IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2020_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are firms withdrawing from basic research? An analysis of firm-level publication behaviour in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Krieger, Bastian

    (ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research)

  • Pellens, Maikel

    (Ghent University)

  • Blind, Knut

    (Fraunhofer Institute for System and Innovation Research ISI)

  • Schubert, Torben

    (CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research)

Abstract

Previous research has expressed concerns about firms engaging less in basic research. We contribute to this debate by studying trends in the scientific publishing activities of firms located in Germany. Our results do not confirm a declining trend in raw numbers with numbers indicating that firms’ aggregate volume of scientific publications stayed constant between 2008 and 2016. However, the number of publishing firms declined, in particular in high-tech and knowledge-intensive industries. Beyond that, we observe positive trends in publishing in basic research journals compared to journals focused on applied research, and publishing in collaboration with academic partners compared to publishing alone. Thus, our results paint an ambiguous picture. While they do not confirm a decrease in firms’ basic research engagement in the aggregate, the figures document a concentration of publishing activities on fewer firms. We argue that this concentration of basic research activities in firms may pose a threat to the longer term innovativeness of the German economy.

Suggested Citation

  • Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel & Blind, Knut & Schubert, Torben, 2020. "Are firms withdrawing from basic research? An analysis of firm-level publication behaviour in Germany," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:lucirc:2020_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://wp.circle.lu.se/upload/CIRCLE/workingpapers/202013_krieger.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Bloom & Charles I. Jones & John Van Reenen & Michael Webb, 2020. "Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(4), pages 1104-1144, April.
    2. J Calvert & P Patel, 2003. "University-industry research collaborations in the UK: Bibliometric trends," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(2), pages 85-96, April.
    3. Yu-Wei Chang, 2014. "Exploring scientific articles contributed by industries in Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 599-613, May.
    4. Jeff S. Armstrong & Michael R. Darby & Lynne G. Zucker, 2003. "Commercializing knowledge: university science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, issue Sep, pages 149-170.
    5. repec:ict:wpaper:2013/149173 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Vincent Larivière & Benoit Macaluso & Philippe Mongeon & Kyle Siler & Cassidy R Sugimoto, 2018. "Vanishing industries and the rising monopoly of universities in published research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-10, August.
    7. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Lia Sheer, 2021. "Knowledge Spillovers and Corporate Investment in Scientific Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 111(3), pages 871-898, March.
    8. Godin, Benoit, 1996. "Research and the practice of publication in industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 587-606, June.
    9. Hicks, Diana M. & Isard, Phoebe A. & Martin, Ben R., 1996. "A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 359-378, May.
    10. Clara Calero & Thed N. Leeuwen & Robert J. W. Tijssen, 2007. "Research cooperation within the bio-pharmaceutical industry: Network analyses of co-publications within and between firms," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 87-99, April.
    11. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Gary P. Pisano, 2010. "The evolution of science-based business: innovating how we innovate," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(2), pages 465-482, April.
    13. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    14. Schmoch, Ulrich & Michels, Carolin & Schulze, Nicole & Neuhäusler, Peter, 2012. "Performance and Structures of the German Science System 2011: Germany in an international comparison, China's profile, behaviour of German authors, comparison of the Web of Science and Scopus," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 9-2012, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    15. Robert J. W. Tijssen, 2012. "Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public--private collaboration," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 204-215, July.
    16. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2018. "The decline of science in corporate R&D," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 3-32, January.
    17. Rafols, Ismael & Hopkins, Michael M. & Hoekman, Jarno & Siepel, Josh & O'Hare, Alice & Perianes-Rodríguez, Antonio & Nightingale, Paul, 2014. "Big Pharma, little science?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 22-38.
    18. Bersch, Johannes & Gottschalk, Sandra & Müller, Bettina & Niefert, Michaela, 2014. "The Mannheim Enterprise Panel (MUP) and firm statistics for Germany," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-104, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    20. Doherr, Thorsten, 2017. "Inventor mobility index: A method to disambiguate inventor careers," ZEW Discussion Papers 17-018, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    21. Markus Simeth & Michele Cincera, 2016. "Corporate Science, Innovation, and Firm Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(7), pages 1970-1981, July.
    22. Furukawa, Ryuzo & Goto, Akira, 2006. "The role of corporate scientists in innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 24-36, February.
    23. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    24. Bersch, Johannes & Degryse, Hans & Kick, Thomas & Stein, Ingrid, 2020. "The real effects of bank distress: Evidence from bank bailouts in Germany," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    25. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    26. Yuan Sun & Masamitsu Negishi & Masaki Nishizawa, 2007. "Coauthorship linkages between universities and industry in Japan," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(4), pages 299-309, December.
    27. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile-based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    28. Rammer, Christian & Schubert, Torben, 2018. "Concentration on the few: mechanisms behind a falling share of innovative firms in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 379-389.
    29. Carolin Michels & Jun-Ying Fu, 2014. "Systematic analysis of coverage and usage of conference proceedings in web of science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 307-327, August.
    30. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    31. Narin, Francis & Rozek, Richard P., 1988. "Bibliometric analysis of U.S. pharmaceutical industry research performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 139-154, June.
    32. Henry Sauermann & Michael Roach, 2011. "Not All Scientists pay to be Scientists:," DRUID Working Papers 11-03, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    33. Maikel Pellens & Antonio Della Malva, 2018. "Corporate science, firm value, and vertical specialization: evidence from the semiconductor industry," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(3), pages 489-505.
    34. Sauermann, Henry & Roach, Michael, 2014. "Not all scientists pay to be scientists: PhDs’ preferences for publishing in industrial employment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 32-47.
    35. Ludo Waltman & Michael Schreiber, 2013. "On the calculation of percentile‐based bibliometric indicators," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 372-379, February.
    36. Ajay Bhaskarabhatla & Deepak Hegde, 2014. "An Organizational Perspective on Patenting and Open Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1744-1763, December.
    37. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    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. Nils Grashof & Holger Graf, 2023. "Universities that matter for regional knowledge base renewal - the role of multilevel embeddedness," Jena Economics Research Papers 2023-009, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    2. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    3. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    4. Rammer, Christian & Es-Sadki, Nordine, 2023. "Using big data for generating firm-level innovation indicators - a literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    5. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    6. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    7. Buggenhagen, Magnus & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Development of 5G – Identifying organizations active in publishing, patenting, and standardization," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).

    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. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    2. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do Firms Publish? A Multi-Sectoral Analysis," SPRU Working Paper Series 2018-21, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Blind, Knut & Krieger, Bastian & Pellens, Maikel, 2022. "The interplay between product innovation, publishing, patenting and developing standards," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    4. Martínez, Catalina & Parlane, Sarah, 2023. "Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(5).
    5. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi & Jungkyu Suh, 2020. "The Changing Structure of American Innovation: Some Cautionary Remarks for Economic Growth," Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(1), pages 39-93.
    6. Blind, Knut & Filipović, Ellen & Lazina, Luisa K., 2022. "Motives to Publish, to Patent and to Standardize: An Explorative Study Based on Individual Engineers’ Assessments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    7. Sheer, Lia, 2022. "Sitting on the Fence: Integrating the two worlds of scientific discovery and invention within the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    8. Ruilu Yang & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2023. "Are scientific articles involving corporations associated with higher citations and views? an analysis of the top journals in business research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5659-5685, October.
    9. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    10. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    11. Buggenhagen, Magnus & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Development of 5G – Identifying organizations active in publishing, patenting, and standardization," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4).
    12. Plantec, Quentin & Cabanes, Benjamin & le Masson, Pascal & Weil, Benoit, 2023. "Early-career academic engagement in university–industry collaborative PhDs: Research orientation and project performance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(9).
    13. Pellens, Maikel & Della Malva, Antonio, 2016. "Changing of the guard: Structural change and corporate science in the semiconductor industry," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-050, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Ashish Arora & Sharon Belenzon & Andrea Patacconi, 2015. "Killing the Golden Goose? The Decline of Science in Corporate R&D," NBER Working Papers 20902, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    16. Gans, Joshua S. & Murray, Fiona E. & Stern, Scott, 2017. "Contracting over the disclosure of scientific knowledge: Intellectual property and academic publication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 820-835.
    17. Choi, Jin-Uk & Lee, Chang-Yang, 2022. "The differential effects of basic research on firm R&D productivity: The conditioning role of technological diversification," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    18. Leten, Bart & Kelchtermans, Stijn & Belderbos, Ren, 2010. "Internal Basic Research, External Basic Research and the Technological Performance of Pharmaceutical Firms," Working Papers 2010/12, Hogeschool-Universiteit Brussel, Faculteit Economie en Management.
    19. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    20. Hsu, David H. & Hsu, Po-Hsuan & Zhao, Qifeng, 2021. "Rich on paper? Chinese firms’ academic publications, patents, and market value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Corporate publishing; Basic research; R&D strategy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • O36 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Open Innovation

    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:hhs:lucirc:2020_013. 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: Torben Schubert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/circlse.html .

    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.