Advertisement

Journal of Geographical Systems

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 125–157 | Cite as

Exploring the spatially varying innovation capacity of the US counties in the framework of Griliches’ knowledge production function: a mixed GWR approach

  • Dongwoo Kang
  • Sandy Dall’erba
Original Article

Abstract

Griliches’ knowledge production function has been increasingly adopted at the regional level where location-specific conditions drive the spatial differences in knowledge creation dynamics. However, the large majority of such studies rely on a traditional regression approach that assumes spatially homogenous marginal effects of knowledge input factors. This paper extends the authors’ previous work (Kang and Dall’erba in Int Reg Sci Rev, 2015. doi: 10.1177/0160017615572888) to investigate the spatial heterogeneity in the marginal effects by using nonparametric local modeling approaches such as geographically weighted regression (GWR) and mixed GWR with two distinct samples of the US Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and non-MSA counties. The results indicate a high degree of spatial heterogeneity in the marginal effects of the knowledge input variables, more specifically for the local and distant spillovers of private knowledge measured across MSA counties. On the other hand, local academic knowledge spillovers are found to display spatially homogenous elasticities in both MSA and non-MSA counties. Our results highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each county’s innovation capacity and suggest policy implications for regional innovation strategies.

Keywords

Knowledge production function Knowledge spillovers Spatial heterogeneity Mixed geographically weighted regression (MGWR) 

JEL Classification

C21 O31 R11 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Manfred M. Fischer and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.

