The Impact of Cooperation on Firms’ Innovation Propensity in Emerging Economies
AbstractThe importance of collaboration has been one of the main issues in innovation studies. Despite many different findings on collaboration and its impact on innovation performance, the impact of different types of collaboration on different types of innovation is still inconclusive. The purpose of this research is to investigate the effects of openness on the performance of the innovation process in a leading emerging economy. Based on Turkish CIS data, the findings reveal that doing R&D either continuously or occasionally affects the probability to introduce novelties. Conducting simultaneously marketing, organisational and process innovations also increases the likelihood to innovate. Furthermore, cooperation with partners and their effects on innovation propensity unveil that process, marketing and organisational innovations are determinants of product and service innovation, thus confirming that the various innovation types are intertwined and mutually supporting each other. From a geographical perspective, cooperating with external parties from the same country plays a dominant role in determining the innovation outcome. Cooperating with consultants and private labs on the other hand seems to negatively affect innovation performance. Surprisingly, the role of foreign cooperation remains ambiguous as results were not statistically significant. Another very interesting finding is the negative impact of firms’ size on innovation propensity. This paper, apart from its contribution to collaboration research, provides concise recommendations for policy makers and managers.
AGRESTI, A. (1990). Categorical Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
AHUJA, G. (2000).The duality of Collaboration: Inducements and Opportunities in the Formation of Inter-firm Linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 317-343.
ASCHHOFF, B., and Schmidt, T. (2006). Empirical evidence on the success of R&D cooperation: happy together? ZEW Discussion Papers 06-59. ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research.
BEBA, A., and Saatcioglu, K. (2009). Financing R&D projects of innovative SMEs: National and International Funds. International Entrepreneurship Congress: SME’s and Entrepreneurship (Ed: Katrinli), ISBN: 978-975-8789-32-0, 70-80.
BECKER, W., and Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - Evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33 (2), 209-223.
BELDERBOS, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., and Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (8–9), 1237–1263.
BRANDENBURGER, A.M., and Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Coopetition. New York: Doubleday.
CAPON, N., Farly, J.U., and Hoenig, S. M. 1990. A meta-analysis of financial performance. Management Science, 16, 1143-1159.
CETINDAMAR, D., and Ulusoy, G. (2008). Innovation performance and partnership in manufacturing firms in Turkey. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 19 (3), 332-348.
CHESBROUGH, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
CINCERA, M., Kempen, L., van Pottelsberghe, B., Veugelers, R., and Villegas S. (2003). Productivity growth. R&D and the role of international collaborative agreements: some evidence for Belgian manufacturing companies. Brussels Economic Review, 46 (3), 107–140.
COHEN, W., and Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99 (397), 569-596.
COLLETT, D. (1991). Modeling Binary Data. London: Chapman and Hall.
COX, D.R, and Snell, E.J. (1989). The Analysis of Binary Data. Second Edition, London: Chapman and Hall.
CREPON, B., Duguet, E., and Mairesse, J. (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. NBER Working Paper Series, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper: 6696.
DAHLANDER, L., and Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39 (6), 699-709.
DAS, T. K.., and Teng, B. S. 2000. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26 (1), 31-61.
DASGUPTA, P., and David, P.A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23 (5), 487-521.
FIOL, C. M. (1996). Squeezing harder doesn’t always work: continuing the search for consistency in innovation research. Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1012-1021.
GEORGE, V. P., and Farris, G. (1999). Performance of Alliances: Formative Stages and Changing Organizational and Environmental Influences. R&D Management, 29, 379–89.
GRILICHES, Z. (1990). Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (4), 1661-1707.
HANNA, V., and Walsh, K. (2008). Inter-firm cooperation among Small Manufacturing Firms. International Small Business Journal, 26, 299-321.
HOSMER, D.W, Jr., and Lemeshow, S. (2000).Applied Logistic Regression. Second Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
HUANG,Y. A., Chung, H. J., and Lin, C. (2009). R&D sourcing strategies: Determinants and consequences. Technovation, 29 (3), 155-169.
KABIRAJ, T., and Yang, C. L. (2001). Licensing vs. Innovation incentives uncertain government policies. International Review of Economics and Finance, 10, 247-261
KAUFMANN, A., and Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30 (5), 791-804.
LAURSEN, K., and Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27 (2), 131-150.
LEE, C., Lee, K., and Pennings, J.M. (2001). Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: a study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 615-640.
LICHTENTHALER, U. (2011). Open innovation: Past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 (1), 75-93.
LOOF, H., and Broström, A., (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between university and industry increase innovativeness? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (1), 73–90.
LOOF, H., and Heshmati, A. (2002). Knowledge capital and performance heterogeneity: a firm-level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economics, 76 (1), 61–85.
MAIRESSE, J., and Mohnen, P. (2001).To be or not to be innovative: an exercise in measurement. STI Review 27, 103–128.
MENTION, A.-L. (2011). Co-operation and co-opetition as open innovation practices in the service sector: which influence on innovation novelty? Technovation, 31(1), 44-53.
MENTION, A.-L., and Asikainen, A.-L. (2012). Innovation & Productivity: investigating effects of openness in services. International Journal of Innovation Management, 16 (3), DOI: 10.1142/S136391961240004X.
MENTION, A.-L., Temel, S., and Torkkeli, M. (2013). Innovation and cooperation: two sides of the same coin, Accepted (conditionally). International Conference on Entrepreneur- ship and Innovation, Amman, March 2013.
MIOTTI, L., and Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D:Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32 (8), 1481-1499.
MONJON, S., and Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: Evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21 (9), 1255-1270.
MOOKHERJEE, D., and Ray, D. (1991). On the competitive pressure created by the diffusion of innovations. Journal of Economic Theory, 54 (1), 124-147.
PAMUKCU, T. (2003). Trade Liberalization and Innovation Decisions of Firms: Lessons from Post-1980 Turkey. World Development, 31 (8), 1443-1458.
PAVITT, K.. (2003). The Process of Innovation. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No. 89.
PENTIKÄINEN, T., Palmberg, C., Hyvönen, J., and Saarinen, J. (2002). Capturing innovation and recent technological change in Finland through micro data elaborating on the object approach. Unpublished Mimeo,VTT Technology Studies.
ROTHWELL, R. (1992). Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management, 22, 221–239.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: Unwin.
SONG, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., and Halman, J.I.M. (2008). Success factors in new ventures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25 (1), 7-27.
STOKES, M.E., Davis, C.S., and Koch, G.G. (2000). Categorical Data Analysis Using the SAS System. Second Edition, Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
TAYMAZ, E. (2009). Development strategy and evolution of Turkey’s innovation system’, in: J.H. Suh (Ed) Models for National Technology and Innovation Capacity Development in Turkey, 63-104 (Seoul: Korea Development Institute).
TEMEL, S., Scholten,V.,Akdeniz, R.C., Fortuin, F., and Omta, O. (2013). University – Industry Collaboration in Turkish SME’s: Investigation of a U-shaped relationship. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 14 (3).
TETHER, B.S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947–967.
TETHER, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (Differently)? Insights from the European innobarometer survey. Industry and Innovation, 12 (2), 153-184.
TETHER, B. S., and Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organizations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37 (6-7), 1079-1095.
TURKOGLU, M., and Celikkaya, S. (2011). R&D Support for Small and Medium Size Enterprises. International Journal of Alanya Faculty of Business, 3 (2), 56-71.
VAN DE VRANDE, V., de Jong, J. P. J., Vanhaverbeke, W., and de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges.Technovation, 29, (6-7), 423-437.
YANIKTEPE, B., and Cavus, M.F. (2011). Investigation of policy and incentives on the industrial research and development in Turkey. African Journal of Business Management, 5, (22), 9214-9223.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).