Abstract
Gatekeepers have been studied as knowledge mediators for companies, institutions, and regions. This paper contributes to the discussion of the effects of the presence of gatekeepers on regional inventive performance. Specifically, the article tests whether there is a causal effect of the presence of gatekeepers on the number of patents per capita, on high-tech patents, and on the degree of technological diversification or specialization. Based on a rich Brazilian microdatabase, we use the propensity matching score to infer causal effects without incurring bias stemming from selection. The main results show a causal effect running from the presence of gatekeepers to a higher number of patents per capita, to a higher number of high-tech patents and to a higher technological specialization level.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this case, despite the geographic nature of the data, the spatial dependence tests did not indicate the need to proceed with a spatial propensity score matching analysis.
References
Abadie, A., & Imbens, G. W. (2006). Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica, 74(1), 235–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x
Allen, T. J. (1984). Managing the flow of technology: Technology transfer and the dissemination of technological information within the R&D organization. MIT Press Books, 1.
Almus, M., & Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The effects of public R&D subsidies on firms’ innovation activities: The case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 21(2), 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500103288618918
Allen, T. J., & Cohen, S. I. (1969). Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12–19,. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391357
Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.
Antonioli, D., Marzucchi, A., & Montresor, S. (2014). Regional innovation policy and innovative behaviour: Looking for additional effects. European Planning Studies, 22(1), 64–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722977
Apa, R., De Noni, I., Orsi, L., & Sedita, S. R. (2018). Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions. Research Policy, 47(9), 1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.002Banerjee, A. V., Duflo, E., & Kremer, M. (2016). The influence of randomized controlled trials on development economics research and on development policy. The State of Economics, The State of the World, 482–488.
Bettencourt, L. M., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301–7306. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610172104
Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fiscal Studies, 2(4), 427–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2000.tb00031.x
Blundell, R., & Dias, M. C. (2009). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 565–640. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.44.3.565
Breschi, S., & Lenzi, C. (2015). The role of external linkages and gatekeepers for the renewal and expansion of US cities’ knowledge base, 1990–2004. Regional Studies, 49(5), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.954534
Broekel, T., & Mueller, W. (2018). Critical links in knowledge networks–What about proximities and gatekeeper organisations? Industry and Innovation, 25(10), 919–939. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1343130
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Harvard University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
Caliendo, M., & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
Caloffi, A., Freo, M., Ghinoi, S., Mariani, M., & Rossi, F. (2022). Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers. Research Policy, 51(6), 104535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104535
Cantner, U., Meder, A., & Ter Wal, A. L. (2010). Innovator networks and regional knowledge base. Technovation, 30(9–10), 496–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.04.002
Chaves, C. V., Rapini, M. S., Suzigan, W., & de A. Fernandes, A. C., Domingues, E., & Martins Carvalho, S. S. (2016). The contribution of universities and research institutes to Brazilian innovation system. Innovation and Development, 6(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2015.1056401
Chioma-Akalugo Ogwuike, P., Obinna Ogwuike, C., & Arouna, A. (2020). Impact of the adoption of technological innovation on the credit acquisition of rice farmers in Senegal: A propensity score matching technique. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, pp 1–11,. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2020.1855746
de Moraes Silva, D. R., Furtado, A. T., & Vonortas, N. S. (2018). University-industry R&D cooperation in Brazil: A sectoral approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(2), 285–315.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2726526
Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. Handbook of Development Economics, 4, 3895–3962. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-4471(07)04061-2
Duflo, E. (2020). Field experiments and the practice of policy. American Economic Review, 110(7), 1952–1973. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.110.7.1952
Dunning, T. (2008). Improving causal inference: Strengths and limitations of natural experiments. Political Research Quarterly, 61(2), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907306470
Dunning, T. (2012). Natural experiments in the social sciences: A design-based approach. Cambridge University Press.
Fleming, L., King, C., III., & Juda, A. I. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938–954. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0289
Françoso, M., & Vonortas, N. S. (2022). Gatekeepers in regional innovation networks: Evidence from an emerging economy. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09922-4
Garcia, R., Araújo, V., Mascarini, S., Santos, E. G., & Costa, A. R. (2020). How long-term university-industry collaboration shapes the academic productivity of research groups. Innovation, 22(1), 56–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1632711
Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008
Grillitsch, M., & Asheim, B. (2018). Place-based innovation policy for industrial diversification in regions. European Planning Studies, 26(8), 1638–1662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1484892
Graf, H. (2011). Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(1), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beq001
Graf, H., & Krüger, J. J. (2011). The performance of gatekeepers in innovator networks. Industry and Innovation, 18(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.528932
Gonçalves, E., de Oliveira, P. M., & Almeida, E. (2020). Spatial determinants of inventive capacity in Brazil: The role of inventor networks. Spatial Economic Analysis, 15(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2019.1637532
Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, pp. 89–126,. https://doi.org/10.2307/270949
Harada, T. (2003). Three steps in knowledge communication: The emergence of knowledge transformers. Research Policy, 32(10), 1737–1751. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00060-X
He, J., & Fallah, M. H. (2014). Dynamics of inventor networks and the evolution of technology clusters. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2174–2200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12007
Katz, R., & Tushman, M. (1981). An investigation into the managerial roles and career paths of gatekeepers and project supervisors in a major R&D facility. R&D Management, 11, 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1981.tb00458.x
Kauffeld-Monz, M., & Fritsch, M. (2013). Who are the knowledge brokers in regional systems of innovation? A Multi-Actor Network Analysis. Regional Studies, 47(5), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343401003713365
Kelly, P., Kranzberg, M. (1975). Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge. Atlanta, GA: Advanced Technology and Science Studies Group, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Le Gallo, J., & Plunket, A. (2020). Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels. Research Policy, 49(5), 103981. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103981
Li, X., Zhao, D., & Hu, X. (2020). Gatekeepers in knowledge transfer between science and technology: An exploratory study in the area of gene editing. Scientometrics, 124, 1261–1277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03537-y
Lissoni, F. (2010). Academic inventors as brokers. Research Policy, 39(7), 843–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.005
Lobo, J., & Strumsky, D. (2008). Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(3), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2007.07.005
Macdonald, S., & Williams, C. (1994). The survival of the gatekeeper. Research Policy, 23(2), 123–132.
Marzucchi, A., Antonioli, D., & Montresor, S. (2015). Industry–research co‐operation within and across regional boundaries. What does innovation policy add?. Papers in Regional Science, 94(3), 499–524. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12079
Meissner, D., & Shmatko, N. (2017). “Keep open”: The potential of gatekeepers for the aligning universities to the new Knowledge Triangle. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.012
Miguélez, E., & Moreno, R. (2013). Skilled labour mobility, networks and knowledge creation in regions: A panel data approach. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(1), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0526-0
Miguélez, E., & Moreno, R. (2015). Knowledge flows and the absorptive capacity of regions. Research Policy, 44(4), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.01.016
Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654178
Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Malipiero, A. (2012). Absorptive capacity and localized spillovers: Focal firms as technological gatekeepers in industrial districts. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2), 429–462. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr053
Nakamura, R., & Paul, C. J. M. (2019). Measuring agglomeration. Edward Elgar Publishing.
Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. (2006). Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.522
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1984). Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 79, 516–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1984.10478078
Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. (1985a). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985b). The bias due to incomplete matching. Biometrics, pp. 103–116,. https://doi.org/10.2307/2530647
Rychen, F., & Zimmermann, J. B. (2008). Clusters in the global knowledge-based economy: Knowledge gatekeepers and temporary proximity. Regional Studies, 42(6), 767–776. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400802088300
Sekhon, J. S. (2011). Multivariate and propensity score matching software with automated balance optimization. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 7, 1–52. Doi: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v042.i07
Strumsky, D., & Thill, J. C. (2013). Profiling US metropolitan regions by their social research networks and regional economic performance. Journal of Regional Science, 53(5), 813–833. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12048
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018
Tushman, M. L. (1977). Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 587–605,. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392402
Vermeulen, B., & Pyka, A. (2018). The role of network topology and the spatial distribution and structure of knowledge in regional innovation policy: A calibrated agent-based model study. Computational Economics, 52(3), 773–808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-017-9776-3
Whelan, E., Teigland, R., Donnellan, B., & Golden, W. (2010). How internet technologies impact information flows in R&D: Reconsidering the technological gatekeeper. R&d Management, 40(4), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2010.00610.x
Wanzenboeck, I., Scherngell, T., & Brenner, T. (2014). Embeddedness of regions in European knowledge networks: A comparative analysis of inter-regional R&D collaborations, co-patents and co-publications. The Annals of Regional Science, 53(2), 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-013-0588-7
Wordofa, M. G., Hassen, J. Y., Endris, G. S., Aweke, C. S., Moges, D. K., & Rorisa, D. T. (2021). Adoption of improved agricultural technology and its impact on household income: A propensity score matching estimation in eastern Ethiopia. Agriculture and Food Security, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-020-00278-2
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Brazilian support agencies such as the National Scientific and Technological Development Council - CNPq (Grant no. 425318/2018-4 and 309632/2018-8), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel – CAPES (Grant no. 001 and 8887.493251/2020-0), and the Federal University of Juiz de Fora. We are also grateful to INPI for providing us access to patent data, and the Economics Research Laboratory (ECONS) from UFJF for technical support. The usual disclaimer applies.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gonçalves, E., Rocha, A. & Reis, R. The key to knowledge: evaluating the role of gatekeepers on regional inventive performance. J Technol Transf 48, 1274–1299 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09967-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09967-5