knowledge flows between multinational enterprises and national innovation systems 2 nd euroframe...
TRANSCRIPT
Knowledge Flows between Multinational Enterprises and National Innovation Systems
2nd EUROFRAME Conference: Trade, FDI and relocation: challenges for the EU?
Bernhard Dachs (ARC-sys), Bernd Ebersberger (FhG-ISI)
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Introduction
Paper asks about knowledge and information transfer from the host country to affiliates of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs)
Policy relevance: Fears in Europe and the US that MNEs may relocate innovative activities because of cost advantages
If innovation is an interactive process ... A high degree of interactions between MNE and the host
country may reduce the danger of relocation of MNE innovative activities
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Theoretical approaches
There is no clear picture on this question in the literature:
international business literature tries to explain FDI and exports in a common microeconomic
framework (knowledge capital model, Markusen 2002) Affiliates mostly exploit assets created by the partent company
approaches to „local embeddedness“ of affiliates associated with the literature on local spillovers, innovative
strategies of MNEs and global alliances Affiliates actively increase the stock of knowledge of the MNE
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
apporaches to local embeddedness
no coherent framework but some building blocks:
Internationalisation is a source, not a result of knowledge creation (‚home base augmenting‘ vs. ‚home base exploiting‘ – Kuemmerle 1997)
A reason for this is the partly tacit, context-specific, and local nature of knowledge and spillovers (Breschi and Lissoni 2001)
foreign affiliates act in many cases as ‚surveillance outposts‘, or ‚antennas‘ to benefit from local spillovers (Florida 1997, Almeida 1999)
MNEs give themselves a more decentralized organisational form (Zanfei 2000), where local affiliates enjoy wider mandates (Birkinshaw; Hakanson)
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Questions
Does foreign ownership have an impact on:
the propensity to enter into co-operation for innovation with different kinds of partners?
on which knowledge sources the firm relies for innovation?
Does the home country of the MNE determine the co-operation or sourcing behavior of the firms? ‘Cultural’ proximity and long-lasting business relations may
ease co-operation between AT, D, CH
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Data
Community Innovation Survey 3 (CIS 3) for Austria A survey of innovative enterprises in all member
countries of the EU covering 2000 - 2002
Sample size: 618 (only group enterprises)
Austrian-owned firms: 390
Foreign-owned firms: 228- German-Liechtenstein-Swiss-owned (GLS) 118
- Anglo-Saxon-owned (AS) 53
- European-owned (EU) 47
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Types of interaction in the data
formal co-operation with different partners, dom. and abroad a co-operation on a contractual basis may also include risk sharing, exploitation of economics of
scale involves exchange in both directions and mutual learning builds up trust and a common codebook (tacitness)
valuation of different information sources for innovation much more informal include demonstration, imitation, reversed engineering, ...
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Empirical model
The impact of foreign ownership
compare the actual behavior with the counterfactual behavior
counterfactual behavior: "How would the foreign-owned firm have behaved if it was in domestic rather than foreign ownership?"
counterfactual situation not observable
counterfactual situation is estimated by means of a kernel based matching procedure
mean effects are computed
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Results – impact of foreign ownership I. FO EU GLS AS
Collaboration Total (.) Domestic (-)
- Vertical (-)
- Horizontal (.)
- Science (-) International (.)
- Vertical (.)
- Horizontal (.)
- Science (.) Valuation of information
- Internal + grp. (+)
- External firms (-)
- Science (.)
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Results – impact of foreign ownership II. FO EU GLS AS
Collaboration Total (.) (.) (.) (-) Domestic (-) (.) (.) (-)
- Vertical (-) (.) (.) (-)
- Horizontal (.) (.) (.) (-)
- Science (-) (.) (.) (-) International (.) (.) (.) (.)
- Vertical (.) (.) (.) (.)
- Horizontal (.) (.) (.) (.)
- Science (.) (.) (.) (.) Sourcing
- Internal (+) (+) (+) (+)
- External (-) (-) (-) (-)
- Science (.) (.) (.) (.)
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Likelihood of foreign and domestic enterprises to enter into co-operative arrangements
Type of co-operations All foreign-owned Austrian
All co-operations 0.307 0.355
Domestic co-operations 0.228 0.333
International coop 0.238 0.249
Type of co-operationsEuropean (incl
GLS) AustrianEuropean (without
GLS) Austrian
All co-operations 0.364 0.361 0.400 0.321
Domestic co-operations 0.299 0.339 0.300 0.305
International coop 0.273 0.249 0.350 0.207
Type of co-operations Anglo-Saxon Austrian GLS Austrian
All co-operations 0.125 0.333 0.351 0.374
Domestic co-operations 0.000 0.306 0.298 0.350
International coop 0.125 0.247 0.246 0.264
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Effects of Foreign ownership:
... leads to less domestic co-operation, ... but not to a significantly lower overall co-operation
propensity
... causes companies to draw more on group internal knowledge sources for innovation.
this points to ‘home-base exploiting’ behavior
Differences with respect to parent home country exist but they cannot be explained by neighborhood (D/LI/CH)
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
international business literature: Knowledge capital model (Markusen 2002)
MNEs possess firm-specific assets these assets are intangible and transferable within the
firm MNEs use these assets to enter foreign markets
because they give them advantages over incument competiors
to fully exploit these assets, they have to be adopted to local needs, consumer tastes, regulation etc.
engineering and R&D units are located at target markets of MNEs for these adjustments, but main R&D is concentrated at the home country
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Results and Conclusions
Bu there is no pure ‘home-base exploiting’, since
International co-operation is unaffected by ownership Differences mostly come from Anglo-Saxon
enterprises Some pairs even show a higher propensity for the
foreign-owned enterprises
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Policy implications
A lower propensity for foreign-owned firms to enter domestic co-operations may point to a weaker ‘embeddedness’ of MNE affiliates
However, important sub-groups of the population don’t show such effects; even domestic linkages are quite strong for large parts of the MNE population
Therefore, the danger of relocation of innovative activities may be overstated in current discussions because MNE affiliates strongly depend on their business environment in Austria
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Thank you!
© systems research & Fraunhofer ISI
Relation to findings from other countries
Impact on collaboration with domestic actors Collaboration total vert. sci. Austria:# (.) (.) (.) Denmark: (.) (.) (.) Finland:NMN (Nordic) (+) (+) (.) Norway: (.) (.) (.) Sweden: *EU, **AS (.) (+)* (+)* **
Internal sourcing Austria: AS, GLS, EU (+) Denmark: NMN, AS (+) Finland:NMN (+) Norway: NMN, AS, EU (+) Sweden: NMN, AS, EU (+)
Nordic countries taken from Ebersberger & Lööf (2005)# for EU and GLS owned, AS owned (-)