Perceived benefits of principal-agent relation

stems from a growing interest by Swedish researchers and firms to intensify research collaboration in the form of scientific mobility and co-authorship with Chinese partners. Initiatives to form new innovation and research partnerships with Chinese scholars are visible at macro (e.g. government), meso (e.g. funding agencies) and micro (e.g. universities, research institutes, firms, municipalities) levels through different policy instruments. One such instrument is international cooperation for science and technology.

At the national level, Swedish science and technology cooperation with China is part of a broader research and innovation policy. For example, the Swedish government’s research and innovation policy focuses on enhancing the nation’s international competitiveness through the advancement of the quality of research in Sweden which is expected to contribute to the development of the Swedish industry and society as a whole (Government Bill, 2012). From a general perspective, the Swedish government is increasingly engaging in cooperation with countries like China and Brazil to intensify Swedish competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. It tasks funding agencies to provide input and ideas on how to ‘stay ahead’ and strengthens Sweden’s competitiveness through innovation strategies.

cooperation. This can have implications for program formulation and implementation and for the funding agencies’ perceptions of academic researchers and their needs.

Funding agencies in the context of Sweden are more than grant providers and interpreters of government’s directives through the implementation of programs.

They are also transmitters and catalysts of opportunity-driven behavior. In their dual role as principal and agent, depending on the level of interaction and the functions they serve, funding agencies create opportunities for researchers to perform tasks on behalf of the principal (ministries or funding agencies).

Funding agencies can also serve as experts to policy issues; therefore, they might directly or indirectly influence policy. The principal or funding agency provides financial resources through calls for proposals but they depend on the agent’s (researchers) skills and expertise to realize the principal’s interests. By distributing grants, the funding agency serving now as principal in relation to research performers prompts researchers’ work by enabling them to participate in government-funded programs. One implication is that financial incentives such as research funding that the principal (funding and implementing actors) provides attracts business-like individuals (researchers and companies) and might encourage a opportunity-driven behavior.

7.3.7.1 Opportunity-driven behavior

Some of the core reasons for engaging in internationalization activities are rooted in economic rationales (e.g. internationalization is oriented towards profit maximization). For instance, as discussed earlier, Altbach (2012, p. 1), argues that “some universities look at internationalization as a contribution to the financial “bottom line,” in an era of financial cutbacks.” In addition, from the firm perspective, scholars argue that given the self-interest rationales of social actors or market competition, decision makers in firms seek the maximization of profits (Buckley and Casson, 2009).

A number of respondents across the three case studies have associated internationalization or international research cooperation with entrepreneurial opportunities. My interpretation of the interviews conducted with researchers at universities and research institutes has led me to conclude that some interview subjects view themselves as “brokers,” helping Swedish companies bring their

products out in the market. A number of individuals framed internationalization as a business transaction. Thus, different individuals perceive internationalization instruments such as cross-border research cooperation as business opportunities. Business opportunities include boosting national industry by helping Swedish companies access large markets, promoting product and technology export, bringing environmental solutions to other countries and helping SMEs to internationalize.

There were a number of individuals interviewed who discussed their personal ties to Brazil and China through their spouses who are citizens of those nations.

One Swedish business discussed his experience in Brazil as a long-term resident of that country which enabled the individual to learn the language and to gain significant knowledge of the Brazilian market. In a few other cases, researchers interviewed were themselves citizens of either China or Brazil. In all of these instances, individuals were also driven by personal motivations when applying for government-sponsored scientific cooperation programs with Brazil and China. However, based on the interview statements from respondents, I conclude that helping Swedish companies to access foreign markets was one of the most important motivations for participating in the Eco-Innovation Cooperation programs with China and Brazil.

In spite of the challenges associated with forging domestic and international research cooperation, actors in research organizations tend to respond to funding opportunities. They use these opportunities to affirm their role within a domestic region but also across borders. For instance, individuals use their existing networks and bring these existing connections into the context of government-sponsored research programs. Thus, government-funded research programs attract opportunity-driven entrepreneurship²¹. Opportunity-oriented entrepreneurship views business as an opportunity rather than primarily a need to earn an income. The following comments by a Swedish professor who received government funding for his research project with Brazil suggest that academic researchers might play two different roles. It also shows that there is a level of compromise or perceived trade-off between actively participating in research projects and meeting academic obligations (e.g. administrative, teaching, managing research projects) versus joining entrepreneurial activities.

21The distinction between the two terms originates in the 1980s (Williams, 2009) and it became popular with the adoption of these terms bythe Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) in 2001 (Reynolds, et al.

2002).

The interview account suggests that the scholar views himself as an academic. At the same time, the scholar is deeply involved in setting up a business in Brazil.

In the following example, the professor is behaving entrepreneurially by identifying external funding sources to perform his research activities which are linked to potential business opportunities in another country.

Yes, the cooperation has developed and we have rather good platform here to bring the companies from the X region to Rio… But on the other hand, for the region as X it is important that we have, that we start to learn to work internationally… So we want to help companies to get into the international market, teach them how to communicate and so on… Ah, I think it is just to learn and I am here (in Brazil) more and more. And it is also the fact that I am a scientist. It is different, I mean for maybe a person who is coming from a business background in Sweden. But on the other hand, it is not so easy for Swedish companies to be established here. (Professor, Swedish university, August 18 2014). (Interview no. 19).

Nevertheless, the interview shows that some individuals are continuously searching for and responding to new opportunities to expand their research networks; therefore, they take advantage of new collaboration projects. Given the context of Sweden, characterized by dependency on external funding (chapter 6), it is not surprising that such government-sponsored research cooperation programs intend to both forge linkages and increase Sweden’s competitive advantage in environmental technology. On the one hand there are specific environmental issues in Brazil (e.g. lack of waste management in certain regions). On the other hand, there are business-like individuals in academia, who have personal connections or research connections with particular countries in addition to regional networks at home. These individuals are receptive to new government-funded research cooperation programs and view these initiatives as business opportunities. Thus, they respond accordingly.

Drawing on the principal-agent perspective, by applying to government funding and by accepting the terms and conditions of the research grant, the researcher and the funding agency engage in a social exchange where their roles are well defined. Regardless of their awareness of such interaction, both parties are enablers of each other’s functions and practices in the context of government-sponsored research cooperation mechanisms. This relationship reinforces an opportunity-driven behavior. Hence, academics are not only academics,