Academic scientists in corporate R&D: A theoretical model

被引:7
作者
Martinez, Catalina [1 ]
Parlane, Sarah [2 ]
机构
[1] CSIC, Inst Publ Goods & Policies, Madrid, Spain
[2] Univ Coll Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
关键词
Economics of Science; R&D activities; Academia; Incentive contract; Multitasking; Absorptive capacity; ABSORPTIVE-CAPACITY; BASIC RESEARCH; FIRM-LEVEL; INTRINSIC MOTIVATION; SCIENCE; INNOVATION; CAPABILITIES; KNOWLEDGE; PAY; ORGANIZATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.respol.2023.104744
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
What motivates some firms to hire star academics? This paper provides a theoretical framework that combines several factors known to influence a firm's hiring decision of scientists capable of conducting both, research and development activities. The targeted type, reflecting the scientist's academic ability, is endogenous. When research and development activities are not strong substitutes, the optimal contract induces the scientist to engage in multitasking and the firm targets applicants with either the highest or the lowest type. Scientist with the lowest ability to conduct academic research are hired in environments where investments in absorptive capacity have low returns, academic publications generate substantial negative externalities for the firm, and/or the academic sector offers desirable outside options. When academic ability is not verifiable, the contract must only appeal to scientists with the targeted ability. Top scientists may need to be overcompensated for their research outcomes while low ability scientists may be overly compensated for their development outcomes. This, in turn, leads the hiring decision to be biased in favour of high-ability scientists when research and development activities exhibit a strong complementarity. By opposition, scientists with the lowest ability are more frequently targeted when the cost of conducting both activities increases.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 74 条
[1]   Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists [J].
Agarwal, Rajshree ;
Ohyama, Atsushi .
MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 2013, 59 (04) :950-970
[2]   Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation [J].
Aghion, Philippe ;
Dewatripont, Mathias ;
Stein, Jeremy C. .
RAND JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2008, 39 (03) :617-635
[3]  
Arora A., 2015, WORKING PAPER NO 209
[4]   Knowledge Spillovers and Corporate Investment in Scientific Research [J].
Arora, Ashish ;
Belenzon, Sharon ;
Sheer, Lia .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2021, 111 (03) :871-898
[5]   Taste for science, academic boundary spanning, and inventive performance of scientists and engineers in industry [J].
Arts, Sam ;
Veugelers, Reinhilde .
INDUSTRIAL AND CORPORATE CHANGE, 2020, 29 (04) :917-933
[6]   SCIENTIFIC AND COMMERCIAL INCENTIVES IN R&D: RESEARCH VERSUS DEVELOPMENT? [J].
Banal-Estanol, Albert ;
Macho-Stadler, Ines .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, 2010, 19 (01) :185-221
[7]   PhD trained employees and firms' transitions to upstream R&D activities [J].
Barge-Gil, Andres ;
D'Este, Pablo ;
Herrera, Liliana .
INDUSTRY AND INNOVATION, 2021, 28 (04) :424-455
[8]  
Belenzon S., 2021, WORKING PAPER 28644
[9]   Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation [J].
Bénabou, R ;
Tirole, J .
REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 2003, 70 (03) :489-520
[10]   Bonus Culture: Competitive Pay, Screening, and Multitasking [J].
Benabou, Roland ;
Tirole, Jean .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 2016, 124 (02) :305-370