Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 395–411 | Cite as

Determinants of Firm R&D: The Role of Relationship-Specific Interactions for R&D Spillovers



Research and Development (R&D) is a key component behind technological development and economic growth; therefore, understanding the drivers of R&D is crucial. An interesting question is the role of technology spillovers, transferred by trade, and their impact on firm R&D. Here we analyze not only how international and domestic inter- and intra-industry technology spillovers affect firm R&D but also the relatively unexplored issue of how relationship-specific interactions between buyer and seller affect such spillovers. We find international technology spillovers to be larger and more significant than domestic inter- and intra-industry spillovers. Moreover, relationship-specific interactions between seller and buyer enhance technology spillovers in general and international spillovers in particular.


R&D spillovers imports relationship-specific investments 

JEL classification

L1 L6 O1 O3 


  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1999) Endogenous growth theory. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Altomonte C, Békés G (2010) Trade complexity and productivity. Center for Firms in the Global Economy (CeFiG) WP No. 12Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez R (2006) Explaining export success: firm characteristics and spillover effects. World Dev 35(3):377–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amiti M (1998) New trade theories and industrial location in the EU: a survey of evidence. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson J, Wincoop EV (2004) Trade costs. J Econ Lit 42(3):691–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archarya RC, Keller W (2008) Technology transfer through imports. Can J Econ 42(4):1411–1448Google Scholar
  7. Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources of innovations. In: Nelson R (eds) The rate and direction of innovative activity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  8. Baptista R, Swann P (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more? Res Policy 27:525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bartel A, Lach S, Sicherman N (2009) Outsourcing and technological change. IZA DP No. 4678Google Scholar
  10. Bound J, Jaeger D, Baker R (1995) Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variables is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 90(430):443–450Google Scholar
  11. Breusch T, Kompas T, Nguyes H, Ward MB (2010) On the fixed-effects vector decomposition. Munich Personal RePEc Archive MPRA Paper No. 21452, 2010Google Scholar
  12. Brooks EL (2006) Why don’t firms export more? Product quality and Colombian plants. J Dev Econ 80(1):160–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burger M, van-Oort F, Linders GJ (2009) On the specification of the gravity model of trade: excess zeros and zero inflated estimation. Spatial Economic Analysis 4(2):167–190Google Scholar
  14. Casaburi L, Gattai V (2009) Why FDI? An empirical assessment based on contractual incompleteness and dissipation of intangible assets. University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics WP No. 164Google Scholar
  15. Coe D, Helpman E (1995) International R&D spillovers. Eur Econ Rev 39(5):859–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Coe D, Helpman E, Hoffmaister A (1997) North-South spillovers. Econ J 107:134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. Econ J 99:569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dasgupta P, Stiglitz S (1980) Industrial structure and the nature of innovative activity. Econ J 90:266–293Google Scholar
  19. DeLong BJ, Summers LH (1991) Equipment investment and economic growth. Q J Econ 106(2):445–502Google Scholar
  20. Dosi G (1988) The nature of the innovative process. In: Dosi G et al (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Fagerberg J (1995) User-producer interaction, learning and comparative advantage. Camb J Econ 19(1):243–256Google Scholar
  22. Feldman MP (1994a) The geography of innovation. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman MP (1994b) Knowledge complementarities and innovation. Small Bus Econ 6:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferguson S, Formai S (2010) Institution-driven comparative advantage, complex goods and organizational choice. Research Papers in Economics 2011:10, Department of Economics, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  25. Fernandes AM (2007) Trade policy, trade volumes and plant-level productivity in Colombian manufacturing industries. J Int Econ 7(1):52–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Flowerdew R, Aitkin M (1982) A method of fitting the gravity model based on the poisson distribution. J Reg Sci 22:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geroski PA (1990) Innovation, technological opportunity and market structure. Oxf Econ Pap 42:586–602Google Scholar
  28. Greene W (2010) Fixed effects vector decomposition: a magical solution to the problem of time invariant variables in fixed effects models? Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  29. Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers. Scand J Econ 94:29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Guimarães P (2007) The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited. Econ Lett 99(1):63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gustavsson P, Kokko A (2003) Sveriges konkurrensfördelar för export och multinationell produktion. Bilaga 6 till Långtidsutredningen 2003, FinansdepartementetGoogle Scholar
  32. Hanson GH (1998) North American economic integration and industry location. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:30–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hendry D (1995) Dynamic econometrics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Hilbe J (2007) Negative binomial regression. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller W (1997) Technology flows between industries: identification and productivity effects. Econ Syst Res 9(2):213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keller W (2000) Do trade patterns and technology flows affect productivity. World Bank Econ Rev 14(1):17–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Keller W (2002a) Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. Am Econ Rev 92(1):120–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Keller W (2002b) Trade and the transmission of technology. J Econ Growth 7(1):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keller W (2004) International technology diffusion. J Econ Lit XLII:752–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kukenova M, Strieborny M (2009) Investment in relationship-specific assets: does finance matter? University Library of Munich, Germany, MPRA Paper No 15229Google Scholar
  41. Lopez RA (2006) Imports of intermediate inputs and plant survival. Econ Lett 92(1):58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopez RA (2008) Foreign technology licensing, productivity, and spillovers. World Dev 36(4):560–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lumega-Neso O, Olarreaga S (2005) On indirect trade related R&D spillovers. Eur Econ Rev 49(7):1785–1797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malerba F, Mancusi LM, Montobbio F (2007) Innovation, international R&D spillovers and the sectoral heterogeneity of knowledge flows. Centro di Ricerca sui Processi di Innovazione e Internazionalizzazione (CESPRI) Università Commerciale “Luigi Bocconi WP, No. 204Google Scholar
  45. Mancusi LM (2008) International spillovers and absorptive capacity: a cross country cross-sector analysis based on patents and citations. J Int Econ 76(2):155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markusen JR, Trofimenko N (2009) Teaching locals new tricks: foreign experts as a channel of knowledge transfers. J Dev Econ 88(1):120–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nunn N (2007) Relationship-specificity, incomplete contracts, and the pattern of trade. Q J Econ 122(2):569–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pavcnik N (2002) Trade liberalization, exit, and productivity improvements: evidence from chilean plants. Rev Econ Stud 69(1):245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plumper T, Troeger EV (2007) Efficient estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit fixed effects. Polit Anal 15(2):124–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plümper T, Troeger VE (2011) Fixed effects vector decomposition: response. University of Essex, Department of Government, ColchesterGoogle Scholar
  51. Portugal-Perez A, Wilson JS (2009) Why trade facilitation matters to Africa. World Trade Rev, Cambridge University Press 8(3):379–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rauch JE (1999) Networks versus markets in international trade. J Int Econ 48:7–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos Silva JCM, Tenreyro S (2006) The log of gravity. Rev Econ Stat 88:641–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schiff M, Wand Y, Olarreaga M (2002) Trade-related technology diffusion and the dynamics of north-south and south-south integration. The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper Series, No. 2861Google Scholar
  55. Schumpeter JA (1934) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Stoneman P (1983) The economic analysis of technological change. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  57. Stoneman P (1995) Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Blackwell Publicers Ltd, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  58. Tingvall Gustavsson P (2004) Effekter av näringslivets internationalisering på forskning och utveckling. Kap. 5 i Näringslivets internationalisering: Effekter på sysselsättning, produktivitet och FoU, ITPS A2004:14Google Scholar
  59. Tybout J (2000) Manufacturing firms in developing countries: how well they do, and why. J Econ Lit 38(1):11–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Westerlund J, Wilhelmsson F (2009) Estimating the gravity model without gravity using panel data. Appl Econ 43(6):641–649Google Scholar
  61. Xu B, Wang J (1999) Capital goods trade and R&D spillovers in the OECD. Can J Econ 32(5):1258–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS) and Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Statistics Sweden (SCB)ÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations