Do universities matter for the location of foreign r&d?

  1. Dolores Añón Higón 1
  2. Alfonso Díez-Minguela 1
  1. 1 Universitat de València, Valencia, Spain
Revista:
Business Research Quarterly

ISSN: 2340-9444,  2340-9436

Año de publicación: 2024

Volumen: 27

Número: 2

Páginas: 104-120

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1177/23409444211042382 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Business Research Quarterly

Resumen

This article explores the extent to which the regional higher education system (HES) influences the location of foreign research and development (R&D). To do so, we use a dataset with information on the location choices of new foreign R&D establishments within Spain from 2005 to 2013. Similarly, we use a multiple measure of the three university missions, distinguishing between research capacity training, scientific research, and technology transfer. We find that the probability of a foreign R&D establishment being located in a region is positively affected by the strength of the region’s HES missions, and more specifically by the quality of its scientific research, while its research training capacity and knowledge transfer activities do not seem to play a significant role. Moreover, the strength of the research mission has a positive influence on the location choice of foreign units conducting research activities but is weak to explain the location of those performing development activities.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R., & Simpson, H. (2007). University research and the location of business R&D. Economic Journal, 117(519), 114–141.
  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336–340.
  • Alcácer, J., & Chung, W. (2007). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53(5), 760–776.
  • Almeida, P. (1996). Knowledge sourcing by foreign multination-als: Patent citation analysis in the US semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 155–165.
  • Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
  • Añón Higón, D. (2016). In-house versus external basic research and first-to-market innovations. Research Policy, 45(4), 816–829.
  • Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42, 422–448.
  • Arora, A., Belenzon, S., & Patacconi, A. (2018). The decline of science in corporate R&D. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 3–32.
  • Asheim, B., Coenen, L., & Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(5), 655–670.
  • Barge-Gil, A., & López, A. (2014). R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and devel-opment. Research Policy, 43(9), 1634–1648.
  • Barry, F., Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2003). Foreign direct invest-ment, agglomerations, and demonstration effects: An empirical investigation. Review of World Economics, 139(4), 583–600.
  • Basile, R., Castellani, D., & Zanfei, A. (2008). Location choices of multinational firms in Europe: The role of EU cohesion policy. Journal of International Economics, 74, 328–340.
  • Belderbos, R., Leten, B., & Suzuki, S. (2017). Scientific research, firm heterogeneity, and foreign R&D locations of multinational firms. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 26(3), 691–711.
  • Belderbos, R., Roy, V., Leten, B., & Thijs, B. (2014). Academic research strengths and multinational firms’ foreign R&D location decisions: Evidence from R&D investments in European regions. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 920–942.
  • Cantwell, J. A., Dunning, J. H., & Janne, O. E. (2004). Towards a technology-seeking explanation of US direct investment in the United Kingdom. Journal of International Management, 10(1), 5–20.
  • Cantwell, J. A., & Piscitello, L. (2005). Recent location of for-eign-owned R&D activities by large multinational corporations in the European regions: The role of spillovers and externalities. Regional Studies, 39(1), 1–16.
  • Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., & Zuniga, P. (2008). In search of performance effects of (in) direct industry science links. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(4), 611–646.
  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
  • Cowan, R., & Zinovyeva, N. (2013). University effects on regional innovation. Research Policy, 42(3), 788–800.
  • Crescenzi, R., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2014). Innovation drivers, value chains and the geography of multinational corporations in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 14, 1053–1086.
  • Crozet, M., Mayer, T., & Mucchielli, J. L. (2004). How do firms agglomerate? A study of FDI in France. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34, 27–54.
  • Dedrick, J., Kraemer, K. L., & Linden, G. (2010). Who profits from innovation in global value chains? A study of the iPod and notebook PCs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 81–116.
  • D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13, 537–558.
  • Dunning, J. H., & Lundan, S. M. (2008). Multinational enterprises and the global economy. Edward Elgar.
  • Dunning, J. H., & Narula, R. (1995). The R&D activities of foreign firms in the United States. International Studies of Management and Organization, 25(1–2), 39–73.
  • Fitjar, R. D., & Gjelsvik, M. (2018). Why do firms collaborate with local universities? Regional Studies, 52(119), 1525–1536.
  • Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8-9), 909–928.
  • Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.
  • García-Vega, M., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2020). Do university technology transfers increase firms’ innovation? European Economic Review, 123, 103388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2020.103388
  • Head, K., & Mayer, T. (2004). Market potential and the location of Japanese investment in the European Union. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 959–972.
  • Head, K., Ries, J., & Swenson, D. (1995). Agglomeration benefits and location choice: Evidence from Japanese manufacturing investments in the United States. Journal of International Economics, 38(3), 223–247.
  • Hole, A. R. (2007). Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 388–401.
  • Holl, A., & Rama, R. (2016). The spatial distribution of foreign direct investment in R&D within host countries. An empirical examination of foreign subsidiaries in Spain. International Journal of Multinational Corporation Strategy, 1(1), 65–86.
  • Kuemmerle, W. (1999). The drivers of foreign direct investment into research and development: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(1)–, 124.
  • Kumar, N. (2001). Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: The case of US and Japanese corporations. Research Policy, 30(1), 159–174.
  • López, A. (2011). Effect of microaggregation on regres-sion results: An application to Spanish innovation data. Empirical Economics Letters, 10(12), 1265–1272.
  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 55–65.
  • Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). MacMillan.
  • Maza, A., & Villaverde, J. (2015). A new FDI potential index: Design and application to the EU regions. European Planning Studies, 23(12), 2535–2565.
  • McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in econo-metrics (Chap. 4, pp. 105–142). Academic Press.
  • Mukherji, N., & Silberman, J. (2021). Knowledge flows between universities and industry: The impact of distance, techno-logical compatibility, and the ability to diffuse knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(1), 223–257.
  • Narula, R., & Zanfei, A. (2005). Globalisation of innovation: The role of multinational enterprises. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Movery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 318–348). Oxford University Press.
  • OECD. (2002). Proposed standard practice for surveys for research and experimental development-Frascati manual.
  • OECD. (2008). The internationalisation of business R&D: Evidence, impacts and implications.
  • Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2014). Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities. Research Policy, 43(10), 1760–1773.
  • Shimizutani, S., & Todo, Y. (2008). What determines overseas R&D activities? The case of Japanese multinational firms. Research Policy, 37(3), 530–544.
  • Siedschlag, I., Smith, D., Turcu, C., & Zhang, X. (2013). What determines the location choice of R&D activities by multinational firms? Research Policy, 42(8), 1420–1430.
  • Sorenson, O., & Fleming, L. (2004). Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy, 33(10), 1615–1634.
  • Tijssen, R. J. W. (2004). Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge? Global trends in the output of corporate research articles. Research Policy, 33(5), 709–733.
  • Train, K. E. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
  • Villaverde, J., & Maza, A. (2015). The determinants of inward foreign direct investment: Evidence from the European regions. International Business Review, 24(2), 209–223.
  • von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus tech-nology drive in R&D internationalization: Four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31(4), 569–588.
  • Zahringer, K., Kolympiris, C., & Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2017). Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(5), 821–844.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet