Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 61, Issue 1, pp 49–71 | Cite as

The influence of distance types on co-patenting and co-publishing in the USA and Europe over time

Original Paper
  • 170 Downloads

Abstract

This study focuses on diverse dimensions of distance shaping collaboration in Europe and the USA during the time period 1999–2009. We take a comparative perspective by analysing two different collaboration networks (patents and publications) and two different economic areas, in order to examine differences in collaboration activities. In particular, we investigate how the collaboration intensity between regions has been influenced by spatial, technological, and cultural distance and whether these distances have lost importance over time in the distinct networks. The study adopts a panel spatial interaction modelling perspective. The results show that indeed the impact of various kinds of distances differs between Europe and the USA and changes over time.

JEL Classification

C23 O38 L14 R15 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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 Reg Sci 86(3):495–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltagi B (2008) Econometric analysis of panel data, 4th edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bivand RS, Pebesma E, Gomez-Rubio V (2013) Applied spatial data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2009) Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. J Econ Geogr 9(4):439–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breschi S, Lissoni F, Malerba F (2003) Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Res Policy 32(1):69–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broekel T, Binder M (2007) The regional dimension of knowledge transfers—a behavioral approach. Ind Innov 14(2):151–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brunet R (2002) Lignes De Force De L’espace Européen. Mappemondo 66:14–19Google Scholar
  11. Cairncross F (1997) The death of distance. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Cappelli R, Montobbio F (2013) European integration and knowledge flows across european regions. Department of economics and statistics “Cognetti de Martiis” working paper 22/13DGoogle Scholar
  13. Chessa A, Morescalchi A, Pammolli F, Penner O, Petersen AM, Riccaboni M (2013) Is Europe evolving toward an integrated research area? Science 339(6120):650–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Choi D, Valikangas L (2001) Patterns of strategy innovation. Eur Manag J 19(4):424–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chun Y (2008) Modeling network autocorrelation within migration flows by eigenvector spatial filtering. J Geogr Syst 10:317–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2011) Progress report on the Europe 2020 strategy, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2012) Europeans and their languages. Special Eurobarometer 386Google Scholar
  18. Fichet de Clairfontaine A, Fischer MM, Lata R, Paier M (2015) Barriers to cross-region research and development collaborations in Europe: evidence from the fifth European framework programme. Ann Reg Sci 54(2):577–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischer MM (2002) Learning in neural spatial interaction models: a statistical perspective. J Geogr Syst 4(3):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer MM, Reismann M (2002) A methodology for neural spatial interaction modeling. Geogr Anal 34(2):207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischer MM, Griffith D (2008) Modeling spatial autocorrelation in spatial interaction data: an application to patent citation data in the European Union. J Reg Sci 48:969–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Fischer MM, Wang J (2011) Spatial data analysis. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fritsch M, Slavtchev V (2007) Universities and innovation in space. Ind Innov 14(2):201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Griffith D (2003) Spatial autocorrelation and spatial filtering: gaining understanding through theory and scientific visualization. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoekman J, Frenken K, Tijssen RJW (2010) Research collaboration at a distance: changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Res Policy 39(5):662–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoekman J, Frenken K, van Oort F (2009) The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Ann Reg Sci 43(3):721–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ihrke DK, Faber CS (2012) Geographical mobility: 2005–2010. Population characteristics, United States Census BureauGoogle Scholar
  29. Katz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Res Policy 26(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krisztin T, Fischer MM (2015) The gravity model for international trade. Spat Econ Anal 10(4):451–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lata R, Scherngell T, Brenner T (2015) Integration processes in European research and development: a comparative spatial interaction approach using project based research and development networks, co-patent networks and co-publication networks. Geogr Anal 47(4):349–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. LeSage JP, Pace K (2008) Spatial econometric modeling of origin-destination flows. J Reg Sci 48:941–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maurseth PB, Verspagen B (2002) Knowledge spillovers in Europe: a patent citations analysis. Scand J Econ 104(4):531–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Moreno R, Paci R, Usai S (2005) Spatial spillovers and innovation activity in European regions. Environ Planning A 37:1793–1812Google Scholar
  35. Morescalchi A, Pammolli F, Penner O, Petersen AM, Riccaboni M (2014) The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: evidence from patent data. IMT Lucca EIC working paper series #01/2014Google Scholar
  36. Nooteboom B (2000) Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Nooteboom B, Van Haverbeke W, Duysters G, Gilsing V, van den Oord A (2007) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res Policy 36(7):1016–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rafols I, Leydesdorff L, O’Hare A, Nightingale P, Stirling A (2012) How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: a comparison between innovation studies and business and management. Res Policy 41(7):1262–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scherngell T, Barber M (2011) Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. Ann Reg Sci 46(2):247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Scherngell T, Lata R (2013) Towards an integrated European research area? Findings from eigenvector spatially filtered spatial interaction models using European framework programme data. Papers in regional scienceGoogle Scholar
  41. Sen A, Smith ET (1995) Gravity models of spatial interaction behaviour. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland (2012) Bevölkerung und Erwerbstätigkeit: Wanderungen. Fachserie 1 Reihe 1.2, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  43. Storper M, Venables AJ (2004) Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. J Econ Geogr 4(4):351–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ter Wal ALJ (2010) Cluster emergence and network evolution: a longitudinal analysis of the inventor network in Sophia-Antipolis. Reg Stud 47:1–18Google Scholar
  45. Torre A (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Reg Stud 42(6):869–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wooldridge JM (2008) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Economic Geography and Location ResearchPhilipps University MarburgMarburgGermany
  2. 2.Strategy DepartmentAustrian Research Promotion Agenty (FFG)ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations