IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/13622.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Fitjar, Rune Dahl
  • Haus-Reve, Silje
  • Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés

Abstract

Product innovation is widely thought to benefit from collaboration with both scientific and supply-chain partners. The combination of exploration and exploitation capacity, and of scientific and experience-based knowledge, are expected to yield multiplicative effects. However, the assumption that scientific and supply-chain collaboration are complementary and reinforce firm-level innovation has not been examined empirically. This paper tests this assumption on an unbalanced panel sample of 8337 firm observations in Norway, covering the period 2006â??2010. The results of the econometric analysis go against the orthodoxy. They show that Norwegian firms do not benefit from doing "more of all" on their road to innovation. While individually both scientific and supply-chain collaboration improve the chances of firm-level innovation, there is a significant negative interaction between them. This implies that scientific and supply-chain collaboration, in contrast to what has been often highlighted, are substitutes rather than complements. The results are robust to the introduction of different controls and hold for all tested innovation outcomes: product innovation, new-to-market product innovation, and share of turnover from new products.

Suggested Citation

  • Fitjar, Rune Dahl & Haus-Reve, Silje & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2019. "Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway," CEPR Discussion Papers 13622, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:13622
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=13622
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mohnen, Pierre & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Complementarities in innovation policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 1431-1450, August.
    2. Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007. "Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
    3. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    4. Aarstad, Jarle & Kvitastein, Olav A. & Jakobsen, Stig-Erik, 2016. "Related and unrelated variety as regional drivers of enterprise productivity and innovation: A multilevel study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 844-856.
    5. Alwyn Young, 1993. "Substitution and Complementarity in Endogenous Innovation," NBER Working Papers 4256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Keld Laursen & Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "New human resource management practices, complementarities and the impact on innovation performance," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 243-263, March.
    7. Herstad, Sverre J. & Aslesen, Heidi Wiig & Ebersberger, Bernd, 2014. "On industrial knowledge bases, commercial opportunities and global innovation network linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 495-504.
    8. Roderik Ponds & Frank van Oort & Koen Frenken, 2010. "Innovation, spillovers and university--industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 231-255, March.
    9. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 1999. "Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 63-80, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Heidi Aslesen & Arne Isaksen & James Karlsen, 2012. "Modes of Innovation and Differentiated Responses to Globalisation—A Case Study of Innovation Modes in the Agder Region, Norway," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(4), pages 389-405, December.
    12. Maarten L. Buis, 2010. "Stata tip 87: Interpretation of interactions in nonlinear models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 10(2), pages 305-308, June.
    13. Crescenzi, Riccardo & Gagliardi, Luisa, 2018. "The innovative performance of firms in heterogeneous environments: The interplay between external knowledge and internal absorptive capacities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 782-795.
    14. Rune Dahl Fitjar & Bram Timmermans, 2017. "Regional skill relatedness: towards a new measure of regional related diversification," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 516-538, March.
    15. Bidault, Francis & Despres, Charles & Butler, Christina, 1998. "The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 719-732, April.
    16. Schmiedeberg, Claudia, 2008. "Complementarities of innovation activities: An empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(9), pages 1492-1503, October.
    17. Liker, Jeffrey K. & Kamath, Rajan R. & Nazli Wasti, S. & Nagamachi, Mitsuo, 1996. "Supplier involvement in automotive component design: are there really large US Japan differences?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 59-89, January.
    18. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    19. Luisa Gagliardi & Simona Iammarino, 2018. "Innovation in risky markets: ownership and location advantages in the UK regions," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 1177-1201.
    20. Arora, Ashish, 1996. "Testing for complementarities in reduced-form regressions: A note," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 50(1), pages 51-55, January.
    21. Fulvio Castellacci, 2011. "How does competition affect the relationship between innovation and productivity? Estimation of a CDM model for Norway," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 637-658, August.
    22. Fitjar, Rune Dahl & Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, 2013. "Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 128-138.
    23. Tether, Bruce S., 2002. "Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 947-967, August.
    24. Robert Salomon & Byungchae Jin, 2008. "Does knowledge spill to leaders or laggards? Exploring industry heterogeneity in learning by exporting," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 39(1), pages 132-150, January.
    25. Sverre J. Herstad & Bernd Ebersberger, 2015. "On the Link between Urban Location and the Involvement of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services Firms in Collaboration Networks," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(7), pages 1160-1175, July.
    26. Hagedoorn, John, 2002. "Inter-firm R&D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 477-492, May.
    27. Frenz, Marion & Ietto-Gillies, Grazia, 2009. "The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1125-1135, September.
    28. Gnyawali, Devi R. & Park, Byung-Jin (Robert), 2011. "Co-opetition between giants: Collaboration with competitors for technological innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 650-663, June.
    29. Parrilli, Mario Davide & Alcalde Heras, Henar, 2016. "STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 747-756.
    30. Martin Srholec, 2014. "Cooperation and Innovative Performance of Firms: Panel Data Evidence from the Czech Republic, Norway and the UK," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 5(1), pages 133-155, March.
    31. Rune Dahl Fitjar & Andr�s Rodr�guez-Pose, 2015. "Interaction and Innovation across Different Sectors: Findings from Norwegian City-Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(5), pages 818-833, May.
    32. Coad, Alex & Segarra, Agustí & Teruel, Mercedes, 2016. "Innovation and firm growth: Does firm age play a role?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 387-400.
    33. Sérgio Nunes & Raul Lopes, 2015. "Firm Performance, Innovation Modes and Territorial Embeddedness," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(9), pages 1796-1826, September.
    34. Apanasovich, Natalja & Alcalde Heras, Henar & Parrilli, Mario Davide, 2016. "The impact of business innovation modes on SME innovation performance in post-Soviet transition economies: The case of Belarus," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 57, pages 30-40.
    35. Arne Isaksen & Magnus Nilsson, 2013. "Combined Innovation Policy: Linking Scientific and Practical Knowledge in Innovation Systems," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(12), pages 1919-1936, December.
    36. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1995. "Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2-3), pages 179-208, April.
    37. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2002. "R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1169-1184, September.
    38. Elena Golovko & Giovanni Valentini, 2011. "Exploring the complementarity between innovation and export for SMEs’ growth," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 42(3), pages 362-380, April.
    39. Alwyn Young, 1993. "Substitution and Complementarity in Endogenous Innovation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 775-807.
    40. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1962. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(3), pages 155-173.
    41. Gary Hamel, 1991. "Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(S1), pages 83-103, June.
    42. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    43. Jaider Vega-Jurado & Antonio Gutiérrez-Gracia & Ignacio Fernández-de-Lucio, 2009. "Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(4), pages 637-670, August.
    44. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1990. "The Economics of Modern Manufacturing: Technology, Strategy, and Organization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(3), pages 511-528, June.
    45. Ha Hoang & Frank T. Rothaermel, 2010. "Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(7), pages 734-758, July.
    46. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Vahter, Priit, 2014. "Dynamic complementarities in innovation strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1774-1784.
    47. Ballot, Gérard & Fakhfakh, Fathi & Galia, Fabrice & Salter, Ammon, 2015. "The fateful triangle: Complementarities in performance between product, process and organizational innovation in France and the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 217-232.
    48. Tether, Bruce S. & Tajar, Abdelouahid, 2008. "Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1079-1095, July.
    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. Alhusen, Harm, 2020. "Experience-based know-how, learning and innovation in German SMEs: An explorative analysis of the role of know-how in different modes of innovation," ifh Working Papers 27/2020, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    2. Takashi Iino & Hiroyasu Inoue & Yukiko U. Saito & Yasuyuki Todo, 0. "How does the global network of research collaboration affect the quality of innovation?," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-44.
    3. Jie Liang & Peng Shao, 2019. "Sequential Alliance Portfolios, Partner Reconfiguration and Firm Performance," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(21), pages 1-20, October.
    4. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Zhang, Min, 2020. "The cost of weak institutions for innovation in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    5. Alhusen, Harm & Bennat, Tatjana & Bizer, Kilian & Cantner, Uwe & Horstmann, Elaine & Kalthaus, Martin & Proeger, Till & Sternberg, Rolf G. & Töpfer, Stefan, 2019. "Measuring the "doing-using-interacting mode" of innovation in SMEs - A qualitative approach," ifh Working Papers 23/2019, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).
    6. Silje Haus-Reve & Abigail Cooke, 2019. "Do regional social capital and trust matter for immigrant diversity and wages?," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1932, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Nov 2019.
    7. Mendi, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, José J., 2020. "Cooperation for innovation and technology licensing: Empirical evidence from Spain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    8. Runst, Petrik & Thomä, Jörg, 2020. "Does Personality Matter? Small Business Owners and Modes of Innovation," ifh Working Papers 24/2020, Volkswirtschaftliches Institut für Mittelstand und Handwerk an der Universität Göttingen (ifh).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    firms; Innovation; Interaction; Norway; scientific and supply-chain collaboration;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:13622. 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: (). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.