IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-00279198.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter ?

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Muller

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Julien Pénin

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Département des sciences économiques - UQAM - Université du Québec à Montréal = University of Québec in Montréal)

Abstract

In this paper we propose a simulation model aimed at describing the emergence and the dynamics of innovation networks, with particular emphasis on the role of open knowledge disclosure. It is argued that firms that widely disclose knowledge to other firms are more likely to enter innovation networks and to acquire a central position within these networks. By disclosing knowledge, firms increase their reputation, which indicates to other organizations that they are competent, and that it is worth starting a partnership with them. The higher a firm reputation, the higher its probability of entering new R&D partnerships with other firms. Our model provides, therefore, a rationale for behaviors of open knowledge disclosure by showing that such strategies, although risky in the short run, may pay in the long run by enabling firms to access external sources of knowledge more easily.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Muller & Julien Pénin, 2007. "Why do firms disclose knowledge and how does it matter ?," Post-Print hal-00279198, HAL.
  • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-00279198
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-49465-2_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Maskell & Mark Lorenzen, 2003. "The Cluster as Market Organization," DRUID Working Papers 03-14, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    2. B. Curtis Eaton & Mukesh Eswaran, 2001. "Know-how sharing with stochastic innovations," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 525-548, May.
    3. Koenig, Michael E. D., 1983. "A bibliometric analysis of pharmaceutical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 15-36, February.
    4. Hicks, Diana M. & Isard, Phoebe A. & Martin, Ben R., 1996. "A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 359-378, May.
    5. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    6. repec:bla:jindec:v:46:y:1998:i:2:p:157-82 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1993. "Strategic spillovers in patent races," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 139-146, March.
    8. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    9. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1994. "Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(S1), pages 63-84, December.
    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. Philippe Gorry & Diego Useche, 2018. "Orphan Drug Designations as Valuable Intangible Assets for IPO Investors in Pharma-Biotech Companies," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Dimensions of Personalized and Precision Medicine, pages 305-334, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    3. Sebastian Spaeth & Georg von Krogh & Fang He, 2015. "Research Note —Perceived Firm Attributes and Intrinsic Motivation in Sponsored Open Source Software Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 224-237, March.
    4. Roberto Camerani & Daniele Rotolo & Nicola Grassano, 2018. "Do firms publish? A multi-sectoral analysis," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2018-05, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Useche, Diego, 2014. "Are patents signals for the IPO market? An EU–US comparison for the software industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1299-1311.
    6. Liu Li & Chaoying Tang, 2020. "How Does Inter-Organizational Cooperation Impact Organizations’ Scientific Knowledge Generation? Evidence from the Biomass Energy Field," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    7. Csomós György, 2017. "Mapping Spatial and Temporal Changes of Global Corporate Research and Development Activities by Conducting a Bibliometric Analysis," Quaestiones Geographicae, Sciendo, vol. 36(1), pages 65-77, March.
    8. Benjamin Weber & Sven Heidenreich, 2016. "Improving Innovation Capabilities By Cooperation: Examining Effects Of Core Network Management Functions And Relational Mechanisms In The Industrial Goods Sector," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-29, October.
    9. Liu Li, 2020. "Trade-Off Exploration and Exploitation as Moderators: How does Technological Heterogeneity among Cooperators Affect Firms Financial Performance?," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 10(4), pages 380-398, April.
    10. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    11. Li, Yin & Arora, Sanjay & Youtie, Jan & Shapira, Philip, 2018. "Using web mining to explore Triple Helix influences on growth in small and mid-size firms," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 76, pages 3-14.
    12. Delgado-Verde, Miriam & Martín-de Castro, Gregorio & Cruz-González, Jorge & Navas-López, José Emilio, 2021. "Complements or substitutes? The contingent role of corporate reputation on the interplay between internal R&D and external knowledge sourcing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 70-83.
    13. Margherita Balconi & Valeria Lorenzi & Pier Paolo Saviotti & Antonella Zucchella, 2013. "Cognitive distance in research collaborations," DEM Working Papers Series 051, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    14. Sonja Lück & Benjamin Balsmeier & Florian Seliger & Lee Fleming, 2020. "Early Disclosure of Invention and Reduced Duplication: An Empirical Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2677-2685, June.

    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. Julien Pénin, 2007. "Open Knowledge Disclosure: An Overview Of The Evidence And Economic Motivations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 326-347, April.
    2. Julien PENIN, 2005. "Open knowledge disclosure, incomplete information and collective innovations," Working Papers of BETA 2005-10, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Haeussler, Carolin, 2009. "The Economics of Knowledge Regulation: An Empirical Analysis of Knowledge Flows," Discussion Papers in Business Administration 8971, University of Munich, Munich School of Management.
    4. Yin Li & Jan Youtie & Philip Shapira, 2015. "Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 1016-1033, December.
    5. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    6. Malva, Antonio Della & Hussinger, Katrin, 2012. "Corporate science in the patent system: An analysis of the semiconductor technology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 118-135.
    7. Noriaki Matsushima & Susumu Ogawa, 2012. "Profit-Enhancing Know-How Disclosure: A Strategic View," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 80(5), pages 560-579, September.
    8. Sternitzke, Christian, 2010. "Knowledge sources, patent protection, and commercialization of pharmaceutical innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 810-821, July.
    9. Anna Giunta & Filippo M. Pericoli & Eleonora Pierucci, 2016. "University–Industry collaboration in the biopharmaceuticals: the Italian case," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 818-840, August.
    10. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & von Hippel, Eric, 2009. "Transfers of user process innovations to process equipment producers: A study of Dutch high-tech firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 1181-1191, September.
    11. Osterloh, Margit & Rota, Sandra, 2007. "Open source software development--Just another case of collective invention?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 157-171, March.
    12. Giuri, Paola & Ploner, Matteo & Rullani, Francesco & Torrisi, Salvatore, 2010. "Skills, division of labor and performance in collective inventions: Evidence from open source software," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 54-68, January.
    13. Jonathan M. Barnett & Gilles Grolleau & Sana El Harbi, 2010. "The Fashion Lottery: Cooperative Innovation in Stochastic Markets," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 159-200, January.
    14. Margit Osterloh & Sandra Rota, 2005. "Open Source software development ? just another case of collective invention?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2005-08, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    15. Alfonso GAMBARDELLA & Bronwyn H. HALL, 2004. "Propriety vs. Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Economics Working Papers ECO2004/15, European University Institute.
    16. Lettl, Christopher & Rost, Katja & von Wartburg, Iwan, 2009. "Why are some independent inventors 'heroes' and others 'hobbyists'? The moderating role of technological diversity and specialization," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 243-254, March.
    17. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    18. Maria Alessandra Rossi, 2004. "Decoding the "Free/Open Source(F/OSS) Software Puzzle" a survey of theoretical and empirical contributions," Department of Economics University of Siena 424, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    19. Noriaki Matsushima & Laixun Zhao, 2018. "Technology spillovers and outside options in a bilateral duopoly," ISER Discussion Paper 1039, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    20. Puay Khoon Toh & Cameron D. Miller, 2017. "Pawn to Save a Chariot, or Drawbridge Into the Fort? Firms' Disclosure During Standard Setting and Complementary Technologies Within Ecosystems," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(11), pages 2213-2236, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Open knowledge disclosure; Inter-firm cooperation; Reputation; Network simulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L16 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Industrial Organization and Macroeconomics; Macroeconomic Industrial Structure
    • L23 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Organization of Production

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:hal:journl:hal-00279198. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.