Internal versus external R&D:a study of R&D choice with sample selection

This paper extends previous analyses of the choice between internal and external R&D to consider the costs of internal R&D. The Heckman two-stage estimator is used to estimate the determinants of internal R&D unit cost (i.e. cost per product innovation) allowing for sample selection effects. Theory indicates that R&D unit cost will be influenced by scale issues and by the technological opportunities faced by the firm. Transaction costs encountered in research activities are allowed for and, in addition, consideration is given to issues of market structure which influence the choice of R&D mode without affecting the unit cost of internal or external R&D. The model is tested on data from a sample of over 500 UK manufacturing plants which have engaged in product innovation. The key determinants of R&D mode are the scale of plant and R&D input, and market structure conditions. In terms of the R&D cost equation, scale factors are again important and have a non-linear relationship with R&D unit cost. Specificities in physical and human capital also affect unit cost, but have no clear impact on the choice of R&D mode. There is no evidence of technological opportunity affecting either R&D cost or the internal/external decision.

Organizational capital, product market competition and technical efficiency in Italian cooperatives

This paper tries to identify under which conditions increasing market competition may help cooperatives to improve technical efficiency to guarantee positive profits. This hypothesis is first formalized in a partial equilibrium framework and then is tested on a sample of Italian conventional and cooperative firms, using frontier analysis. Technical efficiency indexes are computed by using the one-stage approach as suggested by Battese and Coelli (1995), where proxies for competition are introduced as determinants of efficiency, along with other exogenous factors accounting for the firms’ heterogeneity. However, the overall impact of increasing competition on efficiency is negative.

The limits of open innovation:openness and (quasi-)markets in the organization of innovation

Recent studies have stressed the importance of ‘open innovation’ as a means of enhancing innovation performance. The essence of the open innovation model is to take advantage of external as well as internal knowledge sources in developing and commercialising innovation, so avoiding an excessively narrow internal focus in a key area of corporate activity. Although the external aspect of open innovation is often stressed, another key aspect involves maximising the flow of ideas and knowledge from different sources within the firm, for example through knowledge sharing via the use of cross-functional teams. A fully open innovation approach would therefore combine both aspects i.e. cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages. This suggests that there should be complementarities between the use cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages i.e. the returns to implementing open innovation in one innovation activity is should be greater if open innovation is already in place in another innovation activity. However, our findings – based on a large sample of UK and German manufacturing plants – do not support this view. Our results suggest that in practice the benefits envisaged in the open innovation model are not generally achievable by the majority of plants, and that instead the adoption of open innovation across the whole innovation process is likely to reduce innovation outputs. Our results provide some guidance on the type of activities where the adoption of a market-based governance structure such as open innovation may be most valuable. This is likely to be in innovation activities where search is deterministic, activities are separable, and where the required level of knowledge sharing is correspondingly moderate – in other words those activities which are more routinized. For this type of activity market-based governance mechanisms (i.e. open innovation) may well be more efficient than hierarchical governance structures. For other innovation activities where outcomes are more uncertain and unpredictable and the risks of knowledge exchange hazards are greater, quasi-market based governance structures such as open innovation are likely to be subject to rapidly diminishing returns in terms of innovation outputs.

Cost-based pricing in the NHS internal market : accounting choices and the achievement of economic efficiency

Since 1988, quasi-markets have been introduced into many areas of social policy in the UK, the NHS internal market is one example. Markets operate by price signals. The NHS Internal Market, if it is to operate efficiently, requires purchasers and providers to respond to price signals. The research hypothesis is - cost accounting methods can be developed to enable healthcare contracts to be priced on a cost-basis in a manner which will facilitate the achievement of economic efficiency in the NHS internal market. Surveys of hospitals in 1991 and 1994 established the cost methods adopted in deriving the prices for healthcare contracts in the first year of the market and three years on. An in-depth view of the costing for pricing process was gained through case studies. Hospitals had inadequate cost information on which to price healthcare contracts at the inception of the internal market: prices did not reflect the relative performance of healthcare providers sufficiently closely to enable the market's espoused efficiency aims to be achieved. Price variations were often due to differing costing approaches rather than efficiency. Furthermore, price comparisons were often meaningless because of inadequate definition of the services (products). In April 1993, the NHS Executive issued guidance on costing for contracting to all NHS providers in an attempt to improve the validity of price comparisons between alternative providers. The case studies and the 1994 survey show that although price comparison has improved, considerable problems remain. Consistency is not assured, and the problem of adequate product definition is still to be solved. Moreover, the case studies clearly highlight the mismatch of rigid, full-cost pricing rules with both the financial management considerations at local level and the emerging internal market(s). Incentives exist to cost-shift, and healthcare prices can easily be manipulated. In the search for a new health policy paradigm to replace traditional bureaucratic provision, cost-based pricing cannot be used to ensure a more efficient allocation of healthcare resources.

Changing treaty and changing economic context:the dynamic relationship of the legislature and the judiciary in the pursuit of capital liberalisation

Introduction For a significant period of time (the late 1950s--1980s), a lack of capital freedom was a major obstacle to the progress of the internal market project. The free movements of goods, persons and services were achieved, and developed, primarily through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). On the other hand, the Court played a (self-imposed) limited role in the development of the free movement of capital. It was through a progressive series of legislation that the freedom was finally achieved. John Usher has noted that the consequence of this is that ‘free movement of capital thus became the only Treaty “freedom” to be achieved in the manner envisaged in the Treaty’. For this reason, the relationship of the Court and legislature in this area is of particular importance in the broader context of the internal market. The rest of this chapter is split into four sections and will attempt to describe (and account for) the differing relationships between the legislature and the judiciary during the different stages of capital liberalisation. Section 2 will deal with the situation under the original Treaty of Rome. Section 3 will examine a single legislative intervention: Directive 88/361. It was this intervention that contained the obligation for Member States to fully liberalise capital movements. It is therefore the most important contribution to the completion of the internal market in the capital sphere. An examination will be made of whether the interpretation of the Directive demonstrates a changed (or changing attitude) of the Court towards the EU legislature. Section 4 will examine the changes brought about by the Treaty on European Union in 1993. It was at Maastricht that the Member States finally introduced into the Treaty framework an absolute obligation to liberalise capital movements. Finally, Section 5 will consider the Treaty of Lisbon and the possibility of future interventions by the legislature. By looking at the patterns that run through the different parts, this chapter will attempt to engage with the question of whether the approaches were products of their historical context, or whether they can be applied to other areas within the capital movement sphere.

The determinants of R&D investment: A survey of the empirical research

This paper offers an extensive survey and a critical discussion of the empirical literature on the driving factors of R&D. These factors are subsumed under five broad types. The paper first summarises the key predictions from theory regarding each type's R&D effect. It then examines for which factors differences in the theoretical predictions can also be found in empirical studies, and for which factors the empirical evidence is more unanimous. As the focus is on the empirical literature, methodological issues are also highlighted. The major factor types identified in the literature are, individual firm or industry characteristics, particularly internal finance and sales; competition in product markets; R&D tax credits and subsidies; location and resource related factors, such as spillovers from university research within close geographic proximity, membership of a research joint venture and cooperation with research centres, and the human capital embodied in knowledge workers; and spillovers from foreign R&D. Although on balance there is a consensus regarding the R&D effects of most factors, there is also variation in results. Recent work suggests that accounting for non-linearities is one area of research that may explain and encompass contradictory findings.