A Principal-Agent Explanation for Technology Transfer
Authors
- Beryl Zi-Lin KuoTaipei College of Maritime Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan
- Chien-Hsin LinDa-Yeh University, Changhua, Taiwan
Keywords
International technology transfer, principal-agent relationship, organizational receptivity, knowledge tacitness
Abstract
Technology licensing and transfer is subject to problems of asymmetric information including moral hazard. This study explores the effects of informal governance, knowledge tacitness, and organizational receptivity on the preference of variable royalty scheme in the context of technology licensing. Drawing on the classic principalagent model, we assume that the variable royalty scheme is a process-based contract where the licensee is the principal and the licensor is the agent. The results show that informal governance facilitating goal alignment is positively associated with the variable royalty scheme (i.e. the process-based contract). Organizational receptivity promotes the legitimacy to imposing routines, evaluating the technology, and forming expectation, and is positively associated with the variable royalty scheme. Knowledge tacitness is negatively associated with the variable royalty payment, which implies less transfer programmability moves payment from variable royalties to a fixed fee. Our arguments are significantly different from classic principal-agent relationship that does not involve the dimension of licensee transfer and monitoring capacity
References
- Armstron, S. and Overton, T. (1977) âEstimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveysâ, Journal of Marketing Research, 14:3, pp. 396-402.
- Arora, A. (1995) âLicensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and the Market for Know-howâ, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4:1, pp. 41-59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10438599500000013.
- Arrow, K. J. (1985) âThe Economics of Agencyâ, in Pratt, J. & R. Zeckhauser (Eds.), Principals and Agents: The Structure of Business, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp.37-51.
- Aulakh, P. S., Cavusgil, S. T., and Sarkar, M. B. (1998) âCompensation in International Licensing Agreements,â Journal of International Business Studies, 29:2, pp. 409-420.
- Bergen, M., Dutta, S., and Walker, O. C. Jr. (1992) âAgency Relationships in marketing: a Review of the Implications and Applications of Agency and Related Theories,â Journal of Marketing, 56, pp. 1-24.
- Bessy, C, Brousseau, E., and Saussier, S. (2008) âPayment Schemes in Technology Licensing Agreements: a Transactional Cost Approach. Working paper, Forum, UniversitĂ© Paris X and ATOM, UniversitĂ© Paris 1 (Cited on 12 Jan, 2011). Available from < brousseau.info/pdf/CBEBSSPayLic0801.pdf>.
- Bessy, C. and Brousseau, E. (1998) âTechnology Licensing Contracts Features and Diversityâ, International Review of Law and Economics, 18:4, pp. 451-489. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0144-8188(98)00018-0.
- Bousquet, A., Cremer, H., Ivaldi, M., and Wolkowicz, M. (1998) âRisk Sharing in Licensingâ, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16:5, pp. 535â554.
- CebriĂĄn, M. (2009) âThe Structure of Payments as a Way to Alleviate Contractual Hazards in International Technology Licensingâ, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18:6, pp. 1135-1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtp016.
- Chin, W. W. (1998) âThe Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modelingâ, in Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 295-336.
- Cho, K. R. (1988) âIssues of Compensation in International Technology Licensingâ, Management International Review, 28:2, pp. 70-79.
- Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990) âAbsorptive Capability: a New Perspective on Learning and Innovationâ, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35:1, pp. 128-152.
- Contractor, F. (1981), International Technology Licensing. D. C. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company.
- Das, T. K. and Teng, B-S. (2001) âTrust, Control and Risk in Strategic Alliances: an Integrated Frameworkâ, Organization Studies, 22:2, pp. 251-283.
- Dekker, H. C. (2004) âControl of Inter-organizational Relationships: Evidence on Appropriation Concerns and Coordination Requirementsâ, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29, pp. 27-49.
- Dyer, J. H. (1997) âEffective Interfirm Collaboration: How Firms Minimize Transaction Costs and Maximize Transaction Valueâ, Strategic Management Journal, 18:7, pp. 535-556.
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) âAgency Theory: An Assessment and Reviewâ, Academy of ManageA principal-agent explanationment Review, 14:1, pp. 57-74.
- Fornell, C. and Larcker, D. F. (1981) âEvaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Errorâ, Journal of Marketing Research, 18:1, 39-50.
- Gallini, N. T. and Wright, B. D. (1990), âTechnology Transfer under Asymmetric Informationâ, Rand Journal of Economics, 21:1, pp. 147-160.
- Gencturk, G. and Aulakh, P. S. (1995) âThe Use of Process and Output Controls in Foreign Marketsâ, Journal of International Business Studies, 26:4, pp. 755-786.
- Gibsons, R. (2005) âIncentives Between Firms (and Within)â, Management Science, 51:1, pp. 2-17.
- Hamel, G. (1991) âCompetition for Competence and Inter-partner Learning within International Strategic Alliancesâ, Strategic Management Journal, 12(Special Issue 1), 83-103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120908.
- Heide, J. B. and John, G. (1988) âThe Role of Dependence Balancing in Safeguarding Transaction- Specific Assets in Conventional Channelsâ, Journal of Marketing, 52:1, pp. 20-35.
- Helm, R. and Kloyer, M. (2004) âControlling Contractual Exchange Risks in R&D Interfirm Cooperation: an Empirical Studyâ, Research Policy, 33, pp. 1103-1122.
- Hulland, J. (1999) âUse of Partial Least Square (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: a Review of Four Recent Studiesâ, Strategic Management Journal, 20:2, 195-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199902)20:23.0.CO;2-7.
- Kamien, M .I. and Tauman, Y. (1986) âFees versus Royalties and the Private Value of a Patentâ, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101, pp. 471â491.
- Kim, Y. J. (2009) âChoosing between International Technology Licensing Partners: an Empirical Analysis of U.S. Biotechnology Firmsâ, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,26:1-2, pp. 57-72.
- Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1993) âKnowledge of the Firm and the Evolutionary Theory of Multinational Cooperationâ, Journal of International Business Studies, 24:4, pp. 625-645.
- Larsson, R. Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., and Sparks J. (1998)â The Interorganizational Learning Dilemma: Collective Knowledge Development in Strategic Alliances,â Organization Science, 9:3, pp. 285-305.
- Nelson, R. and Winter, S. G. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
- Obloj, T. and Zemsky, P. (2015), Value Creation and Value Capture under Moral Hazard: Exploring the Micro-Foundations of Buyer-Supplier Relationshipsâ, Strategic Management Journal, 36:8, pp. 1146â1163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2271.
- Ouchi, W. G. (1979) âA Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control Mechanismsâ, Management Science, 25:9, pp. 833-848.
- Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986) âSelf-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospectsâ, Journal of Management, 12:4, pp. 531-544.
- Poblete, J. and Spulbery, D. (2014) âManaging Invention and Innovation: from Delegated R&D to Implementationâ, (cited on 20 Aug, 2015). Available from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Poblete_Spulber_Managing_Innovation_July_2014.pdf.
- Poppo, L. and Zenger, T. (2002) âDo Formal Contracts and Relational Governance Function as Substitutes or Complements?â Strategic Management Journal, 23:8, pp. 707-725. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.249.
- Provan, K. G. and Skinner, S. J. (1989) âInterorganizational Dependence and Control as Predictors of Opportunism in Dealer-Supplier Relationsâ, Academy of Management Journal, 32:1, pp. 202-212.
- Rogers, E.M. (2002) âThe Nature of Technology Transferâ, Science Communication, 23:3, pp. 323-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107554700202300307.
- Sharma, A. (1997) âProfessional as Agent: Knowledge Asymmetry in Agency Exchangeâ, Academy of Management Review, 22:3, pp. 758-798.
- Tsai, K-H. and Wang, J-C. (2009) âExternal Technology Sourcing and Innovation Performance in LMT Sectors: An Analysis Based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Surveyâ, Research Policy, 38:3, pp. 518-526.
- Veugelers, R. and Cassiman, B. (1999) âMake and Buy in Innovation Strategies: Evidence from Belgian Manufacturing Firmsâ, Research Policy, 28:1, pp. 63-80.
- Vishwasrao, S. (2007) âRoyalties vs. Fees: How Do Firms Pay for Foreign Technology,â International Journal of Industrial Organization, 25:4, pp. 741-759.
- Winter, S. G. (2004) âKnowledge and Competence as Strategic Assetsâ, in Handbook on Knowledge Management 1, Volume 1 of the series International Handbooks on Information Systems, pp. 129-152.
- Beryl Zi-lin Kuo, Assistant Professor, Taipei College of Maritime Technology, Taiwan.Email: berylkuo@mail.tcmt.edu.tw.
- Chien-Hsin Lin, Associate Professor, Da-Yeh University, Taiwan.Email: lin@mail.dyu.edu.tw
How to Cite
Beryl Zi-Lin Kuo, Chien-Hsin Lin. A Principal-Agent Explanation for Technology Transfer.
J.Technol. Manag. Grow. Econ.. 2015, 06, 26-44