New challenges in European innovation partnerships. SOEs, POEs and foreign MNEs during crises
Abstract
Este artículo está sujeto a una licencia CC BY 4.0
Full text
Page 1/23 New challenges in European innovation partnerships. SOEs, POEs and foreign MNEs during crises Antonio García-Sánchez University of Seville https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7747-6929 Ruth Rama ( [email protected] ) National Research Council of Spain (CSIC) https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0193-473X Research Article Keywords: cooperation for innovation, internationalisation of R&D, business cycle, crisis, foreign subsidiaries, stateowned enterprises Posted Date: November 28th, 2023 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3671644/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 2/23 Abstract Cooperation for innovation, not only enhances the innovative and economic performance of companies but also fosters growth and strengthens the resilience of rms in the realm of innovation activities. In this study, we delve into the cooperative activities of Spanish companies with their European counterparts. We employ three logit models using panel data to scrutinize the impact of ownership on innovation cooperation and the determinants of collaboration across different phases of the business cycle, spanning from 2004 to 2016, which we divide into three sub-periods: the pre-crisis (2004–2007), the crisis (2008–2013), and the recovery (2014–2016). State-owned enterprises are the most prone to engage in cooperative innovation with European partners, while unaliated domestic rms are the least prone. Foreign subsidiaries outperform unaliated domestic rms but not domestic business groups nor state-owned enterprises. Drivers of cooperation for innovation with European partners evolve, with cooperation becoming particularly challenging during times of crisis. The results contain policy and management implications. 1. Introduction Firms are increasingly engaging in open innovation with a variety of partners in order to access new technology, share expenditures, and reduce time to market. One such open innovation strategy is that of cooperation for innovation1, which consists of the active participation of a rm in innovative activities carried out either with other companies or with institutions, such as universities. The literature suggests that this is a worthy strategy. Firms that engage in cooperation for innovation are more likely than others to be innovative, and even to perform better and grow faster (Archibugi et al., 2013; Arvanitis & Bolli, 2013; Cantabene & Grassi, 2022; Fernández Sastre, 2012; Freire & Gonçalves, 2022; Radicic et al., 2019; Srholec, 2014; Tether, 2002; Trigo & Vence, 2012; Vega-Jurado et al., 2009). Most importantly, rms that are able to cooperate fare better than others during crises (D’Agostino & Moreno, 2018; Zouaghi et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2022). Even in the midst of the 2008 crisis, certain rms managed to boost their R&D investment for several reasons, one of which was their active participation in open innovation (Archibugi et al., 2013; Hansen & Nybakk, 2018; Holl & Rama, 2016; Paunov, 2012). Beyond its importance at the microeconomic level, cooperative innovation also contributes towards the development of the National Innovation System (NIS) and may be a tool of industrial policy (Liu et al., 2017; Freire & Gonçalves, 2022). International cooperation2 is often crucial for rms located in countries that are not at the forefront of science and technology since it enables them to access resources, knowledge, markets, and opportunities that may not be readily available within their own borders (Freire & Gonçalves, 2022). This scenario is particularly relevant for many peripheral European countries and emerging economies. Mostly based on empirical evidence provided by the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) of the European Union (EU), the rich literature has now substantially increased our understanding of cooperation for innovation. Nonetheless, at least two aspects deserve further consideration. Despite the potential benets of cooperation, it remains uncertain whether rms can successfully partake in collaborative endeavours, and what distinguishes those that can surmount such challenges during times of crisis. The existing literature seldom addresses these questions, with only a few exceptions (GarcíaSánchez & Rama, 2020 and 2022; Wang, 2021), as most of the available evidence on cooperation primarily pertains to “normal” phases of the business cycle. Srholec (2015) notes that the majority of studies focused on cooperation for innovation lean on cross-sectional evidence, thus obscuring our understanding of the dynamics involved. This concern is also echoed by other scholars in the eld of cooperation (Bianchi et al., 2019; Friedberg & Neuville, 1999). The creation of innovative networks across Europe stands as a crucial strategy for the EU in the realms of innovation, reindustrialization, and reducing global dependence. This is especially pertinent in critical sectors like defence, semiconductors, and sustainable energy 3. However, there remains a notable lack of understanding concerning the dynamics of this cooperation. Therefore, there is a need for more longitudinal research in this area to address this limitation and gain a deeper understanding of the subject.
Page 3/23 Secondly, the association of ownership and cooperation in the context of innovation has garnered signicant attention from researchers (Arvanitis & Bolli, 2013; Cozza et al., 2018; Dachs et al., 2008; Ebersberger et al., 2011; Holl & Rama, 2014; Srholec, 2009; Veugelers & Cassiman, 2004). However, it remains incomplete as it seldom incorporates stateownership into its analysis (García-Sánchez & Rama, 2022; Roud & Vlasova, 2020; Wang, 2021). Addressing this gap in the literature is crucial since stated-owned enterprises (SOEs) have traditionally played a major role in the economy of many European countries and emerging countries (Böwer, 2017; Bruton et al., 2015). Their numbers and signicance have increased worldwide, since they are considered as a policy tool in times of crises (Gasperin, 2022; He et al., 2016; Nurgozhayeva, 2022; UNCTAD, 2021). However, their innovation strategies and, specically, their cooperative behaviour have largely remained overlooked (Castelnovo, 2022; Gershman et al., 2016; González Álvarez & Argothy, 2019). We strive to contribute towards lling the aforementioned gaps in the literature and, in doing so, the following questions are addressed. Which types of rms are more likely to successfully navigate challenges during times of crisis and participate in cooperative efforts? Do drivers of cooperation change when a crisis erupts? Does ownership inuence the probability that a rm participates in such partnerships during downturns? Considering the aforementioned scarcity of analyses, our particular interest lies in comparing the behaviour of SOEs with that of foreign subsidiaries and privatelyowned domestic rms. The idea behind this inquiry is that SOEs are subject to unique institutional arrangements, constraints, and stimuli that positively inuence their cooperative behaviour. In this article, panel data is employed to analyse a sample of rms located in Spain and their collaboration with European partners 4 (outside Spain) in 2004–2016. The period is divided into three sub-periods: a pre-crisis phase (2004–2007), a crisis phase (2008–2013), and a recovery phase (2014–2016). The rst was characterised by high rates of growth, but Spain was subsequently badly hit by the 2008 nancial crisis, and its recovery period started later than in other EU countries. The European Innovation Scoreboard labels Spain as a “moderate innovator”5. During the crisis, Spanish enterprises often abandoned innovation (Brzozowski & Cucculelli, 2016; Holl & Rama, 2016; Zouaghi et al., 2018), and public nance devoted to innovation was substantially reduced (Cruz-Castro et al., 2018). The signicant impact of the 2008 crisis on Spain's NIS makes it an intriguing case for the analysis of cooperation for innovation with European partners (CIEP) throughout the business cycle. On the other hand, the analysis of cooperation during the 2008 crisis may be of interest since this arrangement constitutes a coping strategy that can be applied to deal with other uncertain environments (Sholec, 2015; Wang, 2021). While different types of crises affect rms in varying ways, the procyclical nature of innovation remains a consistent characteristic across diverse crisis scenarios (Archibugi et al, 2013; Brzozowski & Cucculelli, 2016; Busom & Vélez-Ospina, 2021; Friz & Günther, 2021; Geroski & Walters, 1995). This means that investment in innovative activities tends to decline during economic downturns and, conversely, increases during economic upturns. Given the recent succession of crises (e.g., the 2008 crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and war), understanding the cooperative behaviour of rms during downturns has become an urgent task. In this article, two contributions are made to the literature. Being a pioneering study in dynamic analysis of intraEuropean cooperation across the business cycle, this article sheds light on how the determinants of cooperation undergo transformations under harsh economic conditions. Additionally, our ndings underscore the signicance of accounting for state ownership as a crucial factor in examining the interplay between ownership structures and cooperation dynamics. In Section 2, we examine the relevant literature that forms the theoretical foundation and the context setting of our investigation, and articulate our hypotheses. Section 3 presents the methodology, and Section 4 the results and the discussion. Section 5 concludes. 2. Review of the literature and hypotheses
Page 4/23 2.1. Dening international cooperation International cooperation refers to partners located in different countries working together to develop new ideas, technologies, and products. Although there are exceptions (Arvanitis & Bolli, 2013; Cozza et al., 2018; De Faria & Schmidt, 2012; Ebersberger et al., 2011; Fernández-Sastre, 2012; Holl and Rama, 2014; Srholec, 2014), the majority of the available studies fail to distinguish between domestic and international cooperation for innovation. The question is important since cultural and institutional distance may raise specic impediments to international cooperation (Edwards-Schachter et al., 2013; Gershman, 2012; Posselt & Rauch, 2011; Schmiele, 2012). Herein, the focus is on the collaboration of rms located in Spain with partners located in other European countries since, in this case, the institutional, regulatory, and business environment of such collaborations is likely to be relatively homogeneous. Accessing new markets constitutes one of the goals of rms that engage in international cooperation (Arranz & Fernández de Arroyabe, 2008; Calvo, 2023; Edwards-Schachter et al., 2013), but not necessarily the most important. Analyses of EU rms signal size, absorptive capacity, appropriability, export experience, incoming spillovers, risk-sharing, and R&D cost-sharing as the major drivers of international cooperation (Arvanitis & Bolli, 2013; Barajas & Huergo, 2010; De Faria & Schmidt, 2012). 2.2. Explaining cooperation Our topic stands at the cross-roads of several lines of research. Three main theoretical approaches have sought to elucidate cooperation, each emphasizing distinct aspects: motives for cooperation, opportunities for cooperation, and conducive environments for establishing such arrangements. The resources-based-view (RBV) of the rm focuses on drivers of cooperation: rms cooperate in order to reduce the risks and costs of R&D, shorten the product life cycle, expand their product range, access new knowledge and new markets, and solve technical diculties (Arranz & Fernández de Arroyabe, 2008; De Faria & Schmidt, 2012; Edwards-Schachter et al., 2013; Miotti & Sachwald, 2003). This theoretical proposition has garnered empirical support. For example, in a study on a French sample, it was found that rms encountering impediments to innovation, particularly those related to nancial challenges, tend to participate in cooperation for innovation (Antonioli et al., 2017). Similarly, the majority of prior studies have noted that knowledgerelated challenges frequently motivate rms to embark on collaborative initiatives (Salazar-Elena et al., 2023). However, other authors have argued that opportunities to collaborate should also be considered since possession of technical or commercial capital determines the attractiveness of a rm to potential partners (Ahuja, 2000). In choosing partners, companies appraise both their technical skills and their market potential (Bianchi et al., 2019; García-Sánchez et al., 2017). When analyzing industrial partnerships, Friedberg and Neuville (1999) observe that decisions are contingent upon the perceived quality of the rms involved. In the "market" for partnerships, they claim, organizations and their reputations are in competition. Each of these theories would yield distinct predictions regarding the role of crises as drivers of cooperation. The RBV suggests that rms confronting nancial constraints for R&D funding or encountering market diculties during crises are more inclined to engage in cooperation compared to their counterparts. Conversely, the argument focusing on cooperative opportunities suggests that companies facing fewer diculties are more likely to collaborate than their counterparts, owing to their appeal to potential partners amidst challenging economic conditions. Finally, the social capital theory identies the environmental conditions that facilitate cooperation. Social networks provide an effective tool for the prevention of and punishment for opportunistic economic behaviour, and instead create trust between partners (Granovetter, 2005). In the context of partnerships, trust holds signicant importance when it comes to managing uncertainty, as it signies the ability to anticipate a partner's future actions (Vahlne & Johanson, 2019). Initially, the concept of social capital was linked to the idea of geographic proximity. However, in more recent literature, it has evolved to encompass the concept of international social capital. In the international scene, the concept
Page 5/23 incorporates a wide range of assets, such as an understanding of foreign-market institutions and of decision-making processes. A variety of relationships and agreements provide opportunities to increase the social capital of a company and, consequently, its ability to cooperate, such as production subcontracting, common membership of associations, and professional connections (Granovetter, 2005). Interlocking directorates, which are formed when an individual participates in two or more boards of directors, also contribute towards creating social structures and trust (Aguilera, 1998; Cao et. al, 2023; Wang, 2021). There are also transnational interlocking ties between rms, as demonstrated by Valeeva (2022) in her study of global cities connected through the exchange of transnational board members. She maintains that this corporate elite community is built upon well-established national networks of relationships. Structural holes may also create opportunities for actors who are able to bridge such holes. These are gaps between unconnected groups of economic players (Saglietto et al., 2020). A third player may obtain intermediation benets by linking those unconnected groups, and the arrangement may create new opportunities since complex networks may generate a greater variety of ideas and resources. Therefore, extended networks might display both direct ties and indirect ties between players through an intermediary (Saglietto et al., 2020). The obtaining of a subsidy may signal the receiver as a valuable potential partner and, consequently, may also mitigate uncertainty and facilitate collaboration (Bianchi et al., 2019). 2.3. Cooperation and crises Even though cooperation appears to be a resilience-enhancing factor, there has been a noticeable lack of comprehensive analysis concerning the collaborative behavior of rms during periods of crisis (D'Agostino & Moreno, 2018). The few available empirical studies on this subject reveal that rms tend to exhibit either no countercyclical inclinations or, in some cases, a reduction in their cooperative initiatives during crises (Azagra-Caro et al., 2019; Lincoln et al., 2017; Hoffmann et al., 2017). Cooperation comes with associated costs, risks, agency problems and the challenge of identifying reliable partners, which can become even more daunting in times of crisis (Edwards-Schachter et al., 2013; Friedberg & Neuville, 1999; Vivona et al, 2023; Williams & Ecker, 2014). Based on the limited available evidence, it appears that fostering domestic cooperation poses greater challenges in times of economic hardship; nevertheless, rms with cooperative experience demonstrate a resilience that enables them to maintain a cooperative stance (GarcíaSánchez & Rama, 2022). Persisting in cooperative activities has the potential to enable a company to expand its international social capital and enhance its managerial capabilities for collaboration, thus enabling it to overcome challenges. However, to the best of our knowledge, this particular question has not yet been explored in an international context. The primary obstacle seems to be the scarcity of available panel data. 2.4. Cooperation and ownership This subsection explores whether various types of ownership act as catalysts for international cooperation. 2.4.1. Group ownership A business group consists of two or more legally dened enterprises under common ownership. Groups may be national or multinational. Group membership facilitates the engagement of a rm in cooperative innovation since groups provide access to greater resources, such as nance, equipment, and facilities (Arranz & Fernández de Arroyabe, 2008; Arvanitis & Bolli, 2013; Molero & Heijs, 2002). In contrast, unaliated rms are, in most cases, SMEs that experience diculties in establishing cooperative relationships (Belderbos et al., 2006; Ebersberger et al., 2011; Radicic et al., 2019; SegarraBlasco & Arauzo-Carod, 2008). Therefore, we expect that business groups are more likely than unaliated rms to sustain successful CIEP during downturns.
Page 6/23 2.4.2. Foreign ownership Regarding foreign ownership, the concept of international cooperation is rooted in the convergence of studies on cooperation and the internationalization of R&D (Barajas and Huergo, 2010). Recent contributions in the eld of International Business (IB) literature accentuate the evolving network-like characteristics inherent in international R&D activities (Papanastassiou et al., 2020). Building on this perspective, Schmiele (2012, p. 101) asserts that "international innovation activities represent a distinct form of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)." Furthermore, Calvo (2023) challenges the conventional notion that FDI is the sole avenue for a rm to enter the international service sector. Particularly in knowledge and capital-intensive services, collaborative processes can unfold without the need for shareholding transactions, a phenomenon he terms "internationalization through cooperation" (p. 243). This underscores the dynamic nature of international business strategies, where cooperation plays a pivotal role alongside traditional FDI approaches. The empirical literature has investigated the impact of foreign ownership on cooperative behavior, often using domestic business groups (DBG) as a control group (Dachs et al., 2008; Ebersberger et al, 2011; Fernández Sastre, 2012; Holl & Rama, 2014; Srolec, 2009 and 2015). Comparing foreign subsidiaries (FS) with DBG is viewed as a more symmetrical exercise than comparing FS with all types of domestic rms (unaliated rms included), given that FS inherently belong to a business group. Highlighting the diversity among domestic rms, recent studies have scrutinized the local cooperative behaviour of FS, particularly in comparison to other types of domestic rms such as DBG involved in international networks of cooperation, as well as with native MNEs (Holl & Rama, 2019; Cozza et al., 2018). Furthermore, some studies have specically examined how the local cooperative behaviour of FS contrasts with that of SOEs (GarcíaSánchez & Rama, 2022, Wang, 2021). The relationship between foreign ownership and international cooperation remains controversial. According to certain authors, foreign ownership increases the likelihood of international cooperation at the expense of collaboration in the host country. For instance, a Pan-European study detects a positive effect of foreign ownership on international cooperation but a negative effect on domestic cooperation (Ebersberger et al., 2011). Similar results are found for Belgium (Veugelers & Cassiman, 2004), Italy (Cozza et al., 2018), and 12 European countries of which seven are newmember countries of the EU (Srholec, 2009). Arvanitis & Bolli (2013) nd similar effects for pooled manufacturing in ve European countries, and specically for Norway at the country level. However, two studies on Spain agree in that FS display a lower propensity than do DBG to engage in international cooperation and are, instead, strongly oriented towards local partnerships (Fernández Sastre, 2012; Holl & Rama, 2014). The explanation for differences may reside in the characteristics of the host country and the objectives of the MNEs (De Faria & Schmidt, 2012). The aforementioned authors observe that FS active in Portugal are prone to engaging in international cooperation, while FS active in Germany are not. They conclude that MNEs may be using Portugal as a base for innovation activities with rms located in other European countries, possibly due to the diculty in nding appropriate partners within the host country. Likewise, within Europe, Srholec (2009) and Ebersberger et al. (2011) nd that FS are more likely to partake in international collaborations when located in less developed countries, where establishing technologically advanced partnerships might prove challenging. Other factors may also be at play. For instance, Holl & Rama (2014) suggests that in Spain, FS may show a strong inclination towards collaborating with local partners, primarily because of their extensive subcontracting relationships in the host-country. The available evidence on cooperation and foreign ownership during crises is inconclusive. Brancati et al. (2017) and Paunov (2012) suggest that during the 2008 crisis, FS in Italy and Latin America, respectively, were likely to reduce their collaboration with domestic partners. In Spain, FS active in Information and Communication Technologies outperformed domestic POEs during the downturn, probably due to their easier access to international nance (García-Sánchez & Rama, 2020). Nevertheless, during this period, FS active in Spanish manufacturing and services taken as a whole were more likely to cooperate locally than were unaliated domestic rms but no more than DBG; and SOEs were clearly abler
Page 7/23 than POEs, domestic or foreign, to continue domestic collaboration (García-Sánchez & Rama, 2022). In Spain, domestic rms encountered more signicant challenges than FS in obtaining credit amid the crisis. As in many other countries, Spain's credit ratings witnessed downgrades from several credit rating agencies, resulting in a diminished access of domestic companies to international credit 6. This situation coincided with a domestic credit crunch. Following the discussion, two conicting factors may inuence the likelihood of FS participating in CIEP. On one hand, easier access to international credit would undoubtedly facilitate CIEP, in contrast to DBG. On the other hand, a particular focus on local cooperation could serve as a deterrent. In the realm of institutional theory, a parallel domain to the aforementioned literature has emerged, investigating the relationship between state ownership and economic eciency. This particular strand of research compares SOEs and privately-owned enterprises (POEs), but, as noted, investigations in terms of innovation and cooperation have frequently been overlooked (Introduction). We contend that to attain a comprehensive understanding of the ownership structures inuencing choices in innovation collaboration, it is crucial to integrate institutional theory. This is particularly relevant due to the substantial presence of state-ownership as a signicant ownership structure in many economies. We address this question below. 2.4.3. State-ownership According to the Organisation for Co-operation and Development (OECD), SOEs are enterprises where the state has substantial control through full, majority, or signicant minority ownership (Medina et al., 2022). Within Europe, their presence is signicant in countries such as France, Italy, Sweden, and in new-member countries of the EU. The goals of SOEs and POEs differ. Those of SOEs go beyond mere prot maximisation to also include societal goals, diversication of the economy, industrial policy, monopoly control, support to new technologies, knowledge diffusion, green transition, and defence (Antonelli et al., 2014; Archibugi & Mariella, 2021; Benassi & Landoni, 2018; Gershman et al., 2019; Palmberg, 2002; Steffen et al., 2022; Tönurist & Karo, 2016). In Europe, most SOEs have evolved towards more ecient forms of corporate organisation (He et al., 2016). According to the aforementioned authors, reform often entailed governance structures of a more complex character with new shareholders having a role to play in SOEs internationalization. Are SOEs innovative? Landoni (2020) contends that the role of SOEs in innovation has been largely underestimated and certain empirical studies support this view. Italian business history (Antonelli et al., 2014; Gasperin, 2022) and case studies on Russian and Western European SOEs suggest that these rms are able to innovate (Archibugi & Mariella, 2021; Benassi & Landoni, 2018; Gershman et al., 2019; Palmberg, 2002; Rama & Ferguson, 2007). Furthermore, quantitative studies that focus on EU rms support the view that SOEs are more prone to innovating than are POEs, at least in certain sectors (Castelnovo, 2022; Steffen et al., 2022). Moreover, the institutional literature suggests that R&D spending tends to decrease when SOEs are privatised due to the reorientation of these rms to short-term benets and the new managers’ lack of interest in basic research (Carreira Sánchez & Vence Deza, 2009). The literature suggests several explanations behind the innovativeness of SOEs. Due to their long-term perspective on prot-making (“patient capital”) and their easier access to R&D funding, these companies are more prone than POEs to invest in basic research and in technological elds that are risky and/or slow to produce results (Antonelli et al., 2014; Landoni, 2020; Ortega, 2016; Yi et al., 2022). Furthermore, coordination with governments provides SOES with strategic advantages in assessing linkages between different industries and knowledge elds (Benassi & Landoni, 2018). Empirical evidence on their cooperative activities is still scarce. However, according to Benassi & Landoni (2018), SOEs frequently network with other organisations and, in doing so, constitute vehicles of possible recombination of knowledge. Case studies suggest that Russian and Western European SOEs participate in domestic cooperation for
Page 8/23 innovation with both domestic POEs and universities; and, in the West, also with FS (Alonso-Gil & Vázquez-Barquero, 2010; Antonelli et al., 2014; Calvo, 2019; Gershman et al., 2019; López et al., 2002; Rama and Ferguson, 2007). Recently, a few quantitative studies establish that compared to POEs, domestic or foreign, SOEs are more predisposed to cooperate locally for innovation (García-Sánchez & Rama, 2022; Roud & Vlasova, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Within the EU, certain institutional mechanisms are at work to promote the engagement of SOEs in European partnerships: for instance, institutional intermediaries (Landoni, 2018) and organisations in charge of public purchases (Callado-Muñoz et al., 2022). Several case studies report on the participation of SOEs in international cooperative networks (Abramovsky et al., 2009; Archibugi & Mariella, 2021; Benassi & Landoni, 2018; Calvo, 2023; Gershman, 2012; López et al., 2002; Sanz Menéndez et al., 1999) but, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic quantitative evidence is available. In the international arena, SOEs can be perceived as an “institutional exception" (Orr & Scott, 2008) due to their distinct approach to investment return and a longer timeframe for transforming an invention into a marketable product (“patient capital”). Different logics and rules can potentially create cultural challenges with prospective foreign partners. Nonetheless, as stated in the discussion SOEs also bring certain advantages to the table as potential partners. 2.5. Spanish SOEs Since 1985, non-protable Spanish SOEs were sold mainly to foreign investors (Arocena, 2006), but the state preserved a certain degree of control over protable SOEs. SEPI (State Corporation of Industrial Participation) remains a major stateowned group, with direct majority participation in 14 rms, minority participation in 10, and indirect control in over 1007. Indirect control involves a majority-owned SOE actively participating in the capital of another company. As mentioned, a crucial requirement for a company to engage in collaboration is social capital. In this context, we argue that diverse factors may have contributed to the accumulation of social capital by Spanish SOEs, both domestically and internationally. Privatisations were sequential and involved relatively small public-offering selling blocks (Etchemendy, 2004). According to the aforementioned author, purchases by institutional investors and minority shareholders were preferred since such types of investors are less likely than large foreign MNEs to demand abrupt changes in corporate policies. The main objectives of these measures were to retain control of key sectors in Spanish hands and to prevent hostile foreign takeovers (Arocena, 2006). However, these measures also gave rise to signicant inter-rm connections. Inter-rm linkages were promoted through cross shareholdings between companies and often included large banks. (Arocena, 2006; Bulfone, 2019; Calvo, 2019; Cuervo-Cazurra, 2018). These types of social networks may have a positive impact on innovation by assisting companies in obtaining R&D funding (Cao et al, 2023). Spanish SOEs have also been able to acquire substantial social capital due to their central position in subcontracting networks (Alfonso-Gil & VázquezBarquero, 2010; Rama and Ferguson, 2007; Ortega, 2016; Rodríguez-Ruiz, 2015). Furthermore, interlocking has been a popular practice even preceding privatization policies (Aguilera, 1998; Calvo, 2019). Second, Spain's economy stands out for its remarkable openness and extensive international connections. Between 2000 and 2018, Spain was the second most open economy in the Eurozone, with Germany leading the way (Xifré, 2019). Additionally, an analysis conducted by Valeeva (2022) spotlighted Madrid, Vienna, and Frankfurt as three cities of particular note for their high "betweenness" rankings. These cities play signicant roles as hubs for interlocking directorates within their respective countries and the broader European context. Simultaneously, they serve as key brokers, connecting European corporate networks with elites from various global regions. In the case of Madrid, these connections extend to Latin American elites. This situation makes certain major Spanish companies attractive partners for third parties looking to enter the Spanish market, Latin American markets, or both (Rama & Ferguson, 2007; Calvo, 2023). It is important to note that while SOEs were not the sole beneciaries of these developments in acquiring international social capital, they were pioneers in this regard. As of the 1950s, the only major Spanish companies that
Page 9/23 ventured into the international arena were SOEs (Binda, 2012). Indeed, this early exposure to international markets could have facilitated the establishment of personal contacts in foreign countries and bolstered their international experience. The discussion implies that institutions and public policies have been instrumental in assisting Spanish SOEs in gaining international experience and social capital. This, in turn, could enhance their participation in CIEP. Following the discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 1 The 2008 crisis in Spain acted as a dissuader for rms engaging in cooperation for innovation with European partners, an effect tempered by the rms' prior cooperative experiences. Hypothesis 2 The ownership structure of a rm inuences its ability to maintain cooperation during a crisis. H2.a: Group ownership positively inuences the ability of a rm to maintain cooperation during a crisis. H2.b: Foreign ownership positively inuences the ability of a rm to maintain cooperation during a crisis. H2.c: Foreign ownership negatively inuences the ability of a rm to maintain cooperation during a crisis. H2.d: State-ownership positively inuences the ability of a rm to maintain cooperation during a crisis. Hypothesis 3 The conditions for participating in intra-European cooperation for innovation become more challenging during a crisis. 3. Methodology The PITEC database utilised herein is annually collected by the Spanish National Statistics Institute (INE) and constitutes the Spanish contribution to the CIS of the EU. This database has the advantage of providing panel data and of being a mandatory survey. The balanced panel includes observations for companies that were continuously active in Spain’s manufacturing and services during the entire 2004–2016 period. As stated, this period is subdivided into three subperiods in accordance with the Spanish GDP path (García-Sánchez & Montes-Luna, 2022). Data for 2017 up to the present day has not yet become available. Those not engaged in innovation are not considered, as the survey specically queries innovating companies. In this context, innovators are dened as those who have introduced product or industrial process innovation, are currently involved in innovative endeavours, or have conducted innovation activities within the survey period and the two preceding years. This is a common feature of CIS surveys. According to the questionnaire, cooperation for innovation consists of two different organisations joining forces to share and develop knowledge. This denition excludes the acquisition of R&D services via the market or via R&D outsourcing but does include R&D collaboration. The database distinguishes between unaliated companies and companies belonging to a business group. Within the latter, information is provided regarding the location of the headquarters of the company. If it is located in a foreign country, then it is classied as an FS ( multinational ), otherwise it is classied as a DBG ( dom_group ). Companies not belonging to a group are classied as unaliated domestic rms ( unal ). The PITEC questionnaire also enquires as to whether the company is a SOE ( state-owned ). Firms are asked to indicate the geographic location of the partner. Collaboration with partners located in European countries is selected for analysis. The question refers to the physical location of the partner, and not to their nationality. The database includes information on the types of partners (clients, suppliers, competitors, universities, etc. Intra-group cooperation is excluded.
Page 16/23 5. Conclusions Panel data from a statistically representative sample of rms located in Spain was examined, focusing on their collaborative innovation efforts with European partners between 2004 and 2016. The analysis revealed that the 2008 economic crisis, on its own, had a discouraging effect on rms seeking cooperation with European partners for innovation. However, this negative impact was counterbalanced by the rms' increasing experience in collaboration. Moreover, the number of partner types per rm increased when the crisis unfolded. Additionally, we tested the inuence of ownership on rms' ability to maintain cooperation for innovation with European partners during the crisis. During the crisis and the entire period, foreign subsidiaries are more prone to cooperating for innovation with European partners than are unaliated domestic rms but no more than domestic business groups. Unaliated domestic rms are the least inclined to participate in such partnerships, both during the crisis and throughout the entire period. Finally, stateowned enterprises exhibited superior performance compared to both domestically owned private enterprises and foreign subsidiaries during the downturn. We also ascertain whether drivers of cooperation with European partners remain stable throughout the business cycle. Although certain determinants, such as a large size, are always associated to the probability that a rm engages in such collaboration, there is support for the idea that other drivers of cooperation for innovation modify, or at least augment, their intensity when the crisis erupts. Experience in cooperative activities, export business, an above-average number of R&D employees, and market potential become vital for the rms to cooperate when the crisis erupts. Without denying the clear relevance of the Resource-Based View of the Firm, our results do not conrm the assumption that rms facing diculties in terms of knowledge, nance, and/or the presence of incumbents in their market are prone to cooperating. In contrast, the data provides verication of the importance of opportunities in cooperation agreements (Ahuja, 2000): the appeal of prospective partners in terms of knowledge, money or market potential is undeniable, especially during a crisis. Our results have policy and management implications. EU funding for innovation is instrumental for companies staying connected to European networks of innovation, even when the country in which they locate endures a recession as severe and long-lasting as the Spanish crisis in 2008. Both managers and policy-makers need to encourage cooperation during expansive periods since previous experience helps rms to stay innovative when new crises break out. To start by stimulating domestic cooperation for innovation is a worthy strategy to prepare conditions for future collaboration with European partners. State-owned enterprises are particularly wellsuited to effectively navigate challenges in times of crisis, thereby maintaining and strengthening the linkages between the National Innovation System and European networks of innovators in dicult times. During the crisis, these rms strongly contributed towards stabilising the presence of Spanish rms in European innovation networks. The stability of partnerships is desirable as it facilitates nding solutions to technical and commercial problems. Our study also has academic implications since it shows the interest of a dynamic approach to cooperation for innovation, beyond the mere consideration of “normal” phases of the business cycle that prevail in the literature. Furthermore, it shows that persistent disparities in cooperative innovation performance distinguish state ownership from other ownership structures. Therefore, the inclusion of institutional theory in the analysis becomes imperative for predicting the cooperative behaviour of different types of ownership structure. Our study has limitations that may provide opportunities for future research. Due to insucient data, the question left unanswered herein is whether unaliated rms under national pyramidal organisations participate indirectly in extended networks of innovation across borders. Another limitation is that the data excludes the consideration of native MNEs. Finally, as a potential resilience strategy, we could only supercially address the heightened complexity of networks when the crisis erupted. Despite these limitations, our study contributes to the analysis of international cooperation for innovation by being the rst to provide a dynamic view of intra-European partnerships and by improving our understanding of the critical role of
Page 17/23 state-owned enterprises during crises. Declarations Funding: This work was supported by project [AICO/2021/021], INGENIO (CSIC)-UPV Generalitat Valenciana. The funding source was not involved in the preparation of the article. Competing interests: None References 1. Abramovsky, L., Kremp, E., López, A., Schmidt, T., & Simpson, H. (2009). Understanding co-operative innovative activity: Evidence from four European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 18 (3), 243–265. 2. Aguilera, R. V. (1998). Directorship interlocks in comparative perspective: The case of Spain. European Sociological Review, 14 (4), 319-342. 3. Ahuja, G. (2000) The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interrm linkages. Strategic Management Journal 21 (3):317-43. 4. Alonso-Gil, J., & Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2010). Networking and innovation: lessons from the aeronautical clusters of Madrid. International Journal of Technology Management , 50 (3-4), 337-355. 5. Álvarez Cuiñas, A. (2015). La internacionalización de la empresa: análisis del caso INDRA , Master Thesis, Universidade da Coruña (Spain). . Álvarez, I., Ballesteros, S., Guimón, J., & Quirós, C. (2011). La colaboración de las empresas innovadoras en España , ICEI, WP, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 7. Antonelli, C., Amidei, F. B., & Fassio, C. (2014). The mechanisms of knowledge governance: State owned enterprises and Italian economic growth, 1950–1994. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 31 , 43-63. . Antonioli, D., Marzucchi, A., & Savona, M. (2017). Pain shared, pain halved? Cooperation as a coping strategy for innovation barriers. Journal of Technology Transfer , 42 (4), 841–864. 9. Archibugi, D., & Mariella, V. (2021). Is a European Recovery Possible Without High-Tech Public Corporations? Intereconomics, 56 (3), 160-166. 10. Archibugi, D., Filippetti, A., & Frenz, M. (2013) The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: Evidence from Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 80(7): 1247–1260. 11. Arocena, P. (2006) Privatisation Policy in Spain: Stuck Between Liberalisation and the Protection of Nationals’ Interests. In M. Köthenbürger, H.-W. Sinn, & J. Whalley (Eds.), Privatization Experiences in the European Union, 339– 364. MIT Press. 12. Arranz, N., & Fernández de Arroyabe, J. C. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: An empirical analysis of Spanish rms. Technovation , 28 (1–2), 88–100. 13. Arvanitis, S., & Bolli, T. (2013) A Comparison of National and International Innovation Cooperation in Five European Countries. Review of Industrial Organization , 43(3): 163–191. 14. Azagra-Caro, J. M., Tijssen, R. J. W., Tur, E. M., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2019) University-industry scientic production and the Great Recession. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 139 (November): 210–220. 15. Badillo, E. R., Galera, F. L., & Serrano, R. M. (2017). Cooperation in R&D, rm size and type of partnership: Evidence for the Spanish automotive industry . European Journal of Management and Business Economics , 26 (1), 123–143. 1. Barajas, A., & Huergo, E. (2010). International R&D cooperation within the EU framework programme: Empirical evidence for Spanish rms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 19 (1), 87–111.
Page 18/23 17. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2006 ) Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization , 28(4): 401–426. 1. Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B., & Fernández Sastre, J.(2015) Inter-temporal patterns of R&D collaboration and innovative performance. Journal of Technology Transfer , 40(1): 123–137. 19. Benassi, M., & Landoni, M. (2018). State-owned enterprises as knowledge-explorer agents. Industry and Innovation, 26 (2), 218-241. 20. Bianchi, M., Murtinu, S., & Scalera, V. G. (2019). R&D Subsidies as Dual Signals in Technological Collaborations. Research Policy, 48 (9). 21. Binda, V. (2012). Strategy and Structure in Large Italian and Spanish Firms, 1950-2002. Business History Review , 86 , 503–525. 22. Böwer, U. (2017). State-Owned Enterprises in Emerging Europe: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. IMF Working Paper , WP/17/221 . 23. Brancati, E., Brancati, R., & Maresca, A. (2017) Global value chains, innovation and performance: Firm-level evidence from the Great Recession. Journal of Economic Geography , 17(5): 1039–1073. 24. Bruton, G. D., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Stan, C., & Xu, K. (2015). State-owned enterprises around the world as hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Perspectives , 29 (1), 92–114. 25. Brzozowski, J., & Cucculelli, M. (2016). Proactive and reactive attitude to crisis: Evidence from European rms. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review , 4 (1), 181–191. 2. Bulfone, F. (2019). The state strikes back: industrial policy, regulatory power and the divergent performance of Telefónica and Telecom Italia. Journal of European Public Policy , 26 (5), 752-771. 27. Busom, I., & Vélez-Ospina, J.-A. (2021). Subsidising innovation over the business cycle. Industry and Innovation , 28 (6), 773–803. 2. Callado-Muñoz, F. J., Fernández-Olmos, M., Ramírez-Alesón, M., & Utrero-González, N. (2022). Characterisation of Technological Collaborations and Evolution in the Spanish Defence Industry. Defence and Peace Economics , 33 (2), 219–238. 29. Calvo, A. (2019), The Emergence of Global Companies in the High-Tech Industry of Defence: The Case of Indra in Spain, 1993-2007, Eurasian Journal of Social Sciences, 7 (2), 29-47. 30. Calvo, A. (2023). China-Europe cooperation in the telecommunications: the case of China Unicom / Telefónica , 2002-2016. Journal of Evolutionary Studies in Business , 8 (2), 213–247. 31. Cao, G. H., Geng, W. J., Zhang, J., & Li, Q. (2023). Social network, nancial constraint, and corporate innovation. Eurasian Business Review , 13 (3), 667–692. 32. Cantabene, C., & Grassi, I. (2022). Firm performance and R&D cooperation: what matters? Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 1–24. 33. Castelnovo, P. (2022). Innovation in private and state-owned enterprises: A cross-industry analysis of patenting activity. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 62 , 98–113. 34. Clò, S., Marvasi, E., & Ricchiuti, G. (2023). State-owned Enterprises in the global market: Varieties of government control and internationalization strategies. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 64 (October), 25–40. 35. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990) Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly , 35(1): 128. 3. Cozza, C., Perani, G., & Zanfei, A. (2018) Multinationals and R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from the Italian R&D survey. Economia Politica , 35(2): 601–621.
Page 19/23 37. Cruz-Castro, L., Holl, A. Rama, R. & Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2018), Economic crisis and company R&D in Spain: do regional and policy factors matter?, Industry and Innovation, 25 (8), 729-51. 3. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2018) Business groups in Spain: Regulation and ideology drivers for transformation. In A. M. Colpan & T. Hikino (Eds.), Business Groups in the West: The Evolutionary Dynamics of Big Business . Oxford University Press. 39. Cuervo-Cazurra, A., Inkpen, A., Musacchio, A., & Ramaswamy, K. (2014). Governments as owners: State-owned multinational companies. Journal of International Business Studies, 45 (8), 919-942. 40. D’Agostino, L. M., & Moreno, R.(2018) Exploration during turbulent times: An analysis of the relation between cooperation in innovation activities and radical innovation performance during the economic crisis. Industrial and Corporate Change , 27(2): 387–412. 41. Dachs, B., Ebersberger, B., & Pyka, A. (2008) Why do rms cooperate for innovation? A comparison of Austrian and Finnish CIS3 results. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy , 4(3–4): 200–229. 42. De Faria, P. & Schmidt, T. (2012). International cooperation on innovation: Firm-level evidence from two European countries. Innovation, 14 (3):303-23. 43. Ebersberger, B., Herstad, S. J., Iversen, E., Kirner, E., & Som, O. (2011) Open Innovation in Europe: effects, determinants and policy . EU, Brussels. 44. Edwards-Schachter, M., Castro-Martínez, E., Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., Anlló, G., & Fernández-de-Lucio, I. (2013). Motives for international cooperation on R&D and innovation: Empirical evidence from Argentinean and Spanish rms. International Journal of Technology Management , 62 (2–4), 128–151. 45. Etchemendy, S. (2004) Revamping the weak, protecting the strong, and managing privatization: Governing globalization in the Spanish takeoff. Comparative Political Studies , 37(6): 623–651. 4. Fernández-Sastre, J. (2012). Efectos y determinantes de la cooperación para la innovación tecnológica: Un estudio empírico sobre un panel de datos de empresas localizadas en España. PhD Thesis, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid. 47. Freire, J. A. F., & Gonçalves, E. (2022). Cooperation in Innovative Efforts: a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 13 (4), 3364–3400. 4. Friedberg, E., and J.-P. Neuville. (1999). "Inside partnerships. Trust, opportunism and cooperation in the European automobile industry." In Interrm networks. organization and industrial competitiveness , edited by A. Grandori, 67-88. London and New York: Routledge. 49. Friz, K., & Günther, J. (2021). Innovation and economic crisis in transition economies. Eurasian Business Review , 11 (4), 537–563. 50. García-Sánchez, A. & Montes-Luna, M. (2022) Economic Resilience of Spanish regions to the Financial Crisis / Resiliencia económica de las regiones españolas ante la crisis nanciera de 2008. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época , 1/2022 , 4-22. 51. García-Sánchez, A., & Rama, R. (2020) Foreign ownership and domestic cooperation for innovation during good and harsh economic times. Int. J. Multinational Corporation Strategy , 3(1): 4–25. 52. García-Sánchez, A., & Rama, R. (2022). Cooperative innovation and crises: Foreign subsidiaries, state-owned enterprises, and domestic private rms. Science and Public Policy , 49 (6), 915–927. 53. García-Sánchez, A., Molero, J., & Rama, R. (2017) Patterns of local R&D cooperation of foreign subsidiaries in an intermediate country: innovative and structural factors. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation , 15(1): 38. 54. Gasperin, S. (2022). Lessons from the past for 21st century systems of state-owned enterprises: The case of Italy’s IRI in the 1930s. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics , 62 , 599–612.
Page 20/23 55. Geroski, P. A., & Walters, C. F. (1995). Innovative Activity over the Business Cycle. The Economic Journal , 105 (431), 916. 5. Gershman, M. (2012). New Challenges for STI Policy from the Internationalization of R&D: The Case of RussianGerman R&D Cooperation. SSRN Electronic Journal . 57. Gershman, M., Bredikhin, S., & Vishnevskiy, K. (2016). The role of corporate foresight and technology roadmapping in companies’ innovation development: The case of Russian state-owned enterprises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 110 , 187–195. 5. Gershman, M., Roud, V., & Thurner, T. W. (2019). Open innovation in Russian state-owned enterprises. Industry and Innovation, 26 (2), 199-217. 59. González Álvarez, N., & Argothy, A. (2019). Research, development and growth in state-owned enterprises: empirical evidence from Ecuador. Industry and Innovation , 26 (2), 158–175. 0. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 19 (1), 33-50. 1. He, X., Eden, L., & Hitt, M. A. (2016). The Renaissance of State-Owned Multinationals. Thunderbird International Business Review, 58 (2), 117-129. 2. Hoffmann, V.E., Belussi, F., Martínez-Fernández, M.T. and Reyes, E. (2017) ‘United we stand, divided we fall? Clustered rms’ relationships after the 2008 crisis’, Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol. 2, pp.2–3. 3. Holl, A., & Rama, R. (2014) Foreign Subsidiaries and Technology Sourcing in Spain. Industry and Innovation , 21(1): 43–64. 4. Holl, A., & Rama, R.(2016) Persistence of innovative activities in times of crisis: the case of the Basque Country. European Planning Studies , 24(10): 1863–1883. 5. Holl, A., & Rama, R. (2019). Local cooperation for innovation in ICT - Domestic groups with collaborations for innovation abroad and foreign subsidiaries. Science and Public Policy , 46 (4), 599–610. . Landoni, M. (2018). Corporatization and internationalization of state-owned enterprises: The role of institutional intermediaries. International Journal of Public Sector Management , 31 (2), 221-240. 7. Landoni, M. (2020). Knowledge creation in state-owned enterprises. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 53 , 77-85. . Lincoln, J. R., Guillot, D., & Sargent, M. (2017). Business groups, networks, and embeddedness: Innovation and implementation alliances in Japanese electronics, 1985-1998. Industrial and Corporate Change , 26 (3), 357–378. 9. Liu, X., Serger, S. S., Tagscherer, U., & Chang, A. Y. (2017) Beyond catch-up: can a new innovation policy help China overcome the middle income trap? Science and Public Policy , 44(5): 656–669. 70. López, S., Pueyo, A., and Zlatanova, G. (2002), Colaboración bajo incertidumbre: La formación de un "grupo tecnológico" en el sector de las telecomunicaciones, Economía Industrial, (346), 81-96. 71. Medina, A., de la Cruz, A., & Tang, Y. (2022). Corporate ownership and concentration. OECD Corporate Governance , 27 . 72. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003) Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy , 32(8): 1481–1499. 73. Molero, J., & García, A. (2008) The innovative activity of foreign subsidiaries in the Spanish Innovation System: An evaluation of their impact from a sectoral taxonomy approach. Technovation , 28(11): 739–757. 74. Molero, J., & Heijs, J. (2002). Differences of innovative behaviour between national and foreign rms: measuring the impact of foreign rms on national innovation systems. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management , 2 (2-3), 122-145.
Page 21/23 75. Navío-Marco, J., Bujidos-Casado, M., & Rodrigo-Moya, B. (2019). Coopetition as an innovation strategy in the European Union: Analysis of the German case. Industrial Marketing Management , 82 (March 2018), 9–14. 7. Nurgozhayeva, R. (2022). Corporate Governance in Russian State-Owned Enterprises: Real or Surreal? Asian Journal of Comparative Law , 17 (1), 24–50. 77. Orr, R. J., & Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutional exceptions on global projects: A process model. Journal of International Business Studies , 39 , 562-588. 7. Ortega, P. (2016). Indra en el consorcio militar español. Papeles de Relaciones Ecosociales y Cambio Social , 17 (136), 149–155, Madrid. 79. Palmberg, C. (2002) Technological systems and competent procurers - The transformation of Nokia and the Finnish telecom industry revisited? Telecommunications Policy , 26(3–4): 129–148. 0. Panicker, V. S., Upadhyayula, R. S., & Sivakumar, S. (2022). Internationalization of hybrid state-owned enterprises from emerging markets: Institutional investors as enablers. Journal of Business Research , 151 (July), 409–422. 1. Papanastassiou, M., Pearce, R., & Zanfei, A. (2020). Changing perspectives on the internationalization of R&D and innovation by multinational enterprises: A review of the literature. Journal of International Business Studies , 51 (4), 623–664. 2. Paunov, C. (2012). The global crisis and rms' investments in innovation. Research Policy, 41 , 24-35. 3. Posselt, T., & Rauch, M. (2011). German-Russian Business R&D Cooperation: A Bridge Still Too Far? Journal of EastWest Business , 17 (2–3), 170–183. 4. Radicic, D., Douglas, D., Pugh, G., & Jackson, I. A. N. (2019). Cooperation for Innovation and its Impact on Technological and Non-Technological Innovations: Empirical Evidence for European SMEs in Traditional Manufacturing Industries. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23 (05). 5. Rama, R., & Ferguson, D. (2007). Emerging districts facing structural reform: the Madrid electronics district and the reshaping of the Spanish telecom monopoly. Environment and Plannig A, 39 , 2207-2231. . Rodríguez-Ruiz, Ó. (2015) Unions’ response to corporate restructuring in Telefónica: Locked into collective bargaining? Employee Relations , 37(1): 83–101. 7. Rõigas, K., Mohnen, P., & Varblane, U. (2018). Which rms use universities as cooperation partners? – A comparative view in Europe. International Journal of Technology Management , 76 (1–2), 32–57. . Roud, V., & Vlasova, V. (2020). Strategies of industry-science cooperation in the Russian manufacturing sector. Journal of Technology Transfer , 45 (3), 870–907. 9. Saglietto, L., Cézanne, C., & David, D. (2020). Research on Structural Holes: An Assessment on Measurement Issues. Journal of Economic Surveys , 34 (3), 572–593. 90. Salazar-Elena, J. C., Castillo, Y. Y., & Álvarez, I. (2023). Overcoming innovation barriers through collaboration in emerging countries: the case of Colombian manufacturing rms. Industry and Innovation , 30 (4), 506–529. 91. Sánchez Carreira, M., & Vence Deza, X. (2009). Effects of privatization on innovation: evidence of the Spanish case. Druid Summer Conference, Copenhagen Business School. 92. Sanz Menéndez, L., Fernández Carro, J. R., & García, C. E. (1999) Centralidad y cohesión en las redes de colaboración empresarial en la I+D subsidiada. Papeles de Economía Española . 81, 219-241. 93. Schmiele, A. (2012). Drivers for international innovation activities in developed and emerging countries. Journal of Technology Transfer , 37 (1), 98–123. 94. Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction: Evidence from Spanish rms. Research Policy , 37 (8), 1283–1295.
Page 22/23 95. Srholec, M. (2009) Does foreign ownership facilitate cooperation on innovation? Firm-level evidence from the enlarged European Union. European Journal of Development Research , 21(1): 47–62. 9. Srholec, M. (2014). Cooperation and Innovative Performance of Firms: Panel Data Evidence from the Czech Republic, Norway and the UK. Journal of the Knowledge Economy , 5 (1), 133–155. 97. Srholec, M. (2015). Understanding the diversity of cooperation on innovation across countries: Multilevel evidence from Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 24 (1-2), 159–182. 9. Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Research Policy , 31 (6), 947– 967. 99. Trigo, A., & Vence, X. (2012). Scope and patterns of innovation cooperation in Spanish service enterprises. Research Policy , 41 (3), 602–613. 100. UNCTAD (2021), World Investment Report 2021, https://unctad.org/webyer/world-investment-report-2021 101. Valeeva, D. (2022). Where is the backbone of the transnational corporate elite? Global Networks , 22 (3), 547–563. 102. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Fernández-De-Lucio, I. (2009). Does external knowledge sourcing matter for innovation? Evidence from the Spanish manufacturing industry. Industrial and Corporate Change , 18 (4), 637–670. 103. Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (2004) Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct rm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review , 48(2): 455–476. 104. Wang, X. (2021) Why do rms form R&D cooperation: a resource dependence perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management , 33(5): 586–598. 105. Williams, C., & Ecker, B. (2014). R&D subsidiary embedment: a resource dependence perspective. Critical Perspectives on International Business, 7(4), 297-325. 10. Xie, X., Wu, Y., Palacios-Marqués, D., & Ribeiro-Navarrete, S. (2022). Business networks and organizational resilience capacity in the digital age during COVID-19: A perspective utilizing organizational information processing theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 177 (January). 107. Xifré, R. (2019). La internacionalización de la economía española: evolución reciente y reformas pendientes. Cuadernos de Información Económica , 273 , 19–26. 10. Zouaghi, F., Sánchez, M., & García Martínez, M. (2018) Did the global nancial crisis impact rms’ innovation performance? The role of internal and external knowledge capabilities in high and low tech industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change , 132: 92. Footnotes 1. Also termed in the literature and in this article as collaboration for innovation 2. In this article, the terms “cooperation” and “cooperative” refer to cooperation for innovation 3. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-t-digital-age/european-chips-act_ April 2023. 4. Includes EU-28 and EFTA countries 5. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en October 2023. . https://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/PublicacionesAnuales/InformesAnuales/08/cap5.pdf August 2023 7. https://www.sepi.es/es, October 2023 . https://www.icex.es/es/todos-nuestros-servicios/informacion-de-mercados/estadisticas May 2023.
Page 23/23 Tables Tables 1 to 4 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Supplementary Files This is a list of supplementary les associated with this preprint. Click to download. Tables1to4.docx