Abstract
We characterize the geography of communities in the European R&D network using data on R&D projects funded by the fifth European Framework Programme. Communities are subnetworks whose members are more tightly linked to one another than to other members of the network. We characterize the communities by means of spatial interaction models, and estimate the impact of separation factors on the variation of cross-region collaboration activities in a given community at the level of 255 NUTS-2 regions. The results demonstrate that European R&D networks are made up of distinct, relevant substructures characterized by spatially heterogeneous community groups.
Keywords
- European Patent Office
- International Patent Classification
- Bipartite Network
- European Research Area
- Spatial Interaction Model
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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The version of the EUPRO database used for this study contains information on 61,169 projects funded from FP1 to FP6, yielding 323,638 participations by 60.034 organizations (status: December 2010).
- 2.
- 3.
We follow previous similar empirical work and rely on a NUTS2 disaggregation of the European territory (see Fischer et al. 2006; LeSage et al. 2007; Scherngell and Barber 2009, 2011). The NUTS2 level provides the basis for the provision of structural funds by the EU, as well as for the evaluation of regional growth processes across Europe (see Fischer et al. 2009).
- 4.
Note that we do not exclude zero-flows or intraregional flows.
References
Almendral JA, Oliveira JG, López L, Sanjuán MAF, Mendes JFF (2007) The interplay of universities and industry through the FP5 network. New J Phys 9(6):183–198
Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86:630–640
Autant-Bernard C, Mairesse J, Massard N (2007) Spatial knowledge diffusion through collaborative networks. Pap Reg Sci 86:341–350
Barber MJ (2007) Modularity and community detection in bipartite networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 76(6):066102
Barber MJ, Clark JW (2009) Detecting network communities by propagating labels under constraints. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 80(2):026129
Barber MJ, Faria M, Streit L, Strogan O (2008) Searching for communities in Bipartite networks. In: Bernido C, Carpio-Bernido MV (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Jagna international workshop: stochastic and quantum dynamics of biomolecular systems. Springer, New York
Barber MJ, Krueger A, Krueger T, Roediger-Schluga T (2006) Network of European Union-funded collaborative research and development projects. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 73(3):036132
Breschi S, Cusmano L (2004) Unveiling the texture of a European research area: emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. Int J Technol Manag 27(8):747–772, Special Issue on Technology Alliances
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (1998) Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York
CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2007) Green paper ‘The European research area: new perspectives’. {SEC(2007) 412}, COM(2007)161 final, Brussels, 4 April 2007
CORDIS (1998) Fifth framework programme (1998–2002) http://cordis.europa.eu/fp5/about.htm
Cowan R (2004) Network models of innovation and knowledge diffusion, Unu-MERIT working paper series, 2004-016
Ejermo O, Karlsson C (2006) Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Res Policy 35(3):412–430
Fischer MM, Scherngell T, Jansenberger E (2006) The geography of knowledge spillovers between high-technology firms in Europe. Evidence from a spatial interaction modelling perspective. Geogr Anal 38:288–309
Fischer MM, Scherngell T, Reismann M (2009) Knowledge spillovers and total factor productivity: evidence using a spatial panel data model. Geogr Anal 41:204–220
Fortunato S (2010) Community detection in graphs. Phys Rep 486(3–5):75–174
Fortunato S, Castellano C (2008) Community structure in graphs. In: Robert A Meyers (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and system science. Springer, New York
Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99(12):7821–7826
Granstrand O (1998) Towards a theory of the technology-based firm. Res Policy 27(5):465–489
Guimerà R, Sales-Pardo M, Amaral LAN (2007) Module identification in bipartite and directed networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 76(3):036102
Hagedoorn J, van Kranenburg H (2003) Growth patterns in R&D partnerships: an exploratory statistical study. Int J Ind Organ 21:517–531
Higham DJ, Kibble M (2004) A unified view of spectral clustering. Mathematics Research Report 02, University of Strathclyde
Hoekman J, Frenken K, van Oort F (2009) The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Ann Reg Sci 43:721–738
Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108(3):577–598
Kogut B (1988) Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strateg Manag J 9:319–332
LeSage J, Fischer MM, Scherngell T (2007) Knowledge spillovers across Europe. Evidence from a Poisson spatial interaction model with spatial effects. Pap Reg Sci 86:393–421
Leung IXY, Hui P, Lio’ P, Crowcroft J (2009) Towards real-time community detection in large networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 79(6):066–107
Long JS, Freese J (2001) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Corporation, College Station
Lundvall BA (1992) National innovation systems. Pinter, London
Maggioni MA, Nosvelli M, Uberti TA (2007) Space versus networks in the geography of innovation: a European analysis. Pap Reg Sci 86:471–493
Maurseth PB, Verspagen B (2002) Knowledge spillovers in Europe: a patent citation analysis. Scand J Econ 104:531–545
Newman MEJ, Girvan M (2004) Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 69(2):026113
Ozman M (2009) Inter-firm networks and innovation: a survey of literature. Econ Innovation New Tech 18:39–67
Pavitt K (2005) Innovation processes. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 86–114
Porter MA, Onnela J-P, Mucha PJ (2009) Communities in networks. Not Am Math Soc 56(9):1082–1097
Powell WW, Grodal S (2005) Networks of innovators. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 56–85
Raghavan UN, Albert R, Kumara S (2007) Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys 76(3):036106
Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:71–102
Roediger-Schluga T, Barber MJ (2006) The structure of R&D collaboration networks in the European framework programmes, Unu-MERIT working paper series, 2006-36
Roediger-Schluga T, Barber MJ (2008) R&D collaboration networks in the European framework programmes: data processing, network construction and selected results. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 4:321–347
Scherngell T, Barber MJ (2009) Spatial interaction modelling of cross-region R&D collaborations. Empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme. Pap Reg Sci 88:531–546
Scherngell T, Barber M (2011) Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: evidence from the 5th EU framework programme. Ann Reg Sci 46:247–266
Sen A, Smith TE (1995) Gravity models of spatial interaction behaviour. Springer, Berlin/New York/Heidelberg
Singh J (2005) Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Manag Sci 51(5):756–770
Teece D (1992) Competition, co-operation, and innovation. Organisational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. J Econ Behav Organ 18:1–25
Ter Wal ALJ, Boschma R (2009) Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic issues. Ann Reg Sci 43(3):739–756
Thompson P (2006) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: evidence from inventor- and examiner-added citations. Rev Econ Stat 88(2):383–388
Vicente V, Balland PA Brossard O (2010) Getting into networks and clusters: evidence from the Midi-Pyrenean global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) collaboration network. Reg Stud. doi:10.1080/00343401003713340
Zucker LG, Darby MR, Armstrong J (1998a) Geographically localized knowledge: spillovers or markets? Econ Inq XXXVI:65–86
Zucker LG, Darby MR, Brewer M (1998b) Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88(1):290–306
Acknowledgments
This work has been partly funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): [I 886-G11] and the Multi-Year Research Grant (MYRG) – Level iii (RC Ref. No. MYRG119(Y1-L3)-ICMS12-HYJ) by the University of Macau.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
NUTS is an acronym of the French for the “nomenclature of territorial units for statistics”, which is a hierarchical system of regions used by the statistical office of the European Community for the production of regional statistics. At the top of the hierarchy are NUTS-0 regions (countries) below which are NUTS-1 regions and then NUTS-2 regions. This study disaggregates Europe’s territory into 255 NUTS-2 regions located in the EU-25 member states (except Cyprus and Malta) plus Norway and Switzerland. We exclude the Spanish North African territories of Ceuta y Melilla, the Portuguese non-continental territories Azores and Madeira, and the French Departments d’Outre-Mer Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guayana and Reunion.
