Spatial sorting of innovative firms and heterogeneous effects of agglomeration on innovation in Germany

Abstract

We examine the effects of agglomeration, differentiating between urbanization and localization economies, on four distinct types of innovation in manufacturing and services. Furthermore, estimating multilevel panel regression models, we investigate the sorting of highly innovative firms into dense urban and/or specialized regions by considering both observable and unobservable firm characteristics. The results indicate that spatial sorting is important. A large portion of the regional differences in firm innovation rates is due to firm characteristics. Estimates that ignore unobserved heterogeneity at the firm level still point to a positive and significant impact of localization economies on different types of innovation. However, once we include firm fixed effects and distinguish between manufacturing and services, only some weak indication for positive effects of localization on radical innovations of manufacturing firms remains. In addition, the probability to adopt an existing product by an manufacturing firm seems to be positively influenced by urbanization economies. For the service sector, in contrast, we find adverse effects of localization on different kinds of innovation and no important effect of urbanization.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    In our empirical analysis, innovation output is measured by the firm’s probability to report an innovation.

  2. 2.

    We refrain from considering more inputs to keep the exposition simple.

  3. 3.

    Alternatively, Baptista and Swann (1998) distinguish between demand and supply side effects. With respect to the demand side they argue, e.g., that customers are a good source of ideas for innovation and, therefore, locating in large markets with many customers likely enhances innovation output of firms. On the supply side, labor market pooling and access to various intermediate inputs are mentioned as strategic advantages of dense metropolitan areas.

  4. 4.

    Helsley and Strange (2002), for instance, note that in their model (see discussion below) the effects of input sharing and matching on innovation might base on urbanization as well as localization, depending on how one interprets the characteristic space and on the assumptions on how the innovation process exactly works.

  5. 5.

    There are, of course, large service firms such as Amazon and Facebook that operate at global scale and don’t rely on resources that are locally available. However, the majority of service firms, in particular consumer services, still supply non-tradables and have a strong local focus. Investigating corresponding differences within services or manufacturing is beyond the scope of this analysis. However, a more detailed analysis of branches differentiating e.g., between tradable and non-tradable industries is an interesting issue for future research and might provide more comprehensive evidence on the role of the spatial extent of market areas in this context. We are grateful to a referee for pointing this out and suggesting additional arguments for heterogeneous effects.

  6. 6.

    Disparities in R&D activity and innovation rates between East and West Germany serve as an illustrative example in this context. As for instance discussed by Niebuhr (2017), the East-West gap in R&D activity is (partially) explained by the fact that the headquarters and R&D units of West German firms remained in West Germany after reunification and only parts of the production moved to East Germany. In the data we use, the IAB Establishment Panel, different sites of one firm are considered independent establishments.

  7. 7.

    In particular, many firm level and multilevel studies investigate for selected industries specific mechanisms that might be behind the link between agglomeration and innovation (e.g., Fornahl et al. 2011 focusing on R&D subsidies, collaboration networks and biotech firms and Ben Abdesslem and Chiappini 2019 analyzing the impact of a cluster policy on productivity, employment, and total fixed assets in the French optic/photonic industry). While these analyses provide very detailed and robust evidence on specific industries and selected channels through which agglomeration might impact firm innovation, often their results cannot be generalized and it is difficult to compare their findings with studies that apply a more aggregate perspective on agglomeration economies.

  8. 8.

    Different units of one firm that are located in different municipalities are considered as independent establishments. Unfortunately, it is not possible to identify whether establishments belong to the same firm. In order to improve the readability, we use the terms firms and plants in the following as synonyms for the term establishment.

  9. 9.

    See Ellguth et al. (2014) for a detailed description of the IAB Establishment Panel.

  10. 10.

    Until 2007, the question refers to the previous 2 years.

  11. 11.

    If the answer to one of the questions Q1–Q3 is missing and the other questions have been answered in the negative, the observation is excluded from the analysis of ‘any innovation’. Furthermore, we do not consider an observation in the analysis of ‘improvements’ and ‘imitations’, respectively, if a firm reports the introduction of an entirely new product or service (Q1), but no imitation (Q2, 1.4% of all observations, see Table 8 in the appendix), respectively, no improvement (Q3, 3.9%). Otherwise the dependent variables would take the value 0, even though the firm is highly innovative. ‘Improvement’ is set to missing, in addition, if a firm reports an imitation, but no improvement (4.5%).

  12. 12.

    A detailed discussion of the pros and cons of different innovation measures is provided by a recent survey in Carlino and Kerr (2015) who focus on regional studies.

  13. 13.

    Including firm fixed effects implies that we also control for time invariant characteristics of the regions since the establishments in our data set do not relocate between regional labor markets.

  14. 14.

    The distinction between the three types of regions refers to a classification of the Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (BBSR) based on population density, the size of the largest city within a region, and the population share living in cities. Summary statistics of regional employment figures by region type are given in Table 9 in the appendix.

  15. 15.

    The MIP is also the German contribution to the CIS.

  16. 16.

    Alternative specifications including spatial lags of employment density and industry share do not point to significant spatial spillover effects across the borders of the considered labor market regions (Table 12 in the appendix). Therefore, we focus on the impact of employment density and the industry share within the region in which an establishment is located.

  17. 17.

    Recall that the analyzed panel is highly unbalanced. The median number of observations per establishment is 2. Hence, at different points in time we observe different establishments in one particular region.

  18. 18.

    The results are robust with regard to the inclusion of the regional share of employment engaged in R&D (see Table 16 in the appendix). The results in Table 5 indicate that firm innovation is not affected by employment density. However, if we estimate Eq. 5 separately by the type of region, i.e., differentiate between rural, intermediate, and urban regions, we find some indication that an increase in employment density in rural and intermediate regions does foster the generation of certain types of innovation, particularly imitations (corresponding results are available from the authors upon request). For firms in urban regions, in contrast, we observe (partly significant) adverse effects suggesting that marginal costs of increasing density in urban areas outweigh marginal gains. However, to analyze corresponding heterogeneity in more detail is beyond the scope of this paper, but it is an interesting task for future research.

  19. 19.

    Corresponding sector-specific results of regressions including region and industry fixed effects and excluding establishment fixed effects by sector are summarized in Table 17 in the appendix.

References

  1. Albahari, A., Klofsten, M., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2019). Science and technology parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1256–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9661-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alcácer, J. (2006). Location choices across the value chain: How activity and capability influence collocation. Management Science, 52(10), 1457–1471. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Andersson, M., & Lööf, H. (2012). Small business innovation: Firm level evidence from Sweden. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 732–754. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9216-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersson, R., Quigley, J. M., & Wilhelmsson, M. (2005). Agglomeration and the spatial distribution of creativity. Papers in Regional Science, 84(3), 445–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Arzaghi, M., & Henderson, J. V. (2008). Networking off madison avenue. The Review of Economic Studies, 75(4), 1011–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00499.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–40.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2713–2739, Chap. 61). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80018-X.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Audretsch, D. B., Cunningham, J. A., Kuratko, D. F., Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial ecosystems: Economic, technological, and societal impacts. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(2), 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9690-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Baptista, R., & Swann, P. (1998). Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27(5), 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00065-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beaudry, C., & Breschi, S. (2003). Are firms in clusters really more innovative? Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(4), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590290020197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bellmann, L., Crimmann A., Evers, K., & Hujer, R. (2013) Regional determinants of establishments’ innovation activities: A multi-level approach. IZA discussion paper no. 7572. IZA - Institute of Labor Economics

  12. Ben Abdesslem, A., & Chiappini, R. (2019). Cluster policy and firm performance: A case study of the French optic/photonic industry. Regional Studies, 53(5), 692–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1470324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Berliant, M., Reed, R. R, I. I. I., & Wang, P. (2006). Knowledge exchange, matching, and agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kühnert, C., & West, G. B. (2007a). Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(17), 7301. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610172104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bettencourt, L. M. A., Lobo, J., & Strumsky, D. (2007b). Invention in the city: Increasing returns to patenting as a scaling function of metropolitan size. Research Policy, 36(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Beugelsdijk, S. (2007). The regional environment and a firm’s innovative performance: A plea for a multilevel interactionist approach. Economic Geography, 83(2), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2007.tb00342.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions: evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review, 47(4), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00307-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Buciuni, G., & Finotto, V. (2016). Innovation in global value chains: Co-location of production and development in italian low-tech industries. Regional Studies, 50(12), 2010–2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1115010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Buenstorf, G., & Klepper, S. (2009). Heritage and agglomeration: The akron tyre cluster revisited. The Economic Journal, 119(537), 705–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2009.02216.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carlino, G., & Kerr, W. R. (2015). Agglomeration and Innovation. In G. Duranton, J. V. Henderson, & W. C. Strange (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 349–404, Chap. 6). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59517-1.00006-4.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Carlino, G. A., Chatterjee, S., & Hunt, R. M. (2007). Urban density and the rate of invention. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(3), 389–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Combes, P. P., & Duranton, G. (2006). Labour pooling, labour poaching, and spatial clustering. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2005.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Combes, P. P., & Gobillon, L. (2015). The empirics of agglomeration economies. In G. Duranton, J. V. Henderson, & W. C. Strange (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 5, pp. 247–348, Chap. 5). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-59517-1.00005-2.

    Google Scholar 

  24. De Beule, F., & Van Beveren, I. (2012). Does firm agglomeration drive product innovation and renewal? An application for Belgium. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2012.00715.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2001). Nursery cities: Urban diversity, process innovation, and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1454–1477. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.5.1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2004). Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies. In J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (Eds.), Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2063–2117, Chap. 48). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80005-1.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ebert, T., Brenner, T., & Brixy, U. (2018). New firm survival: The interdependence between regional externalities and innovativeness. Small Business Economics, 49, 21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0026-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellguth, P., Kohaut, S., & Möller, I. (2014). The IAB establishment panel: Methodological essentials and data quality. Journal for Labour Market Research, 47(1–2), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-013-0151-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Feldman, M. P. (1994a). The geography of innovation. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Feldman, M. P. (1994b). Knowledge complementarity and innovation. Small Business Economics, 6(5), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01065139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Feldman, M. P., & Kogler, D. F. (2010). Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 381–410, Chap. 8). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Fornahl, D., Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2), 395–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00361.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gerlach, H., Rønde, T., & Stahl, K. (2009). Labor pooling in R&D intensive industries. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(1), 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Helsley, R. W., & Strange, W. C. (2002). Innovation and input sharing. Journal of Urban Economics, 51(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Howell, A., He, C., Yang, R., & Fan, C. C. (2018). Agglomeration, (un)-related variety and new firm survival in China: Do local subsidies matter? Papers in Regional Science, 97(3), 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ivarsson, I., Alvstam, C., & Vahlne, J. E. (2017). Global technology development by colocating R&D and manufacturing: The case of swedish manufacturing MNEs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(1), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtw018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ketokivi, M., & Ali-Yrkkö, J. (2009). Unbundling R&D and manufacturing: Postindustrial myth or economic reality? Review of Policy Research, 26(1–2), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00368.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kim, S. (1989). Labor specialization and the extent of the market. Journal of Political Economy, 97(3), 692–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, S. (1990). Labor heterogeneity, wage bargaining, and agglomeration economies. Journal of Urban Economics, 28(2), 160–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Klepper S (2007) The geography of organizational knowledge. Mimeo: Carnegie Mellon University. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.362.1739

  42. Knoben, J. (2009). Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 757–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0229-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kosfeld, R., & Werner, A. (2012). Deutsche Arbeitsmarktregionen—Neuabgrenzung nach den Kreisgebietsreformen 2007–2011. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 70, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies: Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning A, 34(3), 429–449. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mariani, M. (2002). Next to production or to technological clusters? The economics and management of R&D location. Journal of Management and Governance, 6(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015702522373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mewes, L. (2019). Scaling of atypical knowledge combinations in american metropolitan areas from 1836 to 2010. In Economic geography (pp. 1–21). https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2019.1567261

  48. Moeller, K. (2018). Culturally clustered or in the cloud? How amenities drive firm location decision in Berlin. Journal of Regional Science, 58(4), 728–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Naz, A., Niebuhr, A., & Peters, J. C. (2015). What’s behind the disparities in firm innovation rates across regions? Evidence on composition and context effects. The Annals of Regional Science, 55(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-015-0694-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Niebuhr, A. (2017). Die Entwicklung regionaler Disparitäten in Deutschland - Persistente Unterschiede zwischen Ost- und Westdeutschland (engl. The development of regional disparities in Germany - persistant inequalities between East and West Germany). In H.H. Eberstein, H. Karl & G. Untiedt G (Eds.), Handbuch der regionalen Wirtschaftsförderung (Chap. A III, pp. 1–38). Schmidt.

  51. OECD (2005) Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data

  52. Olson, G., & Olson, J. (2003). Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590303117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pakes, A., & Griliches, Z. (1980). Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report. Economics Letters, 5(4), 377–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pe’er, A., & Keil, T. (2013). Are all startups affected similarly by clusters? Agglomeration, competition, firm heterogeneity, and survival. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(3), 354–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2012.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Pe’er, A., Vertinsky, I., & Keil, T. (2016). Growth and survival: The moderating effects of local agglomeration and local market structure. Strategic Management Journal, 37(3), 541–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Peters, B. (2009). Persistence of innovation: Stylised facts and panel data evidence. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(2), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9072-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Qian, H., & Haynes, K. E. (2014). Beyond innovation: The small business innovation research program as entrepreneurship policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(4), 524–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9323-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Renski, H. (2011). External economies of localization, urbanization and industrial diversity and new firm survival. Papers in Regional Science, 90(3), 473–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00325.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2008). The attenuation of human capital spillovers. Journal of Urban Economics, 64(2), 373–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Rosenthal, S. S., Strange, W. C., Henderson, J. V., & Thisse, J. F. (2004) Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies. In Handbook of regional and urban economics (Vol. 4, pp. 2119–2171, Chap. 49). Elsevier.

  61. Sedgley, N., & Elmslie, B. (2004). The geographic concentration of knowledge: Scale, agglomeration, and congestion in innovation across U.S. states. International Regional Science Review, 27(2), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017603262401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Smit, M. J., Abreu, M. A., & Groot, H. L. (2013). Micro-evidence on the determinants of innovation in the Netherlands: The relative importance of absorptive capacity and agglomeration externalities. Papers in Regional Science, 94(2), 249–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith, K. (2006). Measuring innovation. In D. C. Mowery & J. Fagerberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 148–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0006.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Srholec, M. (2010). A multilevel approach to geography of innovation. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903365094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Sternberg, R., & Arndt, O. (2001). The firm or the region: What determines the innovation behavior of European firms? Economic Geography, 77(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2001.tb00170.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Tavassoli, S., & Karlsson, C. (2018). The role of regional context on innovation persistency of firms. Papers in Regional Science, 97(4), 931–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. von Hippel, E. (2007) The sources of innovation. In: Das Summa Summarum des Management: Die 25 wichtigsten Werke für Strategie, Führung und Veränderung, Gabler, Wiesbaden (pp. 111–120). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-9320-5_10.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully thank the guest editors Lara Agostini, Barbara Bigliardi, Federico Caviggioli, and Francesco Galati, two anonymous referees, Johannes Bröcker, Timo Mitze as well as participants at the 3rd Geography of Innovation Conference, Toulouse 2016 and the 56th ERSA Congress, Vienna 2016 for their helpful remarks and suggestions which substantially improved the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Cornelius Peters.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Accepted for publication in the special section “A social perspective of knowledge-based innovation: mobility and aggregation”: October 07, 2019.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17

Table 7 Summary statistics of firm level data.
Table 8 Innovation pattern.
Table 9 Summary statistics of regional characteristics by type of region.
Table 10 Innovation rates by industry in percent.
Table 11 Distribution of observations across industries and type of regions.
Table 12 Impact of urbanization and localization on innovation rates conditional on time variant establishment characteristics and region fixed effects considering spatial spillover effects.
Table 13 Results for the control variables.
Table 14 Share of establishments that never, sometimes and always report an innovation in %.
Table 15 Impact of urbanization and localization on innovation rates conditional on time variant establishment characteristics and region fixed effects, reduced sample.
Table 16 Impact of urbanization, localization and regional R&D activity on innovation rates conditional on time variant establishment characteristics and establishment fixed effects.
Table 17 Impact of urbanization and localization on innovation rates conditional on time variant establishment characteristics and region fixed effects, by sector.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Niebuhr, A., Peters, J.C. & Schmidke, A. Spatial sorting of innovative firms and heterogeneous effects of agglomeration on innovation in Germany. J Technol Transf 45, 1343–1375 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09755-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agglomeration economies
  • Spatial sorting
  • Firm innovation
  • Localization
  • Urbanization

JEL Classification

  • D22
  • O31
  • R12