Advertisement

A Descriptive Statistics Exploration of Spatio-temporal Patterns in Inventive Activities in the Pharmaceutical Industry

  • Ben VermeulenEmail author
  • Inga Zvarich
  • Beatrice Messmer
Chapter
  • 807 Downloads
Part of the Economic Complexity and Evolution book series (ECAE)

Abstract

The findings reported in literature on spatio-temporal patterns in knowledge flows in inventive activities are mixed. We discern two basic theories. Firstly, breakthrough inventions require acquiring alien knowledge outside the region. Externalities then stimulate co-location of subsequent incremental innovation activities. Secondly, breakthrough inventions require cross-fertilization of tacit knowledge from different industries, which requires co-location. After this, progressive codification and technological crystallization facilitates diffusion and collaboration over greater distances. We formulate several additional hypotheses on spatio-temporal phenomena in knowledge flows. We then conduct a descriptive statistics exploration of forward citation graphs of breakthrough inventions of an originator in the pharmaceutical industry. We find indications for several distinct spatio-temporal phenomena following a breakthrough. We find progressive globalization in collaboration within groups of inventors and provide several potential causes. In addition, we also find indications for increasing spatial dispersal of groups of inventors collaborating locally on follow-up technology. Moreover, we find increasingly local follow-up, i.e. that the distance between groups of inventors of cited and citing patent becomes smaller. We provide several suggestions to extend this study.

Keywords

Inventive Activity Technological Knowledge Patent Citation Knowledge Flow Forward Citation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson P, Tushman ML (1990) Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Admin Sci Q 35(4):604–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asheim B, Coenen L, Vang J (2007) Face-to-face, buzz, and knowledge bases: sociospatial implications for learning, innovation, and innovation policy. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 25(5):655–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atallah G, Rodriguez G (2006) Indirect patent citations. Scientometrics 67(3):437–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch D, Feldman M (1996) Innovative clusters and the industry lifecycle. Rev Ind Organ 11(2):253–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progr Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Ind Corp Change 10:975–1005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cairncross F (2001) The death of distance: how the communications revolution is changing our lives. Harvard Business, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Ind Corp Change 9(2):211–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Pol 11(3):147–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gertler M (2003) Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). J Econ Geogr 3:75–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Giuliani E (2007) The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. J Econ Geogr 7(2):139–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Griffith R, Lee S, Van Reenen J (2011) Is distance dying at last? Falling home bias in fixed-effects models of patent citations. Quant Econ 2(2):211–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heebels B, Boschma R (2011) Performing in Dutch book publishing 1880–2008: the importance of entrepreneurial experience and the Amsterdam cluster. J Econ Geogr 11:1007–1029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Johnson B, Lorenz E, Lundvall B (2002) Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Ind Corp Change 11(2):245–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ketels C (2007) The role of clusters in the chemical industry. Technical report for the European Petrochemical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  18. Klepper S (1997) Industry life cycles. Ind Corp Change 6:145–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Malmberg A, Maskell P (2002) The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environ Plann A 34:429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menzel M-P, Fornahl D (2010) Cluster life cycles—dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution. Ind Corp Change 19(1):205–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Neffke F, Henning M, Boschma R, Lundquist K, Olander L (2011) The dynamics of agglomeration externalities along the life cycle of industries. Reg Stud 45:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nooteboom B, Van Haverbeke W, Duysters G, Gilsing V, Van den Oord A (2007) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res Pol 36(7):1016–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Cox & Wyman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Rallet A, Torre A (1999) Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal 49(4):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reger G (2000) Internationalization of research and development in pharmaceuticals. In: Jungmittag A, Reger G, Reiss T (eds) Changing innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: globalization and new ways of drug development. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sonn JW, Storper M (2003) The increasing importance of geographical proximity in technological innovation: an analysis of U.S. patent citations, 1975–1997. Paper prepared for the conference: what do we know about innovation? in Honour of Keith Pavitt, Sussex, 13–15 Nov 2003Google Scholar
  27. Ter Wal A (2014) The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure. J Econ Geogr 14:589–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trajtenberg M (1990) A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND J Econ 21(1):172–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Trajtenberg M, Hall B, Jaffe A (2001) The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER working paper no. 8498Google Scholar
  30. Von Wartburg I, Teichert T, Rost K (2005) Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Res Pol 34(10):1591–1607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wenting R (2008) Spinoff dynamics and the spatial formation of the fashion design industry, 1858–2005. J Econ Geogr 8:593–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EconomicsUniversität HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations