In today's global electronics industry, lead firms and suppliers of key components capture greater value than contract manufacturers. Using data from the Taiwanese Stock Exchange from 2002 to 2009, this research aims to examine if the pattern of value capture in the global electronics industry holds for Taiwan. We also test the impacts of research and development (R&D) spending on firm profitability and returns. Our results show that lead firms and component suppliers capture higher gross profits from their R&D spending, compared to contract manufacturers. However, contract manufacturers have higher return on equity. Component suppliers' return to R&D as measured by return on equity is lower than contract manufacturers. These findings suggest that component suppliers capture higher profits as lead firms do, but the cost of R&D for component suppliers is so high that their returns on investment are not as great as contract manufacturers. This also suggests that Taiwanese component suppliers are unable to create entry barriers or gain pricing power from their R&D investments. © 2013 © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

This research asks who captures the greatest value in the global electronics industry by testing the concept of the "smiling curve", which predicts that the greatest value is captured by upstream and downstream firms, and the lowest value is captured in the middle of the value chain. We test the concept using the Electronic Business 300 data-set for 2000-2005. We find that lead firms and component suppliers earn higher gross margins and net margins compared to contract manufacturers. However, the differences are minimal for return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). We also find that active component suppliers gain higher profits than passive component suppliers. These findings suggest that the smiling curve is right if value is defined in terms of gross margins, but the cost of sustaining a position on either end of the curve is so high that returns on investment are similar across the curve. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

In today's global electronics industry, innovation is carried out by various value chain participants, including brand-name manufacturers (sometimes called lead firms), contract manufacturers and component suppliers, but there is little understanding of who benefits most from innovation in such networks. This research examines empirically the relationship of R&D spending and location in the value chain (lead vs. non-lead firms) to firm performance in the global electronics industry by using the Electronic Business 300 data set for 2000-2005. Our results show that firms spending more on R&D have higher gross profits, but do not have higher return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA). There is a strong positive relationship between lead firms and performance as measured by gross profit, ROE and ROA, but the relationship between lead firms and gross profit becomes insignificant when the interaction term of R&D and lead firm is included in the analysis. Finally, lead firm status has a positive interaction effect on the relationship between R&D and gross profit. These findings suggest that the relationship of R&D to performance is mixed, but that lead firms can capture higher value (gross profit) from R&D than contract manufacturers and component suppliers. © 2009 Taylor & Francis.

Understanding the earth as a system requires integrating many forms of data from multiple fields. Builders and funders of the cyberinfrastructure designed to enable open data sharing in the geosciences risk a key failure mode: What if geoscientists do not use the cyberinfrastructure to share, discover and reuse data? In this study, we report a baseline assessment of engagement with the NSF EarthCube initiative, an open cyberinfrastructure effort for the geosciences. We find scientists perceive the need for cross-disciplinary engagement and engage where there is organizational or institutional support. However, we also find a possibly imbalanced involvement between cyber and geoscience communities at the outset, with the former showing more interest than the latter. This analysis highlights the importance of examining fields and disciplines as stakeholders to investments in the cyberinfrastructure supporting science.