Conducting R&D in Countries with Weak Intellectual Property Rights Protection

References

• Alcacer J., Gittelman M. How do I know what you know? Patent examiners and the generation of patent citations. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2005) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Almeida P. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17:155–165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anand B. N., Galetovic A. How market smarts can protect property rights. Harvard Bus. Rev. (2004) 82(4):72–79Google Scholar
• Anton J. J., Yao D. A. The sale of ideas: Strategic disclosure, property rights, and contracting. Rev. Econom. Stud. (2002) 69(3):513–531Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartlett C. A., Ghoshal S. The multinational corporation as an interorganizational network. Acad. Management Rev. (1990) 15(4):603–625Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boston Consulting Group (BCG) Report. Navigating the five currents of globalization: How learning companies are capturing global advantage. (2005) JanuaryGoogle Scholar
• Branstetter L., Fisman R., Foley C. F. Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from U.S. firm-level panel data. Quart. J. Econom. (2004) . ForthcomingGoogle Scholar
• Buckley P. J., Casson C. M.The Future of the Multinational Enterprise (1976) (Palgrave-Macmillan, London, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Survey of U.S. direct investment abroad. (2000) . Annual Series, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Burrows P. Innovation, Lego-style. BusinessWeek (2003) June 23):74–76Google Scholar
• Business Software Alliance (BSA) BSA global software piracy study. (2000) (BSA, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Carmel E. The new software exporting nations: Success factors. J. Inform. Systems Developing Countries (2003) 13(4):1–12Google Scholar
• Chung W., Alcacer J. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Sci. (2002) 48(12):1534–1554Link, Google Scholar
• Cockburn I. M., Henderson R. M. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. (1998) 46(2):157–182Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1990) 35(1):128–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Klepper S. A reprise of size and R&D. Econom. J. (1996) 106(437):925–951Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). (2000) . Working Paper 7552, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Desai M. A., Foley C. F., Hines J. R. A multinational perspective on capital structure choice and internal capital markets. J. Finance (2004) 59(6):2451–2488Crossref, Google Scholar
• Directory of Corporate Affiliations (DCA) (1993–2001) (LexisNexis Group, Dayton, OH) Google Scholar
• Dun & Bradstreet Million Dollar Database Various years. (The D&B Corporation, Short Hills, NJ) Google Scholar
• Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Report. Scattering the seeds of invention: The globalisation of research and development. (2004) September). London, UK, New York, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
• Engardio P., Bernstein A., Kripalani M. The global job shift. BusinessWeek (2003) February 3). http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_05/63818001.htmGoogle Scholar
• Frost T. S., Birkinshaw J. M., Ensign P. C. Centers of excellence in multinational corporations. Strategic Management J. (2002) 23(11):997–1018Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghemawat P. Semiglobalization and international business strategy. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. (2003) 34(2):138–152Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ginarte J. C., Park W. G. Determinants of patent rights: A cross-national study. Res. Policy (1997) 26:283–301Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Lit. (1990) 28(4):1661–1707Google Scholar
• Hall B. H. The financing of research and development. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy (2002) 18(1):35–51Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Ziedonis R. H. The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(1):101–128Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. (2001) . Working Paper 8498, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Hall B. H., Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M. Market value and patent citations. RAND J. Econom. (2005) 36(1):16–38Google Scholar
• Harhoff D., Narin F., Scherer F. M., Vopel K. Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1999) 81(3):511–515Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hausman J., Hall B. H., Griliches Z. Economic models for count data with an application to the patent-R&D relationship. Econometrica (1984) 52(4):909–938Crossref, Google Scholar
• Index of Economic Freedom The Heritage Foundation. (1995) (Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
• International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) Risk Rating PRS Group. (1997) (East Syracuse, NY)Google Scholar
• Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M., Fogarty M. S. The meaning of patent citations: Report on the NBER/Case-Western Reserve survey of patentees. (2000) . Working Paper 7631, NBER, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
• Jaffe A. B., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart. J. Econom. (1993) 108(3):577–598Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Zoido-Lobatón P. Governance matters. (1999) . Working Paper 2196, World Bank Development Research Group, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Kaufmann D., Kraay A., Zoido-Lobatón P. Governance matters II. (2002) . Updated indicators for 2000-01. Working Paper 2772. World Bank Development Research Group, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
• Khanna T. Business groups and social welfare in emerging markets: Existing evidence and unanswered questions. Eur. Econom. Rev. (2000) 44(4–6):748–761Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. (1993) 24(4):625–645Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kumar N. Determinants of location of overseas R&D activity of multinational enterprises: The case of U.S. and Japanese corporations. Res. Policy (2001) 30(1):159–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lahiri N. Inter-firm technology diffusion: Do intra-organizational linkages matter? (2003) . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
• Mansfield E., Schwartz M., Wagner S. Imitation costs and patents: An empirical study. Econom. J. (1981) 91(364):907–918Google Scholar
• Maskus K. E.Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy (2000) (Institute for International Economics, Washington, D.C.) Google Scholar
• Morck R., Yeung B. Why investors value multinationality. J. Bus. (1991) 64(2):165–187Crossref, Google Scholar
• Opacity Index, The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Study of Transparency and Justainability. (2002) Google Scholar
• Patel P., Pavitt K., Stoneman P. Patterns of technological activity: Their measurement and interpretation. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Changes (1995) (Blackwell, Oxford, UK) Google Scholar
• Rai S. In India, a high-tech outpost for U.S. patents. New York Times (2003) December 15Google Scholar
• Rapp R. T., Rozek R. P. Benefits and costs of intellectual property protection in developing countries. J. World Trade (1990) 24(5):74–102Google Scholar
• Rivkin J. W. Imitation of complex strategies. Management Sci. (2000) 46:824–844Link, Google Scholar
• Singh J. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Sci. (2005) 51(5):756–770Link, Google Scholar
• Szulanski G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management J. (1996) 17(Winter Special Issue):27–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: The resource cost of transferring technological know-how. Econom. J. (1977) 87(346):242–261Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy (1986) 15(6):285–305Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., Jaffe A. University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Econom. Innovation New Tech. (1997) 5(1):19–50Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vuong Q. H. Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica (1989) 57(2):307–333Crossref, Google Scholar
• World Development Indicators World Bank. (2004) (Washington, D.C.)Google Scholar
• Zhao M. Essays on multinational R&D, intellectual property rights, and knowledge spillover. (2004) . Doctoral dissertation, Stern School of Business, New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
• Zhao M., Yeung B. Openness and institutional changes: The role of firm heterogeneity. (2004) . Working paper, Stern School of Business, New York University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
• Ziedonis R. H. Don’t fence me in: Fragmented markets for technology and the patent acquisition strategies of firms. Management Sci. (2004) 50(6):804–820Link, Google Scholar