Advertisement

Business-University Collaboration in a Developing Country in the Industry 4.0 Era—The Case of Hungary

  • Annamaria InzeltEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Emerging economies, as well as Hungary in Europe, are frequently host countries to multinational companies. For both parties it is a great challenge to build relevant knowledge- generating capacities which are attractive in respect of collaboration. In such collaborations those countries on the receiving end of foreign direct investment have the ambition to become more than mere pools of knowledge assets for multinational companies. An insight into Hungarian attempts to achieve this aim under difficult circumstances might be useful for other countries in similar situations. In recent years the majority of Hungarian business research and development expenditure has come from companies wholly-, or majority-owned by foreign interests. This high proportion indicates the significant role of foreign companies in the Hungarian research agenda and in business-university collaboration. This chapter focuses on how foreign companies are shaping business-university collaboration in research and experimental development and touches upon the role of government as facilitator. The subjects of research and development contracts and collaboration depend on the environment and on both potential partners—that is to say, by the types of demand generated by companies, and by how relevant are the competences and capabilities of universities in meeting these demands. Are they moving towards the cutting edge agendas inherent in Industry 4.0 and globalisation? Method of research: analysis of available data; information from websites and interviews with key actors who are partners in collaboration. The chapter also summarizes a few lessons which may be relevant for other economies too.

Keywords

Business—university collaboration Research and development episodes Host-country of multinational companies 

List of Abbreviations

BME

Budapest University of Technology and Economics

BUC

Business-university collaboration

BERD

Business R&D expenditure

CWUR

Centre for World University Rankings

EIT

European Institute of Innovation and Technology

ELTE

Eötvös Loránd University

EPO

European Patent Office

EU

European Union

FDI

Foreign direct investment

FIEK

Higher Education and Industry Cooperation Centres

GDP

Gross domestic product

HCSO

Hungarian Central Statistical Office

HE

Higher Education

HEIs

Higher Education Institutes

HERD

Higher education R&D

HQ

Head quarter

HUF

Hungarian Forint (currency)

Industry 4.0

Fourth Industrial Revolution

IPRs

Intellectual Property Rights

MSTI

Main Science and Technology Indicators

MNC

Multinational Company

NIS

National innovation system

NKFIH

National Research, Development and Innovation Office

OECD

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

R&D

Research and development

RDI

Research, development and innovation

S&T

Science and technology

SME

Small and Medium Enterprise

TTO

Technology Transfer Office

TH

Triple Helix

References

  1. Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A literature review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31, 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archibugi, D., & Lundvall, B. -Å. (Eds.) (2002). The globalizing learning economy. Oxford University Press, 328.Google Scholar
  3. Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, A. (Eds.). (2015). The handbook of global science, technology and innovation (p. 603). Ltd: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  4. Bene, T., Liber, N., & Németh, G. (2018). Szellemitulajdon kezelés és a kutatási eredmények hasznosítása a közfinanszírozású kutatóhelyeken. Összehasonlító elemzés és gyakorlati javaslatok, (Handling intellectual property and utilization of research findings at publicly financed research organisation, Comparative analysis and practical suggestions). Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, Budapest, p. 47.Google Scholar
  5. Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university—industry relationships. R&D Management, 24, 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caloghirou, Y., Tsakanikas, A., & Vonortas, N. S. N. (2001). University-industry cooperation in the context of the European framework programmes. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cantwell, J. A. (1989). Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basic Blackwell.Google Scholar
  9. Cantwell, J. (2017). Innovation and international business. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 41–60.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1257422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantwell, J., & Molero, J. (Eds.) (2003). Multinational enterprises innovative strategies and systems of innovation (pp. 234–268). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2007). Attraction and deterrence in the location of foreign-owned r&d activities—The role of positive and negative spillovers. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 1(1), 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The Era of open innovation. Sloan Management Review, 44, 3(Spring), 35–41.Google Scholar
  13. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Cook, P. (2005). Regionally Asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation. Research Policy, 34, 1128–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correa, P., & Zuñiga, P. (2013). Public policies to foster knowledge transfer from public research organizations. Innovation, technology, and entrepreneurship global practice, public policy brief, World Bank. Washington DC.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, B. (2015). The character of the entrepreneurial university. International Higher Education (38).Google Scholar
  17. CWUR. (2018). CWUR World University Rankings 2018–2019, https://cwur.org/2018-19.php, downloaded: 4/12/2018.
  18. Dachs, B., Kampik, F., Scherngell, T., Zahradnik, G., Hanzl-Weiss, D., Hunya, G., et al. (2013). Internationalisation of business investments in R&D and analysis of their economic impact. Innovation Union Competitiveness papers, issue 2013/1 European Commission.Google Scholar
  19. Dunning, J. H. (1988). The eclectic paradigm of international production: A restatement and some possible extensions. Journal of International Business Studies, 19(1), 1–31. https://www.jstor.org/stable/154984.
  20. Dunning, J. H. (1992). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Addison Wokingham: Wesley.Google Scholar
  21. Edler, J. (2008). Creative internationalization: Widening the perspectives on analysis and policy regarding international R&D activities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(4).Google Scholar
  22. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation technologies, institutions and organizations. Routledge, London and New York (p. 432).Google Scholar
  23. Edquist, C. (2018). Towards a holistic innovation policy: Can the Swedish national innovation council serve as a role model. CIRCLE, Lund University, Papers in Innovation Studies, Paper no. 2018/02.Google Scholar
  24. Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-industry-government innovation in action (p. 161). London p: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Beech Tree Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A ‘Triple Helix’ of university industry government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. EU. (2005). The handbook on responsible partnering—Joining forces in a world of open innovation. A guide to better practices for collaborative research and knowledge transfer between science and industry. EUA, ProTon Europe, EARTO and EIRMA. Retrieved from http://www.responsible-partnering.org/library/rp-2005-v1.pdf.
  29. EU. (2016a). Peer Review of the hungarian research and innovation system. Horizon 2020 Policy Support Facility, EU, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://rio.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/file/10007/download?token=82l5lFpl.
  30. EU. (2016b). The European innovation scoreboard 2016, European Union.Google Scholar
  31. Farinha, L., & Ferreira, J. J. (2013). Triangulation of the Triple Helix: A conceptual framework. https://www.triplehelixassociation.org/working-papers/triangulation-of-the-triple-helix-a-conceptual-framework.
  32. Foray, D. (2006). the economics of knowledge. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Freeman, C. (1988). Japan: A new national innovation system. Technology and economy theory. Pinter, London (pp. 331–348).Google Scholar
  34. Govind, M., & Küttim, M. (2016). International knowledge transfer from university to industry: A systematic literature review. Research economics and business: Central and Eastern Europe, 8(2), 21.Google Scholar
  35. Guimón, J., & Narula, R. (2017). When developing countries meet transnational universities: Searching for complementarity not substitution. Discussion Paper, Number: JHD2017-01. www.henley.ac.uk/dunning.
  36. Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model, in Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and Performance in Europe. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Dario, PRIME Series, Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. (pp. 112–143).Google Scholar
  37. Hernández, H., Grassano, N., Tübke, A., Potters, L., Gkotsis, P., & Vezzani, A. (2018). The 2018 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard; EUR 29450 EN; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.  https://doi.org/10.2760/131813, JRC113807.
  38. Inzelt, A. (1999). Transformation role of FDI in R&D: analysis based on a databank. In David Dyker & Slavo Radosevic (Eds./szerk), Innovation and structural change in post-socialist countries: A quantitative approach (pp. 185–201), The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.Google Scholar
  39. Inzelt, A. (2000). Foreign direct investment in R&D: Skin-deep and soul-deep co-operation. Science and Public Policy, August, 4, 241–251.Google Scholar
  40. Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university-industry-government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 975–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Inzelt, A. (2008). The inflow of highly skilled workers into Hungary: A by-product of FDI. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 422–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Inzelt, A. (2010). Collaborations in the open Innovation Era. In Ndubuisi Ekekwe (Ed.), Nanotechnology and microelectronic (pp. 61–86). USA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  43. Inzelt, A. (2014). Embeddedness level in central and Eastern European countries as revealed by patent-related indicators. Prometheus, 32(4), 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Inzelt, A., Laredo, P., Sanchez, P., Marian, M., Vigano, F., & Carayol, N. (2006). 3rd mission. In Methodological Guide, PRIME, Network of Excellence, Lugano, 125–168. http://www.prime-noe.org.
  45. Inzelt, A., & Csonka, L. (2016). Public-private interaction under fluctuating public support program in: Public-private partnerships in research and innovation: Trends and international perspectives. In K. Koschatzky & T. Stachlecker (Eds.), Fraunhofer Verlag, Karlsruhe, pp. 129–158.Google Scholar
  46. Koschatzky, K., & Stahlecker, T. (2010). New forms of strategic research collaboration between firms and universities in the German research system. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, 9, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorisation of university activities? Higher Education Policy, Springer, 20(4), 46–59.Google Scholar
  48. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University—industry—government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology Association, 60(4), 778–788.Google Scholar
  49. Lundvall, B. Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of industry studies, 1(2), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mégnigbéto, E. (2015). Effect of international collaboration on knowledge flow within an innovation system: A Triple Helix approach. Triple Helix Journal, 2(16), 21. open access  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-015-0027-0.
  51. Mollas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. SPRU: Report to the Russel group Universities, Brighton.Google Scholar
  52. Mowery, D. C. (1998). Collaborative R&D: How Effective Is It? Issues in Science and Technology, 15(1).Google Scholar
  53. Narula, R. (2003). Globalization and technology: Interdependence, innovation systems and industrial Policy. John Wiley & Sons, 264 pages (reprinted: 2015).Google Scholar
  54. Narula, R. (2014). Exploring the paradox of competence-creating subsidiaries: Balancing bandwidth and dispersion in MNEs. Long Range Planning, 47(1–2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nedeva, M. (2008). New tricks and old dogs? The ‘third mission’ and the re-production of the university. In The World Yearbook of education 2008: Geographies of Knowledge/Geometries of Power: Framing the Future of Higher Education (pp. 85–105). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. NKFIH. (2019). Kutatás-Fejlesztés és Innováció Magyarországon, (Research, Development and Innovation in Hungary) Budapest, p. 30.Google Scholar
  58. OECD. (2008a). Open innovation in global networks. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD. (2008b). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Hungary (p. 228). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2015). Frascati Manual 2015, Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.
  61. OECD. (2017). The next production revolution: Implication for governments and business. OECD Publishing, Paris.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264271036-en.
  62. Orazbayeva, B., Davey, T., Prónay, S., Meerman, A., Muros, G. V., & Melonari, M. (2018). The state of Hungarian university-business cooperation: The university and the business perspective. Study on the cooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisations, European Commission. www.uni-engagement.com.
  63. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autioa, E., Broströmc, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university—industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pinheiro, R., Langa, P. V., & Pausits, A. (2015). The institutionalization of universities’ third mission: Introduction to the special issue. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 227–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry & Higher Education, 27(3), 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Raymond, S., & Taggart, J. H. (1998). Strategy shifts in MNC subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal, 19(7), 663–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schaeffer, V., & Matt, M. (2016). Development of academic entrepreneurship in a non-mature context: The role of the university as a hub-organisation. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1247915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shimoda, R. (2008). Reform of university research system in Japan: Where do they stand? National academy of Sciences, 40–56.Google Scholar
  69. Singh, J. (2007). Asymmetry of knowledge spillovers between MNCs and host country firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5), 764–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sorensen, O. J., & Hu, Y. (2014). Triple Helix going abroad? A case of Danish experiences in China. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(3), 254–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Swann, P. (2014). Common innovation: How we create the wealth of nations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Taggart, J. H. (1998). Determinants of increasing R&D complexity in affiliates of manufacturing multinational corporations in the UK. R&D Management, 28(2), 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wen, J., & Kobayashi, S. (2001). Exploring collaborative R&D network: Some new evidence in Japan. Research Policy, 30(8), October 2001, pp. 1309–1319.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IKU Innovation Research CentreFinancial Research Co.BudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations