Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Models of Innovation Activity Firms and the Competitive State

Models of Innovation Activity Firms and the Competitive State

Journal of Institutional studies, , Vol. 7 (no. 4),

The paper clarified the concept of innovation activity of firms from the perspective of the model open innovation with traditional and alternative approaches to the methods of the protection of innovation activity results outlined. With the use of institutional tools, theoretical concepts and practical study the patterns of innovative activity of firms (external, internal & cooperative strategies) are analyzed and the selection criteria for models of innovation are proposed on the basis of a comparison of transaction costs and benefits specific to the closed forms and conditions for cooperation. The forms of cooperation, their pros & cons are mentioned given the results of some empirical evidence. Practical recommendations for the Russian companies to organize their innovation activities are given, as well as on the improvement of competition policy with regard to the inclusion of innovation factor in the analysis of mergers in Russia (also based on the mechanism of the use of this factor by means of merger simulation models). The paper also suggests the criteria for the evaluation of collaborative R&D projects of firms as antitrust tools aimed to use the “rule of reason” when the decisions are made.

Keywords: innovation activity of the firm; the model of innovative activity; innovative cooperation; competition policy

  • Abramovsky L., Kremp E., López A., Schmidt T. and Simpson H. (2005). Understanding co-operative R&D activity: evidence from four European countries. The Institute for fiscal studies, WP05/23. (http://www.ifs.org.uk/wps/wp0523.pdf – Access Date: 15.07.2015).
  • Aghion P., Howitt P. et all. (2005). Competition and Innovation: an inverted-Urelationship. Quartely Journal of Economics, May, pp. 701-728.
  • Becker W. and Dietz J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms - evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, vol. 33, pp. 209–223.
  • Blind K. and Thumm N. (2004). Interrelation between patenting and standardization strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 1583-1598.
  • Chatterji D. (1997). Accessing external sources of technology. IEEE Engineering Management Review, vol. 25, pp. 80-89.
  • Chesbrough H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, Harvard Business School Press.
  • Chulok A. A. (2006). Intellectual Property Rights Protection in Russia and Abroad: Measurement Problems and International Comparisons. Russian Management journal, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 49-70. (In Russian)
  • Coase R. H. (2007). The firm, the market, and the law. USA. University of Chicago press.
  • Cohen W. and Levinthal D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 35, pp. 128-152.
  • Dahlander L. and Gann D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 699-709.
  • Davis P. and Garces E. (2010). Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis. USA. Princeton University Press.
  • Emelianov Y. (2014). The state support of innovation activity in the European Union. Problems of the Theory and Practice of Management, no. 12, pp. 45-59. (In Russian).
  • Federal Antitrust Order on the Way of Market Competition State Analysis. (http://www.consultant.ru – Access Date: 15.05.2015). (In Russian).
  • Federal Law “On Protection of Competition”. (http:.www.consultant.ru – Access Date: 15.05.2015). (In Russian).
  • Fritsch M. and Lukas R. (2001). Who cooperates on R&D? Research Policy, vol. 30 (2), pp. 297–312.
  • Gambardella A. (1992). Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy, vol. 21, pp. 391-407.
  • Gomellini M. (2013). Innovation and competition: a survey. (http://www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/altri -atti-convegni/2014-innovazione-italia/Gomellini.pdf - Access Date: 28.12.2014).
  • Grasmik K. (2014). Economic development and innovation networks: the point of contact. Problems of the Theory and Practice of Management, no. 3, pp. 64-69. (In Russian).
  • Grossman S. and Hart O. (1986). The costs and benefits of ownership: A theory of vertical and lateral integration. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 94, pp. 691-719.
  • Hart O. and Moore J. (1990). Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, pp. 1119 – 1158.
  • Hernan R., Martin P. and Siotis G. (2003). An empirical evaluation of the determinants of research joint venture formation. Journal of Industrial Economics, vol. 1, pp. 75–89.
  • Kang N. and Sakai K. (2000). International Strategic Alliances: Their Role in Industrial Globalization. OECD Science, Technology and Industry. Working Papers. 2000/5.
  • Kleinknecht A. and van Reijnen J. (1992). Why do firms cooperate in R&D: An empirical study. Research Policy, vol. 21, pp. 347–360.
  • Lazonick W. (2006). The theory of innovative enterprise. TERRA ECONOMICUS, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 7-33. (In Russian).
  • Nekrasovа E. (2013). The innovative factor in decisions on transactions of economic concentration. Problems of Modern Economy, no. 3 (47), pp. 116-122. (In Russian).
  • Pagano U. and Rossi M. (2004). Incomplete contracts, intellectual property and institutional complementarities. European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 18, pp. 55-76.
  • Pakhomovа N. and Kazmin A. (2009). Market structure, technological capabilities and innovative activity: it is important to take into account the modernization of competition policy. Problems of Modern Economy, no. 2, pp. 111-116. (In Russian).
  • Rotering C. (1990). Forschungs - und Entwicklungs - Kooperationen zwischen Unternehmen. Stuttgart, Poeschel-Verlag.
  • Sakakibara M. (2002). Formation of R&D consortia: industry and company effects. Strategic Management Journal, vol. 23, pp. 1033-1050.
  • Siebert R. (1997). The impact of research joint ventures on firm performance: An empirical assessment. WZB. Working Paper.
  • The Annual Digest of Industrial R&D. (2006). Report Directorate General Joint Research Centre, 95 p.
  • Tirole J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
  • Valdaytsev S. and Eisenbach G. (1992). Innovative strategies of firms on the Russian market. Vestnik of St. Petersburg State University, Series 5. ECONOMICS, pp. 89-94. (In Russian).
  • Veugelers R. and Cassiman B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, vol. 28 (1), pp. 63-80.
  • Williamson O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York, Simon and Schuster.
  • Zasimova L., Kuznetsov B., Kuzyk M., Simachev Y. and Chulok A. (2008). Problems of transition industry on the path of innovative development: microeconomic analysis of the behavior of firms, dynamics and structure of the demand for technological innovation. A Series of «Scientific Reports: Independent Economic Analysis», no. 201. Moscow, Moscow Public Science Foundation. (In Russian).
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online ISSN: 2412-6039
ISSN: 2076-6297