The moderating effect of a firm’s internal climate for innovation on the impact of public R&D support programs

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management

Volumn 3, Issue 5-6, 2003, Pages 525-545

  Wong, Poh Kam ^a   He, Zi Lin ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

Author keywords

internal climate for innovation; public R D support; S T policy; Singapore; technological innovation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84881675803     PISSN: 1368275X     EISSN: 17415098     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/ijeim.2003.003941     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1981) Industrial Innovation and Public Policy, Pinter, London.
2. Sakakibara, M. (1997) ‘Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how’, Research Policy, Vol. 26, pp.447–473.
3. David, P.A., Hall, B.H. and Toole, A.A. (2000) ‘Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of the econometric evidence’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.497–529.
4. Blank, D.M. and Stigler, G.J. (1957) The Demand and Supply of Scientific Personnel, National Bureau of Economic Research, New York.
5. Bozeman, B. and Link, A.N. (1983) Investments in Technology: Corporate Strategies & Public Policy Alternatives, Praeger Publishers, New York.
6. Kauko, K. (1996) ‘Effectiveness of R&D subsidies – A sceptical note on the empirical literature’, Research Policy, Vol. 25, pp.321–323.
7. Sanchez, A. M. and Elola, L.N. (1991) ‘Product innovation management in Spain’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 8, pp.49–56.
8. Tripsas, M., Schrader, S. and Sobrero, M. (1995) ‘Discouraging opportunistic behaviour in collaborative R&D: a new role for government’, Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp.367–389.
9. Glick, W.H. (1985) ‘Conceptualising and measuring organisational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp.601–616.
10. Schneider, B. and Rentsch, J. (1988) ‘Managing climates and cultures: A futures perspective’, in J. Hage (Ed.), Futures of Organisations, Lexington Books, Lexington MA, pp.181–201.
11. Tesluk, P.E., Farr, J.L. and Klein, S.R. (1997) ‘Influences of organisational culture and climate on individual creativity’, Journal of Creative Behaviour, Vol. 31, pp.27–41.
12. Souder, E. (1987) Managing New Product Innovations, Lexington Books, Lexington MA.
13. Shrivastava, P. and Souder, W. (1987) ‘The strategic management of technological innovations: A review and a model’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 24, pp.25–41.
14. Susanj, Z. (2000) ‘Innovative climate and culture in manufacturing organisations: difference between some European countries’, Social Science Information, Vol. 39, pp.349–361.
15. Gold, B. (1986) ‘Strengthening the technological competitiveness of industries: potential contribution of government’, in J. Dermer (Ed.), Competitiveness through Technology: What Business Needs from Government, Lexington Books, Lexington MA, pp.123–145.
16. Leyden, D.P. and Link, A.N. (1991) ‘Why are governmental R&D and private R&D complementary?’ Applied Economics, Vol. 23, pp.1673–1681.
17. Infratechnology is used to facilitate the R&D process and it may be embodied in structures used for R&D activities, equipment or pre-existing knowledge used to understand, characterise or interpret the R&D process [16].
18. Geroski, P. A. (2000) ‘Model of technology diffusion’, Research Policy, Vol. 29, pp.603–625.
19. Wong, P.K. (2001) ‘Leveraging multinational corporations, fostering technopreneurship: The changing role of S&T policy in Singapore’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 22, Nos. 5/6, pp.539–567.
20. National Science and Technology Board (1999) National Survey of R&D in Singapore, NSTB, Singapore. GERD: gross expenditure on R&D. RSEs: research scientists and engineers.
21. National Science and Technology Board (various years) National Survey of R&D in Singapore, NSTB, Singapore.
22. The response rate for foreign firms was 25.9% but 17.3% for local firms. The response rate for firms listed in the Singapore 1000 (ranked by total sales) was 33.7% but 17.0% for non-Singapore 1000 firms.
23. Economic Development Board (1999) Census of Industrial Production 1997, EDB, Singapore.
24. OECD-EUROSTAT (1997) Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data, Oslo Manual, 2nd edition, OECD, Paris.
25. Van de Ven, A.H. and Ferry, D.L. (1980) Measurement and Assessing Organisations, Wiley, New York.
26. Rothwell, R. (1992) ‘Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the 1990s’, R&D Management, Vol. 22, pp.221–239.
27. OECD (1998) ‘Public/private partnership in science and technology: an overview’, STI Review, Vol. 23, pp.7–21.
28. Cohen, W. and Levin, R. (1989) ‘Empirical studies of innovation and market structure’, in R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organisation, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp.1059–1107.
29. Bagozzi, R.P. and Phillips, L.W. (1982) ‘Representing and testing organisational theories: a holistic construct’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 27, pp.459–489.
30. Sharma, S., Durand, R.M. and Gur-Arie, O. (1981) ‘Identification and analysis of moderator variables’, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18, pp.291–300.
31. Previous econometric studies on the effectiveness of public R&D programs were often criticised for selection bias, endogeneity and common latent variable problems (See David, et al., 2000 for a review). However, our study is not intended to construct an accurate function form to isolate the impact of public R&D support programs, but to detect the possible moderating effect on the relationship between public R&D support and firm innovation behaviour.
32. Drazin, R. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1985) ‘Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp.514–539.
33. In all the full moderated regressions, we found the two major multicollinearity statistics, VIF and Tolerance for both independent variable and the interaction term, were not acceptable (VIF>10, and Tolerance <0.10).
34. If collaboration with all external parties and collaboration along all 6 stages are summated respectively as two overall collaboration variables, public R&D support has a significant positive impact on both of them (p<0.01 and p<0.05, respectively), but this result might be very misleading.
35. Nelson, R.R. (1995) ‘Why should managers be thinking about technology policy?’ Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 16, pp 581–588.
36. Vavakova, B. (1995) ‘Building research-industry partnership through European R&D programs’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 4/5/6, pp.567–586.