Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Geographic proximity and university–industry interaction: the case of Mexico

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyses whether geographic proximity favours specific channels of university–industry interaction when firms collaborate with universities and with government research centres. Our study also provides insights regarding the relationship between the associated channel and the role of firms’ absorptive capacities. Our results show that firms with higher levels of absorptive capacities tend to interact more independently of their location. Additionally, interaction with non-local universities generally includes the transfer of codified forms of knowledge, while links with local universities includes more tacit forms of knowledge. Policy implications derived from this analysis focus on fostering interaction at local and non-local levels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In this paper we use PRO to refer to universities and public research centers. We are aware that these organizations may differ in relation to their role in the NSI and the knowledge production process, as well as in other aspects; however, in the Mexican case, researchers working at these two types of organizations confront a set of common incentives that contribute to explaining why and how they tend to interact (Dutrénit et al. 2010).

  2. This study is part of an international research project titled “Interactions between universities and firms: searching for paths to support the changing role of universities in the South”, sponsored by IDRC (Canada) and developed under the umbrella of the Catching-up Project. A survey was conducted in most of the countries using what was called the Roks researcher questionnaire and the Roks firm questionnaire.

  3. The Roks firms questionnaire was designed by the international research project titled “Interactions between universities and firms: searching for paths to support the changing role of universities in the South”, sponsored by IDRC (Canada).

  4. The program of sectoral funds is composed of 20 funds operated in conjunction with some ministries or other governmental organizations to promote the development and consolidation of STI capabilities according to the strategic needs of each participating sector. It includes an innovation fund with the Ministry of Economy.

  5. Northwest, northeast, east, central, southeast, and southwest.

  6. We used INEGI’s classification for 2002 and 2009, which identifies that micro and small firms employ between 1 and 50 employees, medium firms employ between 51 and 250 employees, and large firms employ more than 250 employees.

  7. Laursen and Salter (2004) argue that management factors, such as the extent to which firms rely on different types of information sources, are important drivers of collaboration and derive benefits from academia. They built a variable that reflects firms’ search strategies. From a pool of 15 information sources, excluding ‘universities’ and ‘within the firm’, they performed a factor analysis using principal components and obtained two factors for openness strategy.

  8. The common explained variance by these factors is 66.1 %. See Table 4 in the Appendix for a better description of the factor analysis.

  9. Table 5 in the Appendix presents the rotated matrix for channels of interaction for firms.

References

  • Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R., & Simpson, H. (2007). University research and the location of business R&D. The Economic Journal, 117, C114–C141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albuquerque, E., Suzigan, W., Cário, S., Fernandes, A., Shima, W., & Britt, J. (2008). An investigation on the contribution of universities and research institutes for maturing the Brazilian innovation system: Preliminary results. Mexico City: Globelics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Michie, J. (1995). The globalization of technology: A new taxonomy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 121–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arocena, R., & Sutz, J. (2005). Latin American universities: From an original revolution to an uncertain transition. Higher Education, 50, 573–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 13(6), 559–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arza, V. (2010). Channels, benefits and risks of public–private interactions for knowledge transfer: A conceptual framework inspired by Latin America. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 473–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arza, V., & Vazquez, C. (2010). Interactions between public research organisations and industry in Argentina: Analysis of channels and benefits for researchers and firms. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 499–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, B., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34, 1173–1190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beise, M., & Stahl, H. (1999). Public research and industrial innovations in Germany. Research Policy, 28, 397–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2003). Technology transfer and the academic department: Who participates and why?. Copenhagen: DRUID.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, K., D’Este, P., & Neely, A. (2011). Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 40(1), 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomström, M., & Kokko, A. (2003). The economics of foreign direct investment incentives. Bundesbank-Conference, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Boardman, P. C., & Ponomariov, B. L. (2009). University researchers working with private companies. Technovation, 29, 142–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolli, T., & Somogyi, F. (2011). Do competitively acquired funds induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy, 40, 136–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assesment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braunerhjelm, P. (2008). Specialization of regions and universities: The new versus the old. Industry and Innovation, 15, 253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 975–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broström, A. (2010). Working with distant researchers—Distance and content in university–industry interaction. Research Policy, 39(10), 1311–1320. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casas, R., de Gortari, R., & Luna, M. (2000). University, knowledge production and collaborative patterns with industry. In M. E. Cimoli (Ed.), developing innovation systems: Mexico in a global context. London: Continium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2010). Organizing links with science: Cooperate or contract? A project-level analysis. Research Policy, 39(7), 882–892. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W., Nelson, R., & Walsh, J. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university–business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 335–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2012). Best channels of academia–industry interaction for long-term benefit. Research Policy, 41, 1666–1682. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2010). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutrénit, G., & Arza, V. (2010). Channels and benefits of interactions between public research organizations and industry: Comparing four Latin American countries. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 541–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., & Torres, A. (2010). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and benefits for both agents: Evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 513–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eom, B.-Y., & Lee, K. (2009). Modes of knowledge transfer from PROs and firm performance: The case of Korea. Seoul Journal of Economics, 22(4), 499–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. J., de Mello, M. C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards ‘meta-innovation’ in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eun, J.-H. (2009). China’s horizontal university–industry linkage: Where from and where to? Seoul Journal of Economics, 22(4), 445–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrizio, K. (2006). The use of university research in firm innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open innovation; researching a new paradigm (pp. 134–160). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994). The geographi of innovation. Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy, 35, 309–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fritsch, M., & Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-university cooperation and the role of public research institutions in regional innovation systems. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., Araujo, V., & Mascarini, S. (2013). The role of geographic proximity for university–industry linkages in Brazil: An emprical analysis. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19(3), 433–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Aracil, A., & Fernandez de Lucio, I. (2008). University–industry interactions in a peripheral European region: An empirical study of Valencia firms. Regional Studies, 42, 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2005). Cluster absorptive capacity: Why do some firms forge ahead and others lag behind? European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(3), 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages? An under-explored question in a hot policy debate. Research Policy, 38(6), 906–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göransson, B., Maharajh, R., & Schmoch, U. (2009). New activities of universities in transfer and extension: Multiple requirements and manifold solutions. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 157–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanel, P., & St-Pierre, M. (2006). Industry–university collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4), 485–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. (1978). Dummy endogenous variables in a simultaneous equation system. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intarakumnerd, P., & Schiller, M. (2009). University–industry linkages in Thailand: Successes, failures and lessons learned for other developing countries. Mexico City: Globelics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. M., T., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidence by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salters, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 45(4), 507–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33, 1201–1215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L. (2011). University commercialization policies and their implementation in the Netherlands and the United States. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 437–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Anthem Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maculan, A. M., & Carvalho, J. M. (2009). University start-ups for breaking lock-ins of the Brazilian economy. Science and Public Policy, 36(2), 109–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E., & Lee, J. Y. (1996). The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Research Policy, 25(7), 1047–1058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, K. (2004). The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2013). University–industry linkages: What are the determinants of distance in collaborations? Papers in Regional Science, 92(4), 715–739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation system. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, M. J., & Grantham, C. E. (2000). The virtual incubator: Managing human capital in the software industry. Research Policy, 29(2), 125–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orozco, J., & Ruiz, K. (2010). Quality of interactions between public research organisations and firms: Lessons from Costa Rica. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 527–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.

  • Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2009). The two faces of collaboration: Impacts of university–industry relations on public research. Industrial and Corporate Change, 18(6), 1033–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions. Research Policy, 31(7), 1163–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, M. D., & Saparito, P. A. (2003). The firm’s trust in its university partner as a key mediator in advancing knowledge and new technologies. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(3), 362–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M., & Frohlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J. M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283–1295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, W., & Kenney, M. (2007). Universities, clusters and innovation systems: The case of Seoul. Korea. World Development, 35(6), 991–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, G. (2002). Innovative businesses and the science and technology base: An analysis using CIS3 data report for the Department of Trade and Industry. London: DTI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31, 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organizations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37, 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, A., Dutrénit, G., Sampedro, J. L., & Becerra, N. (2011). What are the factors driving university–industry linkages in latecomer firms: Evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 38(1), 31–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vessuri, H. (1998). La Investigación y Desarrollo en las Universidades de América Latina. Caracas: Fondo Editorial FINTEC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We want to acknowledge the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) for providing financial support. This study is part of an international research project titled “Interactions between universities and firms: searching for paths to support the changing role of universities in the South”. We have benefited enormously from comments provided by two anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sobey School of Business, Saint Mary’s University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 3C3, Canada

    Claudia De Fuentes

  2. Economics and Management of Innovation Program, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco, Foro Consultivo Científico y Tecnológico, Calzada del Hueso 1100, CP 04960, col. Villa Quietud Coyoacán, Mexico

    Gabriela Dutrénit

Authors
  1. Claudia De Fuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriela Dutrénit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Claudia De Fuentes.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4 Channels of interaction—firms
Full size table
Table 5 Firms’ openness strategy
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Fuentes, C., Dutrénit, G. Geographic proximity and university–industry interaction: the case of Mexico. J Technol Transf 41, 329–348 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9364-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9364-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation