Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/use/tkiwps/0720.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do mergers of potentially dominant firms foster innovation? An empirical analysis for the manufacturing sector

Author

Listed:
  • E. Cefis
  • A. Sabidussi
  • E.J.J Schenk
Abstract
We investigate the effects of M&A on innovation in the specific context of potential or realized market dominance. Authorities are challenged by balancing both detrimental and beneficial effects of mergers on innovation, especially when a merger threatens to result in market dominance, while firms would wish to uncover all the potential benefits arising from M&A. The effects of M&As on innovation have been tested on a panel dataset, constructed from the Dutch Community Innovation Survey and the Dutch Business Register, including around 1000 manufacturing companies. We have adopted a comprehensive approach, taking into consideration three dimensions of innovation: innovation inputs, innovation outputs and efficiency. The results show that M&As performed in the previous 3-5 years have a positive and significant effect on innovation except R&D expenses and innovation efficiencies. The results also suggest that technological regimes are critical to understanding the patterns of innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Cefis & A. Sabidussi & E.J.J Schenk, 2007. "Do mergers of potentially dominant firms foster innovation? An empirical analysis for the manufacturing sector," Working Papers 07-20, Utrecht School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:use:tkiwps:0720
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/309952/07_20.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    3. Jan Boone, 2000. "Competitive Pressure: The Effects on Investments in Product and Process Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 549-569, Autumn.
    4. Gugler, Klaus & Mueller, Dennis C. & Yurtoglu, B. Burcin & Zulehner, Christine, 2003. "The effects of mergers: an international comparison," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 625-653, May.
    5. Elena Cefis & Orietta Marsili, 2005. "A matter of life and death: innovation and firm survival," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 14(6), pages 1167-1192, December.
    6. Jacques Mairesse & Pierre Mohnen, 2005. "The Importance of R&D for Innovation: A Reassessment Using French Survey Data," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 183-197, January.
    7. Crepon, B. & Duguet, E. & Kabla, I., 1995. "A Moderate Support to Schumpeterian Conjectures from Various Innovation Measures," Papiers d'Economie Mathématique et Applications 95.06, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    8. Cassiman, Bruno & Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological- and market-relatedness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 195-220, March.
    9. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    10. Zoltan J. Acs & David B. Audretsch, 2008. "Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 2, pages 16-23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1975. "Market Structure and Innovation: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 13(1), pages 1-37, March.
    12. Rinaldo Evangelista & Tore Sandven & Giorgio Sirilli & Keith Smith, 1998. "Measuring Innovation in European Industry," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(3), pages 311-333.
    13. Bughin, J. & Jacques, J. M., 1994. "Managerial efficiency and the Schumpeterian link between size, market structure and innovation revisited," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 653-659, November.
    14. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    15. Alfred Kleinknecht & Kees Van Montfort & Erik Brouwer, 2002. "The Non-Trivial Choice between Innovation Indicators," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 109-121.
    16. E. Cefis & S. Rosenkranz & U. Weitzel, 2005. "Effects of Acquisitions on Product and Process Innovation and R&D Performance," Working Papers 05-28, Utrecht School of Economics.
    17. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "Survivor: The role of innovation in firms' survival," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 626-641, June.
    18. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    19. Klepper, Steven, 1996. "Entry, Exit, Growth, and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 562-583, June.
    20. Bruno Crepon & Emmanuel Duguet & Isabelle Kabla, 1996. "Schumpeterian Conjectures: A Moderate Support from Various Innovation Measures," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Alfred Kleinknecht (ed.), Determinants of Innovation, chapter 3, pages 63-98, Palgrave Macmillan.
    21. Patrizio Bianchi & Sandrine Labory (ed.), 2006. "International Handbook on Industrial Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3451.
    22. George, Ken & Jacquemin, Alexis, 1992. "Dominant Firms and Mergers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 102(410), pages 148-157, January.
    23. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1995. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 47-65, February.
    24. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2001. "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 197-220, March.
    25. Hans Schenk, 2006. "Mergers and Concentration Policy," Chapters, in: Patrizio Bianchi & Sandrine Labory (ed.), International Handbook on Industrial Policy, chapter 8, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    26. Kathleen M. Eisenhardt & Jeffrey A. Martin, 2000. "Dynamic capabilities: what are they?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1105-1121, October.
    27. Philippe Aghion & Christopher Harris & Peter Howitt & John Vickers, 2001. "Competition, Imitation and Growth with Step-by-Step Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 68(3), pages 467-492.
    28. Edward J. Lopez, 2005. "New Anti-Merger Theories: A Critique," Law and Economics 0512003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    29. Bergman, Mats A. & Jakobsson, Maria & Razo, Carlos, 2005. "An econometric analysis of the European Commission's merger decisions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 717-737, December.
    30. Cloodt, Myriam & Hagedoorn, John & Van Kranenburg, Hans, 2006. "Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 642-654, June.
    31. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    32. Henrik Bresman & Julian Birkinshaw & Robert Nobel, 1999. "Knowledge Transfer in International Acquisitions," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 30(3), pages 439-462, September.
    33. Fariborz Damanpour, 1996. "Organizational Complexity and Innovation: Developing and Testing Multiple Contingency Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 693-716, May.
    34. Scherer, F M, 1992. "Schumpeter and Plausible Capitalism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 30(3), pages 1416-1433, September.
    35. Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & John van Reenen, 1999. "Market Share, Market Value and Innovation in a Panel of British Manufacturing Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 66(3), pages 529-554.
    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. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2012. "Going, going, gone. Exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 795-807.
    2. E. Cefis & M. Ghita, 2008. "Post Merger Innovative Patterns in Small and Medium Firms," Working Papers 08-09, Utrecht School of Economics.
    3. Elena Cefis, 2010. "The impact of M&A on technology sourcing strategies," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 27-51.
    4. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2015. "Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 698-710.

    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. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2015. "Crossing the innovation threshold through mergers and acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 698-710.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. E. Cefis & M. Ghita, 2008. "Post Merger Innovative Patterns in Small and Medium Firms," Working Papers 08-09, Utrecht School of Economics.
    4. Wilfred Dolfsma & Gerben Velde, 2014. "Industry innovativeness, firm size, and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter Mark III?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 713-736, September.
    5. Schön, Benjamin & Pyka, Andreas, 2013. "The success factors of technology-sourcing through mergers & acquisitions: An intuitive meta-analysis," FZID Discussion Papers 78-2013, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    6. Stiebale, Joel, 2016. "Cross-border M&As and innovative activity of acquiring and target firms," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 1-15.
    7. Walter Park & Ralph Sonenshine, 2012. "Impact of Horizontal Mergers on Research & Development and Patenting: Evidence from Merger Challenges in the U.S," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 143-167, March.
    8. Gilbert Richard J, 2006. "Competition and Innovation," Journal of Industrial Organization Education, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-23, December.
    9. Yosuke Okada, 2005. "Competition and Productivity in Japanese Manufacturing Industries," NBER Working Papers 11540, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Szücs, Florian, 2014. "M&A and R&D: Asymmetric Effects on acquirers and targets?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1264-1273.
    11. Dolfsma, Wilfred & van der Panne, Gerben, 2008. "Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1706-1716, December.
    12. Okada, Yosuke, 2005. "Competition and productivity in Japanese manufacturing industries," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 586-616, December.
    13. Elena Cefis & Ángela Triguero, 2016. "Make, Buy, or Both: The Innovation Sourcing Strategy Dilemma after M&A," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 175-196, June.
    14. Desyllas, Panos & Hughes, Alan, 2010. "Do high technology acquirers become more innovative?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1105-1121, October.
    15. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    16. Marcela Miozzo & Lori DiVito & Panos Desyllas, 2011. "Cross-border acquisitions of science-based firms: Their effect on innovation in the acquired firm and the local science," DRUID Working Papers 11-17, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    17. Voss, Philipp S.R., 2022. "Innovation Performance in Healthcare M&A: An Empirical Analysis," Junior Management Science (JUMS), Junior Management Science e. V., vol. 7(4), pages 1164-1192.
    18. Maria Chiara Di Guardo & Kathryn Rudie Harrigan & Elona Marku, 2019. "M&A and diversification strategies: what effect on quality of inventive activity?," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(3), pages 669-692, September.
    19. Fassio Claudio, 2011. "Sectoral invariances or distance-from-the-frontier effect among European mid-low tech sectors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201115, University of Turin.
    20. Cefis, Elena & Marsili, Orietta, 2012. "Going, going, gone. Exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 795-807.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Mergers and Acquisitions; Innovation; Market Dominance;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:use:tkiwps:0720. 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: Marina Muilwijk (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiruunl.html .

    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.