies; Supermodularity;

The Implications of Content Analysis for the Interpretation of Unguentaria in Museum Collections

Scent has traditionally been an ephemeral component of rituals in ancient societies, including burial and other practices associated with the anointing of the body (Classen et al. 1994: 43; Houston and Taube 2000: 271). This thesis investigates the possible signifiers and social impact such scents might have had for individuals participating in such rituals by using the little explored approach of sensory archaeology. A discussion of the correlation between olfaction and the triggering of both the experiential and emotional aspects of memory contributes to a broader view of these rituals in the anthropological literature (Classen et al. 1994), while Houston and Taube\u27s work on scent in Mayan rituals provides a framework for applying sensory archaeology to Classical contexts (2000). Vessel contents are used as a proxy in this thesis for reconstructing the particular olfactory atmosphere associated with mortuary ritual in late Greek and early Roman cultural contexts. The residue spectra derived from the visible contents of twenty-seven out of a total of thirty-nine small glass and ceramic vials from collections at the Milwaukee Public Museum (MPM) are compared to other unguentaria residue studies as well as Greek and Roman written sources in which scented unguents, oils, perfumes, creams, and cosmetics are described to test the archaeological classification of this vessel category. Stylistic conventions are tested against data derived from content analysis rather than solely on the basis of assumed function implied by form. The chemical characterization of the contents of these vessels relies on the use of inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) and Fourier transform-infrared spectroscopy (FTIR). FT-IR was chosen for its successful application in a recent residue study of unguentaria (Ribechini et al. 2008a-b) while ICP-MS analysis was performed based upon its widespread application to the determination of sample origin

Does Spatial Ambidexterity Pay Off? On the Benefits of Geographic Proximity Between Technology Exploitation and Exploration

While most scholars tend to agree that it is worthwhile for firms to strive for ambidexterity, less consensus exists on how to organize simultaneously for exploration and exploitation. Although firms increasingly conduct R&D activities in multiple locations and countries, prior ambidexterity research has ignored a geographical dimension in explaining the ambidexterity-performance relationship. In this paper, we develop and validate the concept of spatial ambidexterity, which we define as the degree to which firms pursue technology exploration and exploitation in proximate locations. We argue that both activities benefit from proximity as firms will increase their ability to enact cross-fertilization opportunities and synergies between explorative and exploitative technological activities. Relying on a panel dataset (1995-2003) of the technological activities of 156 large R&D intensive European, U.S. and Japanese firms, we examine the degree to which technology exploration and exploitation activities are pursued simultaneously in similar or different geographical regions. Patent data are used to construct indicators of technology exploration and exploitation activities. Spatial ambidexterity is measured as the degree to which global technology exploration and exploitation activities are pursued in proximity. Our analysis confirms that firms exhibiting greater geographic proximity between technology exploration and exploitation activities display an elevated level of technological performance. Both technology activities of an explorative and exploitative nature appear to benefit from spatial proximity

Reaching for the stars: When does basic research collaboration between firms and academic star scientists benefit firm invention performance?

While their expertise and scientific excellence make academic star scientists attractive collaboration partners for firms, this study indicates that firms face difficulties in capturing value from collaborations with academic stars. Stars are time constrained, may be less committed to commercialization, and can be a source of undesired knowledge spillovers to other firms. The purpose of this study is to recognize the contingencies under which collaboration with star scientists is positively associated with a firm's ability to produce valuable patents (invention performance). We analyze a panel data set on the collaborations in basic research (publication data) and invention performance (patent output) of 60 prominent pharmaceutical firms. We find that basic research collaboration with academic stars is on average not associated with a performance premium above the overall positive influence of collaborating with academia. We only observe this premium if the star scientist abstains from simultaneous collaboration with other firms (‘dedication’) and extend her collaboration with the firm to involve not only basic but also applied research (‘translation’). Extending prior work that has focused on corporate star scientists, we find that if the collaboration involves an internal firm star scientist, a translational contribution of the academic star is no longer a prerequisite, and may even be detrimental to inventive performance. Our findings inform the literatures on industry-science links and firms’ (scientific) absorptive capacity by revealing the crucial contingencies for firms to benefit from partnering with the best and brightest among academic scientists

The returns to foreign R&D

Extant research on R&D internationalization has not examined how effective foreign R&D investments are in generating positive returns for the investing firms, in particular in comparison and conjunction with the effects of domestic R&D investments. We examine the effectiveness of international knowledge sourcing through foreign R&D in an empirical analysis of the productivity effects of foreign and domestic R&D investments in a large panel of firms based in the Netherlands. We argue that foreign and domestic R&D will exhibit complementarity in their effects on productivity, but that the roles of domestic and foreign R&D depend on the relative position of the home country with respect to the global technology frontier and the related relative opportunities for knowledge sourcing abroad. We estimate a dynamic panel data model derived from a knowledge stock augmented production function framework allowing for productivity convergence and declining returns to R&D. We confirm that for firms active in industries in which the home country is behind the global technology frontier, foreign R&D provides positive returns and has a complementary relationship with domestic R&D. For industries at the global technology frontier, in contrast, domestic R&D is the primary source of productivity growth

Heterogeneity in R&D Cooperation Strategies

We explore heterogeneities in the determinants of innovating firms' decisions to engage in r&d cooperation, differentiating between four types of cooperation partners: competitors, suppliers, customers, and universities and research institutes (institutional cooperation). We use two matched waves of the dutch community innovation survey (in 1996 and 1998) and apply system probit estimation. We find that determinants of r&d cooperation differ significantly across cooperation types. The positive impact of firm size, r&d intensity, and incoming source-specific spillovers is weaker for competitor cooperation, reflecting greater appropriability concerns. Institutional spillovers are more generic in nature and positively impact all cooperation types. The results appear robust to potential simultaneity bias