Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T22:01:01.958Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Partners and rivals: a model of international collaboration in advanced technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Jonathan B. Tucker
Get access

Extract

Concepts from bargaining theory and neorealist theory are integrated in a partners-and-rivals (PAR) model that explains the terms of collaboration between rational actors (for example, firms) that are potential competitors. The model contends that the stronger player's incentive to collaborate is determined not only by its interest in absolute welfare benefits from collaboration but also by its concern about and loss of utility from unfavorable shifts in relative position vis-à-vis the weaker player. Two propositions are derived from the model. According to the disparity principle, the stronger player's net payoff from collaboration (the sum of its welfare benefits and positional costs) is a function of the disparity in capabilities between the two players. The net payoff curve is low when the disparity in capabilities is large, reaches an optimum when the disparity is moderate, and then falls again as the disparity approaches zero. The slope of the curve is also affected by a coefficient, α, which reflects the stronger player's sensitivity to positional losses. According to the compensation principle, for collaboration to arise, the weaker player must make an adjustment in the terms of the bargain, or a side-payment, to compensate the stronger player for its positional losses from collaboration. The validity of the PAR model is tested by comparing Franco-German collaboration on military aircraft in two cases, one in which the disparity in capabilities between the players was moderate and the other in which the disparity was small.

Type
Articles
Information
International Organization , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , Winter 1991 , pp. 83 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article is based on my previous work, “Shifting Advantage: A Game-Theoretical Model of International Collaboration in Advanced Technology,” Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, 1990. An earlier version was presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 1990, San Francisco. The research and writing were supported by a 1987–88 Robert Bosch Foundation Fellowship in the Federal Republic of Germany and a 1988–89 Ford Foundation Fellowship in European Society and Western Security at the Harvard Center for International Affairs. For criticisms and suggestions, I am grateful to Barry O'Neill, Richard Samuels, Ethan Kapstein, Howard Raiffa, Stephen Krasner, and two anonymous reviewers.

1. This study makes a clear distinction between the terms “collaboration” and “cooperation,” which are often used interchangeably. Whereas “cooperation” has a positive normative connotation, “collaboration” is used here in a value-neutral sense to refer to any functional activity involving the active participation of two or more autonomous actors.

2. The large and growing literature on international joint ventures includes the following: Bartlett, Christopher A. and Ghoshal, Sumantra, Managing Across Borders: The Transnational Solution (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Contractor, Farok J. and Lorange, Peter, Cooperative Strategies in International Business (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1988)Google Scholar; Economic Commission for Europe, East-West Joint Ventures: Economic, Business, Financial and Legal Aspects (New York: United Nations, 1988)Google Scholar; Fitzpatrick, Peter B., ed., Transnational Joint Ventures (Chesterland, Ohio: Business Laws, Inc., 1989)Google Scholar; Goldenberg, Susan, Hands Across the Ocean: Managing Joint Ventures with a Spotlight on China and Japan (Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Hall, R. Duane, The International Joint Venture (New York: Praeger, 1984)Google Scholar; Hladik, Karen J., International Joint Ventures: An Economic Analysis of U.S.–Foreign Business Partnerships (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1985)Google Scholar; Hochmuth, Milton S., Organizing the Transnational: The Experience with Transnational Enterprise in Advanced Technology (Leiden, Netherlands: A. W. Sijthoff, 1974)Google Scholar; Mowery, David C., ed., Alliance Politics and Economics: Multinational Joint Ventures in Commercial Aircraft (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1987)Google Scholar; Mowery, David C., ed., International Collaborative Ventures in U.S. Manufacturing (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1988)Google Scholar; Ohmae, Kenichi, Triad Power: The Coming Shape of Global Competition (New York: Free Press, 1985)Google Scholar; Turner, Louis, Industrial Collaboration with Japan (New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987)Google Scholar; and Walmsley, John, Handbook of International Joint Ventures (London: Graham & Trotman, 1982)Google Scholar.

3. See Hayward, Keith, International Collaboration in Civil Aerospace (London: Frances Pinter, 1986)Google Scholar; and Joucla, Gerard, La coopération internationale dans les industries aéronautiques européennes (International collaboration in the European aeronautics industries) (Paris: Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence, 1971).Google Scholar

4. Brown, David A., “Europe Faces Decision on Future of Military Aircraft Development,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 14 03 1988, p. 54.Google Scholar

5. Aerospace Industries Association of America, cited in Bruce Stokes, “Beat 'Em or Join 'Em,” National Journal 21 (02 1989), p. 462.Google Scholar

6. See “The Pentagon's Handout to Japan” (editorial), The New York Times, 12 February 1989, p. E22Google Scholar. See also Dryden, Steven and Gross, Neil, “Are We Giving Japan Blueprints for a World-Class Aircraft Industry?” Business Week, 20 06 1988, p. 62Google Scholar. and Prestowitz, Clyde V. Jr., Trading Places (New York: Basic Books, 1988).Google Scholar

7. Talbott, Strobe, Deadly Gambits (New York: Knopf, 1984), p. 5.Google Scholar

8. For an introduction to cooperation theory, see Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar; and Oye, Kenneth A., ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

9. Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 70.Google Scholar

10. Hartley, Keith, NATO Arms Co-operation: A Study in Economics and Politics (London: Allen & Unwin, 1983), p. 140.Google Scholar

11. Wulf, Herbert, “West European Cooperation and Competition in Arms Procurement: Experiments, Problems, Prospects,” Arms Control 7 (09 1986), p. 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. Stevenson, Richard W., “No Longer the Only Game in Town: Competitors Are Successfully Challenging the U.S. Arms Industry—and the Nation's Influence,” The New York Times, 4 12 1988, p. F7.Google Scholar

13. Keohane, Robert O. and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence, 2d ed. (Glenview, III.: Scott, Foresman, 1989), p. 10.Google Scholar

14. Gowa, Joanne, “Anarchy, Egoism, and Third Images: The Evolution of Cooperation and International Relations,” International Organization 40 (Winter 1986), p. 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15. Grieco, Joseph, “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation: A Realist Critique of the Newest Liberal Institutionalism,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), p. 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. Waltz, Kenneth N., Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979), p. 91.Google Scholar

17. Taylor, Michael, Anarchy and Cooperation (New York: Wiley, 1976), p. 89.Google Scholar

18. Gilpin, Robert, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19. Keohane, , After Hegemony, p. 72.Google Scholar

20. Charles, Lipson, “International Collaboration in Economic and Security Affairs,” World Politics 37 (10 1984), p. 23.Google Scholar

21. Rosenau, James N., “Before Cooperation: Hegemons, Regimes, and Habit-Driven Actors in World Politics,” International Organization 40 (Autumn 1986), p. 876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. In a different context, David Mares synthesized the two approaches to develop decision rules for the behavior of subordinate states under conditions of regional hegemony. See Mares, David R., “Middle Powers Under Regional Hegemony: To Challenge or Acquiesce in Hegemonic Enforcement,” International Studies Quarterly 32 (12 1988), pp. 453–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Olson, Mancur, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

24. Riker, William H., The Theory of Political Coalitions (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962)Google Scholar. According to Riker's “size principle,” an increase in the number of players reduces the benefits to each. Thus, the larger the size of a coalition, the greater is the probability of defection.

25. Since the players calculate their payoffs before the actual distribution of gains has taken place, they must make decisions on the basis of limited information.

26. Simpson, John and Gregory, Frank, “West European Collaboration in Weapons Procurement,” Orbis 16 (Summer 1972), pp. 450–51.Google Scholar

27. Ruggie, John Gerard, “Collective Goods and Future International Cooperation,” American Political Science Review 66 (09 1972), p. 881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28. As discussed in the empirical section, the technological capabilities of two firms in a given area can be operationalized on an ordinal scale from 1 to 5. Thus, if the weaker player has a capabilities level of 2 and the stronger player a capabilities level of 4, the value of x will be 2/4, or 0.5.

29. The sensitivity coefficient α in the PAR model is similar to what Grieco calls coefficient κ, or the “coefficient for a state's sensitivity to gaps in payoffs.” According to Grieco, the level of κ is increased when (1) the partner is a long-term adversary rather than a long-term ally; (2) the issue involves security rather than economics; (3) the state's relative power has been on the decline rather than on the rise; (4) payoffs in the particular issue-area are readily convertible into new capabilities within that issue-area; and (5) capabilities and the influence associated with them are readily transferable to other issue-areas. See Grieco, , “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation,” p. 501.Google Scholar

30. Margaret, Sharp and Claire, Shearman, European Technological Collaboration (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987), p. 19.Google Scholar

31. Lorell, Mark A., Multinational Development of Large Aircraft: The European Experience (Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corporation, 07 1980), p. 78.Google Scholar

32. The relationship between the stronger player's net payoff and the size of the sensitivity coefficient can be demonstrated by calculating the optimum of the net payoff curve as a function of x. Differentiate y = κx – αe x with respect to x to obtain κ – αe x, and set the latter equal to 0. Thus, e x = κ/α. Taking the natural log of both sides gives x = In (κ/α), which is the apex of the curve. This formula means that as the value of α increases, the optimum of the net payoff curve decreases.

33. The concept of a firm's “strategic core” comes from Kathryn, Rudie Harrigan, Managing for Joint Venture Success (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1986), p. 38.Google Scholar

34. Interview with Jean-Claude de Rauly, Tyne and Larzac program director, Snecma, Paris, 7 July 1988.

35. Harrigan, , Managing for Joint Venture Success, p. 60.Google Scholar

36. Samuels, Richard J. and Whipple, Benjamin C., Defense Production and Industrial Development: The Case of Japanese Aircraft (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Japan Science and Technology Program, 1988), p. 16.Google Scholar

37. For a detailed discussion, see Teece, David J., The Multinational Corporation and the Resource Cost of International Technology Transfer (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1976).Google Scholar

38. For example, in developing the engine for the European fighter aircraft, the German partner (MTU) was particularly strong in the compressor section, the British partner (Rolls-Royce) in the thrust-generating section, and the Italian partner (Fiat Aviazione) in the gearbox section. I am grateful to Kenneth Freedman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for this information.

39. Hayward, , International Collaboration in Civil Aerospace, p. 199.Google Scholar

40. Jacques, Morisset, “MTU et Turbomeca prêts à lancer le MTM 385-R” (MTU and Turbomeca ready to launch the MTM 385-R), Air et Cosmos, no. 1088, March 1986, p. 45.Google Scholar

41. Bivens, Karen K. and Lovell, Enid B., Joint Ventures with Foreign Partners (New York: National Industrial Conference Board, 1966), p. 21.Google Scholar

42. Hayward, , International Collaboration in Civil Aerospace, p. 194.Google Scholar

43. Ibid., p. 195.

44. For two seminal works on “satisficing” behavior in organizational decision making, see James, March and Herbert, Simon, Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1958)Google Scholar; and Richard, Cyert and James, March, Behavioral Theory of the Firm (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1963).Google Scholar

45. Herrnstein, Richard J. and Mazur, James E., “Making Up Our Minds: A New Model of Economic Behavior,” The Sciences, November–December 1987, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar

46. Omestad, Thomas, “Selling Off America,” Foreign Policy 76 (Fall 1989), pp. 135–36.Google Scholar

47. See Axelrod, , The Evolution of Cooperation, p. 12.Google Scholar

48. For a detailed discussion of side-payments, see Luce, R. Duncan and Raiffa, Howard, Games and Decisions: Introduction and Critical Survey (New York: Wiley, 1957), pp. 168–69.Google Scholar

49. Harrigan, , Managing for Joint Venture Success, p. 129.Google Scholar

50. De, Gaulle, cited in Robert, Gilpin, France in the Age of the Scientific State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1968), p. 377.Google Scholar

51. Harrigan, , Managing for Joint Venture Success, p. 49.Google Scholar

52. Putnam, Robert D., “Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The Logic of Two-Level Games,” International Organization 42 (Summer 1988), pp. 427–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. Nau, Henry R., “Collective Responses to R&D Problems in Western Europe, 1955–1958 and 1968–1973,” International Organization 29 (Summer 1975), pp. 617–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Lorell, , Multinational Development of Large Aircraft, p. 78.Google Scholar

55. Bernard, Udis, “Lessons from Aerospace: The Prospects for Rationalization in NATO,” Orbis 25 (Spring 1981), p. 181.Google Scholar

56. Interview with General Pierre, Gallois (retired), French air force, Paris, 29 July 1988.Google Scholar

57. Interview with Peter, Kania, Alpha Jet project manager, Dornier, Friedrichshafen, West Germany, 19 January 1988.Google Scholar

58. “Dornier-Dassault/Bréguet TA-501,” Flugzeug Biographien (Aircraft biographies), vol. 4 (Steinbach am Wörthsee: Luftfahrt-Verlag Walter Zuerl, 1974), p. 3.Google Scholar

59. Siegfried, Haller, “Schul- und Luftnahunterstützungsflugzeug Alpha Jet: Eine deutsch-französische Gemeinschaftsentwicklung” (Alpha Jet trainer and close-air-support air-craft: A German-French codevelopment), Jahrbuch der Wehrtechnik (Defense technology year-book), Folge 7 (Darmstadt: Wehr und Wissen Verlag, 1973), p. 74.Google Scholar

60. Interview with Raymond, Cleiss, head of the contracts department, Dornier, 18 May 1988.Google Scholar

61. Interview with Ingbert, Leypoldt, head of the Alpha Jet program office, Dornier, 10 May 1988.Google Scholar

62. Interview with Fritz, Hoffert, former head of the aircraft division, Dornier, 17 May 1988.Google Scholar

63. Ibid.

64. Jean, Cuny and Pierre, Leyvastre, Les avions Bréguet, 1940–1971 (The Bréguet airplanes) (Paris: Editions Larivière, 1971), p. 297.Google Scholar

65. Interview with General Pierre Gallois, 29 July 1988.

66. Interview with Fritz Hoffert, 17 May 1988.

67. Interview with André, Maurin, engineer on the Alpha Jet project, Dassault, Toulouse, France, 25 July 1988.Google Scholar

68. Interview with Edmund, Mahler, engineer on the Alpha Jet project, Dornier, 13 April 1988.Google Scholar

69. Interview with Karl-Heinz, Heilmann, procurement official, air armaments division, Ministry of Defense, Bonn, 21 June 1988.Google Scholar

70. Interview with Horst, Assmann, liason engineer on the Alpha Jet project, Dornier, 8 March 1988.Google Scholar

71. Interview with Oberst, Pöckelmann, member of the Luftwaffe operations staff, Ministry of Defense, Bonn, 8 December 1987.Google Scholar

72. Interview with Raymond Cleiss, 18 May 1988.

73. Interview with Jacques, Bonnet, general technical director, Dassault, St. Cloud, France, 2 May 1988.Google Scholar

74. Interview with André, Lejolivet, commercial director, Dassault, Vaucressons, France, 5 July 1988.Google Scholar

75. Interview with Jacques Bonnet, 2 May 1988.

76. Lars, Benecke, Ulrich, Krafft, and Friedhelm, Meyer zu Natrup, “Franco–West German Technological Cooperation,” Survival 28 (05–06 1986), p. 237.Google Scholar

77. Hernu, , cited in “Defense Ministers Review Future Fighter,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9 07 1984, p. 22.Google Scholar

78. “Bonn hofft auf Einlenken frankreichs” (Bonn hopes for French concession), Süd-deutsche Zeitung, 30 July 1985.Google Scholar

79. Fitchmüller, , cited in “Armaments Directors Refine EFA Options,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 28 05 1984, p. 18.Google Scholar

80. “Frankreich und das europäische Jagdflugzeug” (France and the European fighter), Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 22 June 1985.Google Scholar

81. Hernu, cited in Ibid.

82. Wörner, , cited in “Projekt-Poker mit Paris” (Project poker with Paris), Wirtschaftswoche, no. 32, 2 August 1985.Google Scholar

83. Interview with Gerhard, Kannemüller, head of the aircraft division, Dornier, 18 May 1988.Google Scholar

84. “Dassault fühlt sich allein stark genug” (Dassault feels strong enough on its own), Süddeutsche Zeitung, 18 September 1985.Google Scholar

85. Interview with Walter, Schütze, secretary-general. Study Group on Franco-German Relations, Institut Français des Relations Internationales, Paris, 18 July 1988.Google Scholar

86. Gerd, Kolbe, “Unter Brüdern: Schwierige Rüstungskooperation zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich” (Among brothers: Difficult arms collaboration between Germany and France), Capital, 1 October 1985.Google Scholar

87. Interview with Ulrich, Bewerunge, head of the air armaments division, Ministry of Defense, Bonn, 23 June 1988.Google Scholar

88. James, Sarazin, “Dassault: Le péché d'orgueil” (Dassault: The sin of pride), L'Express, 23 September 1988, pp. 31–33.Google Scholar

89. Trevor, Taylor, “European Armaments Cooperation: Competition for Resources,” in Brassey's Defence Yearbook 1987 (London: Brassey's Defence Publishers, 1987), p. 158.Google Scholar

90. Grieco, , “Anarchy and the Limits of Cooperation,” p. 487.Google Scholar

91. Morrocco, John D., “Revised FS-X Pact Eases Trade, Technology Concerns,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 8 05 1989, p. 18.Google Scholar

92. The logical next step in the research program would be to examine trilateral collaboration. Simple game-theoretical models of strategic triangles suggest that adding one more player greatly increases the number of potential interactions. See Lowell, Dittmer, “The Strategic Triangle: An Elementary Game-Theoretical Analysis,” World Politics 33 (07 1981). pp. 485–515.Google Scholar