IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/indinn/v21y2014i3p179-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Catalysing Role of In-House R&D in Fostering Complementarity Among Innovative Inputs

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra Catozzella
  • Marco Vivarelli

Abstract

While several studies have investigated the relationship between internal and external sources of innovation, no clear-cut result has emerged so far, suggesting the possibility that the nature of such interaction-far from being an absolute property of the innovative process-may instead be a relative one, contingent upon the nature and the level of innovative inputs a firm has invested in. Using microdata from the third Italian Community Innovation Survey, we test under what conditions the nature of the interactions between four different innovative inputs (internal and external R&D, embodied and disembodied technological acquisition) is one of complementarity or substitutability. Two are the main findings of our study: (i) internal R&D and embodied technological acquisitions turn out to be complementary only after a minimum threshold of in-house R&D expenditure has been overcome, being substitutive otherwise; (ii) investing in internal R&D also affects the nature of the relationships between alternative external sources of innovation, whose interaction proves to be complementary only for firms that invest in internal R&D.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra Catozzella & Marco Vivarelli, 2014. "The Catalysing Role of In-House R&D in Fostering Complementarity Among Innovative Inputs," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 179-196, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:indinn:v:21:y:2014:i:3:p:179-196
    DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2014.910890
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13662716.2014.910890
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13662716.2014.910890?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2005. "The Importance of R&D for Innovation: A Reassessment Using French Survey Data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 183-197, January.
    2. Lokshin, B. & Carree, M.A. & Belderbos, R.A., 2004. "Testing for complementarity and substitutability in case of multiple practices," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    3. Catozzella, Alessandra & Vivarelli, Marco, 2007. "The Catalysing Role of In-House R & D in Fostering the Complementarity of Innovative Inputs," IZA Discussion Papers 3126, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Productivity and R&D at the Firm Level," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 100-133, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1, March.
    6. Boris Lokshin & Rene Belderbos & Martin Carree, 2006. "Internal and external R&D： complements or substitutes? Evidence from a dynamic panel data model," Hi-Stat Discussion Paper Series d06-163, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi University.
    7. Athey, Susan. & Stern, Scott, 1969-, 1998. "An empirical framework for testing theories about complementarity in orgaziational design," Working papers WP 4022-98., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    8. Ariel Pakes & Zvi Griliches, 1984. "Patents and R&D at the Firm Level: A First Look," NBER Chapters, in: R&D, Patents, and Productivity, pages 55-72, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Philippe Aghion & Peter Howitt, 1997. "Endogenous Growth Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011662, December.
    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. Heredia Pérez, Jorge A. & Geldes, Cristian & Kunc, Martin H. & Flores, Alejandro, 2019. "New approach to the innovation process in emerging economies: The manufacturing sector case in Chile and Peru," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 35-55.
    2. María Teresa Costa‐Campi & Néstor Duch‐Brown & José García‐Quevedo, 2019. "Innovation strategies of energy firms," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1073-1085, September.
    3. Gema García‐Piqueres & Rebeca García‐Ramos, 2020. "Is the corporate social responsibility–innovation link homogeneous?: Looking for sustainable innovation in the Spanish context," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 803-814, March.
    4. Xulia González & Daniel Miles-Touya & Consuelo Pazó, 2016. "R&D, worker training and innovation: firm-level evidence," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(8), pages 694-712, November.
    5. Romano, Livio, 2019. "Explaining growth differences across firms: The interplay between innovation and management practices," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 130-145.
    6. Stefano Bianchini & Gabriele Pellegrino & Federico Tamagni, 2016. "Innovation Strategies and Firm Growth," LEM Papers Series 2016/03, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    7. Sangyun Han & Soo Kyung Park & Kyu Tae Kwak, 2021. "Workforce Composition of Public R&D and Performance: Evidence from Korean Government-Funded Research Institutes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-17, March.
    8. K D S Fernald & H P G Pennings & J F van den Bosch & H R Commandeur & E Claassen, 2017. "The moderating role of absorptive capacity and the differential effects of acquisitions and alliances on Big Pharma firms' innovation performance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, February.
    9. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    10. Uwe Cantner & Ivan Savin, 2014. "Do Firms Benefit from Complementarity Effect in R&D and What Drives their R&D Strategy Choices?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-023, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Carpio Freire, Carlos Raúl & Afcha Chávez, Sergio Moisés, 2020. "Efecto de las barreras de innovación en la capacidad de absorción de las empresas innovadoras || Effect of innovation barriers on the absorptive capacity of innovative companies," Revista de Métodos Cuantitativos para la Economía y la Empresa = Journal of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Quantitative Methods for Economics and Business Administration, vol. 30(1), pages 3-22, December.
    12. Roman Fudickar & Hanna Hottenrott, 2019. "Public research and the innovation performance of new technology based firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 326-358, April.
    13. Francesco Aiello & Paola Cardamone & Lidia Mannarino & Valeria Pupo, 2021. "Does external R&D matter for family firm innovation? Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1915-1930, December.

    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. Bronwyn Hall & Francesca Lotti & Jacques Mairesse, 2009. "Innovation and productivity in SMEs: empirical evidence for Italy," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 13-33, June.
    2. Landon Kleis & Paul Chwelos & Ronald V. Ramirez & Iain Cockburn, 2012. "Information Technology and Intangible Output: The Impact of IT Investment on Innovation Productivity," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 23(1), pages 42-59, March.
    3. Antonio Musolesi & Jean-Pierre Huiban, 2010. "Innovation and productivity in knowledge intensive business services," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 63-81, August.
    4. Cristian Barra & Roberto Zotti, 2018. "The contribution of university, private and public sector resources to Italian regional innovation system (in)efficiency," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 432-457, April.
    5. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2012. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1072-1083.
    6. Catozzella, Alessandra & Vivarelli, Marco, 2007. "The Catalysing Role of In-House R & D in Fostering the Complementarity of Innovative Inputs," IZA Discussion Papers 3126, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Beneito, Pilar, 2006. "The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 502-517, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Diégo Legros & Fabrice Galia, 2012. "Are innovation and R&D the only sources of firms’ knowledge that increase productivity? An empirical investigation of French manufacturing firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 167-181, October.
    10. de Rassenfosse, Gaétan & Schoen, Anja & Wastyn, Annelies, 2014. "Selection bias in innovation studies: A simple test," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 287-299.
    11. Bronwyn Hall & Alessandro Maffioli, 2008. "Evaluating the impact of technology development funds in emerging economies: evidence from Latin America," The European Journal of Development Research, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 20(2), pages 172-198.
    12. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    13. Toole, Andrew A. & King, John L., 2011. "Industry-science connections in agriculture: Do public science collaborations and knowledge flows contribute to firm-level agricultural research productivity?," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-064, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Giammario Impullitti, 2007. "International Schumpeterian Competition and Optimal R&D subsidies," Economics Working Papers ECO2007/55, European University Institute.
    15. Colombelli, Alessandra & Grilli, Luca & Minola, Tommaso & Mrkajic, Boris, 2020. "To what extent do young innovative companies take advantage of policy support to enact innovation appropriation mechanisms?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    16. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Jacques Mairesse, 1998. "Research, Innovation And Productivity: An Econometric Analysis At The Firm Level," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 115-158.
    17. Jože P. Damijan & Črt Kostevc & Matija Rojec, 2011. "Innovation and Firms’ Productivity Growth in Slovenia: Sensitivity of Results to Sectoral Heterogeneity and to Estimation Method," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Peter Nijkamp & Iulia Siedschlag (ed.), Innovation, Growth and Competitiveness, chapter 0, pages 165-193, Springer.
    18. E. Cefis & M. Ghita, 2008. "Post Merger Innovative Patterns in Small and Medium Firms," Working Papers 08-09, Utrecht School of Economics.
    19. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.
    20. Lee G. Branstetter & Matej Drev & Namho Kwon, 2019. "Get with the Program: Software-Driven Innovation in Traditional Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(2), pages 541-558, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:indinn:v:21:y:2014:i:3:p:179-196. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIAI20 .

    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.