Advertisement

University–Industry collaborations and international knowledge spillovers: a joint-patent investigation

  • Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli
  • Gianluca MurgiaEmail author
Article
  • 32 Downloads

Abstract

The present work aims at investigating under which circumstances University–Industry (UI) collaborations develop innovations whose spillovers are largely reused by other foreign firms in the development of subsequent and related innovations. In order to answer to this research question, we carried out several analyses from a sample of 772 joint patents in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and medical technology sectors, developed by German and Italian universities in collaboration with a firm. Our results show a positive effect of UI collaborations involving local partners, which encourage knowledge sharing and the adoption and combination of foreign knowledge by the same partners, which may complement knowledge and resources available at national level. Finally, we pointed out a positive moderating effect of university specialization, which may increase partners’ absorptive capacity, hence favoring a more effective use of foreign knowledge. Our paper enables a better understanding of the determinants of the innovative impact of UI collaborations, by shedding new light on the mechanisms of global innovations systems that characterize the industries under analysis. Moreover, our work shows how innovation processes in these industries may be favored by adequate search strategies and the choice of effective university partners.

Keywords

University–Industry collaboration International knowledge spillovers Geographical proximity Foreign knowledge Absorptive capacity 

JEL Classification

O33 O32 

Notes

References

  1. Adams, J. D. (2002). Comparative localization of academic and industrial spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(3), 253–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J. D., & Jaffe, A. B. (1996). Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment-firm data. The Rand Journal of Economics, 27(4), 700–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Alcacer, J., Gittelman, M., & Sampat, B. (2009). Applicant and examiner citations in US patents: An overview and analysis. Research Policy, 38(2), 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allansdottir, A., Bonnaccorsi, A., Gambardella, A., Mariani, M., Pammolli, F., & Riccaboni, M. (2002). Innovation and competitiveness in biotechnology: A European perspective. European Commission: Background Report DG-Enterprise, Brussels.Google Scholar
  6. Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Almeida, P., Song, J., & Grant, R. M. (2002). Are firms superior to alliances and markets? An empirical test of cross-border knowledge building. Organization Science, 13(2), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ankrah, S., & Omar, A. T. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalisation and “revealed” comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bartholomew, S. (1997). National systems of biotechnology innovation: Complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Belderbos, R., Cassiman, B., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Van Looy, B. (2014a). Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners. Research Policy, 43(5), 841–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Belderbos, R., Van Roy, V., Leten, B., & Thijs, B. (2014b). Academic research strengths and multinational firms’ foreign R&D location decisions: Evidence from R&D investments in European regions. Environment and Planning A, 46(4), 920–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2006). Potential sources of bias in research fellowship assessments: Effects of university prestige and field of study. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Bramwell, A., & Wolfe, D. A. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37(8), 1175–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Briggs, K. (2015). Co-owner relationships conducive to high quality joint patents. Research Policy, 44(8), 1566–1573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Briggs, K., & Wade, M. (2014). More is better: Evidence that joint patenting leads to quality innovation. Applied Economics, 46(35), 4370–4379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Capaldo, A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal, 28(6), 585–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Capaldo, A., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2014). Partner geographic and organizational proximity and the innovative performance of knowledge-creating alliances. European Management Review, 11(1), 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Carlsson, B. (2006). Internationalization of innovation systems: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 35(1), 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Clark, B. R. (1998). The entrepreneurial university: Demand and response. Tertiary Education and Management, 4(1), 5–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. (1989). Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (Eds.), Handbook of industrial organization (pp. 1059–1107). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. D’Este, P., & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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(9), 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchell, W. (2000). Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal, 21(2), 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. European Commission. (2013). What is an SME?Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SME)Enterprise and Industry. Available online at ec.euopea.eu.Google Scholar
  39. Fabrizio, K. R. (2009). Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy, 38(2), 255–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fitjar, R. D., & Huber, F. (2014). Global pipelines for innovation: Insights from the case of Norway. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(3), 561–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. (2004). Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 909–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fromhold-Eisebith, M. (2007). Bridging scales in innovation policies: How to link regional, national and international innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 15(2), 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fromhold-Eisebith, M., & Werker, C. (2013). Universities’ functions in knowledge transfer: A geographical perspective. The Annals of Regional Science, 51(3), 621–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gerybadze, A., & Reger, G. (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy, 28(2–3), 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gibb, A. A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2009). Leading the entrepreneurial university. NCGE Policy Paper, Birmingham: NCGE.Google Scholar
  47. Görg, H., & Strobl, E. (2005). Spillovers from foreign firms through worker mobility: An empirical investigation. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 107(4), 693–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Grabowski, H. G. (1968). The determinants of industrial research and development: A study of the chemical, drug, and petroleum industries. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gulati, R. (1995). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85–112.Google Scholar
  50. Hall, B. H., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). Universities as research partners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 485–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, M. T., & Løvås, B. (2004). How do multinational companies leverage technological competencies? Moving from single to interdependent explanations. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9), 801–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hantsch, S., Kergel, H., Lämmer-Gamp, T., zu Köcker, G. M., & Nerger, M. (2013). Cluster management excellence in Germany. Berlin: European Secretariat for Cluster Analysis.Google Scholar
  53. Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects of interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hohberger, J. (2014). Searching for emerging knowledge: The influence of collaborative and geographically proximate search. European Management Review, 11(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Howells, J. R. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hsieh, W. L., Ganotakis, P., Kafouros, M., & Wang, C. (2017). Foreign and domestic collaboration, product innovation novelty, and firm growth. Journal of Product Innovation Management (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  58. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kafouros, M. I., & Forsans, N. (2012). The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others? Journal of World Business, 47(3), 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kim, C., & Song, J. (2007). Creating new technology through alliances: An empirical investigation of joint patents. Technovation, 27(8), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kleinbaum, D. G., Lawrence, K. L., Muller, K. E., & Nizam, A. (1998). Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  64. Kleyn, D., Kitney, R., & Atun, R. A. (2007). Partnership and innovation in the life sciences. International Journal of Innovation Management, 11(2), 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Knudsen, M. P. (2007). The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(2), 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kobarg, S., Stumpf-Wollersheim, J., & Welpe, I. M. (2018). University–industry collaborations and product innovation performance: The moderating effects of absorptive capacity and innovation competencies. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1696–1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kotabe, M., Dunlap-Hinkler, D., Parente, R., & Mishra, H. A. (2007). Determinants of cross-national knowledge transfer and its effect on firm innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(2), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Lampe, R. (2012). Strategic citation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(1), 320–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lavie, D., & Drori, I. (2011). Collaborating for knowledge creation and application: The case of nanotechnology research programs. Organization Science, 23(3), 704–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D., & Handfield, R. B. (2009). Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: The effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Li, P. F. (2014). Global temporary networks of clusters: Structures and dynamics of trade fairs in Asian economies. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(5), 995–1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Mahr, D., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2014). The value of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), 599–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (1993). Technological regimes and firm behavior. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2(1), 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mariani, M. (2004). What determines technological hits? Geography versus firm competencies. Research Policy, 33(10), 1565–1582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 921–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Rotolo, D. (2015). Institutional diversity, internal search behaviour, and joint-innovations: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry. Management Decision, 53(9), 2088–2106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Mittra, J. (2007). Life science innovation and the restructuring of the pharmaceutical industry: Merger, acquisition and strategic alliance behaviour of large firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(3), 279–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2011). Effects of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 948–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Morgan, K. (2004). The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Moser, P., & Nicholas, T. (2004). Was electricity a general purpose technology? Evidence from historical patent citations. American Economic Review, 94(2), 388–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10), 1499–1508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Natalicchio, A., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Garavelli, A. C. (2017). The impact of partners’ technological diversification in joint patenting: A study on firm-PRO collaborations. Management Decision, 55(6), 1248–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Parthasarthy, R., & Hammond, J. (2002). Product innovation input and outcome: Moderating effects of the innovation process. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Ponds, R. (2009). The limits to internationalization of scientific research collaboration. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(1), 76–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Ponds, R., Oort, F. V., & Frenken, K. (2010). Innovation, spillovers and university–industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Powell, W. W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Reuer, J. J., & Lahiri, N. (2013). Searching for alliance partners: Effects of geographic distance on the formation of R&D collaborations. Organization Science, 25(1), 283–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Salavisa, I., Sousa, C., & Fontes, M. (2012). Topologies of innovation networks in knowledge-intensive sectors: Sectoral differences in the access to knowledge and complementary assets through formal and informal ties. Technovation, 32(6), 380–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Salazar, A., Hackney, R., & Howells, J. (2003). The strategic impact of internet technology in biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms: Insights from a knowledge management perspective. Information Technology and Management, 4(2), 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Salge, T. O. (2012). The temporal trajectories of innovative search: Insights from public hospital services. Research Policy, 41(4), 720–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Savino, T., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Albino, V. (2017). Search and recombination process to innovate: A review of the empirical evidence and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19(1), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schmoch, U. (2008). Conception of a technology classification for country comparisons. Final Report to the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research.Google Scholar
  106. Scott, J. (2003). Absorptive capacity and the efficiency of research partnerships. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(2), 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Soh, P. H., & Subramanian, A. M. (2014). When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(6), 807–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stuart, T. (2000). Interorganisational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(8), 791–811.Google Scholar
  110. Su, C. Y., Lin, B. W., & Chen, C. J. (2015). Technological knowledge co-creation strategies in the world of open innovation. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 17(4), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Tallman, S., & Phene, A. (2007). Leveraging knowledge across geographic boundaries. Organization Science, 18(2), 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Terjesen, S., & Patel, P. C. (2017). In search of process innovations: The role of search depth, search breadth, and the industry environment. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1421–1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tong, X., & Frame, J. D. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23(2), 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wooldridge, J. M. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  117. Wu, J., & Wu, Z. (2014). Local and international knowledge search and product innovation: The moderating role of technology boundary spanning. International Business Review, 23(3), 542–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Zaheer, A., & George, V. P. (2004). Reach out or reach within? Performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25(6–7), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanics, Mathematics, and ManagementPolytechnic University of BariBariItaly
  2. 2.Department of Information Engineering and MathematicsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations