Scientometrics

, Volume 98, Issue 2, pp 1173–1202 | Cite as

Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: exploration of country-level determinants

Article

Abstract

In this paper we focus on proximity as one of the main determinants of international collaboration in pharmaceutical research. We use various count data specifications of the gravity model to estimate the intensity of collaboration between pairs of countries as explained by the geographical, cognitive, institutional, social, and cultural dimensions of proximity. Our results suggest that geographical distance has a significant negative relation to the collaboration intensity between countries. The amount of previous collaborations, as a proxy for social proximity, is positively related to the number of cross-country collaborations. We do not find robust significant associations between cognitive proximity or institutional proximity with the intensity of international research collaboration. Our findings for cultural proximity do not allow of unambiguous conclusions concerning their influence on the collaboration intensity between countries.

Keywords

International cooperation Pharmaceuticals Proximity 

References

  1. Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrádiz, E., & León, M. (2011). Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: The role of economic distance. Scientometrics, 87(1), 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, J.D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from U.S. Universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34(3), 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., & McHale, J. (2006). Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 571–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B., Coenen, L., & Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: Sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Polic, 25(5), 655–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Balland, P.-A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46(6), 741–756. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Bartholomew, S. (1997). National systems of biotechnology innovation: Complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 241–266.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Basile, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2012). Technological interdependence and regional growth in Europe: Proximity and synergy in knowledge spillovers. Papers in Regional Science, 91(4), 697–722.Google Scholar
  10. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1):61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boschma, R., & Lambooy, J. G. (1999). Evolutionary economics and economic geography. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(4), 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boshoff, N. (2009). Neo-colonialism and research collaboration in Central Africa. Scientometrics, 81(2), 413–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burger, M., van Oort, F., & Linders, G.-J. (2009). On the specification of the gravity model of trade: Zeros, excess zeros and zero-inflated estimation. Spatial Economic Analysis, 4(2), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1990). Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics, 46(3), 347–364.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantner, U., & Meder, A. (2007). Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partner. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 2(1), 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Choi, S. (2012). Core-periphery, new clusters, or rising stars? International scientific collaboration among ‘advanced’ countries in the era of globalization. Scientometrics, 90(1), 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Asheim, B. T. (2004). Nodes, networks and proximities: On the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster. European Planning Studies, 12(7), 1003–1018.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. de Crombrugghe, D., Farla, K., Meisel, N., de Neubourg, C., Aoudia, J. O., & Szirmai, A. (2009). Institutional profiles database III—Presentation of the institutional profiles database 2009 (IPD 2009). Documents des Travail de la DGTPE, 2009/14.Google Scholar
  21. de Solla Price, D. (1963). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., & Soete, L. (1990). The economics of technical change and international trade. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  23. Edquist, C., & Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organizations in systems of innovation. in Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations (pp. 41–63). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  24. Felbermayr, G. J., & Toubal, F. (2010). Cultural proximity and trade. European Economic Review, 54(2), 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flowerdew, R., & Aitkin, M. (1982). A method of fitting the gravity model based on the Poisson distribution. Journal of Regional Science, 22(2), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 A. Pyka, & A. Scharnhorst (Eds.), Innovation networks (pp. 43–57). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gertler, M. S. (1995). “Being there”: Proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic Geography, 71(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Greene, W. H. (1994). Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. NYU Working Paper, No. EC-94-10.Google Scholar
  31. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, K. S. (2003). Subfield and level classification of journals. CHI Research Inc., CHI No. 2012-R.Google Scholar
  33. Helpman, E., Melitz, M., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Estimating trade flows: Trading partners and trading volumes. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123(2), 441–487.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39(5), 662–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hoekman, J., Scherngell, T., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. (2013). Acquisition of European research funds and its effect on international scientific collaboration. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(1), 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Howells, J. R. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5-6), 871–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Isard, W. (1954). Location theory and trade theory: Short-run analysis. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 68(2), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R &D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. The American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.Google Scholar
  40. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kirat, T., & Lung, Y. (1999). Innovation and proximity: Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lundberg, J., Tomson, G., Lundkvist, I., Skar, J., & Brommels, M. (2006). CCollaboration uncovered: Exploring the adequacy of measuring university–industry collaboration through co-authorship and funding. Scientometrics, 69(3), 575–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lundvall, B. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349–369). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  46. Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  47. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values, 17(1), 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mattsson, P., Laget, P., Nilsson, A., & Sundberg, C.-J. (2008). Intra-EU vs. extra-EU scientific co-publication patterns in EU. Scientometrics, 75(3), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mayer, T., & Zignago, S. (2006). Notes on CEPII’s distances measures. CEPII (Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Information Internationales), Paris.Google Scholar
  50. Melitz, J. (2008). Language and foreign trade. European Economic Review, 52(4), 667–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miquel, J., & Okubo, Y. (1994). Structure of international collaboration in science, part II: Comparisons of profiles in countries using a link indicator. Scientometrics, 29(2), 271–297. doi:10.1007/BF02017977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nagpaul, P. (2003). Exploring a pseudo-regression model of transnational cooperation in science. Scientometrics, 56(3), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21(3), 13–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Peri, G. (2005). Determinants of knowledge flows and their effect on innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 87(2), 308–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Santos Silva, J., & Tenreyro, S. (2006). The log of gravity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 641–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2009). Spatial interaction modelling of cross-region R&D collaborations: Empirical evidence from the 5th EU Framework Programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3), 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU Framework Programme. The Annals of Regional Science, 46(2), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scherngell, T., & Hu, Y. (2011). Collaborative knowledge production in China: Regional evidence from a gravity model approach. Regional Studies, 45(6), 755–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schubert, A., & Glänzel, W. (2006). Cross-national preference in co-authorship, references and citations. Scientometrics, 69(2), 409–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shan, W., & Hamilton, W. (1991). Country-specific advantage and international cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tinbergen, J. (1962). Shaping the world economy: Suggestions for an international economic policy. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.Google Scholar
  64. Torre, A., & Gilly, J.-P. (2000). On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34(2), 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica, 57(2), 307–333.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zeller, C. (2004). North Atlantic innovative relations of Swiss pharmaceuticals and the proximities with regional biotech arenas. Economic Geography, 80(1), 83–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47, 627–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1. National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (STATEC)LuxembourgLuxembourg
  2. 2.University of PassauPassauGermany

Personalised recommendations