Appendix 2
We list here the most active regions for the eight communities considered in depth in this paper. For each community, we give the 20 regions with the highest number of participations in projects from the community. The number of participations is shown parenthetically. Regions are given in descending order of the number of participations.
Aerospace: | Île de France (1232), Comunidad de Madrid (691), Oberbayern (581), Danmark (526), Noord-Holland (440), Köln (365), Attiki (320), Inner London (306), Lombardia (285), Greater Manchester (276), Bedfordshire & Hertfordshire (271), Etelä-Suomi (269), Campania (266), Midi-Pyrénées (248), Dytiki Ellada (247), Outer London (243), Lazio (241), Liguria (239), Hampshire & Isle of Wight (225), País Vasco (224) |
Aquatic Resources: | Agder og Rogaland (97), North Eastern Scotland (93), Danmark (91), Comunidad de Madrid (73), Flevoland (67), Noord-Holland (67), Hamburg (57), Algarve (55), Kriti (49), Attiki (47), Northern Ireland (39), Southern and Eastern (38), East Anglia (31), Andalucía (26), País Vasco (25), Galicia (24), Prov. West-Vlaanderen (22), Etelä-Suomi (21), Eastern Scotland (18), Vestlandet (17) |
Electronics: | Île de France (3537), Oberbayern (1390), Attiki (1182), Rhône-Alpes (1012), Comunidad de Madrid (863), Köln (831), Lombardia (768), Lazio (728), Zuid-Holland (578), Danmark (563), Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire (559), Berlin (540), Région lémanique (531), Noord-Brabant (523), Inner London (519), Cataluña (509), Prov. Vlaams-Brabant (483), Southern and Eastern (471), Stuttgart (433), Outer London (430) |
Environment: | Île de France (1020), Danmark (782), Aττική/ Attiki (627), Etelä-Suomi (580), Lazio (565), Zuid-Holland (526), Noord-Holland (479), Comunidad de Madrid (426), East Anglia (414), Lombardia (395), Southern and Eastern (378), Cataluña (373), Stockholm (357), Gelderland (355), Wien (350), Andalucía (326), Utrecht (306), Karlsruhe (305), Agder og Rogaland (295), Hampshire & Isle of Wight (294) |
Ground Transport: | Île de France (846), Stuttgart (698), Piemonte (587), Köln (385), Zuid-Holland (346), Lombardia (323), Oberbayern (293), Västsverige (290), Etelä-Suomi (226), Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire (218), Kentriki Makedonia (200), Lazio (177), Hannover (175), País Vasco (168), Comunidad de Madrid (144), Steiermark (141), Noord-Holland (127), Prov. Vlaams-Brabant (123), Rhône-Alpes (119), Darmstadt (118) |
Information Processing: | Eastern Scotland (40), Lombardia (21), Etelä-Suomi (20), Lazio (18), Zuid-Holland (16), Hampshire & Isle of Wight (14), Île de France (12), Attiki (11), Outer London (11), Stockholm (10), Sør-Østlandet (10), Danmark (7), Darmstadt (7), Southern and Eastern (7), Noord-Holland (5), Comunidad de Madrid (4), Essex (4), Limburg (NL) (4), Luxembourg (Grand-Duché) (4), Espace Mittelland (3) |
Life Sciences: | Île de France (1860), Danmark (1055), Gelderland (843), Outer London (703), Lombardia (658), East Anglia (637), Comunidad de Madrid (636), Inner London (605), Cataluña (569), Zuid-Holland (547), Utrecht (538), Lazio (529), Stockholm (521), Karlsruhe (519), Prov. Vlaams-Brabant (495), Rhône-Alpes (494), Southern and Eastern (481), Oberbayern (458), Région de Bruxelles-Capitale/Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (442), Eastern Scotland (396) |
Sea Transport: | Danmark (190), Liguria (144), Hamburg (137), Île de France (135), Outer London (115), South Western Scotland (105), Agder og Rogaland (99), Zuid-Holland (88), Attiki (76), Pays de la Loire (61), Bremen (58), Surrey, East & West Sussex (48), Västsverige (43), Comunidad de Madrid (40), Etelä-Suomi (36), Friuli-Venezia Giulia (35), Gelderland (35), Hampshire & Isle of Wight (33), Trøndelag (32), Région de Bruxelles-Capitale/Brussels Hoofdstedelijk Gewest (30) |
Appendix 3
Raghavan et al. (2007) proposed a label propagation algorithm (LPA) for identifying communities in networks. Community membership is tracked by labels assigned to the graph vertices; a community is a set of all vertices with a particular label. Each vertex is assigned a single label, and thus belongs to a single community.
Call a label satisfactory for a vertex when no other label occurs more frequently among its neighbors. The core of the LPA is a process of replacing unsatisfactory labels with satisfactory ones, continuing until all vertices have satisfactory labels. This idea is illustrated in Fig. 9.3 using a toy network with visually apparent community structure. In Fig. 9.3a, there are three different labels, shown by the vertex shading. The black and white labels are all satisfactory for their vertices. Of the three gray labels, two are unsatisfactory for their vertices, shown by double borders on the vertices: one neighbors a single gray vertex and two black vertices, the other neighbors a single gray vertex and three white vertices. The third gray label is satisfactory: the vertex neighbors two gray vertices and two black vertices. In Fig. 9.3b, all vertices have satisfactory labels.
The algorithm begins from a state where all vertices have different labels (and thus are generally all unsatisfactory). Taken in random order, the vertices are considered to see whether their labels are satisfactory and updated to be satisfactory when not; if multiple labels would be satisfactory, one is chosen at random. For the example network shown in Fig. 9.3a, the two vertices with gray labels must then be updated, one to have a black label, the other to have a white label; note that changing these two gray labels will cause the third gray label to become unsatisfactory. Multiple relabeling passes are made through the vertices, with the algorithm halting when all vertices have a satisfactory label, such as in Fig. 9.3b.
The LPA offers a number of desirable qualities. As described above, it is conceptually simple, being readily understood and quickly implemented. The algorithm is efficient in practice. Each relabeling iteration through the vertices has a computational complexity linear in the number of edges in the graph. The total number of iterations is not a priori clear, but relatively few iterations are needed to assign the final label to most of the vertices (typically over 95 % of vertices in 5 iterations, see Raghavan et al. 2007; Leung et al. 2009).
The LPA defines communities procedurally, rather than as optimization of an objective function, and thus provides no intrinsic measure for the quality of communities found. To assess community quality, we can introduce an auxiliary measure, such as the popular modularity measure (Newman and Girvan 2004); in this work, more suitable is a version of modularity specialized to bipartite networks (Barber 2007). Using modularity, communities found using LPA are seen to be of high quality (Raghavan et al. 2007): label propagation is both fast and effective. Indeed, Leung et al. (2009) have proposed extensions to the label propagation algorithm that make it comparable to the best algorithms for community detection in quality and efficient enough to analyze very large networks.
Barber and Clark (2009) have elucidated the connection between label propagation and modularity, showing that modularity can be maximized by propagating labels subject to additional constraints and proposing several variations of the LPA. In this paper, we make use of a hybrid, two-stage label propagation scheme, consisting of the LPAr variant followed by the LPAb variant (see Barber and Clark 2009 for details). LPAr is defined similarly to the original LPA presented above, but with additional randomness to allow the algorithm to avoid premature termination. In practice, this produces better communities as measured by modularity than does LPA. LPAb imposes constraints on the label propagation so that the algorithm identifies a local maximum in the bipartite modularity. The overall hybrid algorithm thus belongs to the recent class of algorithms based on modularity maximization (for a survey, see Fortunato 2010).
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barber, M.J., Scherngell, T. (2013). The Community Structure of European R&D Collaboration. In: Scherngell, T. (eds) The Geography of Networks and R&D Collaborations. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02699-2_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02699-2_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02698-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02699-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)