Journal of Technology Innovation (기술혁신연구)

Korea Society for Innovation Managemetn & Economics (기술경영경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Relationship Between R&D Investment and Financial Performance: The Moderating of Political Ties

기업의 연구개발투자와 재무적 성과 간의 관계에서 정치적 연계의 조절효과

  • Received : 2021.01.17
  • Accepted : 2021.04.08
  • Published : 2021.05.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

So far, several researchers have studied the relationship between research and development investment and firm performance; however, most have focused on linear relationships. Thus, previous studies remain fragmented and show mixed results. This study examined the moderating effect of political ties in the relationship between R&D investment and firm performance. We tested the hypotheses based on extensive 20-year data on enterprises, from 1998 through 2017, as the research period. The study is expected to contribute to explaining the mixed results of the research between research and development investment and firm performance.

본 연구는 연구개발투자와 기업성과 간의 관계에서 정치적 연계의 조절효과를 관찰한 연구이다. 그동안 기업의 연구개발투자와 기업성과 간의 관계에 관한 다양한 연구가 진행 되었음에도 불구하고, 혼재된 연구결과로 인해 연구개발투자의 효과성과 중요성에 대한 혼란은 가중되고 있다. 따라서, 본 연구는 연구개발투자와 기업성과 간의 관계를 보다 명확하게 관찰하기 위해 연구개발투자의 근본적 특성에 초점을 맞추었으며 나아가 비시장전략으로 구분되는 정치적 연계를 조절변수로 채택하여 연구를 진행하였다. 본 연구는 우리나라 의료산업에 속한 166개 기업을 대상으로 연구를 진행하였으며, 연구결과 의료산업에서 기업의 연구개발투자는 기업성과에 부(-)의 관계가 있음이 관찰되었다. 더불어 정치적 연계가 기업의 연구개발투자와 기업성과 간의 부(-)의 관계를 완화시키는 것을 발견하였다. 이 같은 연구결과는 자본력과 기술력이 충분히 갖추어지지 못한 우리나라 의료산업에서 연구개발투자와 함께 비시장전략의 중요성을 시사하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 민인식.최필선. (2012a). STATA 고급패널데이터분석. 서울: 지필미디어.
  2. 민인식.최필선. (2012b). STATA 패널데이터분석. 서울: 지필미디어.
  3. 박준호.이장우. (2019). 기업의 정치적 연계가 기업 성과에 미치는 영향: 환경동태성의 조절효과 중심으로. 경영학연구, 48(2), 493-513.
  4. 박준호.이장우. (2021). 전직 관료 영입이 기업성과에 미치는 영향: 산업에 따른 효과성 분석. 경영교육연구, 36(1), 165-190.
  5. 성태경. (2002). 기업의 기술혁신 활동 결정요인: 자원기반 관점에서 본 탐색적 연구. 기술혁신연구, 10(2), 69-90.
  6. 손현순.신현택. (2005). 일반의약품 허가제도의 국가간 비교 및 발전 방향. 한국임상약학회지, 15(2), 127-138.
  7. 신미화.이영훈. (2011). 한.중.일 의료기기산업의 비교우위 및 무역패턴 분석. 무역학회지, 36(2), 25-56.
  8. 윤병섭.허호영. (2011). 연구개발투자가 경영성과에 미치는 영향: 2010년 한국 R&D Scoreboard. 전문경영인연구, 14(2), 109-131.
  9. 윤현덕, & 서리빈. (2011). 기술혁신형 (Inno-Biz) 중소기업의 기술경영성과에 미치는 핵심요인에 관한 연구. 기술혁신연구, 19(1), 111-144.
  10. 이경민.이근찬. (2007). 우리나라 제약산업의 연구개발 (R&D) 투자가 기업성과에 미치는 영향. 전문경영인연구, 10(2), 81-101.
  11. 이우천.유왕근. (2007). 의료기기산업 클러스터 육성방안 연구: 원주의료기기산업 발달과정 고찰을 중심으로. 보건경제와 정책연구, 13(2), 55-70.
  12. 장금영. (2010). 연구개발투자의 성과에 영향을 미치는 요인에 관한 연구: 정부의 산업기술개발사업을 중심으로. 기술혁신연구, 18(1), 75-98.
  13. 최종서. (2009). 연구개발투자의 경제적 시차효과에 대한 시계열분석. 회계학연구, 34(1), 67-105.
  14. Adams, C. P., and Brantner, V. V. (2006). Estimating the cost of new drug development: is it really $802 million?. Health affairs, 25(2), 420-428. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.25.2.420
  15. Alam, A., Uddin, M., Yazdifar, H., Shafique, S., and Lartey, T. (2020). R&D investment, firm performance and moderating role of system and safeguard: Evidence from emerging markets. Journal of Business Research, 106, 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.018
  16. Allison, P. D. (2006). Fixed effects regression methods in SAS. Thirty-first Annual SAS.
  17. Andrevski, G. and Ferrier, W.J. (2019), "Does it pay to compete aggressively? Contingent roles of internal and external resources," Journal of Management, 45(2), 620-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316673718
  18. Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  19. Baumol, W. J. 2002. The free-market innovation machine: Analyzing the growth miracle of capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  20. Baysinger, B. D.(1984). Domain maintenance as an objective of business political activity: An expanded typology. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1984.4277642
  21. Bertrand, M., Kramarz, F., Schoar, A., and Thesmar, D. (2004). Politically connected CEOs and corporate outcomes: Evidence from France. Unpublished manuscript.
  22. Bloch, C. (2005). R&D investment and internal finance: The cash flow effect. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14(3), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000312710
  23. Blumentritt, T. P. 2003. Foreign subsidiaries' government affairs activities: The influence of managers and re-sources. Business & Society, 42: 202-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650303042002003
  24. Chauvin, K. W., and Hirschey, M. (1993). Advertising, R&D expenditures and the market value of the firm. Financial management, 128-140.
  25. Chen, W. R., and Miller, K. D. (2007). Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 369-381. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.594
  26. Chu, W. (2011). Family ownership and firm performance: Influence of family management, family control, and firm size. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(4), 833-851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9180-1
  27. Cohen, W. M., and Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
  28. Coombs, J. E., and Bierly III, P. E. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4), 421-438. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2006.00444.x
  29. David, P., O'Brien, J. P., and Yoshikawa, T. (2008). The implications of debt heterogeneity for R&D investment and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51(1), 165-181. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008.30772877
  30. Dickson, M., and Gagnon, J. P. (2004). Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 3(5), 417-429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd1382
  31. Dierickx, I., and Cool, K. (1989). Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management science, 35(12), 1504-1511.
  32. DiMasi, J. A., Hansen, R. W., and Grabowski, H. G. (2003). The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. Journal of health economics, 22(2), 151-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(02)00126-1
  33. Ehie, I. C., and Olibe, K. (2010). The effect of R&D investment on firm value: An examination of US manufacturing and service industries. International Journal of Production Economics, 128(1), 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.06.005
  34. Ernst, H. (1995). Patenting strategies in the German mechanical engineering industry and their relationship to company performance. Technovation, 15(4), 225-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(95)96605-S
  35. Faccio, M., Masulis, R. W., and McConnell, J. J.(2006). Political connections and corporate bailouts. The Journal of Finance, 61(6), 2597-2635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2006.01000.x
  36. Feldman, M. P., Link, A. N., and Siegel, D. S. (2012). The economics of science and technology: an overview of initiatives to foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Springer Science & Business Media.
  37. Frynas, J.G., Mellahi, K., and Pigman, G.A. (2006), "First mover advantages in international business and firm-specific political resources," Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 321-345. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.519
  38. Gambardella, A., and Torrisi, S. (1998). Does technological convergence imply convergence in markets? Evidence from the electronics industry. Research policy, 27(5), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00062-6
  39. Goldman, E., Rocholl, J., and So, J. (2009). Do politically connected boards affect firm value?. The Review of Financial Studies, 22(6), 2331-2360. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhn088
  40. Greene, W. (2005). Fixed and random effects in stochastic frontier models. Journal of productivity analysis, 23(1), 7-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-004-8545-1
  41. Gujarati, D. N., and Porter, D. C. (1999). Essentials of econometrics (Vol. 2). Singapore: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
  42. Hall, B. H. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford review of economic policy, 18(1), 35-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/18.1.35
  43. Hall, B. H., and Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. rand Journal of Economics, 101-128.
  44. Hart, D. 2001. Why do some firms give? Why do some give a lot? High-tech PACs, 1977-1996. The Journal of Politics, 63: 1230-1249. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00108
  45. He, Y., Tian, Z., and Chen, Y.(2007). Performance implications of nonmarket strategy in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 24(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-006-9030-3
  46. Henisz, W. J. (2000). The institutional environment for multinational investment. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 16(2), 334-364. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/16.2.334
  47. Hillier, D., Pindado, J., De Queiroz, V., & De La Torre, C. (2011). The impact of country-level corporate governance on research and development. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1), 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.46
  48. Hillier, D., Pindado, J., De Queiroz, V., and De La Torre, C. (2011). The impact of country-level corporate governance on research and development. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(1), 76-98. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.46
  49. Hillman, A. J. (2005). Politicians on the board of directors: Do connections affect the bottom line?. Journal of management, 31(3), 464-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304272187
  50. Hillman, A. J., and Hitt, M. A.(1999). Corporate political strategy formulation: A model of approach, participation, and strategy decisions. Academy of management review, 24(4), 825-842. https://doi.org/10.2307/259357
  51. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., and Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of management, 35(6), 1404-1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469
  52. Hillman, A. J., Zardkoohi, A., and Bierman, L. (1999). Corporate political strategies and firm performance: indications of firm-specific benefits from personal service in the US government. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 67-81. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199901)20:1<67::AID-SMJ22>3.0.CO;2-T
  53. i Vidal, J. B., Draca, M., and Fons-Rosen, C. (2012). Revolving door lobbyists. The American Economic Review, 102(7), 3731. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.7.3731
  54. Kay, N. (1988). The R&D function: corporate strategy and structure. Technical change and economic theory, 283-294.
  55. Keim, G. D., and Zeithaml, C. P. (1986). Corporate political strategy and legislative decision making: A review and contingency approach. Academy of management review, 11(4), 828-843. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1986.4284029
  56. Keupp, M. M., and Gassmann, O. (2009). Determinants and archetype users of open innovation. R&d Management, 39(4), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00563.x
  57. Khwaja AI, Mian A. 2005. Do lenders favor politically connected firms? Rent provision in an emerging finan- cial market. Quarterly Journal of Economics 120: 1371 - 1411. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355305775097524
  58. Kotabe, M., Jiang, C. X., and Murray, J. Y. (2017). Examining the complementary effect of political networking capability with absorptive capacity on the innovative performance of emerging-market firms. Journal of management, 43(4), 1131-1156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314548226
  59. Leuz, C., and Oberholzer-Gee, F.(2006). Political relationships, global financing, and corporate transparency: Evidence from Indonesia. Journal of financial economics, 81(2), 411-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.06.006
  60. Li, H., and Zhang, Y. (2007). The role of managers' political networking and functional experience in new venture performance: Evidence from China's transition economy. Strategic management journal, 28(8), 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.605
  61. Lin, B. W., Lee, Y., and Hung, S. C. (2006). R&D intensity and commercialization orientation effects on financial performance. Journal of business research, 59(6), 679-685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.002
  62. Lu, J. W. (2002). Intra-and inter-organizational imitative behavior: Institutional influences on Japanese firms' entry mode choice. Journal of international business studies, 33(1), 19-37. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491003
  63. Marano, V., Arregle, J. L., Hitt, M. A., Spadafora, E., and van Essen, M. (2016). Home country institutions and the internationalization-performance relationship: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1075-1110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315624963
  64. McCutchen Jr, W. W., and Swamidass, P. M. (1996). Effect of R&D expenditures and funding strategies on the market value of biotech firms. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12(4), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0923-4748(95)00014-3
  65. O'brien, J. P. (2003). The capital structure implications of pursuing a strategy of innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 24(5), 415-431. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.308
  66. Oliver, C.(1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of management review, 16(1), 145-179. https://doi.org/10.2307/258610
  67. Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. R. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
  68. Porter, M. E. (2008). On competition. Harvard Business Press.
  69. Qian, Y., and Weingast, B. R. (1997). Federalism as a commitment to reserving market incentives. Journal of Economic perspectives, 11(4), 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83
  70. Ridge, J. W., Ingram, A., and Hill, A. D. (2017). Beyond lobbying expenditures: How lobbying breadth and political connectedness affect firm outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 60(3), 1138-1163. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0584
  71. Schilling, M. A., and Shankar, R. (2019). Strategic management of technological innovation. McGraw-Hill Education.
  72. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York: Harper, 1975.
  73. Selling, T. I., and Stickney, C. P. (1989). The effects of business environment and strategy on a firm's rate of return on assets. Financial Analysts Journal, 45(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.2469/faj.v45.n1.43
  74. Singh, M., Mathur, I., Gleason, K. C., and Etebari, A. (2001). An empirical examination of the trend and performance implications of business diversification. The Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 7(2), 25.
  75. Tihanyi, L., Aguilera, R. V., Heugens, P., van Essen, M., Sauerwald, S., Duran, P., and Turturea, R. (2019). State ownership and political connections. Journal of Management, 45(6), 2293-2321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318822113
  76. Wang, H., Feng, J., Liu, X., and Zhang, R.(2011). What is the benefit of TMT's governmental experience to private-owned enterprises? Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 28(3), 555-572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-009-9167-y
  77. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 817-838.
  78. Xiao, G. (2013). Legal shareholder protection and corporate R&D investment. Journal of Corporate Finance, 23, 240-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.08.009
  79. Zheng, W., Singh, K., and Mitchell, W. (2015). Buffering and enabling: The impact of interlocking political ties on firm survival and sales growth. Strategic Management Journal, 36(11), 1615-1636. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2301