Attraction and deterrence in the location of foreign-owned R&D activities: the role of positive and negative spillovers

International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 83-111

  Cantwell, John ^a   Piscitello, Lucia ^b  

^a RUTGERS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^b POLITECNICO DI MILANO   (Italy)

Author keywords

European regions; multinational corporations; R D activities; spillovers

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954380717     PISSN: 17531942     EISSN: 17531950     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJTLID.2007.015020     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Acs, Z.J., de la Mothe, J. and Paquet, G. (2000) ‘Regional innovation: in search of an enabling strategy’, in Z.J. Acs (Ed). Regional Innovation, Knowledge and Global Change, London: Pinter.
2. Adams, J.D. (2001) Comparative Localisation of Academic and Industrial Spill-overs, WP 8292, NBER.
3. Aharonson, B.S., Baum, J.A.C. and Feldman, M.P. (2004) ‘Borrowing from neighbors: the location choice of entrepreneurs’, Paper Presented to the DRUID Summer Conference, June.
4. Aitken, B.J. and Harrison, A.E. (1999) ‘Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment? Evidence from Venezuela’, American Economic Review, Vol. 89, pp.605–618.
5. Alcácer, J. and Chung, W. (2007) ‘Location strategies and knowledge spillovers’, Management Science, Vol. 53, No. 5, pp.760–776.
6. Almeida, P. (1996) ‘Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp.155–165.
7. Andersson, U. and Forsgren, M. (2000) ‘In search of centre of excellence: network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations’, Management International Review, Vol. 40, pp.329–350.
8. Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. and Holm, U. (2002) ‘The strategic impact of external networks: subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23, pp.979–996.
9. Audretsch, D.B. and Feldman, M.P. (1996) ‘R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production’, American Economic Review, Vol. 86, pp.630–640.
10. Audretsch, D.B. and Stephan, P.E. (1996) ‘How localized are networks in biotechnology?’, American Economic Review, Vol. 86, pp.641–652.
11. Baptista, R. and Swann, G.M.P. (1998) ‘Do firms in clusters innovate more?’, Research Policy, Vol. 27, pp.527–542.
12. Baptista, R. and Swann, G.M.P. (1999) ‘A comparison of clustering dynamics in the US and UK computer industries’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 9, pp.373–399.
13. Barrell, R. and Pain, N. (1999) ‘Domestic institutions, agglomerations and foreign direct investment in Europe’, European Economic Review, Vol. 43, pp.925–934.
14. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1989) Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
15. Birkinshaw, J.M., Hood, N. and Jonsson, S. (1998) ‘Building firm-specific advantages in multinational corporations: the role of subsidiary initiative’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp.221–241.
16. Boschma, R.A. and Lambooy, J.G. (1999) ‘Evolutionary economics and economic geography’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 9, pp.411–430.
17. Braunerhjelm, P., Faini, R., Norman, V., Ruane, F. and Seabright, P. (2000) Integration and the Regions of Europe: How the Right Policies Can Prevent Polarization. Monitoring European Integration 10, London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.
18. Braunerhjelm, P. and Svensson, R. (1998) ‘Agglomeration in the geographical location of Swedish MNEs’, in P. Braunerhjelm and K. Ekholm (Eds). The Geography of Multinational Firms, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
19. Breschi, S. (2000) ‘The geography of innovation: a cross sector analysis’, Regional Studies, Vol. 34, pp.213–229.
20. Cameron, A.C. and Trivedi, P.K. (1998) Regression Analysis of Count Data, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Canina, L., Enz, C.A. and Harrison, J.S. (2005) ‘Agglomeration effects and strategic orientations: evidence from the US lodging industry’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48, pp.565–581.
22. Cantwell, J.A. (1989) Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
23. Cantwell, J.A. (1995) ‘The globalisation of technology: what remains of the product cycle model?’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 19, pp.155–174.
24. Cantwell, J.A. and Iammarino, S. (2001) ‘EU regions and multinational corporations: change, stability and strengthening of technological comparative advantage’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 10, pp.1007–1037.
25. Cantwell, J.A. and Iammarino, S. (2003) Multinational Corporations and European Regional Systems of Innovation, London and New York: Routledge.
26. Cantwell, J.A. and Piscitello, L. (2005) ‘The recent location of R&D activities by large MNCs in the European regions: the role of spill-overs and externalities’, Regional Studies, Vol. 39, pp.1–16.
27. Cantwell, J.A. and Mudambi, R. (2005) ‘MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp.1109–1128.
28. Carrincazeaux, C., Lung, Y. and Rallet, A. (2001) ‘Proximity and localisation of R&D activities’, Research Policy, Vol. 30, pp.777–789.
29. Criscuolo, P., Narula, R. and Verspagen, B. (2002) ‘The relative importance of home and host innovation systems in the internationalisation of MNE R&D: a patent citation analysis’, MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum series n. 026.
30. Dunning, J.H. and Pearce, R.D. (1985) The World's Largest Industrial Enterprises 1962-1983, Farnborough: Gower.
31. Eden, L. and Molot, M.A. (2002) ‘Insiders, outsiders and host country bargains’, Journal of International Management, Vol. 8, pp.359–388.
32. Feldman, M.P. and Audretsch, D.B. (1999) ‘Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialisation and localised competition’, European Economic Review, Vol. 43, pp.409–429.
33. Fors, G. (1996) R&D and Technology Transfer by Multinational Enterprises, Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell and IUI.
34. Frost, T.S. (2001) ‘The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp.101–123.
35. Görg, H. and Strobl, E. (2001) ‘Footloose multinationals?’, University of Nottingham Leverhulme Centre Research Paper Series, 2001/07.
36. Griliches, Z. (1990) ‘Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey’, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 28, pp.1661–1707.
37. Hâkanson, L. (1992) ‘Locational determinants of foreign R&D in Swedish multinationals’, in O. Granstrand, L. Hâkanson and S. Sjölander (Eds). Technology Management and International Business: Internationalisation of R&D and Technology, Chichester: Wiley.
38. Hedlund, G. (1986) ‘The hypermodern MNC: a heterarchy?’, Human Resource Management, Vol. 25, pp.9–25.
39. Jacobs, J. (1969) The Economy of Cities, London: Jonathan Cape.
40. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M. and Henderson, R. (1993) ‘Geographical localisation of knowledge spillovers, as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 58, pp.577–598.
41. Kline, S.J. and Rosenberg, N. (1986) ‘An overview of innovation’, in R. Landau and N. Rosenberg (Eds). The Positive Sum Strategy, New York: National Academy Press.
42. Kogut, B. and Chang, S.J. (1991) ‘Technological capabilities and Japanese foreign direct investment in the United States’, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 73, pp.401–413.
43. Krugman, P.R. (1990) Geography and Trade, Cambridge: MIT Press.
44. Krugman, P.R. (1991) ‘Increasing returns and economic geography’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 99, pp.483–499.
45. Kuemmerle, W. (1999) ‘The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: and empirical investigation’, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, pp.1–24.
46. Kumar, N. (1996) ‘Intellectual property protection, market orientation and location of overseas R&D activities by multinational enterprises’, World Development, Vol. 24, pp.673–688.
47. Kumar, N. (2001) ‘Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: the case of US and Japanese corporations’, Research Policy, Vol. 30, pp.159–174.
48. Le Bas, C. and Sierra, C. (2002) ‘Location versus home country advantages in R&D activities: some further results on multinationals’ locational strategies’, Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.589–609.
49. Martin, R. (1999) ‘Critical survey: the new “geographical turn” in economics - some critical reflections’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 23, pp.65–91.
50. Metcalfe, J.S. (1998) Evolutionary Economics and Creative Destruction, London and New York: Routledge.
51. Nachum, L. (2003) ‘Liability of foreignness in global competition? Financial service affiliates in the City of London’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24, pp.1187–1208.
52. Nelson, R.R. (1993) National Systems of Innovation, London: Frances Pinter.
53. Nelson, R.R. and Rosenberg, N. (1999) ‘Science, technological advance and economic growth’, in A.D. Chandler, P. Hagström and Ö. Sölvell (Eds). The Dynamic Firm: The Role of Technology, Strategy, Organization, and Regions, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
54. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, London: Harvard University Press.
55. Nobel, R. and Birkinshaw, J.M. (1998) ‘Innovation in multinational corporations: control and communication patterns in international R&D operations’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp.479–496.
56. Odagiri, H. and Yasuda, H. (1996) ‘The determinants of overseas R&D by Japanese firms: an empirical study at the industry and company levels’, Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp.1059–1079.
57. Pavitt, K.L.R. (1985) ‘Patents statistics as indicators of innovative activities: possibilities and problems’, Scientometrics, Vol. 7, pp.1–2.
58. Pavitt, K.L.R. (1988) ‘Uses and abuses of patent statistics’, in A.F.J. van Raan (Ed). Handbook of Quantitative Studies of Science and Technology, Elsevier Science Publishers.
59. Pearce, R.D. (1999) ‘Decentralised R&D and strategic competitiveness: globalised approaches to generation and use of technology in MNEs’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp.157–178.
60. Porter, M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: Free Press.
61. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R.R. (1996) ‘The roles of universities in the advance of industrial technology’, in R.S. Rosenbloom and W.J. Spencer (Eds). Engines of Innovation: US Industrial Research at the End of an Era, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
62. Saviotti, P.P. and Mani, G.S. (1996) ‘Competition, variety and technological evolution: a replicator dynamics model’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Vol. 5, pp.369–392.
63. Shaver, J.M. and Flyer, F. (2000) ‘Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, pp.1175–1193.
64. Storper, M. (1992) ‘The limits to globalisation: technology, districts and international trade’, Economic Geography, Vol. 68, pp.60–93.
65. Verspagen, B. and Schoenmakers, W. (2000) ‘The spatial dimension of knowledge spill-overs in Europe: evidence from firm patenting data’, MERIT Working Paper 2/20-16.
66. Verspagen, B. and Schoenmakers, W. (2002) ‘The spatial dimension of patenting by multinational firms in Europe’, Mimeo.
67. von Zedtwitz, M. and Gassmann, O. (2002) ‘Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalisation: four different patterns of managing research and development’, Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp.569–588.
68. Zaheer, S. and Mosakowski, E. (1997) ‘The dynamics of the liability of foreignness: a global study of survival in financial services’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp.439–464.
69. Zaheer, S. (1995) ‘Overcoming the liability of foreignness’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, pp.341–363.
70. Zander, I. (1999) ‘How do you mean global? A taxonomy of innovation networks in the multinational corporation’, Research Policy, Vol. 28, pp.195–213.
71. Zanfei, A. (2000) ‘Transnational firms and the changing organisation of innovative activities’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 24, pp.515–542.
72. Zejan, M.C. (1990) ‘R&D activities in affiliates of Swedish multinational enterprises’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Vol. 92, pp.487–500.
73. Firms have been allocated to an industry on the basis of their primary field of production/market. Specifically, 17 industries have been considered (see table in Appendix 3 for the list of industries considered).
74. It is worth noting that a sensitivity analysis was conducted, considering other threshold points. However, for the sake of simplicity, we report only that threshold leading to the most significant estimation results, since alternative thresholds did not alter the basic structure of the findings.