Draft Report of the Expert Group on International STI Cooperation to ...

technological paradigm within <strong>the</strong>ir sector 11 ), <strong>the</strong>ir activities have a substantially greater
applied research component than universities. While large firms may engage in basic
research, <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> such firms, and almost all SMEs, tend to engage in applied research
and development activities.
Universities and PROs, by and large, are also much more location-bound than firms, with
very limited opportunities for internationalisation <strong>of</strong> R&D activities, except through
collaboration. As such, STI cooperation between PROs and universities in different countries
is a well-established activity, with reasonably well-established protocols governing this
activity and its output. Since – by and large – universities and a good proportion <strong>of</strong> PROs are
state-subsidised or state-controlled as part <strong>of</strong> national public goods, <strong>the</strong>se international STI
collaborations are influenced by bilateral and multilateral inter-governmental agreements,
unlike most STI collaborations by firms.
More importantly, <strong>the</strong>re are long-established formal and informal institutions (rules) that
determine <strong>the</strong> way in which inter-university STI collaboration is undertaken, with or without
bilateral or multilateral agreements. Universities differ from PROs and firms also because <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> longer-term horizon <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir research, and as such, agreements, property rights and <strong>the</strong>ir
scientific output can be negotiated with greater deliberation.
Universities and PROs are location-bound and form <strong>the</strong> ‘core’ <strong>of</strong> national innovation
systems. Since <strong>the</strong>y provide crucial inputs to PROs and firms (scientific knowledge and
specialised human resources) that cannot be acquired from a distance, firms that require <strong>the</strong>se
inputs must seek to locate close to <strong>the</strong>m, creating important knowledge clusters. This is
especially important in new and emerging sectors, because knowledge transfer in tacit areas
requires physical proximity (Criscuolo and Verspagen 2008).
However, whe<strong>the</strong>r firm, PRO or university, leadership in one scientific or technological subdiscipline/area
does not imply leadership in o<strong>the</strong>r related fields. Although <strong>the</strong>re may be
several actors at or close to <strong>the</strong> frontier, leadership is rarely static amongst <strong>the</strong> peer group.
Hence, universities, firms and PROs do not regard STI cooperation as a sign <strong>of</strong> weakness.
Cooperation is a necessary means to keep abreast <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir relative leadership within <strong>the</strong> peer
group, as much as it is to develop work jointly (Narula and Santangelo 2009). That <strong>the</strong> peer
group is widely distributed across several countries requires such cooperation also to be
international (Narula 2003). This is one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> reasons why “clustering” has become a
strategic instrument for R&D&I. Clusters <strong>the</strong>mselves are a means for international
cooperation as <strong>the</strong>y are <strong>of</strong>ten represented by cluster management organizations which focus
on streng<strong>the</strong>ning <strong>the</strong> international reach <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cluster and connecting it with clusters in o<strong>the</strong>r
parts <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> world.
11 For example, a PRO focused on <strong>the</strong> wood and pulp sector will engage in very limited basic research,
compared with a PRO dedicated to <strong>the</strong> biotechnology industry.
36