Search

There is manifold literature dealing with co-operative activities of firms. However, no empirical study seems to have investigated the factors leading to malfunctions in co-operation projects in terms of a low likelihood of co-operation, low rate of success, and failed co-operation. Our paper attempts to fill this gap by investigating the possible presence of two problems in co-operation: the lack of intermediation and of reciprocity. Based on data gathered for firms in two German regions and one French region, we find that the success of co-operation projects depends on the perceived importance, rather than on the perceived quality, of intermediate actors. Hence, the major problem for intermediating suitable partners is more related to communication than it is a programmatic issue. Trust and reciprocity in co-operation between firms is found to be relevant ex-post in the sense of being a main determinant of failed co-operation projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The claim of a positive association between a firm's social assets and its innovative capacity is a widely debated topic in the literature. Although controversial, such an argument has informed recent innovation policy across Germany, increasingly directed to the cluster formation. In the light of the growing attention and financial efforts that cluster-based innovation policies are receiving, it is worth answering two main questions. First, are firms with a relatively high level of social capital likely to be more innovative? Secondly, do companies pursuing innovation in partnership innovate more? This paper empirically answers these questions by exploring a cross-sectoral sample of 248 firms based in the Jena region. On the one hand, the extent to which a firm is integrated in its community life does not contribute to an explanation of its innovative performance. On the other hand, directed cooperation with the specific goal of innovating shows a positive impact on innovative performance. However, the correlation between the extent of the network of co-innovators and firms' innovative capacity presents an inverted U-shaped relation: there is a threshold in the number of co-innovators justified by the costs of innovating by interacting. A policy lesson can be drawn from these findings: cluster-based policies are to be treated with caution as firms face costs of networking and not merely benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]