Advertisement

The Urban Concentration of Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Agricultural and Natural Resource Industries

  • Ghulam SamadEmail author
  • Gregory D. Graff
Chapter
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

This study draws on detailed information on inventor address from 34,196 patented biotechnology inventions, made in the United States between 1970 and 2010, as indicators of innovation and entrepreneurship in three largely rural industries—(1) agriculture, (2) bioenergy, and (3) environment. Three approaches (mapping, Moran I, and negative binomial panel regression analysis) are used to analyze the spatial distribution of patented inventions by region, to identify the density of inventions overall as well as the space–time dynamics of invention cumulativeness. We find these inventions have been spatially concentrated in about 30 major metropolitan clusters, and that spatial distribution has remained remarkably stable over time. Factors of population and earnings are unsurprisingly correlated with invention counts. However, farm proprietor income is also positively related to the number of invention counts, suggesting that more linkages and spillovers within the industry lead to more opportunity for inventions. Significant policy implications include the distribution of public research funding, technology transfer strategies, regional collective action for fostering (largely urban) entrepreneurship for (largely rural) industries, and the actual roles and impacts of (again urban) innovation in these industries on commonly held policy objectives for rural economic development. There are also important implications from the extent to which (urban) innovators and (rural) producers in these industries are not intimately colocated.

Keywords

Patent Agriculture Environment Biotechnology Innovation Agglomeration Urban Rural 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Brooke Childers for excellent research assistance, and the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade for help with data and conceptual development of the arguments in this paper. All errors and omissions are solely the responsibility of the authors.

References

  1. Acs ZJ (2001) Endogenous technological change, entrepreneurship and regional growth. In: Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 228–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Albers SC, Berklund AM, Graff GD (2016) The rise and fall of innovation in biofuels. Nat Biotech 34(8)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow KJ (1971) The economic implications of learning by doing. In: Readings in the theory of growth. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 131–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch DB, Stephan PE (1996) Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. Am Econ Rev 86(3):641–652Google Scholar
  6. Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–40Google Scholar
  7. Breschi S (2010) The geography of innovation: a cross-sector analysis. Reg Stud 34(3):213–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Breschi S, Malerba F, Orsenigo L (2000) Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Econ J 110(463):388–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeVol R, Wong P, Ki J, Bedroussian A, Koepp R (2004) America’s biotech and life science clusters. Milken InstituteGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellison G, Glaeser EL, Kerr WR (2010) What causes industry agglomeration? Evidence from coagglomeration patterns. Am Econ Rev 100(3):1195–1213Google Scholar
  11. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaeser EL, Resseger MG (2010) The complementarity between cities and skills. J Reg Sci 50(1):221–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graff GD, Cullen SE, Bradford KJ, Zilberman D, Bennett AB (2003) The public–private structure of intellectual property ownership in agricultural biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol 21(9):989–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graff GD, Phillips D, Lei Z, Sooyoung Oh, Nottenburg C, Pardey PG (2013) Not quite a myriad of gene patents. Nat Biotechnol 31(5):404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griliches Zvi (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28(4):1661–1707Google Scholar
  16. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M (2001) The NBER patent citation data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools, No W8498. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  17. Hausman Jerry, Hall Bronwy H, Griliches Zvi (1984) Econometric models for count data and with application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica 52(4):909–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huffman WE, Evenson RE (2006) Science for agriculture: a long-term perspective, 2nd edn. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, IACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krugman P (1991) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Malerba F, Orsenigo L (1990) Technological regimes and patterns of innovation: a theoretical and empirical investigation of the Italian case. In: Heertje A, Perlman M (eds) Evolving technology and market structure. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 283–305Google Scholar
  21. Malerba F, Orsenigo L (1996) Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Res Policy 25(3):451–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Martínez C (2010) Patent families: when do different definitions really matter? Scientometrics 86(1):39–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson R, Winter S (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Bellknap, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  26. Ryan CD, Phillips PW (2004) Knowledge management in advanced technology industries: an examination of international agricultural biotechnology clusters. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 22(2):217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saxenian A (1996) Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley, and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  28. Schmookler J (1954) The level of inventive activity. Rev Econ Stat 183–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tan D, Cheng C, Lei M, Zhao Y (2017) Spatial distributions and determinants of regional innovation in China: evidence from Chinese metropolitan data. Emerg Markets Financ Trade 53:1442–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Usai S (2010) The geography of inventive activity in OECD regions. Reg Stud 45(6):711–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. USDA Economic Research Service (2018) Farm finance indicators, state ranking, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  32. von Hippel E (1988) The sources of innovation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang Z, Cheng Y, Ye X, Wei YD (2016) Analyzing the space–time dynamics of innovation in China: ESDA and spatial panel approaches. Growth Change 47(1):111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zucker LG, Darby MR (1996) Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:12709–12716CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Degree Program in EcologyColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  3. 3.Fellow, Regional Economic Development InstituteColorado State UniversityFort CollinsUSA
  4. 4.Fellow, International Science and Technology Policy and PracticeUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations