IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa05p475.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cross-Border and Local Cooperation on the island of Ireland - A Behavioural Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Roper

Abstract

There is now general agreement that inter-firm cooperation through networks, partnerships and supply-chains can, by facilitating knowledge exchange and reducing transaction costs, contribute both to innovation and company competitiveness. Dense patterns of ‘association’, reinforced by links between firms and other support institutions, have also been linked to cluster and regional growth. Case-studies of areas with high levels of co-operation have been characterised by social and economic uniformity, geographical contiguity, high levels of social capital (i.e. trust) and stable and supportive governance and support institutions. Border regions are often characterised by exactly the opposite conditions: poor infrastructure, low population and business densities, low levels of social capital and governance which is at best divided, and at worst, antagonistic. In this context, cross-border cooperation can play an important role, countering the structural discontinuity of border regions and generating a potentially positive growth dynamic In terms of the Northern Ireland-Ireland border the general socio-economic difficulties of border areas have been exacerbated by violent social and political unrest. Although the security situation has been more stable in recent years, the economic and social legacy of the past persists. In this context, cross-border co-operation has been seen as one way in which past divisions can be healed and an integrated all-island economy developed. The aims of this paper are two-fold. First, to augment the relatively limited empirical literature on the economic determinants of the probability that firms will engage in cross-border cooperation. In particular, we adopt a transactions cost perspective and seek to identify those factors which are either specific to, or disproportionately important, in shaping the probability of cross-border interaction. The second objective is to contribute some positive evidence to the, all too often, opinion-driven debate on North-South cooperation on the island of Ireland. Specifically, we focus on identifying any differences in the determinants of cross-border co-operation in Ireland and Northern Ireland This provides some insight into current levels of co-operative activity as well as highlighting potential areas for policy intervention. The paper adopts a simultaneous probit approach to examining the determinants of cross-border and local cooperation between firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland. The conceptual approach draws on the transactions cost literature, arguing that firms will engage in cooperation where the costs involved are less than those of market interaction. Cross-border cooperation is modelled as an alternative – and possible complement or substitute – for local co-operative activity. The study is based on a large-scale interview survey conducted in 2002. The results identify a number of factors which help to predict the probability that a firm will engage in cross-border cooperation. Perhaps unsurprisingly it proves easier to predict cross-border cooperation by firms in Northern Ireland than in the larger and more buoyant, Ireland. The results also suggest some complementarity between local and cross-border co-operation, and a declining probability of cross-border cooperation the further a firm is located from the border. Somewhat surprisingly, however, no clear size or sectoral bias is found in the probability of engaging in cross-border cooperation.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Roper, 2005. "Cross-Border and Local Cooperation on the island of Ireland - A Behavioural Perspective," ERSA conference papers ersa05p475, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p475
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/475.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dionysios Chionis & Panagiotis Liargovas, 2002. "An Empirical Investigation of Greek-Balkan Bilateral Trade," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 6-32, September.
    2. David Fielding, 2003. "Investment, employment, and political conflict in Northern Ireland," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 55(3), pages 512-535, July.
    3. Peter Huber, 2003. "On the Determinants of Cross-border Cooperation of Austrian Firms with Central and Eastern European Partners," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(9), pages 947-955.
    4. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen, 2001. "Location and network effects on innovation success: evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 643-661, April.
    5. James Love & Stephen Roper, 1999. "The Determinants of Innovation: R & D, Technology Transfer and Networking Effects," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(1), pages 43-64, August.
    6. Buckley, Peter J & Chapman, Malcolm, 1997. "The Perception and Measurement of Transaction Costs," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 21(2), pages 127-145, March.
    7. Preet S Aulakh & Masaaki Kotabe & Arvind Sahay, 1996. "Trust and Performance in Cross-Border Marketing Partnerships: A Behavioral Approach," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 27(4), pages 1005-1032, December.
    8. Mitko Dimitrov & George Petrakos & Stoyan Totev & Maria Tsiapa, 2003. "Cross-Border Cooperation in Southeastern Europe," Eastern European Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(6), pages 5-25, January.
    9. Crone, Mike & Roper, Stephen, 1999. "Knowledge Transfers from Multi-national Plants in Northern Ireland," ERSA conference papers ersa99pa053, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 2002. "Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D, External Technology Acquisition and Cooperation," CEPR Discussion Papers 3284, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. George Petrakos & Maria Tsiapa, 2001. "The Spatial Aspects of Enterprise Learning in Transition Countries," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(6), pages 549-562.
    12. 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.
    13. Oerlemans, L.A.G. & Meeus, M.T.H. & Boekema, F.W.M., 1998. "Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the network approach in analysing innovation," Other publications TiSEM b5b01e96-86f7-4fdf-95c0-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Bradley, John & Whelan, Karl & Wright, Jonathan, 1995. "HERMIN Ireland," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 249-274, July.
    15. Peter Buckley & Malcolm Chapman, 1998. "The Management of Cooperative Strategies in R&D and Innovation Programmes," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 369-381.
    16. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2002. "Complementarity in the innovation strategy: Internal R&D, external technology acquisition, and cooperation in R&D," IESE Research Papers D/457, IESE Business School.
    17. Akira Takeishi, 2001. "Bridging inter‐ and intra‐firm boundaries: management of supplier involvement in automobile product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 403-433, May.
    18. Stephen Roper, 2001. "Innovation, Networks and Plant Location: Some Evidence for Ireland," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(3), pages 215-228.
    19. Leon A.G. Oerlemans & Marius T.H. Meeus & Frans W.M. Boekema, 1998. "Do Networks Matter for Innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analysing innovation," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 89(3), pages 298-309, August.
    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. Stephen Roper & Nola Hewitt-Dundas & James H Love, 2003. "An Ex Ante Evaluation Framework for the Regional Impact of Publicly Supported R&D Projects," ERSA conference papers ersa03p100, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Stephen Roper, 2001. "Benchmarking Regional Innovation: A Comparison of Bavaria, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland," ERSA conference papers ersa01p39, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Freel, Mark S., 2003. "Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 751-770, May.
    4. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Love, James H., 2004. "An ex ante evaluation framework for the regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 487-509, April.
    5. Roper, Stephen & Hewitt-Dundas, Nola, 2015. "Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and innovation: Evidence from matched patents and innovation panel data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1327-1340.
    6. Oerlemans, Leon A.G. & Meeus, Marius T.H., 2002. "Spatial embeddedness and firm performance: an empirical exploration of the effects of proximity on innovative and economic performance," ERSA conference papers ersa02p054, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Justin Doran & Declan Jordan, 2016. "Cross-sectoral differences in the drivers of innovation," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(5), pages 719-748, October.
    8. Ronde, Patrick & Hussler, Caroline, 2005. "Innovation in regions: What does really matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1150-1172, October.
    9. Vega-Jurado, Jaider & Gutiérrez-Gracia, Antonio & Fernández-de-Lucio, Ignacio & Manjarrés-Henri­quez, Liney, 2008. "The effect of external and internal factors on firms' product innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-632, May.
    10. Stephen Roper & Nola Hewitt-Dundas, 2005. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Innovation Grants – Evidence from the Irish Innovation Panel," ERSA conference papers ersa05p478, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Mark Freel & Richard Harrison, 2006. "Innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: Evidence from 'Northern Britain'," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(4), pages 289-305.
    12. Shi, Xing & Wu, Yanrui, 2017. "The effect of internal and external factors on innovative behaviour of Chinese manufacturing firms," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(S), pages 50-64.
    13. Panayotis Dessyllas & Alan Hughes, 2005. "R&D and Patenting Activity and the Propensity to Acquire in High Technology Industries," Industrial Organization 0507008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Richard Harris & John Moffat, 2011. "R&D, Innovation and Exporting," SERC Discussion Papers 0073, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    15. Caroline Danièle Mothe & Thuc Uyen Nguyen-Thi, 2017. "Persistent openness and environmental innovation: An empirical analysis of French manufacturing firms," Post-Print hal-01609129, HAL.
    16. James Love & Stephen Roper, 2009. "Organizing the Innovation Process: Complementarities in Innovation Networking," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(3), pages 273-290.
    17. Andræs Barge-Gil, 2013. "Open Strategies and Innovation Performance," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(7), pages 585-610, October.
    18. Woerter, Martin & Roper, Stephen, 2010. "Openness and innovation--Home and export demand effects on manufacturing innovation: Panel data evidence for Ireland and Switzerland," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 155-164, February.
    19. Hewitt-Dundas, Nola & Gkypali, Areti & Roper, Stephen, 2019. "Does learning from prior collaboration help firms to overcome the ‘two-worlds’ paradox in university-business collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1310-1322.
    20. Priit Vahter & James H. Love & Stephen Roper, 2014. "Openness and Innovation Performance: Are Small Firms Different?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(7-8), pages 553-573, November.

    More about this item

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa05p475. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.