benefits) of R&D is public-private partnerships or research.47,48 Past research has found a positive impact of Japanese consortia and of ATP-funded U.S. government-industry joint ventures on the research productivity of participants in the technological areas targeted by the consortia.49,50,51 Indeed, in addition to the support provided by the government’s funding, research consortia can play an important role in supporting network formation, thus increasing knowledge flows among participants,52,53,54,55 and supporting skills56,57 and the creation of new industries.58
In addition to considering research consortia, this section looks at several less widely researched models of coordinated technology development. As Bergh discusses in his paper “Manufacturing Infrastructure for Optoelectronics,”59 it considers three models for the coordination of technology development for a shorter or longer term and with more or less government funding. The first model, SEMATECH, is a not-for-profit research consortium established in 1987 to provide a research facility in which member companies could improve their semiconductor manufacturing process technology. The second, the Optoelectronics Industry Development Association (OIDA), is a not-for-profit partnership of North American suppliers and users of optoelectronic components, established in 1991 to improve the competitiveness of the North American optoelectronics industry with public
47 Spence, A.M. 1984. Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica 52(1):101-121.
48 Katz, M.L. 1986. An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics 17(4):527-543.
49 Branstetter, L., and M. Sakakibara. 1998. Japanese research consortia: A microeconometric analysis of industrial policy. Journal of Industrial Economics 46(2):207-233.
50 Branstetter, L., and M. Sakakibara. 2002. When do research consortia work well and why? Evidence from Japanese panel data. American Economic Review 92(1):143-159.
51 Sakakibara, M. 2003. Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development. Managerial and Decision Economics 24:117-132.
52 Tripsas, M., S. Schrader, and M. Sobrero. 1995. Discouraging opportunistic behavior in collaborative R&D: A new role for government. Research Policy 24:367-389.
53 McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20:1133-1156.
54 Whitford, J. 2005. The New Old Economy: Networks, Institutions, and the Organizational Transformation of American Manufacturing. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
55 Fuchs, E. 2010. Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case for embedded network governance. Research Policy 39:1133-1147.
56 McEvily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20:1133-1156.
57 Whitford, J. 2005. The New Old Economy.
58 Fuchs, E. 2010. Rethinking the role of the state in technology development: DARPA and the case for embedded network governance. Research Policy 39:1133-1147.
59 Bergh, A. 1996. Manufacturing infrastructure for optoelectronics. Lasers and Electro-Optics Society Annual Meeting Conference Proceedings. IEEE. Lasers and Electro-Optics Society LEOS-96. November 18-21, 1996.