IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v39y2010i8p1105-1121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do high technology acquirers become more innovative?

Author

Listed:
  • Desyllas, Panos
  • Hughes, Alan

Abstract

Drawing on organizational, managerial and financial theories, we explore whether acquirers become more innovative and the factors that can enhance their absorptive and financial capacity to benefit from acquisition. Over a 3-year post-acquisition window, our sample of 2624 high technology US acquisitions records early reverses followed by positive R&D-intensity changes and insignificant R&D productivity changes. Controlling for acquisition endogeneity and deal-specific effects, significant acquirer characteristic effects emerge. In related acquisitions, a large knowledge base tends to increase R&D productivity, consistent with an enhanced capacity to select and absorb targets. In unrelated acquisitions, however, this relationship becomes increasingly negative as knowledge base concentration increases, consistent with arguments for an impaired peripheral vision and core rigidities. High leverage levels raise R&D productivity gains, consistent with enhanced monitoring induced efficiency. However, high leverage growth reduces R&D-intensity, consistent with increased financial constraints and short-termism.

Suggested Citation

  • Desyllas, Panos & Hughes, Alan, 2010. "Do high technology acquirers become more innovative?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1105-1121, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:8:p:1105-1121
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048-7333(10)00129-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Maurizio Zollo & Harbir Singh, 2004. "Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: post‐acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(13), pages 1233-1256, December.
    3. Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have InformationThat Investors Do Not Have," NBER Working Papers 1396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicholas S., 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 187-221, June.
    5. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    6. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Bronwyn H. Hall, 1988. "The Effect of Takeover Activity on Corporate Research and Development," NBER Chapters, in: Corporate Takeovers: Causes and Consequences, pages 69-100, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, July.
    9. Annette L. Ranft & Michael D. Lord, 2002. "Acquiring New Technologies and Capabilities: A Grounded Model of Acquisition Implementation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 420-441, August.
    10. Cassiman, Bruno & Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-220, March.
    11. Ornaghi, Carmine, 2009. "Mergers and innovation in big pharma," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 70-79, January.
    12. Jensen, Michael C. & Meckling, William H., 1976. "Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 305-360, October.
    13. G. M.P. Swann, 2009. "The Economics of Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13211.
    14. Hall, B. & Jaffe, A. & Trajtenberg, M., 2001. "The NBER Patent Citations Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," Papers 2001-29, Tel Aviv.
    15. Keisuke Hirano & Guido W. Imbens & Geert Ridder, 2003. "Efficient Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Using the Estimated Propensity Score," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(4), pages 1161-1189, July.
    16. Richard A. Bettis & C. K. Prahalad, 1995. "The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(1), pages 5-14.
    17. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Carmine Ornaghi, 2009. "Positive Assortive Merging," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 323-346, June.
    19. Chandler, Alfred D., 1994. "The Competitive Performance of U.S. Industrial Enterprises since the Second World War," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 1-72, April.
    20. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    22. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    23. Robert L. Conn & Andy Cosh & Paul M. Guest & Alan Hughes, 2005. "The Impact on UK Acquirers of Domestic, Cross‐border, Public and Private Acquisitions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5‐6), pages 815-870, June.
    24. Panos Desyllas & Alan Hughes, 2009. "The revealed preferences of high technology acquirers: An analysis of the innovation characteristics of their targets," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 33(6), pages 1089-1111, November.
    25. Mario Calderini & Paola Garrone & Maurizio Sobrero (ed.), 2003. "Corporate Governance, Market Structure and Innovation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2588.
    26. Patricia M. Danzon & Andrew Epstein & Sean Nicholson, 2007. "Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4-5), pages 307-328.
    27. Smith, Clifford W, Jr & Warner, Jerold B, 1979. "Bankruptcy, Secured Debt, and Optimal Capital Structure: Comment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 34(1), pages 247-251, March.
    28. John Bound & Clint Cummins & Zvi Griliches & Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe, 1984. "Who Does R&D and Who Patents?," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 21-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    30. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    31. Himmelberg, Charles P & Petersen, Bruce C, 1994. "R&D and Internal Finance: A Panel Study of Small Firms in High-Tech Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(1), pages 38-51, February.
    32. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    33. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    34. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2001. "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 197-220, March.
    35. Bryson, Alex & Dorsett, Richard & Purdon, Susan, 2002. "The use of propensity score matching in the evaluation of active labour market policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4993, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    36. Gary Dushnitsky & Michael J. Lenox, 2005. "When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(10), pages 947-965, October.
    37. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    38. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    39. Cloodt, Myriam & Hagedoorn, John & Van Kranenburg, Hans, 2006. "Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 642-654, June.
    40. Robert L. Conn & Andy Cosh & Paul M. Guest & Alan Hughes, 2005. "The Impact on UK Acquirers of Domestic, Cross-border, Public and Private Acquisitions," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5-6), pages 815-870.
    41. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and the Sustainability of Competitive Advantage: Reply," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1514-1514, December.
    42. Healy, Paul M. & Palepu, Krishna G. & Ruback, Richard S., 1992. "Does corporate performance improve after mergers?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 135-175, April.
    43. Narin, Francis & Noma, Elliot & Perry, Ross, 1987. "Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 16(2-4), pages 143-155, August.
    44. Capron, Laurence & Mitchell, Will, 1998. "Bilateral Resource Redeployment and Capabilities Improvement Following Horizontal Acquisitions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 7(3), pages 453-484, September.
    45. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1994. "Corporate Restructuring and Investment Horizons in the United States, 1976–1987," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(1), pages 110-143, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    2. Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Elona Marku, 2019. "M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 669-692, September.
    3. Carles Méndez-Ortega & Mercedes Teruel, 2020. "To acquire or not to acquire: the effects of acquisitions in the software industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 793-814, July.
    4. Colombo, Massimo G. & Rabbiosi, Larissa, 2014. "Technological similarity, post-acquisition R&D reorganization, and innovation performance in horizontal acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1039-1054.
    5. David R. King & Rebecca J. Slotegraaf & Idalene Kesner, 2008. "Performance Implications of Firm Resource Interactions in the Acquisition of R&D-Intensive Firms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 327-340, April.
    6. Méndez Ortega, Carles, & Teruel, Mercedes, 2018. "To acquire or not to acquire: Mergers and Acquisitions in the Software Industry," Working Papers 2072/307043, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    7. Wagner, Marcus, 2011. "To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1217-1225.
    8. Haucap, Justus & Rasch, Alexander & Stiebale, Joel, 2019. "How mergers affect innovation: Theory and evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 283-325.
    9. Marcela Miozzo & Lori DiVito & Panos Desyllas, 2011. "Cross-border acquisitions of science-based firms: Their effect on innovation in the acquired firm and the local science," DRUID Working Papers 11-17, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    10. Feiqiong Chen & Yao Chen & Fangfang Zhong, 2017. "Integration decision-making in technology-sourcing cross-border M&As: a mathematical model," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 524-545, December.
    11. Vanhaverbeke, W. & Beerkens, B. & Duysters, G., 2001. "Technological capability building through networking strategies within high-tech industries," Working Papers 01.15, Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies.
    12. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    13. Qiao, Lu & Dong, Weijia & Lv, Xin, 2023. "The heterogeneous impacts of M&As on renewable energy firms’ innovation: Comparative analysis of China, the US and EU," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 306-323.
    14. Cloodt, Myriam & Hagedoorn, John & Van Kranenburg, Hans, 2006. "Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 642-654, June.
    15. Frank T. Rothaermel & Andrew M. Hess, 2007. "Building Dynamic Capabilities: Innovation Driven by Individual-, Firm-, and Network-Level Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 898-921, December.
    16. Cuervo-Cazurra, Alvaro & Un, C. Annique, 2007. "Regional economic integration and R&D investment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 227-246, March.
    17. Wim Vanhaverbeke & Victor Gilsing & Bonnie Beerkens & Geert Duysters, 2009. "The Role of Alliance Network Redundancy in the Creation of Core and Non‐core Technologies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 215-244, March.
    18. Srikanth Paruchuri & Atul Nerkar & Donald C. Hambrick, 2006. "Acquisition Integration and Productivity Losses in the Technical Core: Disruption of Inventors in Acquired Companies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(5), pages 545-562, October.
    19. René Belderbos & Leo Sleuwaegen & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2010. "Market Integration and Technological Leadership in Europe," European Economy - Economic Papers 2008 - 2015 403, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
    20. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:39:y:2010:i:8:p:1105-1121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.