The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 741–765

How does accessibility to knowledge sources affect the innovativeness of corporations?—evidence from Sweden

Original Paper


This paper studies the innovative performance of 130 Swedish corporations during 1993–1994. The number of patents per corporation is explained as a function of the accessibility to internal and external knowledge sources of each corporation. A coherent way of handling accessibility measures, within and between corporations located across regions, is introduced. We examine the relative importance of intra- and interregional knowledge sources from 1) the own corporation, 2) other corporations, and 3) universities. The results show that there is a positive relationship between the innovativeness of a corporation and its accessibility to university researchers within regions where own research groups are located. Good accessibility among the corporation's research units does not have any significant effects on the likelihood of generation of patents. Instead the size of the R&D staff of the corporation seems to be the most important internal factor. There is no indication that intraregional accessibility to other corporations' research is important for a corporation's innovativeness. However, there is some indication of reduced likelihood for own corporate patenting when other corporate R&D is located in nearby regions. This may reflect a negative effect from competition for R&D labor.


Accessibility Private and university R&D Patents Spillovers Sweden 

JEL Classification

O33 H41 R11 


  1. Åberg P (2000) Three essays on flows-trade, commuting and foreign direct investment, Licentiate thesis, Infrastructure and Planning, Royal Institute of Technology: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs Z, Audretsch D, Feldman M (1992) Real effects of academic research: Comment. Am Econ Rev 82(1):363–367Google Scholar
  3. Acs Z, Audretsch D, Feldman M (1994) R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Rev Econ Stat 76(2):336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Almeida P, Kogut (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manage Sci 45(7):905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersson M, Ejermo O (2004) Sectoral knowledge production in Swedish functional regions 1993–1999. In: Karlsson C, Flensburg P, Hörte S-Å (eds) Forthcoming in knowledge spillovers and knowledge management. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson M, Karlsson C (2004) The role of accessibility for regional innovation systems. In: Karlsson C, Flensburg P, Hörte S-Å (eds) Knowledge spillovers and knowledge management, Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  7. Anselin L, Acs Z, Varga A (1997) Local geographical spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42:422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Anselin L, Acs Z, Varga A (2000) Geographic spillovers and university research: a spatial econometric approach. Growth Change 31:501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud 29(1):155–173Google Scholar
  10. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Rev Ind Org 11:253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Autant-Bernard C (2001) The geography of knowledge spillovers and technological proximity. Econ Innov New Technology 10:237–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beckmann M (2000) Interurban knowledge networks. In: Batten D (ed) Learning, innovation and urban evolution. Kluwer Academic, London, pp 127–135Google Scholar
  13. Braunerhjelm P (1998) Varför leder inte ökade FoU-satsningar till mer högteknologisk export? Ekon Samf Tidskr 2:113–123Google Scholar
  14. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Localized knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux—knowledge tacitness reconsidered. Pap Reg Sci 80:255–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2005) Mobility and social networks: localised knowledge spillovers revisited, Annales d’ Economie et de Statistique, 2005 (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  16. Cameron G (1998) Innovation and growth: a survey of the empirical evidence, Mimeo. Based on Ch. 2 of PhD thesis, University of OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity—a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desrochers P (1998) On the abuse of patents as economic indicators. Q J Austrian Econ 1(4):51–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Echeverri-Carroll E, Brennan W (1999) Are innovation networks bounded by proximity? In: Fischer M, Suarez-Villa L, Steiner M (eds) Innovation, networks and localities. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp. 28–49Google Scholar
  20. Ejermo O (2004) Productivity Spillovers of R&D in Swedish Industries and Firms, Jönköping International Business School: Jönköping, Chapter in PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  21. Ejermo O, Karlsson C (2004) Spatial inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorship, Jönköping International Business School: Jönköping, Chapter in PhD ThesisGoogle Scholar
  22. European Patent Office (2002) Bibliography of granted European patents on DVD-rom. EPO, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43:409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fischer MM (1999) The innovation process and network activities of manufacturing firms. In: Fischer MM, Suarez-Villa L, Steiner M (eds) Innovation, networks and localities. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Fischer MM, Varga A (2003) Spatial knowledge spillovers and university research: evidence from austria, Ann Reg Sci 37(2):303–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fischer MM, Suarez-Villa L, Steiner M (1999) Innovation, networks and localities. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Fors G, Svensson R (1994) R&D in Swedish Multinational Corporations, WP No. 406, Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. Fors G, Svensson R (2002) R&D and Foreign Sales in Swedish Multinationals: a Simultaneous Relationship? Res Policy 31:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Geroski P (1995) Do spillovers undermine the incentive to innovate? In: Dowrick S (ed) Economic approaches to innovation. Edward Elgar, Aldershot, pp. 76–97Google Scholar
  30. Greene WH (2003) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  31. Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J Econ 10:92–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 28:1661–1707Google Scholar
  33. Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers, Scand J Econ 94:S29–S47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hugosson P (2001) Interregional business travel and the economics of business interaction. PhD thesis, Jönköping International Business School: JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaffe A (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79(5):957–970Google Scholar
  36. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108:577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johansson B (2004) Parsing the menagerie of agglomeration and network externalities. In: Karlsson C, Johansson B, Stough RR (eds) Industrial clusters and inter-film networks. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  38. Johansson B, Klaesson J (2001) Förhandsanalys av förändringar i transport-och bebyggelsesystem, MimeographGoogle Scholar
  39. Johansson B, Klaesson J, Olsson M (2002) Time distances and labor market integration. Pap Reg Sci 81(3):305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kleinknecht A, van Montfort K, Brouwer E (2002) The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators. Econ Innov New Technol 11(2):109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy, Washington, D.C., pp 275–305Google Scholar
  42. Krugman P, Obstfeld M (2000) International economics—theory and policy. Addison-Wesley, Redding, MAGoogle Scholar
  43. Leonard D, Sensiper S (1998) The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. Calif Manage Rev 40(3):112–131Google Scholar
  44. Lorenzen M (1996) Communicating trust in industrial districts, mimeographGoogle Scholar
  45. Lundvall B-ÅE (1992) Lundvall, National systems of innovation—towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Biddles Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Maillat D, Kebir L (2001) The learning region and territorial production systems. In: Johansson, B, Karlsson C, Stough R (eds) Theories of endogenous regional growth—lessons for regional policies. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 255–277Google Scholar
  47. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Maurseth PB, Verspagen B (2002) Knowledge spillovers in Europe. A patent citation analysis. Scand J Econ 104(4):531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Michel J, Bettels B (2001) Patent citation analysis—a closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics 51(1):185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Møen J (2000) Is mobility of technical personnel a source of R&D spillovers? NBER Working Paper No. 7834, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER): Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  51. Mowery DC, Rosenberg N (1998) Paths of innovation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. NUTEK (1998) Små företag och regioner i Sverige 1998—med ett tillväxtperspektiv för hela landet, B1998:10, NUTEK: StockholmGoogle Scholar
  53. Putnam J, Evenson RE (1994) Inter-sectoral technology flows: Estimates from a patent concordance with an application to Italy, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  54. Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94(5):1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scherer FM (1982) Interindustry technology flows and productivity growth. Rev Econ Stat LXIV:627–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. STATA Webpages (2003) What if my raw count data contain evidence of both over-dispersion and “excess zeros”? Internet webpage:, 2003, Accessed January 9th 2004
  57. Statistics Sweden (1997) Sveriges koncerner. Statistics Sweden, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  58. Svensk Författningssamling (1975) Aktiebolagslag, 1975:1385. Fritzes, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  59. Terleckyj N (1974) Effects of R&D on productivity growth of industries: an exploratory study. National Planning Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  60. Terleckyj NE (1980) Direct and indirect effects of industrial research and development on the productivity growth of industries. In: Kendrick J, Vaccara B (eds) New Developments in Productivity Measurements Analysis, NBER Studies in Income and Wealth, no. 44. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  61. Thompson P, Fox-Kean M (2003) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: a reassessment. In: WP, Department of Social and Decision Sciences. Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  62. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (1997) Issues in assessing the effect of interindustry R&D spillovers. Econ Syst Res 9:331–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Verspagen B (1997) Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: estimates from the European and US patent office databases. Econ Syst Res 9:47–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Verspagen B, van Moergastel T, Slabbers M (1994) MERIT concordance table: IPC-ISIC (rev. 2), MERIT Research Memorandum 2/94-008: MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  65. Vuong QH (1989) Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica 57:307–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vuori S (1997) Interindustry technology flows and productivity in Finnish manufacturing. Econ Syst Res 9:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weibull JW (1980) On the numerical measurement of accessibility. Environ Plan A 12:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whitehead AN (1926) Science and the modern world: Lowell lectures 1925. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Wolff EN (1997) Spillovers, linkages and technical change. Econ Syst Res 9:9–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wolff EN, Nadiri MI (1993) Spillover effects, linkage structure and research and development. Struct Chang Econ Dyn 4:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong J (1998a) Geographically localized knowledge: Spillovers or markets? Econ Inq XXXVI:65–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer MB (1998b) Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88 (1):290–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jönköping International Business School (JIBS), Jönköping and Centre for Science and Innovation Studies (CESIS)Royal Institute of Technology, StockholmJönköpingSweden
  2. 2.Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE)Lund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations