The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 41–64 | Cite as

The dynamics of inter-regional collaboration: an analysis of co-patenting

Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The paper at hand investigates how co-patenting over distance develops when aggregating inventive activities on a regional level. That means, the object of analysis is a link between two regions in contrast to other studies, where links between two individuals or firms are investigated. We analyze which regional characteristics influence the creation and continuation of such links. The main focus lies on different types of distance. The approach adds a dynamic view to the existing, often static, literature about collaboration behavior. The regressions are done for all patent-relevant industries in Germany. We find that several distance types decrease—as expected—the likelihood of link creation but also—not in all cases expected—of link continuation.

JEL Classification

R11 O34 L14 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arndt O, Sternberg R (2000) Do manufacturing firms profit from intraregional innovation linkages? An empirical based answer. Eur Plan Stud 8(4):465–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Autant-Bernard C, Billand P, Frachisse D, Massard N (2007) Social distance versus spatial distance in R &D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies*. Papers in Regional Science 86(3):495–519. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00132.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56. doi: 10.1191/0309132504ph469oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud J Reg Stud Assoc 39(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2005) Knowledge networks from patent data. In: Handbook of quantitative science and technology research, pp 613–643Google Scholar
  6. Broekel T, Boschma R (2011) The cognitive and geographical composition of ego-networks of firms—and how they impact on their innovation performance. Papers in evolutionary, economic geography #11.18Google Scholar
  7. Broekel T, Boschma R (forthcoming). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. J Econ Geogr. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbr010
  8. Broekel T, Meder A (2012) Collaboration intensity and regional innovation efficiency in Germany—a conditional efficiency approach. Industry and Innovation, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantner U, Graf H (2006) The network of innovators in Jena: an application of social network analysis. Res Policy 35(4):463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cefis E, Orsenigo L (2001) The persistence of innovative activities: a cross-countries and cross-sectors comparative analysis. Res Policy 30(7):1139–1158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christ JP (2010) The geography and co-location of European technology-specific co-inventorship networks. FZID Discussion Paper 14–2010Google Scholar
  12. Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industry R &D. Manag Sci 48(1):1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. D’Este P, Patel P (2007) University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Res Policy 36(9):1295–1313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dettmann A, Brenner T (2010) Proximity is a social process: a conceptual modification. Paper presented at the DRUID Winter Conference 2010, AalborgGoogle Scholar
  15. Ernst D, Kim L (2002) Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Res Policy 31(8–9):1417–1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. EU Interreg (2011) INTERREG IVC Programme. http://i4c.eu
  17. Fischer MM, Scherngell T, Jansenberger E (2006) The geography of knowledge spillovers between high-technology firms in Europe: evidence from a spatial interaction modeling perspective. Geogr Anal 38(3):288–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.2006.00687.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Frenken K, Hoekman J, Kok S, Ponds R, van Oort F, van Vliet J (2009) Death of distance in science? A gravity approach to research collaboration. In: Pyka A, Scharnhorst A (eds) Innovation networks—new approaches in modelling and analyzing. Springer, Berlin, pp 43–57Google Scholar
  19. Fritsch M (2001) Co-operation in regional innovation systems. Reg Stud 35(4):297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomes-Casseres B, Hagedoorn J, Jaffe AB (2006) Do alliances promote knowledge flows? J Fin Econ 80(1):5–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagedoorn J (2002) Inter-firm R &D partnerships: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Res Policy 31(4):477–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoekman J, Frenken K, van Oort F (2009) The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science 43(3):721–738. doi: 10.1007/s00168-008-0252-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoekman J, Frenken K, Tijssen RJW (2010) Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Res Policy 39(5):662–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huber F (2012) On the role and interrelationship of spatial, social and cognitive proximity: personal knowledge relationships of R &D workers in the cambridge information technology cluster. Reg Stud 46(9):1169–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaffe AB (1986) Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R & D: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value. The American Economic Review 76(5):984–1001Google Scholar
  26. Katz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Res Policy 26(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kim J, Lee SJ, Marschke G (2005) The influence of University Research on Industrial Innovation. NBER Working Paper (vol 11447)Google Scholar
  28. Lee YS (2000) The sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: an empirical assessment. J Technol Trans 25(2):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mansfield E (1986) Patents and innovation: an empirical study. Manag Sci 32(2):173–181. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.32.2.173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mansfield E (1998) Academic research and industrial innovation: an update of empirical findings. Res Policy 26(7–8):773–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin R, Sunley P (2006) Path dependence and regional economic evolution. J Econ Geogr 6(4):395–437. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbl012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nooteboom B (1999) Inter-firm alliances: analysis and design. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance Matters. Human-Computer Interaction 15(2):139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Orsenigo L, Pammolli F, Riccaboni M, Bonaccorsi A, Turchetti G (1997) The evolution of knowledge and the dynamics of an industry network. J Manag Gov 1(2):147–175. doi: 10.1023/a:1009991701667 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Picci L (2010) The internationalization of inventive activity: a gravity model using patent data. Res Policy 39(8):1070–1081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ponds R, van Oort F (2007) The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers Reg Sci 86(3):423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Manag Sci 49(6):751–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rothwell R, Dodgson M (1991) External linkages and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. R &D Manag 21(2):125–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.1991.tb00742.x Google Scholar
  39. Scherngell T, Lata R (2012) Towards an integrated European Research Area? Findings from eigenvector spatially filtered spatial interaction models using European Framework Programme data. Papers in Regional Science. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00419.x
  40. Schlump C, Brenner T (2011) Universities and regional innovation output: a detailed empirical study of 19 technologies in Germany. Paper for the DIME final conference, MaastrichtGoogle Scholar
  41. Sternberg R (2007) Entrepreneurship, proximity, and regional innovation systems. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 98:652–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ter Wal ALJ (2010a) Cluster emergence and network evolution: a longitudinal analysis of the inventor network in Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies 1–18. doi: 10.1080/00343401003614258
  43. Ter Wal ALJ (2010b) The spatial dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographical proximity versus triadic closure. Best Paper Proceedings of the 2010 Academy of Management MeetingGoogle Scholar
  44. Ter Wal ALJ, Boschma RA (2011) Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Reg Stud 45(7):919–933Google Scholar
  45. Toedtling F, Grillitsch M, Hoeglinger C (2010) Knowledge sourcing and innovation in Austrian ICT companies—does geography matter? MimeoGoogle Scholar
  46. Torre A (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Reg Stud 42(6):869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Ham M, Mulder CH, Hooimeijer P (2001) Spatial flexibility in job mobility: macrolevel opportunities and microlevel restrictions. Environ Plan A 33(5):921–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. von Proff S, Buenstorf G, Hummel M (2012) University patenting in Germany before and after 2002: what role did the professors’ privilege play? Ind Innov 19(1):23–44. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2012.649060 Google Scholar
  49. von Proff S, Dettmann A (2010) Inventor collaboration over distance—a comparison of academic and corporate patents. Marburg Working Papers in Innovation and Space #01.10Google Scholar
  50. Walker G, Kogut B, Shan W (1997) Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Org Sci 8(2):109–125. doi: 10.1287/orsc.8.2.109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Whittington KB, Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2009) Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Adm Sci Q 54(1):90–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyPhilipps-University MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations