IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v88y2014icp202-215.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Government roles in evaluation and arrangement of R&D consortia

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Ji-hyun
  • Bae, Sung Joo
  • Yang, Jae-Suk

Abstract

The role of government in forming and coordinating R&D consortia has often been cited in studies of the economic success of latecomer countries such as Korea and Japan. Most previous studies documented the government's efforts to provide funding. In our research about the government's role in determining the quality of innovation, we develop a computational model based on genetic algorithms. The two main aspects of government involvement explored in this study are 1) the timing of evaluation of participating firms in a consortium, and 2) the form that these consortia take. In terms of the timing of evaluation, we find that continuous evaluation is consistently superior to early evaluation. In addition, the effect of the form of the consortium depends on the timing of evaluation. An inverse pyramid arrangement, which emphasizes variation at the beginning of the innovation process, outperforms a pyramid-form arrangement only when evaluation is continuous. We identify the tension and reconciliation between diversity and selection as the force underlying the results of this study. We discuss these findings and their implications for how governments should balance diversity and selection when designing innovation systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Ji-hyun & Bae, Sung Joo & Yang, Jae-Suk, 2014. "Government roles in evaluation and arrangement of R&D consortia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 202-215.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:88:y:2014:i:c:p:202-215
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162514002224
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    2. Aldrich, Howard E. & Sasaki, Toshihiro, 1995. "R&D consortia in the United States and Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 301-316, March.
    3. Lee G. Branstetter & Mariko Sakakibara, 2002. "When Do Research Consortia Work Well and Why? Evidence from Japanese Panel Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 143-159, March.
    4. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Wu, Yun-Ying & Ip, Jasper Chi-man & Hills, Peter Ronald, 2013. "The role of the state in sustainable energy transitions: A case study of large smart grid demonstration projects in Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 726-737.
    5. Dong-Sung Cho & Dong-Jae Kim & Dong Kee Rhee, 1998. "Latecomer Strategies: Evidence from the Semiconductor Industry in Japan and Korea," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 489-505, August.
    6. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    7. Mariko Sakakibara, 2001. "The Diversity of R&D Consortia and Firm Behavior: Evidence from Japanese Data," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 181-196, June.
    8. repec:bla:jindec:v:49:y:2001:i:2:p:181-96 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    10. Tripsas, Mary & Schrader, Stephan & Sobrero, Maurizio, 1995. "Discouraging opportunistic behavior in collaborative R & D: A new role for government," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 367-389, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lee, Young Hoon & Kim, YoungJun, 2016. "Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 93-105.
    2. Bae, Sung Joo & Lee, Hyeonsuh, 2020. "The role of government in fostering collaborative R&D projects: Empirical evidence from South Korea," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas & Bart Verspagen, 2017. "The motivations, institutions and organization of university-industry collaborations in the Netherlands," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 379-412, July.
    2. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    3. Hottenrott, Hanna & Lopes-Bento, Cindy, 2014. "(International) R&D collaboration and SMEs: The effectiveness of targeted public R&D support schemes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1055-1066.
    4. BeomJu Park & Chang-Yang Lee, 2023. "Does R&D cooperation with competitors cause firms to invest in R&D more intensively? evidence from Korean manufacturing firms," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 1045-1076, June.
    5. Nishimura, Junichi & Okamuro, Hiroyuki, 2018. "Internal and external discipline: The effect of project leadership and government monitoring on the performance of publicly funded R&D consortia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 840-853.
    6. James Hayton & Paul Olk, 2013. "Developing alliance formation process capabilities: replication, adaptation and flexibility in creating research and development consortia," Research Papers 0013, Enterprise Research Centre.
    7. Masao Nakamura & Mariko Sakakibara, 2003. "Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(2-3), pages 117-132.
    8. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    9. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    10. Hayashi, Takayuki, 2003. "Effect of R&D programmes on the formation of university-industry-government networks: comparative analysis of Japanese R&D programmes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1421-1442, September.
    11. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. James Hayton & Saloua Sehili & Vida Scarpello, 2010. "Why do firms join consortial research centers? An empirical examination of firm, industry and environmental antecedents," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 35(5), pages 494-510, October.
    13. Lin, Feng-Jyh & Wu, Shang-He & Hsu, Maw-Shin & Perng, Chyuan, 2016. "The determinants of government-sponsored R&D alliances," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 5192-5195.
    14. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    15. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    16. Huang, Minjie & Kubick, Thomas R. & Tseng, Kevin, 2021. "Technology spillovers and the duration of executive compensation," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.
    18. Konan Alain N'Ghauran & Corinne Autant-Bernard, 2020. "Assessing the collaboration and network additionality of innovation policies: a counterfactual approach to the French cluster policy," Post-Print halshs-03128972, HAL.
    19. Zhang, Zijun & Kusiak, Andrew & Song, Zhe, 2013. "Scheduling electric power production at a wind farm," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 227-238.
    20. Hart E. Posen & Dirk Martignoni & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2013. "E Pluribus Unum: Organizational Size and the Efficacy of Learning," DRUID Working Papers 13-09, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:88:y:2014:i:c:p:202-215. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.