Les externalités de la R&D et la capacité d’innovation : implications sur données camerounaises pour une politique de promotion d’innovation

Pilag Kakeu, Charles Bertin and Miamo Wendji, Clovis (2019): Les externalités de la R&D et la capacité d’innovation : implications sur données camerounaises pour une politique de promotion d’innovation.

Abstract

This article seeks to analyze the R&D externalities effect on innovation effort. The data analyzed based on a sample of 640 enterprises located in Douala, Yaoundé and Bafoussam. The method of estimation is a probit with selection based on the framework proposed by Heckman (1979). The first equation explains the cooperation in R&D and the second shows the innovation effort of enterprises. The empirical analysis focused on the unobserved heterogeneity of externalities. Our results reveals the existence of unobserved elements, due to cooperation between the firms, which reinforce their innovation effort. Our results reveals that cooperation can be a vector of positive externalities that reinforce their innovation effort. Moreover, our results tend to show the importance of the social returns of R&D in the innovation process. These results question the relevance of current innovation policies, mainly focused on the promotion of private R&D. Thus, innovation promotion policies should be oriented towards open innovation and intensified innovation cooperation.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• English Title: The externalities of R&D and innovation effort: implications for Cameroonian data for innovation promotion
• Language: French
• Keywords: Innovation, Open innovation, R&D, cooperation, externality.
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O35 - Social Innovation; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy

References

Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., (2005b). “Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120 (2), pp. 701–728.

Aitken, B.J., Harrison, A.E., (1999). Do domestic firms benefit from direct foreign investment ? Evidence from Venezuela. American Economic Review 89 (3), 605–618.

Angrist, J., Pischke, J., (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Arrow, K., (1962). The economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies 29, 155–173.

Ayerbe, C., (2006). Innovations technologique et organisationnelle au sein de PME innovantes : complémentarité des processus, analyse comparative des mécanismes de diffusion. Revue internationale P.M.E.,19(1), 9–34.

Banque mondiale, (2017). Doing Business 2018. Données clés : Afrique subsaharienne.

Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., Van Reenen, J., (2012). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. CEP Discussion paper., pp. 675.

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography 9, 439–468.

Chesbrough, H.W., (2003a). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA.

Chesbrough, H.W., (2006). Open innovation: a new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Cohen, W.M. et Levinthal, D.A., (1990), «Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning an innovation », Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, n° 1, p. 128-152.

Crépon, B., Duguet, E., Mairesse, J., (1998). Research, innovation and productivity: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7, 115–158.

Crespi, G., Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J., Slaughter, M.J., (2008). Productivity Growth, Knowl- edge Flows, and Spillovers. NBER Working Paper No. W13959.

Czarnitzki, D., Kraft, K., (2011). Spillovers of innovation activities and their profitability. Oxford Economic Papers 64 (2), 302–322.

Dahlander, L., Gann, D.M., (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy 39, 699–709.

Davenport, S., J. Davies, and C. Grimes. (1998). Collaborative research programmes: Building trust from difference. Technovation 19, no. 1: 31–40.

DIUS, (2008). Innovation Nation, Cm7345, London. Dodgson, M.,Gann, D., Salter, A., (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Management 36 (3), 333–346.

Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R., (2004). The Oxford Handbook of Innovations.

Freel, M.S., (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation 25, 123–134.

Freeman, C., (1991). « Networks of innovators : a synthesis of research issues », Research Policy, vol. 20, n°5, oct., p. 499-514.

Geroski, P., (1995). What do we know about entry? International Journal of Industrial Organization 13 (4), 421–440.

Griffith, R., Huergo, E., Mairesse, J., Peters, B., (2006). Innovation and productivity across four european countries. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22, 483–498.

Guzzini, E., Iacobucci, D., & Palestrini, A., (2017). Collaboration for innovation and project failure. A dynamic analysis, Economics of Innovation and New Technology.

Hausman, A., & Stock, J. R., (2003). Adoption and implementation of technological innovations within long-term relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 681–686.

Heckman, J., (1979). “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error”, Econometrica, 47, pp. 153-162.

Hofmann, C., Orr, S., (2005). Advanced manufacturing technology adoption – the Ger- man experience. Technovation 25 (7), 711–724.

Holmen, E., Pedersen, A. -C., & Torvatn, T., (2005). Building relationships for technological innovation. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1240–1250.

Ibrahim, S.E., Fallah, M.H., Reilly, R.R., (2009). Localized sources of knowledge and the effect of knowledge spillovers: an empirical study of inventors in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Economic Geography 9 (3), 405–431.

INSEAD, (2017). The global innovation index 2017: Innovation feeding the world.

Jaffe, A.B., (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D. American Economic Review 76, 984–1001.

Javorcik, B., (2004). Does foreign direct investment increase the productivity of domestic firms? In search of spillovers through backward linkages. The Ameri- can Economic Review 94 (3), 605–627.

Jirjahn, U., Kraft, K., (2011). Do spillovers stimulate incremental or drastic product innovations? Evidence from German establishment data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 73 (4), 509–538.

Khaleel Malik & Jiang Wei., (2011). How external partnering enhances innovation: evidence from Chinese technology-based SMEs, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23:4, 401-413.

Klette, T.J., Johansen, F., (1998). Accumulation of R&D capital and dynamic firm performance: a not-so-fixed effect model. Annales de economie et de statistique 49-50, 389–419. Kovacs, G., Kopacsi, S., Haidegger, G., Michelini, R., (2006). Ambient intelligence in product life-cycle management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelli- gence 19 (8), 953–965.

Laursen, K., & Salter, A., (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

Laursen, K., Salter, A., (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining Innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27, 131–150.

Leiponen, A., Helfat, C.E., (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal 31, 224–236.

Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H., (2009). Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness. R&D Management 39 (1), 38–54.

Lipsey, R.E., (2002). Home and Host Country Effects of FDI. NBER Working Paper 9293. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Love, J.H., Roper, S., Vahter, P., (2011). Learning from Open Innovation. CSME Working Paper No. 112. Warwick Business School.

Manski, C., (1995). Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Harvard University Press, Harvard, Massachusetts.

McCutcheon, D., and Stuart, F.I., (2000). Issues in the choice of supplier alliance partners. Journal of Operations Management, 18, no. 3: 279–301.

Ndzana Eloundou, M., (2015). L’innovation dans les petites et moyennes entreprises (pme) au Cameroun, Thèse de Doctorat de Université de Yaoundé II Cameroun.

Nooteboom, B., (2002). A cognitive theory of the firm, Paper for ESNIE workshop Alternative Theories of the Firm, Paris, November.

Rao, K.U., Kishore, V.V.N., (2010). A review of technology diffusion models with special reference to renewable energy technologies. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews 14 (3), 1070–1078.

Robertson, P.L. et R.N. Langlois (1995), « Innovation, networks, and vertical integration », Research Policy, vol. 24, n° 4, juin, p. 543-562.

Roper, S., Vahter, P., Love, J.H., (2013). Externalities of openness in innovation. Research Policy-2862 ; No. of Pages 11.

Safoulanitou, L., N., Zamo-Akono, C., et Ndivulu., X., B., (2013). PME et innovation : une analyse comparative entre le Cameroun, le Congo et la RDC. Rapport de recherche du FR-CIEA N°67/13, Dakar, 85.

Sampson, R. C., (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.

Santos, D. F. L., Basso, L. F. C., Kimura, H., & Kayo, E. K., (2014). Innovation efforts and performances of Brazilian firms. Journal of Business Research, 67(4), 527-535.

Schoenmakers, W., and Duysters, G., (2006). Learning in strategic technology alliances. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 18, no. 2: 245–64.

Tassey, G., (2005). The disaggregated technology production function: a new model of university and corporate research. Research Policy 34 (3), 287–303.

Tékam Oumbé, H., (2017). Innovation et performance des entreprises au Cameroun, Thèse de Doctorat de Université de Dschang Cameroun.

Uzunidis, D., (2010). « Innovation et Proximité. Entreprises, Entrepreneurs et Milieux Innovateurs », La Revue des Sciences de Gestion 2010/1 (n°241), p. 13-22.

Vahter, P., Love, J.H., Roper, S., (2011). Openness and Innovation Performance: Are Small Firms Different? CSME Working Paper No113.

Von Hippel, E., (1978). « Successful industrial products from customer ideas », Journal of Marketing, vol. 42, n° 1, p. 39-49.

Woolthuis, R.K., Lankhuizen, M., Gilsing, V., (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25, 609–619.

Yusuf, S., (2008). Intermediating knowledge exchange between universities and businesses. Research Policy 37, 1167–1