Grant

This study was supported by the National Science Foundation Grant (SMA-1158172). Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Acs Z, Armington C (2004) Employment growth and entrepreneurial activity in cities. Reg Stud 38(8):911–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1994) R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Rev Econ Stat 76(2):336–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acs ZJ, Anselin L, Varga A (2002) Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Res Policy 31(7):1069–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal A, Cockburn I, Rosell C (2010) Not invented here? Innovation in company towns. J Urban Econ 67(1):78–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42(3):422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (2000) Geographical spillovers and university research: a spatial econometric perspective. Growth Change 31(4):501–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arrow KJ (1962) The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev Econ Stud 29(3):155–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Asheim BT (1996) Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: a condition for prosperity. Eur Plan Stud 4(4):379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Asheim BT, Gertler MS (2006) The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 291–317Google Scholar
  10. Asheim B, Isaksen A (2002) Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. J Technol Transf 27(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–640Google Scholar
  12. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (2004) Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In: Henderson JV, Jacques-François T (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 4., ElsevierSan Diego, CA, pp 2713–2739Google Scholar
  13. Autant-Bernard C (2012) Spatial econometrics of innovation: recent contributions and research perspectives. Spat Econ Anal 7(4):403–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Autant-Bernard C, LeSage JP (2011) Quantifying knowledge spillovers using spatial econometric models. J Reg Sci 51(3):471–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bárcena MJ, Menéndez P, Palacios MB, Tusell F (2014) Alleviating the effect of collinearity in geographically weighted regression. J Geogr Syst 16(4):441–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bode E (2004) The spatial pattern of localized R&D spillovers: an empirical investigation for Germany. J Econ Geogr 4(1):43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowman AW (1984) An alternative method of cross-validation for the smoothing of density estimates. Biometrika 71(2):353–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS, Charlton ME (1996) Geographically weighted regression: a method for exploring spatial nonstationarity. Geogr Anal 28(4):281–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brunsdon C, Fotheringham S, Charlton M (1998) Geographically weighted regression-modelling spatial non-stationarity. J R Stat Soc Ser D (The Statistician) 47(3):431–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burridge P, Gordon I (1981) Unemployment in the British metropolitan labour areas. Oxford Economic Papers 33(2):274–297Google Scholar
  21. Byrne G, Charlton M, Fotheringham S (2009) Multiple dependent hypothesis tests in geographically weighted regression. In: Lees BG, Laffan SW (eds) The 10th international conference on geocomputation, Sydney, Australia, 30 November–02 December 2009, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  22. Camagni R (1991) Local ‘milieu’, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a new dynamic theory of economic space. In: Camagni R (ed) Innovation networks: spatial perspectives. Belhaven, London, pp 121–142Google Scholar
  23. Capello R, Lenzi C (2014) Spatial heterogeneity in knowledge, innovation, and economic growth nexus: conceptual reflections and empirical evidence. J Reg Sci 54(2):186–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cleveland WS (1979) Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing scatterplots. J Am Stat Assoc 74(368):829–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cooke P, Gomez Uranga M, Etxebarria G (1997) Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. Res Policy 26(4–5):475–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. David PA (1994) Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’? Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Struct Change Econ Dyn 5(2):205–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Döring T, Schnellenbach J (2006) What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth? A survey of the literature. Reg Stud 40(3):375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Duranton G, Puga D (2000) Diversity and specialisation in cities: why, where and when does it matter? Urban Stud 37(3):533–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Farber S, Páez A (2007) A systematic investigation of cross-validation in GWR model estimation: empirical analysis and monte carlo simulations. J Geogr Syst 9(4):371–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43(2):409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Feldman MP, Kogler DF (2010) Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. In: Bronwyn HH, Nathan R (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 381–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fischer MM, Diez JR, Snickars F (2001) Metropolitan innovation systems. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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):288–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Florida R (1995) Toward the learning region. Futures 27(5):527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Foray D, Lissoni F (2010) University research and public–private interaction. In: Bronwyn HH, Nathan R (eds) Handbook of the economics of innovation, vol 1. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 275–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton M (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  38. Fritsch M, Stephan A (2005) Regionalization of innovation policy—introduction to the special issue. Res Policy 34(8):1123–1127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Fung MK, Chow WW (2002) Measuring the intensity of knowledge flow with patent statistics. Econ Lett 74(3):353–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gertler MS, Levitte YM (2005) Local nodes in global networks: the geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Ind Innov 12(4):487–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Glaeser EL, Kallal HD, Scheinkman JA, Shleifer A (1992) Growth in cities. J Polit Econ 100(6):1126–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gollini I, Lu B, Charlton M, Brunsdon C, Harris P (2015) GWmodel: an R package for exploring spatial heterogeneity using geographically weighted models. J Stat Softw 63(17):50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J Econ 10(1):92–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers. Scand J Econ 94(Supplement):29–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guide for public use data files national science foundation’s higher education research and development survey: Fiscal year 2011 (2013) NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/herd/pub_data.cfm
  46. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Halleck Vega S, Elhorst JP (2015) The SLX model. J Reg Sci 55(3):339–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Harris R (2011) Models of regional growth: past, present and future. J Econ Surv 25(5):913–951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Henderson JV (2003) Marshall’s scale economies. J Urban Econ 53(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hurvich CM, Simonoff JS, Tsai C-L (1998) Smoothing parameter selection in nonparametric regression using an improved Akaike information criterion. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 60(2):271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Jaffe AB (1986) Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. Am Econ Rev 76(5):984–1001Google Scholar
  53. Jaffe AB (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79(5):957–970Google Scholar
  54. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kang D, Dall’erba S (2015) An examination of the role of local and distant knowledge spillovers on the us regional knowledge creation. Int Reg Sci Rev. doi: 10.1177/0160017615572888 Google Scholar
  56. Keeble D, Lawson C, Moore B, Wilkinson F (1999) Collective learning processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness’ in the Cambridge region. Reg Stud 33(4):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lazaric N, Lorenz E (1998) Trust and organisational learning during inter-firm cooperation. In: Lazaric N, Lorenz E (eds) Trust and economic learning. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 209–226Google Scholar
  58. LeSage J, Sheng Y (2014) A spatial econometric panel data examination of endogenous versus exogenous interaction in chinese province-level patenting. J Geogr Syst 16(3):233–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Liu W-H (2013) The role of proximity to universities for corporate patenting: provincial evidence from China. Ann Reg Sci 51(1):273–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lorenz EH (1992) Trust, community and co-operation: toward a theory of industrial districts. In: Scott AJ, Storper M (eds) Pathways to industrialization and regional development. Routledge, London, pp 175–182Google Scholar
  61. Lu B, Charlton M, Harris P, Fotheringham AS (2014a) Geographically weighted regression with a non-euclidean distance metric: a case study using hedonic house price data. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 28(4):660–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lu B, Harris P, Charlton M, Brunsdon C (2014b) The GWmodel R package: further topics for exploring spatial heterogeneity using geographically weighted models. Geo-spat Inf Sci 17(2):85–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Maggioni MA, Uberti TE, Usai S (2010) Treating patents as relational data: knowledge transfers and spillovers across Italian provinces. Ind Innov 18(1):39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mansfield E (1995) Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing. Rev Econ Stat 77(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Maurseth PB, Verspagen B (2002) Knowledge spillovers in Europe: a patent citations analysis. Scand J Econ 104(4):531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. McMillen DP (2010) Issues in spatial data analysis. J Reg Sci 50(1):119–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McMillen DP, Redfearn CL (2010) Estimation and hypothesis testing for nonparametric hedonic house price functions. J Reg Sci 50(3):712–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mei CL, Wang N, Zhang WX (2006) Testing the importance of the explanatory variables in a mixed geographically weighted regression model. Environ Plan A 38(3):587–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Moreno R, Miguélez E (2012) A relational approach to the geography of innovation: a typology of regions. J Econ Surv 26(3):492–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Morgan K (1997) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Reg Stud 31(5):491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mukherji N, Silberman J (2013) Absorptive capacity, knowledge flows, and innovation in U.S. metropolitan areas. J Reg Sci 53(3):392–417Google Scholar
  73. Ó hUallacháin B, Leslie TF (2007) Rethinking the regional knowledge production function. J Econ Geogr 7(6):737–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Oughton C, Landabaso M, Morgan K (2002) The regional innovation paradox: innovation policy and industrial policy. J Technol Transf 27(1):97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Pace RK, Barry R, Clapp JM, Rodriquez M (1998) Spatiotemporal autoregressive models of neighborhood effects. J Real Estate Finance Econ 17(1):15–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Paez A, Farber S, Wheeler D (2011) A simulation-based study of geographically weighted regression as a method for investigating spatially varying relationships. Environ Plan A 43(12):2992–3010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Parent O (2012) A space-time analysis of knowledge production. J Geogr Syst 14(1):49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Parent O, LeSage JP (2008) Using the variance structure of the conditional autoregressive spatial specification to model knowledge spillovers. J Appl Econ 23(2):235–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Partridge MD, Rickman DS, Ali K, Olfert MR (2008) The geographic diversity of U.S. nonmetropolitan growth dynamics: a geographically weighted regression approach. Land Econ 84(2):241–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Peri G (2005) Determinants of knowledge flows and their effect on innovation. Rev Econ Stat 87(2):308–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ponds R, Fv Oort, Frenken K (2010) Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach. J Econ Geogr 10(2):231–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94(5):1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosenkopf L, Almeida P (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Manage Sci 49(6):751–766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simmie J (2011) Learning regions. In: Cooke P, Asheim B, Boschma R, Martin R, Schwartz D, Tödtling F (eds) Handbook of regional growth and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 547–555Google Scholar
  85. Smallen D (2004) 3.3 million Americans are stretch commuters traveling at least 50 miles one-way to work. United States Department of Transportation. https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/default/files/rita_archives/bts_press_releases/2004/bts010_04/html/bts010_04.html. Accessed 16 Nov 2014
  86. Standard & Poor’s (2011) Standard & poor’s compustat® xpressfeed understanding the data. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Centennial, COGoogle Scholar
  87. Storper M (1993) Regional “worlds” of production: learning and innovation in the technology districts of France, Italy and the USA. Reg Stud 27(5):433–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Storper M (1997) The regional world: territorial development in a global economy. Guilford Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  89. Stough RR (2003) Strategic management of places and policy. Ann Reg Sci 37(2):179–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Trippl M, Tödtling F, Lengauer L (2009) Knowledge sourcing beyond buzz and pipelines: evidence from the Vienna software sector. Econ Geogr 85(4):443–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. USPTO (2010) Patents BIB: Selected bibliographic information from US patents issued 1969 to present. Alexandria, VAGoogle Scholar
  92. Verspagen B, Schoenmakers W (2004) The spatial dimension of patenting by multinational firms in europe. J Econ Geogr 4(1):23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wei C-H, Qi F (2012) On the estimation and testing of mixed geographically weighted regression models. Econ Model 29(6):2615–2620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wheeler D, Tiefelsdorf M (2005) Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. J Geogr Syst 7(2):161–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zysman J (1994) How institutions create historically rooted trajectories of growth. Ind Corp Change 3(1):243–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Korea Labor InstituteSejong-siKorea
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations