This article explores the utilization of public policies aimed at supporting industrial innovation, and, in particular, enterprises involved in industry-science cooperation. The aim is to investigate whether firms cooperating with universities or R&D organisations are more likely to be supported by the state and demonstrate higher innovation performance. The empirical analysis is based upon the results of a 2018 specialised survey on innovation-active high-tech and medium high-tech manufacturing enterprises in Russia and relies on the concept of ‘additionality’. Although the study results indicate that enterprises interacting with R&D performing organisations are more likely to be publicly supported, the recipients claim that the provided support rarely causes significant changes in their performance. Cooperating with R&D organisations and universities appears associated with mainly a general boost in the competitiveness of the enterprise. The paper provides evidence to suggest that support allocation in Russia is following a ‘picking-the-winner’ strategy. Combined with possible crowding-out effects, such a strategy may prove to be counterproductive for a country with a less well developed national innovation system.
The mirroring hypothesis highlights the correspondence of design characteristics across different architectural levels and in this paper, we consider how mirroring may impact the distribution of national and international innovation activities of firms. We identify incremental and modular innovations (as product architecture reinforcing innovations) along with architectural and radical innovations (as innovations that overturn the existing product architecture) to consider how and when innovation activities may adopt an international dimension. Our study of the bicycle industry highlights that international collaboration is most likely to occur in respect of incremental and modular innovation on the basis of the embedded coordination that modular designs offer. However, even in these circumstances, international collaboration was limited, on the basis that cross-national collaboration created higher levels of complexity and uncertainty; thereby being an attractive option only when the capabilities of the international partner far exceeded what was available either internally, or within national boundaries.