中国企业基础研究偏好异质性的影响因素分析

王芳; 赵兰香; 戴小勇

科研管理 ›› 2021, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (3) : 12-22.

论文

中国企业基础研究偏好异质性的影响因素分析

王芳¹,赵兰香^1,2,戴小勇³

作者信息 +

An analysis of the determinants of the preference heterogeneity of basic research of Chinese firms

Wang Fang¹, Zhao Lanxiang^1，2, Dai Xiaoyong³

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

中国企业的基础研究投入与发达经济体的企业存在较大差距，被认为是制约产业核心技术能力发展与突破性创新的重要原因，因此探究中国企业开展基础研究的影响因素具有重要的理论与政策意义。本文通过分析北京中关村科技园区2005—2015年的企业调查数据，发现从事基础研究的企业在劳动生产率、规模、成立时间、资本密度等特征方面系统性区别于不从事基础研究的企业；企业人力资本水平对从事基础研究倾向性和基础研究强度具有显著的正向影响；研发补贴能够有效促进企业从事基础研究，同时国有企业更倾向于开展基础研究。企业基础研究偏好的异质性反映出，处于不同技术能力阶段的企业具有差异化的研发战略和吸收能力。

Abstract

It is acknowledged that the deficiency in basic research by Chinese business sectors results in inferior innovation performance in China. Understanding the motive and determinants of basic research in business sectors has important implications for both scholars and policy-makers. By analyzing the survey firms in Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park for the period of 2005 to 2015, we discover a systematic difference in firms′ characteristics between firms that conduct basic research and their counterparts in terms of productivity, capital intensity, size and age. The skill and quality of human capital, e.g. the overseas Ph.D. training and ratio of employees possessing graduate degrees, have prominent impacts on firms′ decision to conduct basic research and their publication intensity. In particular, subsidies recipients and state-owned firms are more likely to conduct basic research. Firm heterogeneity in conducting basic research reflects their different R&D strategy and absorptive capabilities along various stages of technological capabilities.
The Panel Probit model and random-effects Tobit regression are adopted to estimate the determinants of firm decision to conduct basic research and the determinants of publication intensity separately. Results show that firms conducting basic research are significantly more capital-intensive, more productive in terms of labor productivity, larger, older, and have higher R&D intensity. Quality of human capital presents a prominent connection with firm decision to conduct basic research and their outputs, imply the high dependency of knowledge creation and integration on the skill of employees. In science-based sectors, academic training and skill play a more important role in realizing technological innovation. R&D subsidies are positively correlated with firm decision to conduct basic research, highlighting its importance in guiding firms to invest in long-term R&D activities, but there is no significant effect on publication intensity. The causality of R&D subsidies and corporate basic research should be explored further. Firms with different levels of technological capabilities present various tendencies to conduct basic research due to their diversified R&D strategy. Firms with overseas R&D expenditure are more likely to conduct basic research and have a higher level of publication intensity. Meanwhile, using foreign licenses is positively correlated with firm decision to conduct R&D but has no significant impacts on their publication intensity.
These research findings have two policy implications. First, policies addressing the improvement of business basic research should put training and attracting of high-skilled talents as the first priority of agenda because conducting basic research relies heavily on high-quality human resources. Second, innovation policy should orient towards firms competing in or close to the global technology frontier as well as aim to long-term impacts of R&D investment and adjust the performance index accordingly.

导出引用

王芳, 赵兰香, 戴小勇. 中国企业基础研究偏好异质性的影响因素分析[J]. 科研管理. 2021, 42(3): 12-22

Wang Fang, Zhao Lanxiang, Dai Xiaoyong. An analysis of the determinants of the preference heterogeneity of basic research of Chinese firms[J]. Science Research Management. 2021, 42(3): 12-22

参考文献

[1] 麦肯锡全球研究院. 中国创新的全球效应[R]. 上海:麦肯锡中国. 2015.

McKinsey Global Institute. Global effects of China’s innovation [R]. Shanghai: McKinsey & Company. 2015.

[2] National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018 [R]. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. 2018.

[3] 沙雪良，彭子洋. 科技部部长王志刚回应基础研究投入不足：今后会加大力度[N]. 新京报, 2019，0311.

Sha Xueliang, Peng Ziyang. Wang Zhigang, Minister of Ministry of Science and Technology, replies to the deficiency in basic research investments: An increased intensity of efforts will be required in future [N]. The Beijing News, 2019, 0311.

[4] Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? [J]. Research Policy, 1990, 19(2): 165-174.

[5] Arora, A., Belenzon, S. and Sheer, L. Back to basics: Why do firms invest in research? [M]. NBER Working Paper, 2019.

[6] Griliches, Z. Productivity, R&D, and the basic research at the firm level in the 1970’s [J]. American Economic Review, 1986, 76(1): 141-54.

[7] OECD. Frascati Manual 2015 [R], Paris: OECD Publishing. 2015

[8] National Science Foundation. Basic research: A national resource [R], United States Government Printing Office. 1957

[9] Nelson, R. R. The simple economics of basic scientific research [J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, 67(3): 297–306.

[10] Akcigit, U., Hanley, D. and Serrano-Velarde, N. Back to basics: Basic research spillovers, innovation policy and growth [C], CEPR Discussion Papers 11707, 2016, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

[11] Henard, D. H. and McFadyen, M. A. The complementary roles of applied and basic research: A knowledge-based perspective [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2005, 22(6): 503–514.

[12] Pavitt, K. What makes basic research economically useful?[J]. Research Policy, 1991, 20(2): 109-119.

[13] Howitt, P. The Economics of Science and the Future of Universities [R]. The 16th Timlin Lecture, University of Saskatchewan. 2000

[14] Murmann, J.P. The co-development of industrial sectors and academic discipline [J]. Science and Public Policy, 2013, 40 (1): 229-246

[15] Blankenberg, A. and Buenstorf, G. Regional co-evolution of firm population, innovation and public research? Evidence from the West German laser industry [J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(4): 857-868.

[16] Aghion, P., M. Dewatripont, and Stein, J. C. Academic Freedom, Private-sector Focus, and the Process of Innovation [J]. RAND Journal of Economics, 2008, 39(3): 617-635.

[17] Cozzi, G., and S. Galli. Science-based R&D in Schumpeterian Growth [J]. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 2009, 56(4): 474-491.

[18] Gersbach, H., M. T. Schneider, and O. Schneller. Basic Research, Openness, and Convergence [J]. Journal of Economic Growth, 2015, 18(1): 33-68.

[19] Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R. and Arts, S. Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships [J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(9): 1811-1824.

[20] Fabrizio, K. R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation [J]. Research Policy, 2009, 38(2): 255–267.

[21] Cockburn, I.M., Henderson, R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery [J]. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1998, 47(2): 157-182.

[22] Baum, J.A.C., Calabrese, T., Silverman, B.S. Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(3): 267-294.

[23] Audretsch, D.B. and Stephan, P.E. Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology[J]. The American Economic Review, 1996, 86(3): 641-652.

[24] Azoulay, P. Do pharmaceutical sales respond to scientific evidence? [J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2002, 11(4): 551-594.

[25] Belenzon, S. and Patacconi, A. How does firm size moderate firms’ ability to benefit from invention? evidence from patents and scientific publications [J]. European Management Review, 2014, 11(1): 21–45.

[26] Hicks, D. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1995, 4(2): 401–424.

[27] Stern, S. Do scientists pay to be scientists? [J]. Management Science, 2004, 50(6): 835-853.

[28] Gambardella, A., Panico, C. and Valentini, G. Strategic incentives to human capital [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2015, 36(1): 37–52.

[29] Mansfield, E. Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing [J]. American Economic Review, 1980, 70(5): 863-873.

[30] Simeth, M. and Cincera, M. Corporate science, innovation, and firm value [J]. Management Science, 2016, 62(7): 1970-1981.

[31] Zahra S.A., George G. The net-enabled business innovation cycle and the evolution of dynamic capabilities [J]. Information Systems Research, 2002, 13(2):147-150.

[32] Hageedoorn, J., Wang, N. Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies? [J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(6): 1072-1103.

[33] Cassiman, B. and Veugelers, R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition [J]. Management Science, 2006, 52(1):68-82.

[34] Arora, A., Belenzon, S. and Patacconi, A. The decline of science in corporate R&D [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 39(1): 3-32

[35] Simeth, M. and Lhuillery, S. How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure? [J]. Research Policy, 2015, 44(7): 1283-1295.

[36] Pisano, G. P. The evolution of science-based business: innovating how we innovate [J], Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010, 19(2): 465-482.

[37] 王芳，赵兰香. 后发国家（地区）企业技术能力动态演进特征研究--基于潜在转换分析方法 [J]. 中国软科学，2015, (3):105-116.

Wang Fang, Zhao Lanxiang. The dynamic characteristics of firm technological capabilities in later comer countries (regions) -- A latent transition analysis [J]. China Soft Science, 2015,(3): 105-116.

[38] Kline, S. J. Innovation is not a linear process [J]. Research Management, 1985, 28(4): 36-45.

[39] Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. Innovation studies–the emerging structure of a new scientific field [J]. Research Policy, 2009, 38(2): 218-233.

[40] Quere, M. Basic research inside the firm: Lessons from an in-depth case study [J]. Research Policy, 1994, 23(4): 413-424.

[41] Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(13): 1319-1350.

[42]卫平, 杨宏呈, 蔡宇飞. 基础研究与企业技术绩效——来自我国大中型工业企业的经验证据 [J]. 中国软科学, 2013, (2): 123-133.

Wei Ping, Yang Hongchegn, Cai Yufei. Basic research and enterprises' technological innovation: Evidence from large and medium enterprises [J]. China Soft Science, 2013, (2): 123-133.

[43]赵正国. 我国企业亟需着力加强基础研究 [J]. 科技进步与对策, 2013, 30(19): 73-77.

Zhao Zhengguo. Chinese firms should strengthen basic research [J]. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 2013, 30(19): 73-77.

[44]张赤东.企业技术创新项目经费支出调查分析:以创新型企业为例[J].科研管理,2020,41(2):01-10.

Zhang Chidong, A survey of the enterprise technology innovation project fund expenditure: A case of innovation-oriented enterprises in China [J]. Science Research Management, 2020, 41(2): 01-10.

[45] Martinez-Senra, A., Quintas, M., Sartal, A. and Vazquez, X. How can firms’ basic research turn into product innovation? The role of absorptive capacity and industry appropriability [J]. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2015, 62(2):1-12.

[46] Cayseele, Patrick. Market structure and innovation: a survey of the last twenty years [J]. De Economist, 1998, 146(3): 391-417.

[47] Dasgupta, P. and David, P. A. Toward a new economics of science [J]. Research Policy, 1994, 23(5): 487-521.