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?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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).
Cf. R&D Scoreboard of the UK Department of Industry, in: Financial Times of 25. 6. 1999: ‘US Powers Ahead as Competition Drives Investment’.
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).
Cf. Klaus Brockhoff: Internationalization of Research and Development, Berlin 1998, p. 1.
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).
Cf. Daniele Archibugi, Simona Iammarino: Innovation and Globalisation: Evidence and Implications, Reading, February 1998, p. 5 f.
Cf. Ray Barrell, Nigel Pain: Foreign Direct Investment, Technological Change, and Economic Growth within Europe, in: The Economic Journal, Vol. 107, November 1997.
Cf. Edwin Mansfield: R&D and Innovation: Some Empirical Findings, in: Zvi Griliches, (ed.): R&D, Patents and Productivity, Chicago and London 1984.
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.
Cf. Klaus Brockhoff, op. cit., Internationalization of Research and Development, Berlin 1998, p. 1.
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.
Cf. John Cantwell: The Globalisation of Technology: What Remains of the Product Cycle Model?, in: Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, 1995.
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.
Cf. Parimal Patel, Modesto Vega: Patterns of Internationalisation of Corporate Technology: Location vs. Home Country Advantages, in: Research Policy, Vol. 28, 1999.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cf. Reinhide Veugelers: Internal R&D Expenditures and External Technology Sourcing, in: Research Policy, Vol. 26, 1997.
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.
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.
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.
Cf. John Hagedoorn: Atlantic Strategic Technology Alliances, in: op. cit..
Cf. Raymond E. Vickery Jr.: Semiconductors and Information Technology. A Better Way, in: Journal of World Trade, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1999, p. 93.
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.
Cf. Rolf Langhammer: The WTO and the Millennium Round: Between Standstill and Leapfrog, Kiel Discussion Papers, No. 352, August 1999, p. 12 ff.
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.
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.
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.
Cf. OECD: Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, Paris 1998, p. 78 ff.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Koopmann, G., Münnich, F. National and international developments in technology. Intereconomics 34, 267–278 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02929893
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02929893