Advertisement

Intereconomics

, Volume 34, Issue 6, pp 267–278 | Cite as

National and international developments in technology

Trends, patterns and implications for policy
  • Georg Koopmann
  • Felix Münnich
Technology

Abstract

Declining R&D intensities at the national level coincide with growing international technological links. In this context a number of questions arise: Do companies research in the same field of technology abroad as they do at home? Are the fields of technology in which R&D is concentrated within a country those in which it has a comparative advantage? What drives the process of the internationalisation of technology? What are the implications for host countries and home countries? What are the implications for policy on a national and an international level?

Keywords

Foreign Direct Investment Host Country Home Country Parent Company Foreign Subsidiary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    cf. Philippe Aghion, Peter Howitt: A. Model of Growth Through Creative Destruction, in: Econometrica, Vol. 60, March 1992; Gene M. Grossman, Elhanan Helpman: Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy, Cambridge (Mass.) 1991; Paul M. Romer: Endogenous Technological Change, in: Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, October 1990).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cf. R&D Scoreboard of the UK Department of Industry, in: Financial Times of 25. 6. 1999: ‘US Powers Ahead as Competition Drives Investment’.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eaton et al. refer to this effect as the ‘Interaction effect’ (cf. Jonathan Eaton, Eva Gutierrez, Samuel Kortum: European Technology Policy, in: Economic Policy, Vol. 27, October 1998, p. 411).Google Scholar
  4. 12.
    Cf. Klaus Brockhoff: Internationalization of Research and Development, Berlin 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    Here, R&D internationalisation is measured as the share of foreignorigin patents in a company's total patents (cf. Guido Reger, Marian Beise, Heike Belitz: Innovationsstandorte multinationaler Unternehmen: Internationalisierung technologischer Kompetenzen in der Phamazeutik, Halbleiter- und Telekommunikationstechnik, Heidelberg 1999, p. 4).Google Scholar
  6. 14.
    Cf. Daniele Archibugi, Simona Iammarino: Innovation and Globalisation: Evidence and Implications, Reading, February 1998, p. 5 f.Google Scholar
  7. 17.
    Cf. Ray Barrell, Nigel Pain: Foreign Direct Investment, Technological Change, and Economic Growth within Europe, in: The Economic Journal, Vol. 107, November 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 18.
    Cf. Edwin Mansfield: R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings, in: Zvi Griliches, (ed.): R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago and London 1984.Google Scholar
  9. 19.
    Cf. Gunnar Fors: Utilization of R&D Results in the Home and Foreign Plants of Multinationals, in: The Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol. 45, No. 2, June 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    Cf. Klaus Brockhoff, op. cit., Internationalization of Research and Development, Berlin 1998, p. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 21.
    Cf. Robert Pearce: The Implications for Host-Country and Home-Country Competitiveness of the Internationalisation of R&D and Innovation in Multinationals, Reading, November 1995, p. 7.Google Scholar
  12. 22.
    Cf. John Cantwell: The Globalisation of Technology: What Remains of the Product Cycle Model?, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. 24.
    Cf. Gunnar Fors: Locating R&D Abroad: The Role of Adaptation and Knowledge-Seeking, in: Pontus Braunerhjelm, Karolina Ekholm, (eds.): The Geography of Multinational Firms, Boston etc. 1998, p. 129.Google Scholar
  14. 26.
    Cf. Parimal Patel, Modesto Vega: Patterns of Internationalisation of Corporate Technology: Location vs. Home Country Advantages, in: Research Policy, Vol. 28, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 27.
    Cf. Walter Kuemmerle: Foreign Direct Investment in Industrial Research in the Pharmaceutical and Electronics Industries—Results from a Survey of Multinational Firms, in: Research Policy, Vol. 28, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    Cf. John Cantwell, Odile Janne: Technological Globalisation and Innovative Centres: The Role of Corporate Technological Leadership and Locational Hierarchy, in: Research, Policy, Vol. 28, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    Cf. John H. Dunning: Location and the Multinational Enterprise: a Neglected Factor?, in: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1998, p. 50.Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    Cf. Pierre Buigues, Alexis Jacquemin. Structural Interdependence between the European Union and the United States: Technological Positions, in: Gavin, Boyd, (ed.), The Struggle for World Markets. Competition and Cooperation between NAFTA and the European Union, Cheltenham (UK) and Northhampton (Mass.) 1998, p. 47 f.Google Scholar
  19. 32.
    Cf. Reinhide Veugelers: Internal R&D Expenditures and External Technology Sourcing, in: Research Policy, Vol. 26, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 33.
    Cf. John Hagedoorn: The Economics of Cooperation among High-Techn Firms. Trends and Patterns in Strategic Technology Partnering since the Early Seventies, in: Georg Koopmann, Hans-Eckart Scharrer (eds.): The Economics of High-Technology Competition and Cooperation in Global Markets, Baden-Baden 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 34.
    John Hagedoorn: Atlantic Strategic Technology Alliances, in: Gavin Boyd, (ed.), The Struggle for World Markets. Competition and Cooperation between NAFTA and the European Union, Cheltenham (UK) and Northhampton (Mass.) 1998, p. 179.Google Scholar
  22. 35.
    Cf. Daniele Archibugi, Simona Iammarino, op. cit., Innovation and Globalisation: Evidence and Implications, Reading, February 1998, p. 13. Cf. Pierre Buigues, Alexis Jacquemin, op. cit., Structural Interdependence between the European Union and the United States: Technological Positions, in: Gavin Boyd, (ed.): The Struggle for World Markets. Competition and Cooperation between NAFTA and the European Union, Cheltenham (UK) and Northhampton (Mass.) 1998, p. 49. For a similar result concerning US companies, cf. Varghese P. George: Globalization through Interfirm Cooperation: Technological Anchors and Temporal Nature of Alliances Across Geographical Boundaries, in: International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1995.Google Scholar
  23. 36.
    Cf. John Hagedoorn: Atlantic Strategic Technology Alliances, in: op. cit..Google Scholar
  24. 37.
    Cf. Raymond E. Vickery Jr.: Semiconductors and Information Technology. A Better Way, in: Journal of World Trade, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1999, p. 93.Google Scholar
  25. 38.
    Cf. Harald Grossmann, Georg Koopmann, Christine Borrmann, Konstanze Kinne, Elke Kottmann: Handel und Wettbewerb—Auswirkungen von Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen zwischen Unternehmen auf die internationale Arbeitsteilung, Baden-Baden 1998, p. 213. Eaton et al. assert a strong positive influence of improved patent protection on research activities in the European Union (cf. Jonathan Eaton et al., op. cit.) European Technology Policy, in: Economic Policy, Vol. 27, October 1998.Google Scholar
  26. 39.
    Cf. Rolf Langhammer: The WTO and the Millennium Round: Between Standstill and Leapfrog, Kiel Discussion Papers, No. 352, August 1999, p. 12 ff.Google Scholar
  27. 40.
    The competitive impact of these restrictions of competition is, however, complex. For the case of R&D cooperation cf. for instance Pauline Ruitsaert: To Promote R&D Cooperation: A Strategic Trade Policy? Maastricht, April (1994). Von Weizsäcker points to increased R&D activities cum reduced price competition in certain take-over constellations (cf. Carl-Christian von Weizsäcker: Keine Angst vor Fusionen, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 24.4. 1999.Google Scholar
  28. 41.
    For a deeper discussion cf. Harald Grossmann, Georg Koopmann et al., op. cit. Handel und Wettbewerb—Auswirkungen von Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen zwischen Unternehmen auf die internationale Arbeitsteilung, Baden-Baden 1998, p. 239 ff.Google Scholar
  29. 42.
    Cf. Robert Pearce, op. cit. Cf. Robert Pearce: The Implications for Host-Country and Home-Country Competitiveness of the Internationalisation of R&D and Innovation in Multinationals, Reading, November 1995, p. 25 f.Google Scholar
  30. 43.
    Cf. OECD: Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris 1998, p. 78 ff.Google Scholar
  31. 44.
    Cf. Ove Granstrand, Lars Hakanson, Sören Sjölander: Internationalization of R& —a Survey of Some Recent Research, in: Research Policy, Vol. 22, 1993, p. 425 f.Google Scholar
  32. 45.
    This has been shown, for instance, in a regression analysis for the British Midlands (cf. John Cantwell Ram Mudambi: The Location of MNE R&D activity: The Role of Investment Incentives, Reading, May 1998.Google Scholar
  33. 46.
    Cf. Patries Boekholt, Ben Thuriaux: Public Policies to Facilitate Clusters: Background, Rationale and Policy Practices in International Perspective, in: OECD (ed.): Boosting Innovation: the Cluster Approach, Paris 1999, p. 405.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© HWWA and Springer-Verlag 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georg Koopmann
    • 1
  • Felix Münnich
    • 2
  1. 1.Hamburg Institute for Economic Research (HWWA)HamburgGermany
  2. 2.London School of EconomicsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations