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. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicolás S., 1945-, 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Working papers 1523-84., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    7. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    8. 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..
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Carmine Ornaghi, 2009. "Positive Assortive Merging," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 323-346, June.
    17. 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(01), pages 1-72, March.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(6), pages 1089-1111, November.
    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. Ingemar Dierickx & Karel Cool, 1989. "Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(12), pages 1504-1511, December.
    29. Capron, Laurence & Mitchell, Will, 1998. "Bilateral Resource Redeployment and Capabilities Improvement Following Horizontal Acquisitions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(3), pages 453-484, September.
    30. Hall, Bronwyn H., 1994. "Corporate Restructuring and Investment Horizons in the United States, 1976–1987," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 68(01), pages 110-143, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruth, Derek & Iyer, Dinesh N. & Sharp, Barton M., 2013. "Motivation and ability in the decision to acquire," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(11), pages 2287-2293.
    2. repec:eee:tefoso:v:120:y:2017:i:c:p:334-346 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. 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.
    4. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Stiebale, Joel, 2013. "The impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions on the acquirers' R & D Firm-level evidence," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - German National Library of Economics, pages 307-321.
    6. Chondrakis, George, 2016. "Unique synergies in technology acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1873-1889.
    7. McCarthy, Killian J. & Aalbers, Hendrik Leendert, 2016. "Technological acquisitions: The impact of geography on post-acquisition innovative performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1818-1832.
    8. Kavusan, K., 2015. "Essays on capability development through alliances," Other publications TiSEM 8eb736a5-b217-4718-ac13-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Barbara Fidanza, 2017. "Quali driver nella selezione delle target in operazioni di M&A? Una verifica empirica nel mercato italiano," Working Papers 52-2017, Macerata University, Department of Studies on Economic Development (DiSSE), revised Jan 2018.
    10. 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.
    11. Alan Hughes, 2014. "Short-Termism, Impatient Capital and Finance for Manufacturing Innovation in the UK," Working Papers wp457, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    12. Effelsberg, Martin, 2011. "Wissenstransfer in Innovationskooperationen: Ergebnisse einer Literaturstudie zur "Absorptive Capacity"," Arbeitspapiere 107, University of Münster, Institute for Cooperatives.
    13. Yeongjun Yeo & Dongnyok Shim & Jeong-Dong Lee & Jörn Altmann, 2015. "Driving Forces of CO 2 Emissions in Emerging Countries: LMDI Decomposition Analysis on China and India’s Residential Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 7(12), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Humphery-Jenner, M., 2011. "Internal and External Discipline Following Securities Class Actions," Discussion Paper 2011-044, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    15. Humphery-Jenner, M., 2011. "Anti-takeover Provisions as a Source of Innovation and Value Creation," Discussion Paper 2011-045, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Humphery-Jenner, Mark L., 2012. "Internal and external discipline following securities class actions," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 151-179.
    19. Szücs, Florian, 2014. "M&A and R&D: Asymmetric Effects on acquirers and targets?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1264-1273.
    20. Florian Szücs, 2013. "M&A and R&D: Asymmetric Effects on Acquirers and Targets?," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1331, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.

    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.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.