并购对企业技术创新的影响
|
摘要
并购作为企业推行多元化、国际化战略的重要手段,是迄今为止在资本市场上最具诱惑力的扩张方式,其相关研究自20世纪80年代开始就占据着国际学术领域的重要板块。医药作为典型的R&D驱动型高新技术行业,在最近一轮并购热潮中,跨国医药企业十分注重借助购并获取相关的技术与知识资产,在并购目标的选择方面十分注重借机弥补技术不足或缺陷,以增强或补强技术创新能力。与此对应,通过并购以获取新技术、新产品也成为近年来我国医药企业并购的典型动因之一,这种现象也逐渐引起了国内学者的关注。尤其面对国际金融危机、国内经济发展放缓的大环境,以及“新医改”的逐步实施,我国的医药行业必然面临着一次空前变革,大规模的并购与重组成为行业与企业发展的必经之路。而在我国,对高新技术企业的并购行为研究,尤其是对基于技术获取动因的购并行为对创新绩效影响的研究仍远落后于实践的发展。
本文以我国生物医药板块的上市公司为具体研究对象,回顾了并购的一般理论和国内外并购研究的主流文献,在文献研究的基础上重点探讨了并购理论中的新发展,也即企业并购行为对技术创新绩效的影响研究,为我们进一步审视和探究“并购财富效应损益之谜”提供了崭新视角。本文遵循“战略导向(动因)——资源整合(行为)——企业绩效(技术创新绩效)”的逻辑思路,选取我国深、沪两市医药板块的91家上市公司在2004-2008年的相关数据,客观探讨了我国医药上市公司的并购行为和基于技术动因的购并对于企业并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生的影响,结果表明:
第一,我国生物医药上市公司2004-2007年的并购行为对并购后自身的创新绩效产生了积极作用,具体来看,在这一时间段内,并购次数较多的企业相对于没有发生并购的企业,技术创新绩效相对较好。
第二,针对我国生物医药上市公司2004-2007年期间的160余例并购事件来看,基于技术动因的购并对并购后自身的创新绩效产生了积极影响。与此相比,基于非技术动因的非技术购并对并购后自身的技术创新绩效并没有产生显著影响。
第三,针对我国生物医药上市公司在2004-2007年期间发生的50余例技术并购事件的经验研究表明,并购双方的相对知识规模以及技术相关性对于并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生了显著的影响。具体来看,并购双方的相对知识规模对并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生负向影响;并购双方的技术相关性对并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生了非线性影响(倒U型),也即,技术并购中并购双方的技术过于相似或过于无关都不利于并购后自身技术创新绩效的提升。
第四,针对我国生物医药上市公司在2004-2007年期间发生的50余例技术并购事件的经验研究表明,企业自身R&D努力程度对技术并购中目标方绝对知识规模对并购后的技术创新绩效产生了正向调节作用,也即企业自身R&D努力程度越强,目标方绝对知识规模对技术创新绩效的正向影响作用越显著。
本文以资源基础理论和组织学习理论为基础,从企业和并购事件两个层面深入探究以生物医药上市公司为典型代表的我国高技术企业的并购行为对技术创新绩效产生的影响:第一个层面表现为企业的并购行为(衡量并购频繁程度的并购次数)对技术创新绩效的影响以及基于技术动因的购并对技术创新绩效的影响;第二个层面表现为技术并购中并购双方的知识规模、技术相关性等特征对技术创新绩效的影响以及企业自身R&D努力程度的调节作用,不仅丰富了我国高技术企业并购行为与绩效的研究视角,而且扩展了我国高技术企业战略管理与创新管理的关系研究。最后,本文也指出了本研究存在的不足之处以及后续研究方向。
Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have been a significant firm strategy for many years. The pharmaceutical industry has experienced intermittent waves of M&As since the 1990s and recently appeared to be in yet another wave. The current wave is characterized by technology driven and M&As play a significant role in those big pharmaceutical companies' technological strategic deployment. Due to constant changes in the technological era, recent international financial crisis, Chinese economy development growth rate slowing down and reform of the new medical system, whether Chinese pharmaceutical companies can sustain technology advantages becomes the most critical factor for business development and competition advantages. Given the growing importance of technology and innovation to firm competitiveness and the on-going importance of M&As, there need propose an expanded research agenda including the role of technology in driving mergers' decision, the impact of mergers on technology innovation. So, there need more researches about the effect of M&As or technology-driven M&As on acquirers' technological innovation performance, especially for Chinese high-tech companies.
This paper studied the effect of M&As and technology-driven M&As on post-M&A technological innovation performance of acquiring firms in Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Taking 91 Chinese pharmaceutical companies as investigation object, built theory model“strategic motives-different types of acquisitions-technological performance”based on the logic mentality "motivation-conduation-performance" through literature study and interview, proposed the research hypothesizes and carried on an empirical study on the relations of these variables. This dissertation draws some conclusions as follows: (1) Chinese pharmaceutical companies M&As have a positive effects on technological innovation performance, the higher M&As frequencies, the higher technological innovation performance; (2) Technology-driven M&As have a positive effects on the acquiring firm’s post-M&A innovative performance, while non-technological M&As have a non-significant effect on the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm; (3) There is a negative relationship between the relative size of the acquired knowledge base and the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm. The technological relatedness of the acquired knowledge base will be curvilinearly (inverse U-shaped) related to the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm.(4) The post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm is more prominent while the acquiring firm' internal R&D efforts is stronger.
In general, based on the development of technology-driven M&As, from the perspective of Chinese pharmaceutical companies, using the empirical analysis method to analyze the effect of M&As and technology-driven M&As on acquirers' technological innovation performance, as well as how the merging parties' knowledge base, technology relatedness and acquirers' internal R&D efforts effect the technological innovation performance in technology-driven M&As, so as to build the whole model of technology-driven M&As effects on technological innovation performance. The results of this paper are not only academic problems but also problems need to resolve in practice. The result make up for the deficiency of the related studies and has a positive contribution to M&As theory, technology-driven M&As theory, a well-connected network between M&As and technology innovation and other related academic theory. It also has important guiding significance to Chinese pharmaceutical companies' M&As and technological strategic deployment. In the end, some limitations of this research and important future directions for further research are pointed out.
本文以我国生物医药板块的上市公司为具体研究对象,回顾了并购的一般理论和国内外并购研究的主流文献,在文献研究的基础上重点探讨了并购理论中的新发展,也即企业并购行为对技术创新绩效的影响研究,为我们进一步审视和探究“并购财富效应损益之谜”提供了崭新视角。本文遵循“战略导向(动因)——资源整合(行为)——企业绩效(技术创新绩效)”的逻辑思路,选取我国深、沪两市医药板块的91家上市公司在2004-2008年的相关数据,客观探讨了我国医药上市公司的并购行为和基于技术动因的购并对于企业并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生的影响,结果表明:
第一,我国生物医药上市公司2004-2007年的并购行为对并购后自身的创新绩效产生了积极作用,具体来看,在这一时间段内,并购次数较多的企业相对于没有发生并购的企业,技术创新绩效相对较好。
第二,针对我国生物医药上市公司2004-2007年期间的160余例并购事件来看,基于技术动因的购并对并购后自身的创新绩效产生了积极影响。与此相比,基于非技术动因的非技术购并对并购后自身的技术创新绩效并没有产生显著影响。
第三,针对我国生物医药上市公司在2004-2007年期间发生的50余例技术并购事件的经验研究表明,并购双方的相对知识规模以及技术相关性对于并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生了显著的影响。具体来看,并购双方的相对知识规模对并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生负向影响;并购双方的技术相关性对并购后自身的技术创新绩效产生了非线性影响(倒U型),也即,技术并购中并购双方的技术过于相似或过于无关都不利于并购后自身技术创新绩效的提升。
第四,针对我国生物医药上市公司在2004-2007年期间发生的50余例技术并购事件的经验研究表明,企业自身R&D努力程度对技术并购中目标方绝对知识规模对并购后的技术创新绩效产生了正向调节作用,也即企业自身R&D努力程度越强,目标方绝对知识规模对技术创新绩效的正向影响作用越显著。
本文以资源基础理论和组织学习理论为基础,从企业和并购事件两个层面深入探究以生物医药上市公司为典型代表的我国高技术企业的并购行为对技术创新绩效产生的影响:第一个层面表现为企业的并购行为(衡量并购频繁程度的并购次数)对技术创新绩效的影响以及基于技术动因的购并对技术创新绩效的影响;第二个层面表现为技术并购中并购双方的知识规模、技术相关性等特征对技术创新绩效的影响以及企业自身R&D努力程度的调节作用,不仅丰富了我国高技术企业并购行为与绩效的研究视角,而且扩展了我国高技术企业战略管理与创新管理的关系研究。最后,本文也指出了本研究存在的不足之处以及后续研究方向。
Mergers and acquisitions (M&As) have been a significant firm strategy for many years. The pharmaceutical industry has experienced intermittent waves of M&As since the 1990s and recently appeared to be in yet another wave. The current wave is characterized by technology driven and M&As play a significant role in those big pharmaceutical companies' technological strategic deployment. Due to constant changes in the technological era, recent international financial crisis, Chinese economy development growth rate slowing down and reform of the new medical system, whether Chinese pharmaceutical companies can sustain technology advantages becomes the most critical factor for business development and competition advantages. Given the growing importance of technology and innovation to firm competitiveness and the on-going importance of M&As, there need propose an expanded research agenda including the role of technology in driving mergers' decision, the impact of mergers on technology innovation. So, there need more researches about the effect of M&As or technology-driven M&As on acquirers' technological innovation performance, especially for Chinese high-tech companies.
This paper studied the effect of M&As and technology-driven M&As on post-M&A technological innovation performance of acquiring firms in Chinese pharmaceutical industry. Taking 91 Chinese pharmaceutical companies as investigation object, built theory model“strategic motives-different types of acquisitions-technological performance”based on the logic mentality "motivation-conduation-performance" through literature study and interview, proposed the research hypothesizes and carried on an empirical study on the relations of these variables. This dissertation draws some conclusions as follows: (1) Chinese pharmaceutical companies M&As have a positive effects on technological innovation performance, the higher M&As frequencies, the higher technological innovation performance; (2) Technology-driven M&As have a positive effects on the acquiring firm’s post-M&A innovative performance, while non-technological M&As have a non-significant effect on the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm; (3) There is a negative relationship between the relative size of the acquired knowledge base and the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm. The technological relatedness of the acquired knowledge base will be curvilinearly (inverse U-shaped) related to the post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm.(4) The post-M&A innovative performance of the acquiring firm is more prominent while the acquiring firm' internal R&D efforts is stronger.
In general, based on the development of technology-driven M&As, from the perspective of Chinese pharmaceutical companies, using the empirical analysis method to analyze the effect of M&As and technology-driven M&As on acquirers' technological innovation performance, as well as how the merging parties' knowledge base, technology relatedness and acquirers' internal R&D efforts effect the technological innovation performance in technology-driven M&As, so as to build the whole model of technology-driven M&As effects on technological innovation performance. The results of this paper are not only academic problems but also problems need to resolve in practice. The result make up for the deficiency of the related studies and has a positive contribution to M&As theory, technology-driven M&As theory, a well-connected network between M&As and technology innovation and other related academic theory. It also has important guiding significance to Chinese pharmaceutical companies' M&As and technological strategic deployment. In the end, some limitations of this research and important future directions for further research are pointed out.
引文
[1]Abrahamson. E., & Fombrun, C.J. 1994. Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19:728-755
[2]Achilladelis B, Schwarzkopf A, Cines M. 1987. A study of innovation in the pesticide industry: analysis of the innovation record of an industrial sector. Research Policy 16(2-4): 175-212.
[3]Agrawal, A., Jaffe, J.F., Mandelker, G., 1992. The post-merger performance of acquiring firms: a re-examination of an anomaly. Journal of Finance 47, 1605–1621
[4]Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. 2001,Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strateg. Manag. J. 22, 197–220
[5] Acs, Z J.,& Auretsch, D.B.1990, Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: The MIT Press
[6]Amihud Y., and Lev, B., 1981, Risk reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate Mergers, Bell Journal of Economics,12: 605-617
[7]Anand J, Singh H. 1997. Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 18: 99
[8] Zoltan J. Acs, Randall K. Morck, Bernard Yeung Entrepreneurship, globalization, and public policy Journal of International Management, Volume 7, Issue 3, Autumn 2001, Pages 235-251
[9]Andrade, G. , M. Mitchell and E. Stafford, 2001:“New evidence and perspectives on mergers”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2) , 103 - 120.
[10]Andrew D. James, Luke Georghiou and J. Stanley Metcalfe, 1998, Integrating technology into merger and acquisition decision making. Technovation, 18:563-573
[11]Antonio Rodr′?guez-Duarte et al., The endogenous relationship between innovation and diversification, and the impact of technological resources on the form of diversification, Research Policy 36 (2007) 652–664
[12]Ard-Pieter De Man,Geert Duysters,Collaboration and Innovation:A Review of The Effects of Mergers,Acquisitions And Alliances On Innovation[J],Technovation 25:1377-1387
[13]Argyres, N. 1996a. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 395-410
[14]Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., Da Rin, M., 2000. Corporate restructuring and R&D: A paneldata analysis for the Chemical Industry, working paper 173. IGIER, Bocconi University.
[15]Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., Da-Rin, M., 2004. Corporate restructuring and R&D: a panel data analysis for the chemical industry. In: Gambardella, A., Garcia-Fontes, W. (Eds.), The European Chemical Industry: Innovation Performance and Competitiveness. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[16]Arrow, K., 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resource for Inventions, in the Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Universities - NBER, Princeton University Press.
[17]Arora, A.,& Gambardella, A. 1990, Complementarity and external linkages. The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology, Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361-379
[18]Anthony Arundel, Isabelle Kabla,What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms,Research Policy, Volume 27, Issue 2, June 1998, Pages 127-141
[19]Barber BM, Lyon JD. 1996. Detecting abnormal operating performance: the empirical power and specification of test statistics. Journal of Financial Economics 41
[20]Barney,J. 1988. Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis, Strategic Management Journal,9:71-78
[21]Baysinger , B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1989. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in large multiproduct fims. Academy of Management Journal, 32:310-332
[22]Belderbos R. Martin Carree, Boris Lokshin, 2004. Cooperative R&D and firm performance Research Policy, Volume 33, Issue 10, 1477-1492
[23]Bruton, G.D.,Oviatt,B.,& White, M.A. 1994, Performance of acquisitions, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 972-989
[24]Bertrand, O., Zuniga, M., 2006. R&D and M&A: are cross-border m&a different? An investigation onOECDcountries. International Journal of Industrial Organization 24, 401–423.
[25]Walter Brenner, Volker Hamm, Information technology for purchasing in a process environment, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Volume 2, Issue 4, December 1996, Pages 211-219
[26]Berkovitch, E. and M. P. Narayanan, 1993.Motives for takeovers: an empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28 (3) , 347 - 362.
[27]Bernile, G. , E. Lyandres and A. Zhdanov, 2007:“A theory of strategic mergers”, Working paperavailable on SSRN.
[28] Erik Brouwer, Alfred Kleinknecht, Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data,Research Policy, Volume 28, Issue 6, August 1999, Pages615-624
[29]Bettis R.A. Performance differences in related and unrelated diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal. 1981,2,4, October-December:379-393
[30]Bettis, R.A.& Hitt, M.A. 1995. The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(special issue):7-19
[31]Bettis, R.A.,& Prahalad, C.K. 1995, The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal,16: 5-14
[32]Beverly C. Winterscheid, Sandra McNabb.1994. Technology development and transfer across national and organizational borders: The case of AT&T network systems Europe.International Business Review, Volume 3, Issue 4: 425-442
[33]Biggadike, R. 1979, The risky business of diversification, Harvard Business Review, 57(3):103-111
[34]Bild, M. 1998. The valuation of take-overs. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
[35]Birkinshaw,J. 1999. Acquiring intellect: Managing the integration of knowledge-intensive acquisitions Business Horizons, Volume 42, Issue 3, 33-40
[36]Blonigen, B.A., Taylor, C.T., 2000. R&D activity and acquisitions in high technology industries: evidence from the US electronics industry, Journal of Industrial Economics 47(1):47-71
[37]Bodnar, G., Tang, C., Weintrop, J., 1997. Both sides of corporate diversification: the value impacts of geographic and industrial diversification. NBER Working Paper
[38]Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Shona L. Brown ,Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos,Long Range Planning, Volume 31, Issue 5, 12 October 1998, Pages 786-789
[39]Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., 1999. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journalof International BusinessStudies 30, 439–462
[40]Bruner Robert F., Robert M. Conroy, Javier Estrada, Mark Kritzman, Wei Li .2002. Introduction to‘Valuation in Emerging Markets’Emerging Markets Review, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 December, Pages 310-324
[41]Caloghirou et al., 2004, Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation 24 (1) :29–39.
[42]Surajit Chaudhuri, Benoit Dageville, Guy Lohman ,Self-Managing Technology in Database Management Systems,Proceedings 2004 VLDB Conference, 2004, P 1243
[43]Cantwell et al., 2004, The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification,Routledge, London
[44]Paola Criscuolo,On the road again: Researcher mobility inside the R&D network,Research Policy, Volume 34, Issue 9, November 2005, Pages 1350-1365
[45]Capron, L., Mitchell, W., 1998. Bilateral resource redeployment and capabilities improvement following horizontal acquisitions. Industrial and Corporate Change 7 (3)
[46]Capron L, Mitchell W, Swaminathan A. 1998. Resource redeployment following horizontal acquisitions in Europe and North America, 1988-1992. Strategic Management Journal 19(7): 631-661.
[47]Cardinal, L.B., and T.C. Opler, 1995. Corporate diversification and innovative efficiency:A empirical study. Journal of Accounting and Economics.19:365-381
[48]Carmine Ornaghi, 2009.Mergers and Innovation in big Pharma, International Journal of Industrial Organization,27:70-79
[49]Cassiman, B., Colombo, M., Garrone, P., Veugelers, R., in press. The impact of M&A on the R&D process: an empirical analysis of the role of technological and market relatedness. Research Policy. 34(2005):195-220
[50]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2003. Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D, External Acquisition, and Cooperation in R&D. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, mimeo
[51]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52.1
[52]Caves, R.E., 1989. Mergers, takeovers, and economic efficiency. International Journal of Industrial Organization 7, 151–174.
[53]Chakrabarti, A. 1990.Organizational factors in postacquisition performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37, 259-268.
[54]Chakrabarti, A., Hauschildt, J., Sueverkruep, C., 1994. Does it pay to acquire technological firms? R&D Management 24, 47–56.
[55]Chakrabarti, A. K. and Souder, W. E. 1987, Technology, innovation and performance in corporate mergers: a managerial evaluation. Technovation 6, 103-l 14.
[56]Chandler, A. 1962, Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[57]Andreas Al-Laham et al., Dating before marriage? Analyzing the influence of pre-acquisition experience and target familiarity on acquisition success in the“M&A as R&D”type of acquisition, Scandinavian Journal of Management (2010)26, 25-37
[58]Chatterjee S, Wernerfelt B. 1991. The link between resources and type of diversification:theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal 12(1): 33–48.
[59]Chatterji and Manuel, D.1993, Benefiting from external sources of technology, Research Technology Management 36 (6) (1993):21–26.
[60]Chevalier, J.A., 2000. What doWe Knowabout Cross-subsidization? Evidence from the Investment Policies of Merging Firms. University of Chicago.
[61]Cho, K.R., & Padmanabhan, P. 1995. Acquisition versus new venture: The choice of foreign establishment mode by Japanese firms, Journal of International Management, 1:255-285
[62]Christian Berggren, 2003, Mergers, MNES and innovationFthe need for newresearch approaches,Scand. J. Mgmt. (19)173–191
[63]Clark, L.H..Jr., & Malabre, A.L.,Jr. 1988. Slow rise in outlays for research imperils U.S. competitive edge, Wall Street Journal, November 16:A1 A5
[64]Cloodt, M. et al. 2006, Mergers and acquisitions: their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Res. Policy 35, 642–654
[65]Cohen,W., Levinthal, D., 1989. Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99, 249–266.
[66]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1),128-152
[67]Comanor W, Scherer F. 1969. Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. Journal of Political Economy 77(3): 392-398.
[68]Steven Casper, Catherine Matraves,Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry,Research Policy, Volume 32, Issue 10, December 2003, Pages 1865-1879
[69]Constable, J. 1986 Diversification as a factor in U.K. industrial strategy, Long Range Planning, 19(1):52-60
[70]D’Aveni, R., 1993. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press, New York.
[71]Datta, D.K., 1991. Organizational fit and acquisition performance: effects of post-acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 281–297.
[72] Dosi, G., et al., 1988, Technical changes and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers
[73]DeBondt, R., 1997. Spillovers and innovative activities. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 15, 1–28.
[74]de Jong, H.W., 1976. Theory and evidence concerning mergers: an internationalcomparison, in: Jacquemin, A.P., de Jong, H.W. (Eds.), Markets, Corporate Behaviour and the State, The Hague, Nijhoff, pp. 95–123.
[75]Dosi.Giovanni, Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories, Research Policy,1982,11(3):147-162
[76]Danzon, P.M. et al. 2004,Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. NBER Working Paper 10536 (http://www.nber.org/papers/ w10536)
[77]Dess,G. G., D.R. Ireland and M.A. Hitt, Industry effects and strategic management research, Journal of Management,1990, 16,p7-27
[78]Draulans, J., de Man, A.P., Volberda, H.W., 2003. Building alliance capability: management techniques for superior alliance performance.Long Range Planning
[79]Drazin, R., & Schoonhoven, C. B. 1996. Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1065-1083.
[80]Duysters, G.M., de Man, A.P., 2003. Transitory alliances: an instrument for surviving turbulent industries?. R&D Management 33 (1), 49–58.
[81]Duysters, G., Hagedoorn, J., 2000a. Core competences and company performance in the world-wide computer industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research 11 (1), 75–91.
[82]Duysters, G., Hagedoorn, J., 2000b. Organizational Modes of Strategic Technology Partnering. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 59, 640–649.
[83]Eckbo,B. E. , 1983.Horizontalmergers, collusion, and stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (14) , 241 - 273.
[84]Eero Lauri Oskari Lehto,Markku Olavi Lehtoranta,2004, Becoming an acquirer and becoming acquired, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71:635–650
[85]Erkko Autio, Ari-Pekka Hameri, Markus Nordberg.1996. A framework of motivations for industry-big science collaboration: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Volume 13, Issues 3-4, 301-314
[86] Ely, D., and M. Song, Acquisition Activity of Large Depository Institutions in the 1990s: An Empirical Analysis of Motives, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2000, 40 (4), 467-484.
[87]Ernst, H. and Vitt, J. 2000, The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Manag. 30, 105–119
[88]Ettlie, J., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.
[89]Fama Eugene F. 1998. Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 49, Issue 3, 1 :283-306
[90]Fleming L. 1999. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. working paper, Harvard Business School.
[91]Fligstein, N.. The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919-1979, American Sociological Review, 1985, 50: 377-391
[92]Fligstein, N. 1991. The structural transformation of American industry: The causes of diversification in the largest firms, 1919-1979. In W. W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), New institutionalism in organizational analysis: 311-336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
[93]Foster, R. N. and Kantrow, A. M. 1988.Making postmerger R&D effective. Research-Technology Management 31, 47-5 1.
[94]Fowler KL, Schmidt DR. 1988. Tender offers, acquisitions, and subsequent performance in manufacturing firms. Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 962
[95]Franko, L.g.1989, Global corporate competition: Who’s winning, who’s losing, and the R&D factor as one reason why, Strategic Management Journal,10: 449-474
[96]Franks, J. Harris, R. Titman S. 1991.The postmerger share-price performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 29, Issue 1: 81-96
[97]Frantz, S. 2006,Pipeline problems are increasing the urge to merge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 977–979
[98]Fulmer ,R.M., & Gilkey, R. 1988. Blending corporate families: Management and organization development in a postmerger environment. Academy of Management Executive, 2:275-283
[99]Galbraith, C.S.,& Kay, N.M.1986. Towards a theory of multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7:3-19
[100]Gambardella, 1992, Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s, Research Policy 21 (5) 391–407.
[101]Gans and Stern, 2000, Incumbency and R&D incentives: licensing the gale of creative destruction, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9. 485–511.
[102]Garnsey, E. and Roberts, J. 1990. Growth through acquisition for small high technology firms: a case comparison. In Building European Ventures, ed. S. Birley. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[103]Gautam Ahuja, Riitta Katila,Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study[J],Strategic Management Journal,Chichester: Mar 2001. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 197
[104]Gerpott, T.J., 1995. Successful integration of R&D functions after acquisition: an exploratory empirical study. R&D Management 25, 161–178.
[105]Ghoshal, S. 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 425-440
[106]Girma, 2005, Technology transfer from acquisition FDI and the absorptive capacity of domestic firms: an empirical investigation, Open Economies Review 16 (2), 175–187.
[107]Gollop, F.M., Monahan, J.L, 1991,“A Generalized Index of Diversification Trends in U.S. Manufacturing”. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1991,73: 31
[108]Goodman, R. A. and Lawless, M. W. 1994.Technology and Strategy. Oxford University Press, New York.
[109]Gort, M.1962, Diversification and integration in American industry: a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
[110]Gort,M. , 1969:“An economic disturbance theory of mergers”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(4) , 624 - 642.
[111]Graff et al., 2003 Small, Agricultural biotechnology's complementary intellectual assets, The Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (2) 349–363.
[112]Granstrand, O., Susanne Jacobsson. Innovation economy and business development : A study of innovation take-overs. CIM report, Chalmer University of Technology, Gothenburg, Aug. 1983
[113]Granstrand, O., Soren Sjolander. The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1990, 13:367-396, North-Hollan
[114]Granstrand, O., Emk Bohlm, Christer Oskarsson. External Technology acquisition in large multi-technology corporations, R&D Management, 1992:111-133
[115]Granstrand. O., 1998, Towards a theory of the Technology-based firm. Research Policy,2 7:465-489
[116]Granstrand, O., Oskarsson, C., 1994b. Technology diversification in‘MUL-TECH’corporations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41 -4
[117]Granstrand, O., Sjo¨lander, S., 1994c. Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Chapter contribution to Dodgson, M., Rothwell, R. _Eds.., Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar.
[118]Granstrand et al., 1997, Multitechnology corporations: why they have distributed rather than core competencies?, California Management Review 39 (4) 8–25
[119]Grant RM. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7(4)
[120]Griliches Z. 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics 10(Spring): 92-116.
[121]Griliches Z. 1984. Introduction. In R&D, Patents and Productivity, Griliches Z (ed). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL; 1-20.
[122]Griliches Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28(4): 1661-1707.
[123]Grimpe and Hussinger, 2008, Pre-empting technology competition through firm acquisitions, Economics Letters 100. 189–191
[124]Griffith et al., 2004, Mapping the two faces of R&D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries, Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (4) 883–895.
[125]Grossman, S. J. and O. D. Hart, 1980: Takeover bids, the free2rider problem and the theory of the corporation, Bell Journal of Economics11: 42 - 64.
[126]Gugler, K., Mueller, D.C., Yurtoglu, B.B., Zulehner, C., 2003. The effects of mergers: an international comparison. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 625– 653.
[127]Guillen, M.F. Business Groups in Emerging Economics: A Resource-Based View. Academy of Management Journal, 2000,43(3):362-380
[128]Jarrad Harford,What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 77, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 529-560
[129]Michael A. Hitt, Spotlight on strategic management, Business Horizons, Volume 49, Issue 5, September-October 2006, Pages 349-352
[130]Hagedoorn, J.,, Geert Duysters, The Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on the Technological Performance of Companies in High-tech Environment,Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands, Working Paper,2000,04
[131]Hagedoorn, J., Duysters, G., 2002. The effect of mergers and acquisitions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech environment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 14 (1), 68–85.
[132]Haleblian J, Finkelstein S. 1999. The influence of organization acquisition experience on acquisition performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1)
[133]Hall B, Griliches Z, Hausman J. 1986. Patents and RandD: is there a lag? International Economic Review 27(2): 265-283.
[134]Hall, B., 1987. The effect of takeover activity on corporate research and development. NBERWorking Paper 2191.
[135]Hall, B., 1990. The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research anddevelopment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 1, 85– 135.
[136]Hall BH. 1993. Industrial research during the 1980s: did the rate of return fall? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 289–330.
[137]Hall BH. 1994. Corporate restructuring and investment horizons in the United States, 1976–1987. Business History Review 68: 110–143.
[138]Hall, B., 1999. Mergers and R&D revisited. NBER Conference on Mergers and Productivity, mimeo.
[139]Hall, B., Van Reenen, J., 2000. How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A new review of the evidence. Research Policy 29, 449– 469.
[140]Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business School Press.
[141]Hannan, M., Freeman, J., 1984. Structural inertia and organisational change. American Sociological Review 49, 149–164.
[142]Heely, M. B., et al., 2006, Effects of firm R&D investment and environment on acquisition likelihood. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1513-1535
[143]Haspeslagh, P.C.,& Jemison, D.B. 1991. Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal, New York: Free Press
[144]Hayward, P. 2003. Re-reading polak: a reply to Morgan. Futures, 35(7):807-810
[145]Heeley et al., 2007, Innovation, appropriability, and the underpricing of initial public offerings, Academy of Management Journal 50 (1) 209–225
[146]Helfat, 1997 Know-how and asset complementary and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D, Strategic Management Journal 18 (5) 339–360.
[147]Hemmert, M. 2004. The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms: survey results from Germany and Japan. Res. Policy 33, 1019–1039
[148]Henderson RM, Clark KB. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9-30.
[149]Henderson R, Cockburn I. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics 27(1): 32-59.
[150]Hennart, J.F., Reddy, S., 1997. The choice between mergers/acquisitions and joint ventures: the case of Japanese investors in the United States. Strategic Management Journal 18, 1–12.
[151]Hennart, J.F. & Park, Y.R. 1993. Greenfield versus acquisition: The strategy of Japanesesubsidiaries in the United States. Management Science, 37:483-497
[152]Hill, C.W.L.,& Snell,S.A. 1989.Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 32:25-46
[153]Hill, C.W. L. and S.A. Snell, External control, corporate strategy and firm performance in research intensive industries, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1988
[154]Hill, C.W.L. & Hoskisson, R.E. 1987, Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm, Academy of Management Review, 12:331-341
[155]Hill, C.W.L. Hitt, M.A., & Hoskisson, R.E. 1988. Declining U.S. competitiveness: innovation, the M form structure and the capital markets. Academy of Management Executive, 2:51-60
[156]Healy, P., K.Palepu, and R.Ruback, Does Corporate Performance Improve after Mergers, Journal of Financial Economics, 1992, 31(2), 135-175
[157]Holmstrom, B. R. and S. N. Kap lan, 2001.Corporate governance and merger activity in the United States: Making sense of the 1980 s and 1990’s. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 121 -144.
[158]Hongxin Zhao et al., Types of technology sourcing and innovative capability:An exploratory study of Singapore manufacturing firms, Journal of High Technology Management Research 16 (2005): 209-224
[159]Hoskisson R.E., and Michael A. Hitt, Strategic Control Systems and Relative R&D Investment in Large Multiproduct Firms [J],Strategic Management Journal,1988,Vol(9):605-621
[160]Hoskisson, R.E., Richard A Johnson, Research Notes and Communications Corporate Restructuring and Strategic Change: The Effect on Diversification Strategy and Intensity[J], Strategic Management Journal, 1992, Vol(13):625-634
[161]Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., & Hill, C.W.L. 1993, Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 4: 325-341
[162]Hoskisson, Hitt, 1990. Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: A review and critique of theoretical perspective, Journal of Management, 16:461-509
[163]Hoskisson, R.E. Johnson, R.A. Mosel, D.D. 1994. Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance, Academy of Management Journal,37:1207-1251
[164]Hoskisson, R.E. & Turk, T.A. 1990. Corporate restructuring:Governance and control limits of the internal capital market. Academy of Management Review, 15:459-477
[165]Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA, Johnson RA, Grossman W. 2002. Conflicting voices: the effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal 45: 697–716.
[166] Haleblian, J., and S. Finlelstein, The Influence of Organizational Acquisition Experience on Acquisition Performance: A Behavioral Learning Perspective, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44 (1), 29-58.
[167]Huber G. 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes and a review of the literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88-117.
[168]IBM Business Consulting Service (2003) Pharma 2010: The threshold of innovation
[169]Inkpen Andrew.1998. Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, and Strategic Alliances European Management Journal, Volume 16, Issue 2:223-229
[170]International Encyclopaedia of the Social Science [M], Volume 9, Macmillan Co.& Free Press, NY, 1972,P.249
[171]Jacobsson, S Acquisitions and management of innovative companies[D].Working Paper, Gothenburg: Chalmers Universityof Technology, 1984
[172]Jacquemin, A.P. and Berry, C.H. Entropy measure of diversifcaion and corporate growth, Journal of Industrial Economics, 1979, 27, p359-369
[173]Jaeger A.M.and B.R.Baliga, 1985 Control systems and strategic adaption: lessons from the Japanese experience, Strategic Management Journal, 6:115-134
[174]Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577–598.
[175]James, A. D. 1997. Effective management of technology in mergers and acquisitions - a capabilities perspective. In Innovation in Technology Management: the Key to Global Leadership. Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on the Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, Oregon, July
[176]Jemison, D.B.,& Sitkin, S.B.1986. Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11: 145-163
[177]Jensen M.C., and Meckling, W.. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3:305
[178]Jensen, M.C. and R.S. Ruback, 1983:”The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence”,Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 5 - 50.
[179]Jensen, M.C. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review,1986, 76:323-329.
[180]Jensen MC, Murphy KJ. 1990. Performance pay and top management incentives.Journal of Political Economy 98: 225–264.
[181]Jessie P.H. Poon, Alan MacPhersonTechnology acquisition among Korean and Taiwanese firms in the United States,International Business Review 14 (2005) 559
[182]Johnson, A. et al., 2002. The impact of specialist firm acquisitions on market quality. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 66, Issue 1:139-167
[183]Jones, G.R. & Hill, C.W.L. 1988 Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9:159-172
[184]Jones et al., 2001 Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition, Journal of Business Venturing 16 (3), 255-283.
[185]Kusewitt, J., An Exploratory Study of Strategic Acquisition Factors Relating to Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 1985, 6(2) , 151-169
[186]Kai Wang et al., 2008. Evolution and governance of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry of China, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
[187]Kamien, M., Schwartz, N., 1982. Market Structure and Innovation.Cambridge University Press.
[188]Chang-Su Kim, Andrew C. Inkpen, Cross-border R&D alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning, Journal of International Management, Volume 11, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 313-329
[189]Katrin Hussingera, 2009, On the importance of technological relatedness: SMEs versus large acquisition targets, Technovation, In Press,
[190]Kessler et al., 2000, Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage, R&D Management 30 (3). 213
[191]Kim, W.C. Hwang, P., &Burgers, W.P. 1993. Global diversification strategy and corporate profit performance, Strategic Management Journal, 10:45-57
[192]Kim, D., Kogut, B., 1996. Technological platforms and diversification, Organization Science 7(3):283-301
[193]Kitching, J. 1967. Why do mergers miscarry?. Harvard Business Review 45, 84
[194]Kobrin, S.J. 1994. An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(summer special issue):17-37
[195]Kodama, F. 1991. Emerging Patterns of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
[196]Kogut, B. 1985. Designing global strategies: Profiting from operational flexibility , part 1. Sloan Management Review,27(1):27-38
[197]Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and thereplication of technology, Organization Science 3(3):383-397
[198]KPMG. (1999). Unlocking shareholder value: The keys to success. London: KPMG.
[199]LaamanenT.and Aution E.Dominant dynamic complementarities and technology-motivated acquisitions of new technology-based firms. Inter-nation Journal of Technology management, Special issue on Resources for SME innovation. 1996, Vol, 12:769-786
[200]Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E., 1997. Alliances, external technology acquisition, and discontinuous technological change. Journal of Production Innovation Management 14, 102–116.
[201]Lambrecht, B. M. , 2004:”The timing and terms of mergers motivated by economies of scale”, Journal of Financial Economics, 72, 41 - 62.
[202]Lane,P.J., Lubatkin, M.,1998. Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal. 19,461–477.
[203]Lang,L. H. P. , R. M. Stulz and R. A. Walkling, 1991. A test of the free cash flow hypothesis: the case of bidder returns. Journal of Finance Economics, 29 (2) , 315
[204]Lang, L.H.P. and Stulz, R.M. Tobin’s q, corporate diversification and firm performance, Journal of Political Economy, 1994, 102(6):1248-1280
[205]Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., Sparks, J., 1998. The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science 9, 285–305.
[206]Lazonick, William. 1990.Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
[207]Lazonick W.O Sullivan.1998. M Governance of Innovation for Economic Development
[208] Ziqi Liao, Paul F. Greenfield,The synergy of corporate r&d and competitive strategies: An exploratory study in australian high-technology companies,The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 11, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 93-107
[209]Lazonick William and Mary O’Sullivan. 1999. The Japanese System of Corporate Governance: Social Conditions and Innovative Capabilities.
[210]Lee, M. and Om K., 1994, A Conceptual Framework of Technological Innovation Management, Technovation, 14(1), 7-16.
[211]Lei,D., & Hitt, M.A. 1995. Strategic restructuring and outsourcing: The effect of mergers and acquisitions and LBOs on building firm skills and capabilities. Journal of Management, 21:835-859
[212]Leland, H. , 2007:“Financial synergies and the optimal scope of the firm: implications for mergers, spinoffs, and structured finance”,Journal of Finance , 62 (2)
[213]Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal, 13:11-125
[214]Lerner et al., 2003, Cooperative marketing agreements between competitors: evidence from patent pools. NBER Working Paper No. 9680, Cambridge, MA.
[215] Levitt, B., & March, J.G. 1988. Organizational learning. In W.R. Scott (Ed.), Annual review of sociology, vol, 14:319-340. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
[216]Lewellen, W. G. , C. Loderer and A. Rosenfeld, 1985:“Merger decisions and executive stock ownership in acquiring firms”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7 (1-3) , 209 - 231.
[217]Li, Mingfang and Yim-Yu Wong, 2003,Diversification and Economic Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Chinese Firms.Asia Pacific Journal of Management.20, 243-265
[218]Lichtenberg, Frank R. 1992. Industrial de-diversification and its consequences for productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18, 3, 427-438
[219]Link, A.N., 1988. Acquisitions as sources of technological innovation. Mergers and Acquisitions 23 (3), 36–39.
[220]Lins K, Servaes H. 1999. International evidence on the value of corporate diversification. Journal of Finance 54: 2215–2239.
[221]Lookabaugh, T,Innovation by acquisition [C] IEMC 2002. IEEE International, Engineering Management Conference,2002
[222]Lubatkin M. 1983. Mergers and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of Management Review 8(2): 218-225.
[223]Lubatkin M. & O’Neil, H.M.1987. Mergers strategies and capital market risk. Academy of Management Review 30: 665-684.
[224]MacDonald, J.M.1985, R&D and the directions of diversification: The Review of Economics and Statistics 47(4), 583-590
[225]Macdonald, S. and James, A. D. 1998. A dynamic view of technology acquisition. International Journal of Technology Management (in press).
[226]March, J.G., 1991, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71-87
[227]Mazzanti, M. and Pini, P. Tortia, E. Organizational innovations, human resources and firm performance-The Emili- Romagna food sector. The Journal of Socio - Economics,2006, (35) 123 -141.
[228]M.C. Becker& Knudsen T. The Role of Ententrepreneurship in economic and technological development, the contribution of Schumpeter to understanding entrepreneurship[R], Paper to be presented at the DRUID summer conference 2004 on industrial dynamics, innovation and development, Elsinore, Denmark, June 14-16
[229]Mcvey, J.S. The industrial diversification of multi-establishment manufacturing firms: a development study, Canadian Statistical Review, 1972, 47, p112-117
[230]Michael A.Hitt and Robert E Hoskisson, 1990, Mergers and Acquisitions and Managerial Commitment To Innovation In M-Form Firms[J], Strategic Management Journal, Vol(11):29-47
[231]Michael A.Hitt, Robert E Hoskisson, Richard A Johnson, Douglas D Moesel, The Market For Corporate Control and Firm Innovation[J], Academy of Management Journal, 1996, Vol.39 No5.: 1084-1119
[232] Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson,R Duane Ireland,Jeffrey S Harrison,Are Acquisitions a Poison Pill For Innovation?[J],The Executive,1991 Vol.5 No4.
[233]Michael A.Hitt, Hoskisson & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40:767-798
[234]Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson,R Duane Ireland,Jeffrey S Harrison,Effects of Acquisitions on R&D Inputs and Outputs[J],Academy of Management Journal,1991,Vol.34 No3.:693-706
[235]Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson, R. Duane Ireland,1990. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance
[236]Miller, R.R. 1990,Do mergers and acquisitions hurt R&D? Res. Technol. Manag. 33, 11–15
[237]Miller, D., & Chen, M-J. 1996. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: An empirical analysis, Strategic Management Journal, 17:419-439.
[238]Miller DouglasJ,2004,Firms’Technological Resources and The Performance Effects of Diversification :A Longitudinal Study[J], Strategic Management Journal,Vol(25):1097-1119
[239]Mitchell, M. and J. H. Mulherin, 1996: The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity, Journal of Financial Economics 41: 193 - 229.
[240] Stefan Momma, Margaret Sharp,Developments in new biotechnology firms in Germany, Technovation, Volume 19, Issue 5, February 1999, Pages 267-282
[241]Miguelá. Montoya, Francesc Trillas The measurement of the independence oftelecommunications regulatory agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean Utilities Policy, Volume 15, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 182-190
[242] Franco Malerba, Luigi Orsenigo, Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data,Research Policy, Volume 28, Issue 6, August 1999, Pages 643-660
[243]Mowery et al., 1996, Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal 17 (1) 77–91.
[244]Mullin, G. L. , J. L. Mullin and W. P. Mullin, 1995:“The competitive effects of mergers: stock market evidence from the U. S. steel disscution suit”, Rand Journal of Economics, 26 (2) 314-330.
[245]Muller,D. and M. Sirower, 2003. The cause of mergers: tests based on the gains to acquiring firms’shareholders and the size of premia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 373 - 391.
[246]Narula, Rajneesh. 2002. Innovation systems and‘inertia’in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Research Policy, Volume 31, Issue 5, 795-816
[247]Nelson, R, R.,1959, The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy 67(3):297-306
[248]Nelson, R.R.,&Winter, S.E. 1982, An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[249]Newey and Shulman, 2004 System absorptive capacity: creating early-to-market returns through R&D alliances, R&D Management 34 (5) 495–504.
[250]Nonaka, I., 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review 69, 96–104.
[251]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995 The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
[252]Nonaka, I. et al., 1998. The‘ART’of knowledge: Systems to capitalize on market knowledge. European Management Journal, Volume 16, Issue 6, 673-684
[253]Noori, 1990, Managing the Dynamics of New Technology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
[254]Olivier Bertrand,Pluvia Zuniga, R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries, International Journal of Industrial Organization 24 (2006) 401– 423
[255]O’Donoghue et al., 1998, Patent breadth, patent life and the pace of technological progress, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 7 1–32.
[256]Vareska van de Vrande, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Geert Duysters, External technology sourcing: The effect of uncertainty on governance mode choice,Journal of Business Venturing,Volume 24, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 62-80
[257]Pakes A, Griliches Z. 1984. Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first look. In R&D, Patents and Productivity, Griliches Z(ed). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
[258]Palich, L.E., Cardinal, L.B., Miller, C.C., 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal 21, 155–174.
[259]Panos Desyllasa and Alan Hughesb, 2008, Sourcing technological knowledge through corporate acquisition: Evidence from an international sample of high technology firms, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 18, Issue 2,157-172
[260]Paruchuri, S. et al. (2006) Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organ. Sci. 17, 545
[261]Pavlou, A.K. and Belsey, M.J. 2005. BioPharma licensing and M&A trends, Nat, Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 273-274
[262]Penrose, E.. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1959
[263]Peteraf M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14:179-191.
[264] Phanish Puranam, Harbir Singh, Maurizio Zollo,A Bird in the Hand or Two in the Bush?: Integration Trade-offs in Technology-grafting Acquisitions,European Management Journal, Volume 21, Issue 2, April 2003, Pages 179-184
[265]Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. MacMillan, London.
[266]Prabhu, J.C. et al. (2005) The Impact of acquisitions on innovation poison pill, placebo, or tonic. J. Mark. 69, 114–130
[267]Prahalad, C.K., & Bettis, R.A., 1986. The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7:485-501
[268]Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation . Harvard Business Review, 68(3):79-91
[269]Pritchett P. 1985. After the merger: Managing the shock waves: New York: Dow Jones-Irwin
[270]Rajan, R., Servaes, H., Zingales, L., 1998. The cost of diversity: the diversification discount and inefficient investment. Working Paper. University of Chicago and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[271]Rappaport, A .1978. Excuttive incentive VS corporate growth, Harvard Business Review, 56(4), 81-88
[272]James H. Love, Stephen Roper ,Location and network effects on innovation success:evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants,Research Policy, Volume 30, Issue 4, April 2001, Pages 643-661.
[273]Robert W. Zmud, L. Eugene Apple, Measuring technology incorporation/infusion,Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume 9, Issue 2, June 1992, Pages 148-155
[274]Roll, R., 1986.The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers.Journal of Business, 59 (2), 197-216.
[275]Ruckman, K.,2005. Technology sourcing through acquisitions: evidence from the US drug industry, Journal of International Business Studies 36(1),89-103
[276]Rumelt, R.P.. 1974. Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Division of research,
[277]Rumelt, R.P. 1982. Diversification strategy and profitability, Strategic Management Journal, 3, 359-369
[278] Annette L. Ranft, Michael D. Lord ,Acquiring new knowledge: The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms , The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 November 2000, Pages 295-319
[279]Sanchez, R. Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (eds) .1996. Dynamics of Competence-based Competition. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
[280]Schoenmakers and Duysters, 2006, Learning in strategic technology alliances, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (2) 245–264.
[281]Scherer F. 1965. Corporate inventive output, profitability and sales growth. Journal of Political Economy 73(3): 290-297.
[282]Scherer F, Ross D. 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
[283]Schumpeter J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
[284]Schweizer, L. 2005. Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical companies: the need for a hybrid approach. Acad. Manage. J. 48, 1051–1074
[285]Sen and Rubenstein, 1990, An exploration of factors affecting the integration of in-house R&D with external technological acquisition strategies of a firm, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 37 (4) 246–258.
[286]Seth, A., 1990. Value creation in acquisitions: a reexamination of performance issues. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 113.
[287]Shapiro, 2001.Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy. Cambridge, MA, 119–150.
[288]Shiu-Wan Hung& Ruei-Hung Tanga,2008, Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and Taiwan, Technovation, Volume 28, Issue 9, 551-563
[289]Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny, 1989. Managerial entrenchment: the case of manager2specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25, 123 - 139.
[290]Shleifer, A. , and R. Vishny, 2003. Stock market driven acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 295 - 311.
[291]Shrivastava, P. 1986. Postmerger integration, Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1)
[292]Singh H, Montgomery CA. 1987. Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal 8(4): 377-386.
[293]Singh H, Zollo M. 1997. Knowledge accumulation mechanisms and the evolution of post-acquisition integration strategies. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
[294]Silverman, B.S.,1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction costs economics. Management Science 45(8), 1109-1124
[295]Silverman, B.S., 2002. Technological Resources and the Logic of Corporate Diversification, Routledge, New York
[296]Hiroshi Yasuda, Formation of strategic alliances in high-technology industries: comparative study of the resource-based theory and the transaction-cost theory, Technovation, Volume 25, Issue 7, July 2005, Pages 763-770
[297]Song et al., 2005, Determinants of level of knowledge application: a knowledge-based and information-processing perspective, Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (5). 430–444.
[298]Sotaro Shibayama,Kunihiro Tanikawa,Ryuhei Fujimoto and Hiromichi Kimura, 2008, Effect of mergers and acquisitions on drug discovery: perspective from a case study of a Japanese pharmaceutical company, Drug Discovery Today Volume 13, Numbers 1/2 January
[299]Spender J-C. 1989. Industry Recipes: An Inquiry into the Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgement. Blackwell: New York.
[300]Patrick Vermeulen, Managing Product Innovation in Financial Services Firms, European Management Journal, Volume 22, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 43-50
[301]Teece, D.J , 1982, Toward a economic theory of the multi-product, Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 3, 39-63
[302]Teece, D.J , 1987, Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration collaboration licensing and public policy, Research Policy, Vol.15, Iss.6
[303]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
[304]Teece, David J. 2000. Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context.Long Range Planning, 33, 1, 35-54
[305]Tether, Bruce S.2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis.Research Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, August 2002, 947-967
[306] James R. Taylor, Eric G. Moore, Edwin J. Amonsen ,Profiling technology diffusion categories : Empirical test of two models,Journal of Business Research, Volume 31, Issues 2-3, October-November 1994, Pages 155-162
[307]Tsai, and Wang, 2008, External technology acquisition and firm performance: A longitudinal study, Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 23, Issue 1, 91-112
[308]Tsai and Wang, 2009,External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, 518-526
[309]Tushman M, Rosenkopf L. 1992. Organizational determinants of technological change: toward a sociology of technological evolution. Research in Organizational Behavior 14: 311-347.
[310]Utterback, James and Goran Reitbeger. 1982. Technology and industrial innovationin Sweden. A study of new technology-based firms. Report submitted to National Swedish Board for Technical Development (STU), Stockholm,
[311]Utterback J. 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
[312]Van de Ven A. Polley,1986, Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590– 607.
[313]Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. 2004.Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct firm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, 48: 455–476.
[314]Zollo M., & Singh, H., 2002, Interorganizaional routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 13, 701-713
[315]Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5:171-180
[316]Weston, J. F., M. L. Mitchell and J. H. Mulherin, 2004. Takeovers, restructuring and corporate governance, Pearson Prentice - Hall, Uper Saddle River, New Jersey
[317]Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies.Analysis and antitrust implications. A study in the economics of Internal organization, the Free press, London, 196-207
[318]Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets and elational contracting. Macmillan Press, New York
[319]Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternative. Administrative Science Qurarterly, 36, 269–296.
[320]World Investment Report, 2000. Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions and Development. United Nations, New York.
[321]Wrigley, L. 1970.Divisional autonomy and diversification, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Business School
[322]Xiao Liu & Huan Zou, 2008. The Impact of greenfield FDI and mergers and acquisitions on innovation in Chinese High-tech industries, Journal of World Business 43:352-364
[323]Yao-Taung Tsai, Ling-Feng Hsieh, 2006, An innovation knowledge game piloted by merger and acquisition of technological assets:A case study, J. Eng. Technol. Manage.23:248-261
[324]Yi-Chia Chiu, Hsien-Che Lai, Tai-Yu Lee, Yi-Ching Liaw. 2008.Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 75, Issue 6, 875-892
[325]Zahra, 1996, Technology strategy and financial performance: examining the moderating role of a firm's competitive environment, Journal of Business Venturing 11 (3) (1996), pp. 189–219.
[326]Zenger, T., 1994. Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in R&D: agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size. Management Science 40, 708–799.
[327]新一轮经济刺激方案明晰涉及7大新兴产业;来源:人民网-中国经济周刊(北京) 2009-12-15 01:20:58
[328]白玫,基于知识和技术的并购[J],经济经纬,2002.5
[329]郭德海,跨国医药公司在华专利战略分析及对中药产业的启示研究[D],中国中医科学院博士学位论文,2008
[330]蔡基宏,影响我国医药行业创新能力关键因素分析——美国的经验和启示,上海经济研究,2009.11
[331]陈丽娟,医药行业新一轮并购潮\投资公司蓄势待发,人民网-国际金融报,2007.7.12
[332]陈海霞,我国医药行业上市公司并购绩效研究[D],新疆财经学院硕士学位论文,2006
[333]金宝山,医药企业并购问题研究[D],对外经济贸易大学硕士学位论文,2005
[334]冷健,医药企业技术创新影响因素研究[D],沈阳药科大学硕士论文,2008
[335]王维刚,中国医药产业成长特征与机理研究[D],同济大学博士论文2007
[336]陈菲琼、高阅顺、孙晓光,联盟抑或并购:基于创新能力的外部资源的选择[J],生产力研究,2003.5
[337]陈春春、杨雪、冯勤,我国科技企业技术并购的案例群分析[J],北方经济,2008.4
[338]陈旭、夏芸、胡朝晖,并购绩效的衡量方法研究综述[J],现代管理科学,2008.10
[339]陈正泰、程炳林、陈新丰等,多变量分析方法统计软件应用[M],(北京)中国税务出版社,2005
[340]陈晓萍、徐淑英、樊景立主编,组织与管理研究的实证方法[M],(北京)北京大学出版社,2008.6
[341]陈国东,医药界八年并购运动药企究竟得到什么,医药经济报,2006.4.18
[342]程涛,企业技术创新能力的评价模型[J],中原工学院学报,2003.14(3)
[343]邓培林,基于企业技术的并购研究[D],西南交通大学博士学位论文,2006
[344]邓乐元、成良斌,企业并购对技术创新的影响[J],科技与管理,2004.2
[345]冯勤、杨雪、陈春春,浙江省科技企业技术并购的实证研究[J],技术经济,2008.2
[346]冯根福、吴江林,我国上市公司并购绩效的实证研究[J],经济研究,2001.1
[347]郭克莎,我国医药行业重组浪潮高涨的动因分析,中国医药网,2004.4.19
[348]郭彪,企业技术并购关键风险要素分析[D],南华大学硕士学位论文,2007
[349]韩国医药品技术水平达到世界最高水平的64%,中国化工报, 2008-8-8
[350]侯汉坡、殷晓倩、刘春成,基于技术并购的企业持续技术创新体系及实施方式研究,中国科技论坛,2009.6
[351]侯汉坡、刘峰,以提升创新能力为目标的技术并购整合管理研究[J],中国科技论坛,2007.3
[352]洪莲,技术进步与并购互动机理研究[D],北京交通大学硕士学位论文,2008
[353]李争丽,基于医药行业上市公司并购类型选择及其绩效影响的实证研究[D],重庆工学院硕士学位论文,2008
[354]胡浩,RBV视角的技术密集型企业并购研究[J],科技管理研究,2007.9
[355]华东医药股份有限公司2008年度财务报告(股票代码:000963)
[356]黄一义,股票市场、企业控制与中国企业问题的根本解决,载于中国并购评论(第一册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2004.5:42-48
[357]冀书鹏,新“公私合营”路线,我们的观点,载于中国并购评论(第四册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2005.4:5-7
[358]近年中国医药行业并购简析及预测,国研网,2005-8-29
[359]聚焦竞争力、中国医药行业并购重组渐入佳境,中国食品商务网,2008-4-21
[360]江小明,企业并购的技术整合研究[D],武汉理工大学硕士学位论文,2005
[361]蓝海林等,中国企业战略管理行为的情境嵌入式研究[J],管理学报,2009.1
[362]李时椿,论制造业信息化与新型工业化[J],科技管理研究,2007.5:253-255
[363]李琼、游春,产业效应对中国上市公司并购绩效和并购动机的影响[J],技术经济,2008.5:122
[364]李岩,并购价值创造效应的国外实证研究综述[J],经营管理者,2009.6
[365]李善民、郑南磊,目标公司规模与并购绩效——青岛啤酒、燕京啤酒产业整合策略比较研究[J],证券市场导报,2008.1
[366]李善民、朱滔、陈玉罡、曾昭灶、王彩萍,收购公司与目标公司配对组合绩效的实证分析[J],经济研究,2004.6
[367]李增泉、余谦、王晓坤,掏空、支持与并购重组——来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J],经济研究,2005.1
[368]李心丹、朱洪亮、张兵、罗浩,基于DEA的上市公司并购效率研究[J],经济研究,2003.10
[369]李建惠、赵华,企业并购动机国内研究综述[J],商场现代化,2008.2
[370]李文明,医药行业进入资本通道掀起资本运营浪潮,医药经济报,2007.10.30
[371]刘航,并购绩效中财务会计数据法评价[J],财会通讯,2008.7
[372]刘合理、唐元虎,技术导向型并购的效应分析[J],改革与战略,2002.9
[373]刘开勇,企业技术并购战略与管理[M],中国金融出版社,2004.7:31-33
[374]马晓晋,中国企业技术获取型跨国并购的影响因素研究[D],浙江工业大学硕士论文,2008
[375]潘帕思,中国医药产业将掀重组浪潮,国际医药卫生导报,2002年18期
[376]潘鸿,中国资本市场上市公司并购的动机和利益转移模式研究[D],上海交通大学博士学位论文,2006
[377]潘红波、夏新平、余明桂,政府干预、政治关联与地方国有企业并购[J],经济研究,2008.4:41-52
[378]戚韫,我国电子业技术导向型跨国并购研究[D],对外经济贸易大学硕士论文,2006
[379]钱丽丽,浙江民营企业创新型并购研究[D],浙江工商大学硕士论文,2007
[380]强强联合优胜劣汰——医药行业迎来新一轮并购风潮,中国医药报,2007-9-18
[381]邱建民,中国跨国企业技术并购研究[D],中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2008
[382]]全球企业并购被取消数量创历史新高,来源:上海证劵报，和讯新闻2008-12-24
[383]宋建元,技术并购与破坏性创新[D],浙江大学博士学位论文,2005
[384]孙乃强、杜乐勋,2005年我国医药产业形势发展概述(一),中国网,2006-5-31
[385]胡怡,中国医药行业并购绩效研究[D],华东大学硕士学位论文,2006
[386]王煜全,医药的未来,搜狐健康,2003-2-14
[387]王玉等,自主创新路径及技术并购后价值链整合[J],管理现代化,2007.3
[388]王宛秋,张永安,基于解释结构模型的企业技术并购协同效应影响因素分析[J],科学学与科学技术管理,2009.4:104-109
[389]王育琨,联想今天正需要一点“海盗”精神,上海证券报,2009.9.11
[390]文佳、菡冰,当代跨国并购浪潮中全球医药行业的变革风暴[J],中国医药指南,2005.9
[391]吴贵生,技术创新管理[M],(北京)清华大学出版社,2000:56-57
[392]吴延兵,企业规模、市场力量与创新:一个文献综述[J],经济研究,2007.5
[393]吴婷、康灿华,从中外企业技术并购比较中得到的启示[J],科技创业月刊,2006.11
[394]肖海林、闻学,超级竞争条件下企业整体管理的基本维度与共生型控制模式—一个描述性案例研究[J],管理世界,2006.12:131-141
[395]熊建明、汤文仙,企业并购与技术跨越[J],中国软科学,2008.5
[396]徐立青、匡跃平,从技术视角分析企业并购的环境和动因[J],2005.7
[397]胥朝阳、黄晶,企业并购的技术补缺机理及效应分析[J],科学学研究(增刊),2009.2
[398]徐建中、刘琳,国内外医药行业并购特点及应对策略研究[J],现代管理科学,2004.8
[399]杨忠敏,企业技术创新能力评价的理论与方法综述[J],科技进步与对策,2004.3
[400]杨雪,技术并购与浙江高新技术企业发展战略研究[D],浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[401]杨晓嘉、陈收,中国上市公司并购动机研究[J],湖南大学学报社科版,2005.1
[402]叶会、李善民,企业并购理论综述[J],广东金融学院学报,2008.1
[403]以收购求创新战略:为什么不总是有回报?来源:wharton,中国管理传播网(http://manage.org.cn,2005-11-24)
[404]余年生、余泳,高技术与风险投资[M],云南大学出版社,2003:8、9、33
[405]于培友、奚俊芳,企业技术并购后整合中的知识转移研究[J],科研管理,2006.5
[406]于成永、施建军,R&D模式选择及其对创新绩效的影响——一个研究综述[J],经济管理,2006.19
[407]张海涛等,知识型企业并购的进化研究[J],载于《并购论坛2005》,中国经济出版社,2005:60
[408]张永安、王婉丽,技术并购研究现状与趋势展望[J],企业经济,2009.2
[409]张新,并购重组是否创造价值?[J],经济研究,2003.6
[410]张宗新、季雷,公司并购利益相关者的利益均衡吗?——基于公司并购动因的风险溢价套利分析[J],经济研究,2003.6
[411]中国资本药局掀起并购浪潮,《新财经》封面文章, 2003-7-3
[412]中国产业地图编委会、中国经济景气监测中心编:《中国医药产业地图2006-2007》[M],社会科学文献出版社,2006.12
[413]赵万杰,基于提高核心技术能力的高新技术企业并购及整合研究[D],哈尔滨工业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[414]周飙,药业巨头并购背后的无奈,21世纪经济报道,2009-3-13
[415]周小春,李善民,并购价值创造的影响因素研究[J],管理世界,2008.5:134
[416]周明,高新技术产业投资环境系统研究[D],西北工业大学博士论文,2006
[417]邹鲜红、罗承友,基于DEA模型的我国医药制造业技术创新相对有效性研究,科技管理研究,2009.9
[418]朱宝宪、王怡凯,1998年中国上市公司并购实践的效应分析[J],经济研究,2002.11:20-28
[419]方曙,基于专利信息分析技术创新能力研究,西南交通大学博士论文,2007
[420]赵春艳,企业并购与我国医药产业结构优化研究[D],山东大学硕士学位论文,2008
[421]王跃兴,我国医药行业重组的动因、特征和趋势分析[J],经济理论与经济管理,2004.2
[422]颜士梅、兰美艺,基于技术整合战略的技术导入方式选择——以医药企业为例,科技管理研究,2009.9,P223
[423]高良谋,购并后整合管理研究——基于中国上市公司的实证分析,管理世界,2003.12
[424]王巍,在医药科技创新及转化中的信息采集、综合和分析,上海医药情报研究,2002.1
[425]魏江,企业购并绩效评估模型和度量,科研管理, 2002.6
[426]韩立岩、陈庆勇,并购的频繁程度意味着什么——来自我国上市公司并购绩效的证据,经济学(季刊),2007.7
[427]蓝海林,中国多元化企业的战略管理研究,北京:经济科学出版社,2008
[428]雷奕敏,经济增加值与医药行业上市公司并购重组绩效研究,湖南大学硕士论文,2005
[429]李善民、郑南磊,目标公司规模与并购绩效——青岛啤酒、燕京啤酒产业整合策略比较研究,证券市场导报,2008.1
[430]张大威,2003八大并购热点问题预测,华东科技,2003.4
[431]郭世钊,企业并购可行性研究的几个主要问题,技术经济,2004.12
[432]余博、傅太平(2005),基于核心能力的企业并购研究,中国市场,2005/32
[433]佟石,基于价值网络的我国医药企业创新集成管理研究,复旦大学博士学位论文,2004
[434]马彦,生物医药产业价值链的整合化研究,复旦大学博士学位论文,2007
[435]国泰安CSMAR数据库《中国上市公司并购重组研究数据库2009》
[436]胥朝阳、黄晶、颜金秋、李倩(2009),上市公司技术并购绩效研究,并购的价值创造、产业重组与经济,安全国际会议论文集
[437]王宛秋、张永安、刘煜,我国上市公司技术并购绩效的实证研究,科学学研究,2009.11
[438]梁国勇,企业并购动机和购并行为研究[J],经济研究,1997.8
[439]童晓兰、朱宝宪,我国企业并购溢价及其影响的实证分析,载于中国并购评论(第一册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2004.5:78-97
[440]王春、齐艳秋,企业并购动机与理论研究[J],外国经济与管理,2001.6
[441]张玉珍,基于核心竞争力的企业并购动机研究[J],财经问题研究,2004.5
[442]杨晓嘉、陈收,中国上市公司并购动机研究[J],湖南大学学报社科版,2005.1
[443]崔冰,上市公司并购动机及其他因素对业绩的影响研究[D],浙江大学硕士学位论文,2005
[444]李善民、朱滔,管理者动机与并购绩效关系研究[J],经济管理,2005.2
[445]王凤荣,论企业并购中的“低成本”问题[J],南开经济研究,2000.2
[2]Achilladelis B, Schwarzkopf A, Cines M. 1987. A study of innovation in the pesticide industry: analysis of the innovation record of an industrial sector. Research Policy 16(2-4): 175-212.
[3]Agrawal, A., Jaffe, J.F., Mandelker, G., 1992. The post-merger performance of acquiring firms: a re-examination of an anomaly. Journal of Finance 47, 1605–1621
[4]Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. 2001,Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strateg. Manag. J. 22, 197–220
[5] Acs, Z J.,& Auretsch, D.B.1990, Innovation and small firms. Cambridge: The MIT Press
[6]Amihud Y., and Lev, B., 1981, Risk reduction as a Managerial Motive for Conglomerate Mergers, Bell Journal of Economics,12: 605-617
[7]Anand J, Singh H. 1997. Asset redeployment, acquisitions and corporate strategy in declining industries. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue 18: 99
[8] Zoltan J. Acs, Randall K. Morck, Bernard Yeung Entrepreneurship, globalization, and public policy Journal of International Management, Volume 7, Issue 3, Autumn 2001, Pages 235-251
[9]Andrade, G. , M. Mitchell and E. Stafford, 2001:“New evidence and perspectives on mergers”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2) , 103 - 120.
[10]Andrew D. James, Luke Georghiou and J. Stanley Metcalfe, 1998, Integrating technology into merger and acquisition decision making. Technovation, 18:563-573
[11]Antonio Rodr′?guez-Duarte et al., The endogenous relationship between innovation and diversification, and the impact of technological resources on the form of diversification, Research Policy 36 (2007) 652–664
[12]Ard-Pieter De Man,Geert Duysters,Collaboration and Innovation:A Review of The Effects of Mergers,Acquisitions And Alliances On Innovation[J],Technovation 25:1377-1387
[13]Argyres, N. 1996a. Capabilities, technological diversification and divisionalization. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 395-410
[14]Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., Da Rin, M., 2000. Corporate restructuring and R&D: A paneldata analysis for the Chemical Industry, working paper 173. IGIER, Bocconi University.
[15]Arora, A., Ceccagnoli, M., Da-Rin, M., 2004. Corporate restructuring and R&D: a panel data analysis for the chemical industry. In: Gambardella, A., Garcia-Fontes, W. (Eds.), The European Chemical Industry: Innovation Performance and Competitiveness. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[16]Arrow, K., 1962. Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resource for Inventions, in the Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Universities - NBER, Princeton University Press.
[17]Arora, A.,& Gambardella, A. 1990, Complementarity and external linkages. The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology, Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361-379
[18]Anthony Arundel, Isabelle Kabla,What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms,Research Policy, Volume 27, Issue 2, June 1998, Pages 127-141
[19]Barber BM, Lyon JD. 1996. Detecting abnormal operating performance: the empirical power and specification of test statistics. Journal of Financial Economics 41
[20]Barney,J. 1988. Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis, Strategic Management Journal,9:71-78
[21]Baysinger , B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1989. Diversification strategy and R&D intensity in large multiproduct fims. Academy of Management Journal, 32:310-332
[22]Belderbos R. Martin Carree, Boris Lokshin, 2004. Cooperative R&D and firm performance Research Policy, Volume 33, Issue 10, 1477-1492
[23]Bruton, G.D.,Oviatt,B.,& White, M.A. 1994, Performance of acquisitions, Academy of Management Journal, 37, 972-989
[24]Bertrand, O., Zuniga, M., 2006. R&D and M&A: are cross-border m&a different? An investigation onOECDcountries. International Journal of Industrial Organization 24, 401–423.
[25]Walter Brenner, Volker Hamm, Information technology for purchasing in a process environment, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, Volume 2, Issue 4, December 1996, Pages 211-219
[26]Berkovitch, E. and M. P. Narayanan, 1993.Motives for takeovers: an empirical investigation. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 28 (3) , 347 - 362.
[27]Bernile, G. , E. Lyandres and A. Zhdanov, 2007:“A theory of strategic mergers”, Working paperavailable on SSRN.
[28] Erik Brouwer, Alfred Kleinknecht, Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.: An exploration of CIS micro data,Research Policy, Volume 28, Issue 6, August 1999, Pages615-624
[29]Bettis R.A. Performance differences in related and unrelated diversified firms. Strategic Management Journal. 1981,2,4, October-December:379-393
[30]Bettis, R.A.& Hitt, M.A. 1995. The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(special issue):7-19
[31]Bettis, R.A.,& Prahalad, C.K. 1995, The dominant logic: Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal,16: 5-14
[32]Beverly C. Winterscheid, Sandra McNabb.1994. Technology development and transfer across national and organizational borders: The case of AT&T network systems Europe.International Business Review, Volume 3, Issue 4: 425-442
[33]Biggadike, R. 1979, The risky business of diversification, Harvard Business Review, 57(3):103-111
[34]Bild, M. 1998. The valuation of take-overs. Stockholm: Stockholm School of Economics.
[35]Birkinshaw,J. 1999. Acquiring intellect: Managing the integration of knowledge-intensive acquisitions Business Horizons, Volume 42, Issue 3, 33-40
[36]Blonigen, B.A., Taylor, C.T., 2000. R&D activity and acquisitions in high technology industries: evidence from the US electronics industry, Journal of Industrial Economics 47(1):47-71
[37]Bodnar, G., Tang, C., Weintrop, J., 1997. Both sides of corporate diversification: the value impacts of geographic and industrial diversification. NBER Working Paper
[38]Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Shona L. Brown ,Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos,Long Range Planning, Volume 31, Issue 5, 12 October 1998, Pages 786-789
[39]Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., 1999. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journalof International BusinessStudies 30, 439–462
[40]Bruner Robert F., Robert M. Conroy, Javier Estrada, Mark Kritzman, Wei Li .2002. Introduction to‘Valuation in Emerging Markets’Emerging Markets Review, Volume 3, Issue 4, 1 December, Pages 310-324
[41]Caloghirou et al., 2004, Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance?, Technovation 24 (1) :29–39.
[42]Surajit Chaudhuri, Benoit Dageville, Guy Lohman ,Self-Managing Technology in Database Management Systems,Proceedings 2004 VLDB Conference, 2004, P 1243
[43]Cantwell et al., 2004, The Economics and Management of Technological Diversification,Routledge, London
[44]Paola Criscuolo,On the road again: Researcher mobility inside the R&D network,Research Policy, Volume 34, Issue 9, November 2005, Pages 1350-1365
[45]Capron, L., Mitchell, W., 1998. Bilateral resource redeployment and capabilities improvement following horizontal acquisitions. Industrial and Corporate Change 7 (3)
[46]Capron L, Mitchell W, Swaminathan A. 1998. Resource redeployment following horizontal acquisitions in Europe and North America, 1988-1992. Strategic Management Journal 19(7): 631-661.
[47]Cardinal, L.B., and T.C. Opler, 1995. Corporate diversification and innovative efficiency:A empirical study. Journal of Accounting and Economics.19:365-381
[48]Carmine Ornaghi, 2009.Mergers and Innovation in big Pharma, International Journal of Industrial Organization,27:70-79
[49]Cassiman, B., Colombo, M., Garrone, P., Veugelers, R., in press. The impact of M&A on the R&D process: an empirical analysis of the role of technological and market relatedness. Research Policy. 34(2005):195-220
[50]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2003. Complementarity in the Innovation Strategy: Internal R&D, External Acquisition, and Cooperation in R&D. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, mimeo
[51]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52.1
[52]Caves, R.E., 1989. Mergers, takeovers, and economic efficiency. International Journal of Industrial Organization 7, 151–174.
[53]Chakrabarti, A. 1990.Organizational factors in postacquisition performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37, 259-268.
[54]Chakrabarti, A., Hauschildt, J., Sueverkruep, C., 1994. Does it pay to acquire technological firms? R&D Management 24, 47–56.
[55]Chakrabarti, A. K. and Souder, W. E. 1987, Technology, innovation and performance in corporate mergers: a managerial evaluation. Technovation 6, 103-l 14.
[56]Chandler, A. 1962, Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of American industrial enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
[57]Andreas Al-Laham et al., Dating before marriage? Analyzing the influence of pre-acquisition experience and target familiarity on acquisition success in the“M&A as R&D”type of acquisition, Scandinavian Journal of Management (2010)26, 25-37
[58]Chatterjee S, Wernerfelt B. 1991. The link between resources and type of diversification:theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal 12(1): 33–48.
[59]Chatterji and Manuel, D.1993, Benefiting from external sources of technology, Research Technology Management 36 (6) (1993):21–26.
[60]Chevalier, J.A., 2000. What doWe Knowabout Cross-subsidization? Evidence from the Investment Policies of Merging Firms. University of Chicago.
[61]Cho, K.R., & Padmanabhan, P. 1995. Acquisition versus new venture: The choice of foreign establishment mode by Japanese firms, Journal of International Management, 1:255-285
[62]Christian Berggren, 2003, Mergers, MNES and innovationFthe need for newresearch approaches,Scand. J. Mgmt. (19)173–191
[63]Clark, L.H..Jr., & Malabre, A.L.,Jr. 1988. Slow rise in outlays for research imperils U.S. competitive edge, Wall Street Journal, November 16:A1 A5
[64]Cloodt, M. et al. 2006, Mergers and acquisitions: their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Res. Policy 35, 642–654
[65]Cohen,W., Levinthal, D., 1989. Innovation and learning: two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99, 249–266.
[66]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1),128-152
[67]Comanor W, Scherer F. 1969. Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. Journal of Political Economy 77(3): 392-398.
[68]Steven Casper, Catherine Matraves,Institutional frameworks and innovation in the German and UK pharmaceutical industry,Research Policy, Volume 32, Issue 10, December 2003, Pages 1865-1879
[69]Constable, J. 1986 Diversification as a factor in U.K. industrial strategy, Long Range Planning, 19(1):52-60
[70]D’Aveni, R., 1993. Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering. Free Press, New York.
[71]Datta, D.K., 1991. Organizational fit and acquisition performance: effects of post-acquisition integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 281–297.
[72] Dosi, G., et al., 1988, Technical changes and economic theory. London: Pinter Publishers
[73]DeBondt, R., 1997. Spillovers and innovative activities. International Journal of Industrial Organisation 15, 1–28.
[74]de Jong, H.W., 1976. Theory and evidence concerning mergers: an internationalcomparison, in: Jacquemin, A.P., de Jong, H.W. (Eds.), Markets, Corporate Behaviour and the State, The Hague, Nijhoff, pp. 95–123.
[75]Dosi.Giovanni, Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories, Research Policy,1982,11(3):147-162
[76]Danzon, P.M. et al. 2004,Mergers and acquisitions in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. NBER Working Paper 10536 (http://www.nber.org/papers/ w10536)
[77]Dess,G. G., D.R. Ireland and M.A. Hitt, Industry effects and strategic management research, Journal of Management,1990, 16,p7-27
[78]Draulans, J., de Man, A.P., Volberda, H.W., 2003. Building alliance capability: management techniques for superior alliance performance.Long Range Planning
[79]Drazin, R., & Schoonhoven, C. B. 1996. Community, population, and organization effects on innovation: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 1065-1083.
[80]Duysters, G.M., de Man, A.P., 2003. Transitory alliances: an instrument for surviving turbulent industries?. R&D Management 33 (1), 49–58.
[81]Duysters, G., Hagedoorn, J., 2000a. Core competences and company performance in the world-wide computer industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research 11 (1), 75–91.
[82]Duysters, G., Hagedoorn, J., 2000b. Organizational Modes of Strategic Technology Partnering. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 59, 640–649.
[83]Eckbo,B. E. , 1983.Horizontalmergers, collusion, and stockholder wealth. Journal of Financial Economics, 11 (14) , 241 - 273.
[84]Eero Lauri Oskari Lehto,Markku Olavi Lehtoranta,2004, Becoming an acquirer and becoming acquired, Technological Forecasting & Social Change 71:635–650
[85]Erkko Autio, Ari-Pekka Hameri, Markus Nordberg.1996. A framework of motivations for industry-big science collaboration: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, Volume 13, Issues 3-4, 301-314
[86] Ely, D., and M. Song, Acquisition Activity of Large Depository Institutions in the 1990s: An Empirical Analysis of Motives, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 2000, 40 (4), 467-484.
[87]Ernst, H. and Vitt, J. 2000, The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors. R&D Manag. 30, 105–119
[88]Ettlie, J., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.
[89]Fama Eugene F. 1998. Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 49, Issue 3, 1 :283-306
[90]Fleming L. 1999. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. working paper, Harvard Business School.
[91]Fligstein, N.. The spread of the multidivisional form among large firms, 1919-1979, American Sociological Review, 1985, 50: 377-391
[92]Fligstein, N. 1991. The structural transformation of American industry: The causes of diversification in the largest firms, 1919-1979. In W. W. Powell & P.J. DiMaggio (Eds.), New institutionalism in organizational analysis: 311-336. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
[93]Foster, R. N. and Kantrow, A. M. 1988.Making postmerger R&D effective. Research-Technology Management 31, 47-5 1.
[94]Fowler KL, Schmidt DR. 1988. Tender offers, acquisitions, and subsequent performance in manufacturing firms. Academy of Management Journal 31(4): 962
[95]Franko, L.g.1989, Global corporate competition: Who’s winning, who’s losing, and the R&D factor as one reason why, Strategic Management Journal,10: 449-474
[96]Franks, J. Harris, R. Titman S. 1991.The postmerger share-price performance of acquiring firms. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 29, Issue 1: 81-96
[97]Frantz, S. 2006,Pipeline problems are increasing the urge to merge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 977–979
[98]Fulmer ,R.M., & Gilkey, R. 1988. Blending corporate families: Management and organization development in a postmerger environment. Academy of Management Executive, 2:275-283
[99]Galbraith, C.S.,& Kay, N.M.1986. Towards a theory of multinational enterprise. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7:3-19
[100]Gambardella, 1992, Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s, Research Policy 21 (5) 391–407.
[101]Gans and Stern, 2000, Incumbency and R&D incentives: licensing the gale of creative destruction, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9. 485–511.
[102]Garnsey, E. and Roberts, J. 1990. Growth through acquisition for small high technology firms: a case comparison. In Building European Ventures, ed. S. Birley. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[103]Gautam Ahuja, Riitta Katila,Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study[J],Strategic Management Journal,Chichester: Mar 2001. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 197
[104]Gerpott, T.J., 1995. Successful integration of R&D functions after acquisition: an exploratory empirical study. R&D Management 25, 161–178.
[105]Ghoshal, S. 1987. Global strategy: An organizing framework. Strategic Management Journal, 8: 425-440
[106]Girma, 2005, Technology transfer from acquisition FDI and the absorptive capacity of domestic firms: an empirical investigation, Open Economies Review 16 (2), 175–187.
[107]Gollop, F.M., Monahan, J.L, 1991,“A Generalized Index of Diversification Trends in U.S. Manufacturing”. The Review of Economics and Statistics,1991,73: 31
[108]Goodman, R. A. and Lawless, M. W. 1994.Technology and Strategy. Oxford University Press, New York.
[109]Gort, M.1962, Diversification and integration in American industry: a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
[110]Gort,M. , 1969:“An economic disturbance theory of mergers”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83(4) , 624 - 642.
[111]Graff et al., 2003 Small, Agricultural biotechnology's complementary intellectual assets, The Review of Economics and Statistics 85 (2) 349–363.
[112]Granstrand, O., Susanne Jacobsson. Innovation economy and business development : A study of innovation take-overs. CIM report, Chalmer University of Technology, Gothenburg, Aug. 1983
[113]Granstrand, O., Soren Sjolander. The acquisition of technology and small firms by large firms. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1990, 13:367-396, North-Hollan
[114]Granstrand, O., Emk Bohlm, Christer Oskarsson. External Technology acquisition in large multi-technology corporations, R&D Management, 1992:111-133
[115]Granstrand. O., 1998, Towards a theory of the Technology-based firm. Research Policy,2 7:465-489
[116]Granstrand, O., Oskarsson, C., 1994b. Technology diversification in‘MUL-TECH’corporations. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 41 -4
[117]Granstrand, O., Sjo¨lander, S., 1994c. Managing innovation in multi-technology corporations. Chapter contribution to Dodgson, M., Rothwell, R. _Eds.., Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar.
[118]Granstrand et al., 1997, Multitechnology corporations: why they have distributed rather than core competencies?, California Management Review 39 (4) 8–25
[119]Grant RM. 1996. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7(4)
[120]Griliches Z. 1979. Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell Journal of Economics 10(Spring): 92-116.
[121]Griliches Z. 1984. Introduction. In R&D, Patents and Productivity, Griliches Z (ed). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL; 1-20.
[122]Griliches Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28(4): 1661-1707.
[123]Grimpe and Hussinger, 2008, Pre-empting technology competition through firm acquisitions, Economics Letters 100. 189–191
[124]Griffith et al., 2004, Mapping the two faces of R&D: productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries, Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (4) 883–895.
[125]Grossman, S. J. and O. D. Hart, 1980: Takeover bids, the free2rider problem and the theory of the corporation, Bell Journal of Economics11: 42 - 64.
[126]Gugler, K., Mueller, D.C., Yurtoglu, B.B., Zulehner, C., 2003. The effects of mergers: an international comparison. International Journal of Industrial Organization 21, 625– 653.
[127]Guillen, M.F. Business Groups in Emerging Economics: A Resource-Based View. Academy of Management Journal, 2000,43(3):362-380
[128]Jarrad Harford,What drives merger waves? Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 77, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 529-560
[129]Michael A. Hitt, Spotlight on strategic management, Business Horizons, Volume 49, Issue 5, September-October 2006, Pages 349-352
[130]Hagedoorn, J.,, Geert Duysters, The Effect of Mergers and Acquisitions on the Technological Performance of Companies in High-tech Environment,Eindhoven Center for Innovation Studies, The Netherlands, Working Paper,2000,04
[131]Hagedoorn, J., Duysters, G., 2002. The effect of mergers and acquisitions on the technological performance of companies in a high-tech environment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 14 (1), 68–85.
[132]Haleblian J, Finkelstein S. 1999. The influence of organization acquisition experience on acquisition performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1)
[133]Hall B, Griliches Z, Hausman J. 1986. Patents and RandD: is there a lag? International Economic Review 27(2): 265-283.
[134]Hall, B., 1987. The effect of takeover activity on corporate research and development. NBERWorking Paper 2191.
[135]Hall, B., 1990. The impact of corporate restructuring on industrial research anddevelopment. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Microeconomics 1, 85– 135.
[136]Hall BH. 1993. Industrial research during the 1980s: did the rate of return fall? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 2: 289–330.
[137]Hall BH. 1994. Corporate restructuring and investment horizons in the United States, 1976–1987. Business History Review 68: 110–143.
[138]Hall, B., 1999. Mergers and R&D revisited. NBER Conference on Mergers and Productivity, mimeo.
[139]Hall, B., Van Reenen, J., 2000. How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A new review of the evidence. Research Policy 29, 449– 469.
[140]Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Competing for the future. Harvard Business School Press.
[141]Hannan, M., Freeman, J., 1984. Structural inertia and organisational change. American Sociological Review 49, 149–164.
[142]Heely, M. B., et al., 2006, Effects of firm R&D investment and environment on acquisition likelihood. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1513-1535
[143]Haspeslagh, P.C.,& Jemison, D.B. 1991. Managing acquisitions: Creating value through corporate renewal, New York: Free Press
[144]Hayward, P. 2003. Re-reading polak: a reply to Morgan. Futures, 35(7):807-810
[145]Heeley et al., 2007, Innovation, appropriability, and the underpricing of initial public offerings, Academy of Management Journal 50 (1) 209–225
[146]Helfat, 1997 Know-how and asset complementary and dynamic capability accumulation: the case of R&D, Strategic Management Journal 18 (5) 339–360.
[147]Hemmert, M. 2004. The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms: survey results from Germany and Japan. Res. Policy 33, 1019–1039
[148]Henderson RM, Clark KB. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9-30.
[149]Henderson R, Cockburn I. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: the determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics 27(1): 32-59.
[150]Hennart, J.F., Reddy, S., 1997. The choice between mergers/acquisitions and joint ventures: the case of Japanese investors in the United States. Strategic Management Journal 18, 1–12.
[151]Hennart, J.F. & Park, Y.R. 1993. Greenfield versus acquisition: The strategy of Japanesesubsidiaries in the United States. Management Science, 37:483-497
[152]Hill, C.W.L.,& Snell,S.A. 1989.Effects of ownership structure and control on corporate productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 32:25-46
[153]Hill, C.W. L. and S.A. Snell, External control, corporate strategy and firm performance in research intensive industries, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 1988
[154]Hill, C.W.L. & Hoskisson, R.E. 1987, Strategy and structure in the multiproduct firm, Academy of Management Review, 12:331-341
[155]Hill, C.W.L. Hitt, M.A., & Hoskisson, R.E. 1988. Declining U.S. competitiveness: innovation, the M form structure and the capital markets. Academy of Management Executive, 2:51-60
[156]Healy, P., K.Palepu, and R.Ruback, Does Corporate Performance Improve after Mergers, Journal of Financial Economics, 1992, 31(2), 135-175
[157]Holmstrom, B. R. and S. N. Kap lan, 2001.Corporate governance and merger activity in the United States: Making sense of the 1980 s and 1990’s. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 121 -144.
[158]Hongxin Zhao et al., Types of technology sourcing and innovative capability:An exploratory study of Singapore manufacturing firms, Journal of High Technology Management Research 16 (2005): 209-224
[159]Hoskisson R.E., and Michael A. Hitt, Strategic Control Systems and Relative R&D Investment in Large Multiproduct Firms [J],Strategic Management Journal,1988,Vol(9):605-621
[160]Hoskisson, R.E., Richard A Johnson, Research Notes and Communications Corporate Restructuring and Strategic Change: The Effect on Diversification Strategy and Intensity[J], Strategic Management Journal, 1992, Vol(13):625-634
[161]Hoskisson, R.E., Hitt, M.A., & Hill, C.W.L. 1993, Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization Science, 4: 325-341
[162]Hoskisson, Hitt, 1990. Antecedents and performance outcomes of diversification: A review and critique of theoretical perspective, Journal of Management, 16:461-509
[163]Hoskisson, R.E. Johnson, R.A. Mosel, D.D. 1994. Corporate divestiture intensity in restructuring firms: Effects of governance, strategy, and performance, Academy of Management Journal,37:1207-1251
[164]Hoskisson, R.E. & Turk, T.A. 1990. Corporate restructuring:Governance and control limits of the internal capital market. Academy of Management Review, 15:459-477
[165]Hoskisson RE, Hitt MA, Johnson RA, Grossman W. 2002. Conflicting voices: the effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Academy of Management Journal 45: 697–716.
[166] Haleblian, J., and S. Finlelstein, The Influence of Organizational Acquisition Experience on Acquisition Performance: A Behavioral Learning Perspective, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44 (1), 29-58.
[167]Huber G. 1991. Organizational learning: the contributing processes and a review of the literatures. Organization Science 2(1): 88-117.
[168]IBM Business Consulting Service (2003) Pharma 2010: The threshold of innovation
[169]Inkpen Andrew.1998. Learning, Knowledge Acquisition, and Strategic Alliances European Management Journal, Volume 16, Issue 2:223-229
[170]International Encyclopaedia of the Social Science [M], Volume 9, Macmillan Co.& Free Press, NY, 1972,P.249
[171]Jacobsson, S Acquisitions and management of innovative companies[D].Working Paper, Gothenburg: Chalmers Universityof Technology, 1984
[172]Jacquemin, A.P. and Berry, C.H. Entropy measure of diversifcaion and corporate growth, Journal of Industrial Economics, 1979, 27, p359-369
[173]Jaeger A.M.and B.R.Baliga, 1985 Control systems and strategic adaption: lessons from the Japanese experience, Strategic Management Journal, 6:115-134
[174]Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577–598.
[175]James, A. D. 1997. Effective management of technology in mergers and acquisitions - a capabilities perspective. In Innovation in Technology Management: the Key to Global Leadership. Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on the Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, Oregon, July
[176]Jemison, D.B.,& Sitkin, S.B.1986. Corporate acquisitions: A process perspective. Academy of Management Review, 11: 145-163
[177]Jensen M.C., and Meckling, W.. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure, Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3:305
[178]Jensen, M.C. and R.S. Ruback, 1983:”The market for corporate control: the scientific evidence”,Journal of Financial Economics, 11, 5 - 50.
[179]Jensen, M.C. Agency costs of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review,1986, 76:323-329.
[180]Jensen MC, Murphy KJ. 1990. Performance pay and top management incentives.Journal of Political Economy 98: 225–264.
[181]Jessie P.H. Poon, Alan MacPhersonTechnology acquisition among Korean and Taiwanese firms in the United States,International Business Review 14 (2005) 559
[182]Johnson, A. et al., 2002. The impact of specialist firm acquisitions on market quality. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 66, Issue 1:139-167
[183]Jones, G.R. & Hill, C.W.L. 1988 Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strategic Management Journal, 9:159-172
[184]Jones et al., 2001 Determinants and performance impacts of external technology acquisition, Journal of Business Venturing 16 (3), 255-283.
[185]Kusewitt, J., An Exploratory Study of Strategic Acquisition Factors Relating to Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 1985, 6(2) , 151-169
[186]Kai Wang et al., 2008. Evolution and governance of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry of China, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation
[187]Kamien, M., Schwartz, N., 1982. Market Structure and Innovation.Cambridge University Press.
[188]Chang-Su Kim, Andrew C. Inkpen, Cross-border R&D alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning, Journal of International Management, Volume 11, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 313-329
[189]Katrin Hussingera, 2009, On the importance of technological relatedness: SMEs versus large acquisition targets, Technovation, In Press,
[190]Kessler et al., 2000, Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage, R&D Management 30 (3). 213
[191]Kim, W.C. Hwang, P., &Burgers, W.P. 1993. Global diversification strategy and corporate profit performance, Strategic Management Journal, 10:45-57
[192]Kim, D., Kogut, B., 1996. Technological platforms and diversification, Organization Science 7(3):283-301
[193]Kitching, J. 1967. Why do mergers miscarry?. Harvard Business Review 45, 84
[194]Kobrin, S.J. 1994. An empirical analysis of the determinants of global integration. Strategic Management Journal, 12(summer special issue):17-37
[195]Kodama, F. 1991. Emerging Patterns of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston MA.
[196]Kogut, B. 1985. Designing global strategies: Profiting from operational flexibility , part 1. Sloan Management Review,27(1):27-38
[197]Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and thereplication of technology, Organization Science 3(3):383-397
[198]KPMG. (1999). Unlocking shareholder value: The keys to success. London: KPMG.
[199]LaamanenT.and Aution E.Dominant dynamic complementarities and technology-motivated acquisitions of new technology-based firms. Inter-nation Journal of Technology management, Special issue on Resources for SME innovation. 1996, Vol, 12:769-786
[200]Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E., 1997. Alliances, external technology acquisition, and discontinuous technological change. Journal of Production Innovation Management 14, 102–116.
[201]Lambrecht, B. M. , 2004:”The timing and terms of mergers motivated by economies of scale”, Journal of Financial Economics, 72, 41 - 62.
[202]Lane,P.J., Lubatkin, M.,1998. Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizational learning. Strategic Management Journal. 19,461–477.
[203]Lang,L. H. P. , R. M. Stulz and R. A. Walkling, 1991. A test of the free cash flow hypothesis: the case of bidder returns. Journal of Finance Economics, 29 (2) , 315
[204]Lang, L.H.P. and Stulz, R.M. Tobin’s q, corporate diversification and firm performance, Journal of Political Economy, 1994, 102(6):1248-1280
[205]Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., Sparks, J., 1998. The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization Science 9, 285–305.
[206]Lazonick, William. 1990.Competitive Advantage on the Shop Floor [M]. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
[207]Lazonick W.O Sullivan.1998. M Governance of Innovation for Economic Development
[208] Ziqi Liao, Paul F. Greenfield,The synergy of corporate r&d and competitive strategies: An exploratory study in australian high-technology companies,The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 11, Issue 1, Spring 2000, Pages 93-107
[209]Lazonick William and Mary O’Sullivan. 1999. The Japanese System of Corporate Governance: Social Conditions and Innovative Capabilities.
[210]Lee, M. and Om K., 1994, A Conceptual Framework of Technological Innovation Management, Technovation, 14(1), 7-16.
[211]Lei,D., & Hitt, M.A. 1995. Strategic restructuring and outsourcing: The effect of mergers and acquisitions and LBOs on building firm skills and capabilities. Journal of Management, 21:835-859
[212]Leland, H. , 2007:“Financial synergies and the optimal scope of the firm: implications for mergers, spinoffs, and structured finance”,Journal of Finance , 62 (2)
[213]Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal, 13:11-125
[214]Lerner et al., 2003, Cooperative marketing agreements between competitors: evidence from patent pools. NBER Working Paper No. 9680, Cambridge, MA.
[215] Levitt, B., & March, J.G. 1988. Organizational learning. In W.R. Scott (Ed.), Annual review of sociology, vol, 14:319-340. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
[216]Lewellen, W. G. , C. Loderer and A. Rosenfeld, 1985:“Merger decisions and executive stock ownership in acquiring firms”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 7 (1-3) , 209 - 231.
[217]Li, Mingfang and Yim-Yu Wong, 2003,Diversification and Economic Performance: An Empirical Assessment of Chinese Firms.Asia Pacific Journal of Management.20, 243-265
[218]Lichtenberg, Frank R. 1992. Industrial de-diversification and its consequences for productivity. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18, 3, 427-438
[219]Link, A.N., 1988. Acquisitions as sources of technological innovation. Mergers and Acquisitions 23 (3), 36–39.
[220]Lins K, Servaes H. 1999. International evidence on the value of corporate diversification. Journal of Finance 54: 2215–2239.
[221]Lookabaugh, T,Innovation by acquisition [C] IEMC 2002. IEEE International, Engineering Management Conference,2002
[222]Lubatkin M. 1983. Mergers and the performance of the acquiring firm. Academy of Management Review 8(2): 218-225.
[223]Lubatkin M. & O’Neil, H.M.1987. Mergers strategies and capital market risk. Academy of Management Review 30: 665-684.
[224]MacDonald, J.M.1985, R&D and the directions of diversification: The Review of Economics and Statistics 47(4), 583-590
[225]Macdonald, S. and James, A. D. 1998. A dynamic view of technology acquisition. International Journal of Technology Management (in press).
[226]March, J.G., 1991, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71-87
[227]Mazzanti, M. and Pini, P. Tortia, E. Organizational innovations, human resources and firm performance-The Emili- Romagna food sector. The Journal of Socio - Economics,2006, (35) 123 -141.
[228]M.C. Becker& Knudsen T. The Role of Ententrepreneurship in economic and technological development, the contribution of Schumpeter to understanding entrepreneurship[R], Paper to be presented at the DRUID summer conference 2004 on industrial dynamics, innovation and development, Elsinore, Denmark, June 14-16
[229]Mcvey, J.S. The industrial diversification of multi-establishment manufacturing firms: a development study, Canadian Statistical Review, 1972, 47, p112-117
[230]Michael A.Hitt and Robert E Hoskisson, 1990, Mergers and Acquisitions and Managerial Commitment To Innovation In M-Form Firms[J], Strategic Management Journal, Vol(11):29-47
[231]Michael A.Hitt, Robert E Hoskisson, Richard A Johnson, Douglas D Moesel, The Market For Corporate Control and Firm Innovation[J], Academy of Management Journal, 1996, Vol.39 No5.: 1084-1119
[232] Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson,R Duane Ireland,Jeffrey S Harrison,Are Acquisitions a Poison Pill For Innovation?[J],The Executive,1991 Vol.5 No4.
[233]Michael A.Hitt, Hoskisson & Kim, H. 1997. International diversification: Effects on innovation and firm performance in product-diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 40:767-798
[234]Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson,R Duane Ireland,Jeffrey S Harrison,Effects of Acquisitions on R&D Inputs and Outputs[J],Academy of Management Journal,1991,Vol.34 No3.:693-706
[235]Michael A.Hitt,Robert E Hoskisson, R. Duane Ireland,1990. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance
[236]Miller, R.R. 1990,Do mergers and acquisitions hurt R&D? Res. Technol. Manag. 33, 11–15
[237]Miller, D., & Chen, M-J. 1996. The simplicity of competitive repertoires: An empirical analysis, Strategic Management Journal, 17:419-439.
[238]Miller DouglasJ,2004,Firms’Technological Resources and The Performance Effects of Diversification :A Longitudinal Study[J], Strategic Management Journal,Vol(25):1097-1119
[239]Mitchell, M. and J. H. Mulherin, 1996: The impact of industry shocks on takeover and restructuring activity, Journal of Financial Economics 41: 193 - 229.
[240] Stefan Momma, Margaret Sharp,Developments in new biotechnology firms in Germany, Technovation, Volume 19, Issue 5, February 1999, Pages 267-282
[241]Miguelá. Montoya, Francesc Trillas The measurement of the independence oftelecommunications regulatory agencies in Latin America and the Caribbean Utilities Policy, Volume 15, Issue 3, September 2007, Pages 182-190
[242] Franco Malerba, Luigi Orsenigo, Technological entry, exit and survival: an empirical analysis of patent data,Research Policy, Volume 28, Issue 6, August 1999, Pages 643-660
[243]Mowery et al., 1996, Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer, Strategic Management Journal 17 (1) 77–91.
[244]Mullin, G. L. , J. L. Mullin and W. P. Mullin, 1995:“The competitive effects of mergers: stock market evidence from the U. S. steel disscution suit”, Rand Journal of Economics, 26 (2) 314-330.
[245]Muller,D. and M. Sirower, 2003. The cause of mergers: tests based on the gains to acquiring firms’shareholders and the size of premia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 373 - 391.
[246]Narula, Rajneesh. 2002. Innovation systems and‘inertia’in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Research Policy, Volume 31, Issue 5, 795-816
[247]Nelson, R, R.,1959, The simple economics of basic scientific research, Journal of Political Economy 67(3):297-306
[248]Nelson, R.R.,&Winter, S.E. 1982, An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[249]Newey and Shulman, 2004 System absorptive capacity: creating early-to-market returns through R&D alliances, R&D Management 34 (5) 495–504.
[250]Nonaka, I., 1991. The knowledge creating company. Harvard Business Review 69, 96–104.
[251]Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H., 1995 The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
[252]Nonaka, I. et al., 1998. The‘ART’of knowledge: Systems to capitalize on market knowledge. European Management Journal, Volume 16, Issue 6, 673-684
[253]Noori, 1990, Managing the Dynamics of New Technology, Prentice Hall, New Jersey
[254]Olivier Bertrand,Pluvia Zuniga, R&D and M&A: Are cross-border M&A different? An investigation on OECD countries, International Journal of Industrial Organization 24 (2006) 401– 423
[255]O’Donoghue et al., 1998, Patent breadth, patent life and the pace of technological progress, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 7 1–32.
[256]Vareska van de Vrande, Wim Vanhaverbeke, Geert Duysters, External technology sourcing: The effect of uncertainty on governance mode choice,Journal of Business Venturing,Volume 24, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 62-80
[257]Pakes A, Griliches Z. 1984. Patents and R&D at the firm level: a first look. In R&D, Patents and Productivity, Griliches Z(ed). University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
[258]Palich, L.E., Cardinal, L.B., Miller, C.C., 2000. Curvilinearity in the diversification-performance linkage: an examination of over three decades of research. Strategic Management Journal 21, 155–174.
[259]Panos Desyllasa and Alan Hughesb, 2008, Sourcing technological knowledge through corporate acquisition: Evidence from an international sample of high technology firms, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 18, Issue 2,157-172
[260]Paruchuri, S. et al. (2006) Acquisition integration and productivity losses in the technical core: disruption of inventors in acquired companies. Organ. Sci. 17, 545
[261]Pavlou, A.K. and Belsey, M.J. 2005. BioPharma licensing and M&A trends, Nat, Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 273-274
[262]Penrose, E.. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1959
[263]Peteraf M.A. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14:179-191.
[264] Phanish Puranam, Harbir Singh, Maurizio Zollo,A Bird in the Hand or Two in the Bush?: Integration Trade-offs in Technology-grafting Acquisitions,European Management Journal, Volume 21, Issue 2, April 2003, Pages 179-184
[265]Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. MacMillan, London.
[266]Prabhu, J.C. et al. (2005) The Impact of acquisitions on innovation poison pill, placebo, or tonic. J. Mark. 69, 114–130
[267]Prahalad, C.K., & Bettis, R.A., 1986. The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance, Strategic Management Journal, 7:485-501
[268]Prahalad, C.K., & Hamel, G. 1990. The core competence of the corporation . Harvard Business Review, 68(3):79-91
[269]Pritchett P. 1985. After the merger: Managing the shock waves: New York: Dow Jones-Irwin
[270]Rajan, R., Servaes, H., Zingales, L., 1998. The cost of diversity: the diversification discount and inefficient investment. Working Paper. University of Chicago and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
[271]Rappaport, A .1978. Excuttive incentive VS corporate growth, Harvard Business Review, 56(4), 81-88
[272]James H. Love, Stephen Roper ,Location and network effects on innovation success:evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants,Research Policy, Volume 30, Issue 4, April 2001, Pages 643-661.
[273]Robert W. Zmud, L. Eugene Apple, Measuring technology incorporation/infusion,Journal of Product Innovation Management, Volume 9, Issue 2, June 1992, Pages 148-155
[274]Roll, R., 1986.The hubris hypothesis of corporate takeovers.Journal of Business, 59 (2), 197-216.
[275]Ruckman, K.,2005. Technology sourcing through acquisitions: evidence from the US drug industry, Journal of International Business Studies 36(1),89-103
[276]Rumelt, R.P.. 1974. Strategy, structure, and economic performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Division of research,
[277]Rumelt, R.P. 1982. Diversification strategy and profitability, Strategic Management Journal, 3, 359-369
[278] Annette L. Ranft, Michael D. Lord ,Acquiring new knowledge: The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms , The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 11, Issue 2, 1 November 2000, Pages 295-319
[279]Sanchez, R. Heene, A. and Thomas, H. (eds) .1996. Dynamics of Competence-based Competition. Elsevier Science, Oxford.
[280]Schoenmakers and Duysters, 2006, Learning in strategic technology alliances, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (2) 245–264.
[281]Scherer F. 1965. Corporate inventive output, profitability and sales growth. Journal of Political Economy 73(3): 290-297.
[282]Scherer F, Ross D. 1990. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance. Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA.
[283]Schumpeter J. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
[284]Schweizer, L. 2005. Organizational integration of acquired biotechnology companies into pharmaceutical companies: the need for a hybrid approach. Acad. Manage. J. 48, 1051–1074
[285]Sen and Rubenstein, 1990, An exploration of factors affecting the integration of in-house R&D with external technological acquisition strategies of a firm, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management 37 (4) 246–258.
[286]Seth, A., 1990. Value creation in acquisitions: a reexamination of performance issues. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 113.
[287]Shapiro, 2001.Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools, and standard setting. In: Jaffe, A., Lerner, J., Stern, S. (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy. Cambridge, MA, 119–150.
[288]Shiu-Wan Hung& Ruei-Hung Tanga,2008, Factors affecting the choice of technology acquisition mode: An empirical analysis of the electronic firms of Japan, Korea and Taiwan, Technovation, Volume 28, Issue 9, 551-563
[289]Shleifer, A., and R. Vishny, 1989. Managerial entrenchment: the case of manager2specific investments. Journal of Financial Economics, 25, 123 - 139.
[290]Shleifer, A. , and R. Vishny, 2003. Stock market driven acquisitions. Journal of Financial Economics, 70, 295 - 311.
[291]Shrivastava, P. 1986. Postmerger integration, Journal of Business Strategy, 7(1)
[292]Singh H, Montgomery CA. 1987. Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management Journal 8(4): 377-386.
[293]Singh H, Zollo M. 1997. Knowledge accumulation mechanisms and the evolution of post-acquisition integration strategies. Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
[294]Silverman, B.S.,1999. Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction costs economics. Management Science 45(8), 1109-1124
[295]Silverman, B.S., 2002. Technological Resources and the Logic of Corporate Diversification, Routledge, New York
[296]Hiroshi Yasuda, Formation of strategic alliances in high-technology industries: comparative study of the resource-based theory and the transaction-cost theory, Technovation, Volume 25, Issue 7, July 2005, Pages 763-770
[297]Song et al., 2005, Determinants of level of knowledge application: a knowledge-based and information-processing perspective, Journal of Product Innovation Management 22 (5). 430–444.
[298]Sotaro Shibayama,Kunihiro Tanikawa,Ryuhei Fujimoto and Hiromichi Kimura, 2008, Effect of mergers and acquisitions on drug discovery: perspective from a case study of a Japanese pharmaceutical company, Drug Discovery Today Volume 13, Numbers 1/2 January
[299]Spender J-C. 1989. Industry Recipes: An Inquiry into the Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgement. Blackwell: New York.
[300]Patrick Vermeulen, Managing Product Innovation in Financial Services Firms, European Management Journal, Volume 22, Issue 1, February 2004, Pages 43-50
[301]Teece, D.J , 1982, Toward a economic theory of the multi-product, Journal of EconomicBehavior and Organization, 3, 39-63
[302]Teece, D.J , 1987, Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration collaboration licensing and public policy, Research Policy, Vol.15, Iss.6
[303]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509–533.
[304]Teece, David J. 2000. Strategies for Managing Knowledge Assets: the Role of Firm Structure and Industrial Context.Long Range Planning, 33, 1, 35-54
[305]Tether, Bruce S.2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis.Research Policy, Volume 31, Issue 6, August 2002, 947-967
[306] James R. Taylor, Eric G. Moore, Edwin J. Amonsen ,Profiling technology diffusion categories : Empirical test of two models,Journal of Business Research, Volume 31, Issues 2-3, October-November 1994, Pages 155-162
[307]Tsai, and Wang, 2008, External technology acquisition and firm performance: A longitudinal study, Journal of Business Venturing, Volume 23, Issue 1, 91-112
[308]Tsai and Wang, 2009,External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors: An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey Research Policy, Volume 38, Issue 3, 518-526
[309]Tushman M, Rosenkopf L. 1992. Organizational determinants of technological change: toward a sociology of technological evolution. Research in Organizational Behavior 14: 311-347.
[310]Utterback, James and Goran Reitbeger. 1982. Technology and industrial innovationin Sweden. A study of new technology-based firms. Report submitted to National Swedish Board for Technical Development (STU), Stockholm,
[311]Utterback J. 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA.
[312]Van de Ven A. Polley,1986, Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32, 590– 607.
[313]Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. 2004.Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: Some direct firm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, 48: 455–476.
[314]Zollo M., & Singh, H., 2002, Interorganizaional routines and performance in strategic alliances. Organization Science, 13, 701-713
[315]Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource-based view of the firm, Strategic Management Journal, 5:171-180
[316]Weston, J. F., M. L. Mitchell and J. H. Mulherin, 2004. Takeovers, restructuring and corporate governance, Pearson Prentice - Hall, Uper Saddle River, New Jersey
[317]Williamson, Oliver E. 1975. Markets and Hierarchies.Analysis and antitrust implications. A study in the economics of Internal organization, the Free press, London, 196-207
[318]Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets and elational contracting. Macmillan Press, New York
[319]Williamson, O. E. 1991. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternative. Administrative Science Qurarterly, 36, 269–296.
[320]World Investment Report, 2000. Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions and Development. United Nations, New York.
[321]Wrigley, L. 1970.Divisional autonomy and diversification, Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard Business School
[322]Xiao Liu & Huan Zou, 2008. The Impact of greenfield FDI and mergers and acquisitions on innovation in Chinese High-tech industries, Journal of World Business 43:352-364
[323]Yao-Taung Tsai, Ling-Feng Hsieh, 2006, An innovation knowledge game piloted by merger and acquisition of technological assets:A case study, J. Eng. Technol. Manage.23:248-261
[324]Yi-Chia Chiu, Hsien-Che Lai, Tai-Yu Lee, Yi-Ching Liaw. 2008.Technological diversification, complementary assets, and performance.Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 75, Issue 6, 875-892
[325]Zahra, 1996, Technology strategy and financial performance: examining the moderating role of a firm's competitive environment, Journal of Business Venturing 11 (3) (1996), pp. 189–219.
[326]Zenger, T., 1994. Explaining organizational diseconomies of scale in R&D: agency problems and the allocation of engineering talent, ideas, and effort by firm size. Management Science 40, 708–799.
[327]新一轮经济刺激方案明晰涉及7大新兴产业;来源:人民网-中国经济周刊(北京) 2009-12-15 01:20:58
[328]白玫,基于知识和技术的并购[J],经济经纬,2002.5
[329]郭德海,跨国医药公司在华专利战略分析及对中药产业的启示研究[D],中国中医科学院博士学位论文,2008
[330]蔡基宏,影响我国医药行业创新能力关键因素分析——美国的经验和启示,上海经济研究,2009.11
[331]陈丽娟,医药行业新一轮并购潮\投资公司蓄势待发,人民网-国际金融报,2007.7.12
[332]陈海霞,我国医药行业上市公司并购绩效研究[D],新疆财经学院硕士学位论文,2006
[333]金宝山,医药企业并购问题研究[D],对外经济贸易大学硕士学位论文,2005
[334]冷健,医药企业技术创新影响因素研究[D],沈阳药科大学硕士论文,2008
[335]王维刚,中国医药产业成长特征与机理研究[D],同济大学博士论文2007
[336]陈菲琼、高阅顺、孙晓光,联盟抑或并购:基于创新能力的外部资源的选择[J],生产力研究,2003.5
[337]陈春春、杨雪、冯勤,我国科技企业技术并购的案例群分析[J],北方经济,2008.4
[338]陈旭、夏芸、胡朝晖,并购绩效的衡量方法研究综述[J],现代管理科学,2008.10
[339]陈正泰、程炳林、陈新丰等,多变量分析方法统计软件应用[M],(北京)中国税务出版社,2005
[340]陈晓萍、徐淑英、樊景立主编,组织与管理研究的实证方法[M],(北京)北京大学出版社,2008.6
[341]陈国东,医药界八年并购运动药企究竟得到什么,医药经济报,2006.4.18
[342]程涛,企业技术创新能力的评价模型[J],中原工学院学报,2003.14(3)
[343]邓培林,基于企业技术的并购研究[D],西南交通大学博士学位论文,2006
[344]邓乐元、成良斌,企业并购对技术创新的影响[J],科技与管理,2004.2
[345]冯勤、杨雪、陈春春,浙江省科技企业技术并购的实证研究[J],技术经济,2008.2
[346]冯根福、吴江林,我国上市公司并购绩效的实证研究[J],经济研究,2001.1
[347]郭克莎,我国医药行业重组浪潮高涨的动因分析,中国医药网,2004.4.19
[348]郭彪,企业技术并购关键风险要素分析[D],南华大学硕士学位论文,2007
[349]韩国医药品技术水平达到世界最高水平的64%,中国化工报, 2008-8-8
[350]侯汉坡、殷晓倩、刘春成,基于技术并购的企业持续技术创新体系及实施方式研究,中国科技论坛,2009.6
[351]侯汉坡、刘峰,以提升创新能力为目标的技术并购整合管理研究[J],中国科技论坛,2007.3
[352]洪莲,技术进步与并购互动机理研究[D],北京交通大学硕士学位论文,2008
[353]李争丽,基于医药行业上市公司并购类型选择及其绩效影响的实证研究[D],重庆工学院硕士学位论文,2008
[354]胡浩,RBV视角的技术密集型企业并购研究[J],科技管理研究,2007.9
[355]华东医药股份有限公司2008年度财务报告(股票代码:000963)
[356]黄一义,股票市场、企业控制与中国企业问题的根本解决,载于中国并购评论(第一册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2004.5:42-48
[357]冀书鹏,新“公私合营”路线,我们的观点,载于中国并购评论(第四册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2005.4:5-7
[358]近年中国医药行业并购简析及预测,国研网,2005-8-29
[359]聚焦竞争力、中国医药行业并购重组渐入佳境,中国食品商务网,2008-4-21
[360]江小明,企业并购的技术整合研究[D],武汉理工大学硕士学位论文,2005
[361]蓝海林等,中国企业战略管理行为的情境嵌入式研究[J],管理学报,2009.1
[362]李时椿,论制造业信息化与新型工业化[J],科技管理研究,2007.5:253-255
[363]李琼、游春,产业效应对中国上市公司并购绩效和并购动机的影响[J],技术经济,2008.5:122
[364]李岩,并购价值创造效应的国外实证研究综述[J],经营管理者,2009.6
[365]李善民、郑南磊,目标公司规模与并购绩效——青岛啤酒、燕京啤酒产业整合策略比较研究[J],证券市场导报,2008.1
[366]李善民、朱滔、陈玉罡、曾昭灶、王彩萍,收购公司与目标公司配对组合绩效的实证分析[J],经济研究,2004.6
[367]李增泉、余谦、王晓坤,掏空、支持与并购重组——来自我国上市公司的经验证据[J],经济研究,2005.1
[368]李心丹、朱洪亮、张兵、罗浩,基于DEA的上市公司并购效率研究[J],经济研究,2003.10
[369]李建惠、赵华,企业并购动机国内研究综述[J],商场现代化,2008.2
[370]李文明,医药行业进入资本通道掀起资本运营浪潮,医药经济报,2007.10.30
[371]刘航,并购绩效中财务会计数据法评价[J],财会通讯,2008.7
[372]刘合理、唐元虎,技术导向型并购的效应分析[J],改革与战略,2002.9
[373]刘开勇,企业技术并购战略与管理[M],中国金融出版社,2004.7:31-33
[374]马晓晋,中国企业技术获取型跨国并购的影响因素研究[D],浙江工业大学硕士论文,2008
[375]潘帕思,中国医药产业将掀重组浪潮,国际医药卫生导报,2002年18期
[376]潘鸿,中国资本市场上市公司并购的动机和利益转移模式研究[D],上海交通大学博士学位论文,2006
[377]潘红波、夏新平、余明桂,政府干预、政治关联与地方国有企业并购[J],经济研究,2008.4:41-52
[378]戚韫,我国电子业技术导向型跨国并购研究[D],对外经济贸易大学硕士论文,2006
[379]钱丽丽,浙江民营企业创新型并购研究[D],浙江工商大学硕士论文,2007
[380]强强联合优胜劣汰——医药行业迎来新一轮并购风潮,中国医药报,2007-9-18
[381]邱建民,中国跨国企业技术并购研究[D],中国海洋大学硕士学位论文,2008
[382]]全球企业并购被取消数量创历史新高,来源:上海证劵报，和讯新闻2008-12-24
[383]宋建元,技术并购与破坏性创新[D],浙江大学博士学位论文,2005
[384]孙乃强、杜乐勋,2005年我国医药产业形势发展概述(一),中国网,2006-5-31
[385]胡怡,中国医药行业并购绩效研究[D],华东大学硕士学位论文,2006
[386]王煜全,医药的未来,搜狐健康,2003-2-14
[387]王玉等,自主创新路径及技术并购后价值链整合[J],管理现代化,2007.3
[388]王宛秋,张永安,基于解释结构模型的企业技术并购协同效应影响因素分析[J],科学学与科学技术管理,2009.4:104-109
[389]王育琨,联想今天正需要一点“海盗”精神,上海证券报,2009.9.11
[390]文佳、菡冰,当代跨国并购浪潮中全球医药行业的变革风暴[J],中国医药指南,2005.9
[391]吴贵生,技术创新管理[M],(北京)清华大学出版社,2000:56-57
[392]吴延兵,企业规模、市场力量与创新:一个文献综述[J],经济研究,2007.5
[393]吴婷、康灿华,从中外企业技术并购比较中得到的启示[J],科技创业月刊,2006.11
[394]肖海林、闻学,超级竞争条件下企业整体管理的基本维度与共生型控制模式—一个描述性案例研究[J],管理世界,2006.12:131-141
[395]熊建明、汤文仙,企业并购与技术跨越[J],中国软科学,2008.5
[396]徐立青、匡跃平,从技术视角分析企业并购的环境和动因[J],2005.7
[397]胥朝阳、黄晶,企业并购的技术补缺机理及效应分析[J],科学学研究(增刊),2009.2
[398]徐建中、刘琳,国内外医药行业并购特点及应对策略研究[J],现代管理科学,2004.8
[399]杨忠敏,企业技术创新能力评价的理论与方法综述[J],科技进步与对策,2004.3
[400]杨雪,技术并购与浙江高新技术企业发展战略研究[D],浙江工业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[401]杨晓嘉、陈收,中国上市公司并购动机研究[J],湖南大学学报社科版,2005.1
[402]叶会、李善民,企业并购理论综述[J],广东金融学院学报,2008.1
[403]以收购求创新战略:为什么不总是有回报?来源:wharton,中国管理传播网(http://manage.org.cn,2005-11-24)
[404]余年生、余泳,高技术与风险投资[M],云南大学出版社,2003:8、9、33
[405]于培友、奚俊芳,企业技术并购后整合中的知识转移研究[J],科研管理,2006.5
[406]于成永、施建军,R&D模式选择及其对创新绩效的影响——一个研究综述[J],经济管理,2006.19
[407]张海涛等,知识型企业并购的进化研究[J],载于《并购论坛2005》,中国经济出版社,2005:60
[408]张永安、王婉丽,技术并购研究现状与趋势展望[J],企业经济,2009.2
[409]张新,并购重组是否创造价值?[J],经济研究,2003.6
[410]张宗新、季雷,公司并购利益相关者的利益均衡吗?——基于公司并购动因的风险溢价套利分析[J],经济研究,2003.6
[411]中国资本药局掀起并购浪潮,《新财经》封面文章, 2003-7-3
[412]中国产业地图编委会、中国经济景气监测中心编:《中国医药产业地图2006-2007》[M],社会科学文献出版社,2006.12
[413]赵万杰,基于提高核心技术能力的高新技术企业并购及整合研究[D],哈尔滨工业大学硕士学位论文,2006
[414]周飙,药业巨头并购背后的无奈,21世纪经济报道,2009-3-13
[415]周小春,李善民,并购价值创造的影响因素研究[J],管理世界,2008.5:134
[416]周明,高新技术产业投资环境系统研究[D],西北工业大学博士论文,2006
[417]邹鲜红、罗承友,基于DEA模型的我国医药制造业技术创新相对有效性研究,科技管理研究,2009.9
[418]朱宝宪、王怡凯,1998年中国上市公司并购实践的效应分析[J],经济研究,2002.11:20-28
[419]方曙,基于专利信息分析技术创新能力研究,西南交通大学博士论文,2007
[420]赵春艳,企业并购与我国医药产业结构优化研究[D],山东大学硕士学位论文,2008
[421]王跃兴,我国医药行业重组的动因、特征和趋势分析[J],经济理论与经济管理,2004.2
[422]颜士梅、兰美艺,基于技术整合战略的技术导入方式选择——以医药企业为例,科技管理研究,2009.9,P223
[423]高良谋,购并后整合管理研究——基于中国上市公司的实证分析,管理世界,2003.12
[424]王巍,在医药科技创新及转化中的信息采集、综合和分析,上海医药情报研究,2002.1
[425]魏江,企业购并绩效评估模型和度量,科研管理, 2002.6
[426]韩立岩、陈庆勇,并购的频繁程度意味着什么——来自我国上市公司并购绩效的证据,经济学(季刊),2007.7
[427]蓝海林,中国多元化企业的战略管理研究,北京:经济科学出版社,2008
[428]雷奕敏,经济增加值与医药行业上市公司并购重组绩效研究,湖南大学硕士论文,2005
[429]李善民、郑南磊,目标公司规模与并购绩效——青岛啤酒、燕京啤酒产业整合策略比较研究,证券市场导报,2008.1
[430]张大威,2003八大并购热点问题预测,华东科技,2003.4
[431]郭世钊,企业并购可行性研究的几个主要问题,技术经济,2004.12
[432]余博、傅太平(2005),基于核心能力的企业并购研究,中国市场,2005/32
[433]佟石,基于价值网络的我国医药企业创新集成管理研究,复旦大学博士学位论文,2004
[434]马彦,生物医药产业价值链的整合化研究,复旦大学博士学位论文,2007
[435]国泰安CSMAR数据库《中国上市公司并购重组研究数据库2009》
[436]胥朝阳、黄晶、颜金秋、李倩(2009),上市公司技术并购绩效研究,并购的价值创造、产业重组与经济,安全国际会议论文集
[437]王宛秋、张永安、刘煜,我国上市公司技术并购绩效的实证研究,科学学研究,2009.11
[438]梁国勇,企业并购动机和购并行为研究[J],经济研究,1997.8
[439]童晓兰、朱宝宪,我国企业并购溢价及其影响的实证分析,载于中国并购评论(第一册),中国收购兼并研究中心、东方高圣投资顾问公司编著[M],清华大学出版社,2004.5:78-97
[440]王春、齐艳秋,企业并购动机与理论研究[J],外国经济与管理,2001.6
[441]张玉珍,基于核心竞争力的企业并购动机研究[J],财经问题研究,2004.5
[442]杨晓嘉、陈收,中国上市公司并购动机研究[J],湖南大学学报社科版,2005.1
[443]崔冰,上市公司并购动机及其他因素对业绩的影响研究[D],浙江大学硕士学位论文,2005
[444]李善民、朱滔,管理者动机与并购绩效关系研究[J],经济管理,2005.2
[445]王凤荣,论企业并购中的“低成本”问题[J],南开经济研究,2000.2