The Location of Industry R&D and the Location of University R&D: How Are They Related?

  • Charlie KarlssonEmail author
  • Martin Andersson
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


At the same time as we can observe strong tendencies of globalization of R&D (Florida 1997; Cantwell 1998), we also observe strong spatial clustering of R&D and related innovation activities (Audretsch and Feldman 1996). The standard explanation in the literature of the clustering phenomenon is that clustering brings about external knowledge economies, typically in the form of knowledge flows,1 which tend to be spatially bounded (Jaffe et al. 1993). R&D is a typical innovation activity; irrespective of whether it is focused on new products or new processes. Industry – i.e., private firms – and universities are the major performers of R&D. It is well established in the literature that both university and industry R&D have a positive effect on innovation output (often measured by patent applications), but that the effect diminishes with distance because knowledge flows are spatially bound and that clustering is consequently an effective spatial configuration.


Technological Knowledge Knowledge Spillover Functional Region Knowledge Flow Innovation Output 
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.


  1. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Feldman MP (1992) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 82:363–367Google Scholar
  2. Adams JD (2001) Comparative localisation of academic and industrial spillovers. NBER Working Paper Series 8292, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A (2002) Technology acquisition strategy for early-stage innovations: measuring the importance of engaging the inventor. Queen’s University (mimeo)Google Scholar
  4. Agrawal A, Cockburn IM (2002) University research, industrial R&D and the anchor tenant hypothesis. NBER Working paper 9212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  5. Agrawal A, Cockburn IM (2003) The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D intensive firms in regional innovation systems. Int J Ind Organ 21:1227–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrawal A, Henderson R (2002) Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Manage Sci 48:44–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alecke B et al (2003) New empirical evidence on the geographic concentration of German industries: do high-tech clusters really matter? Ann Reg SciGoogle Scholar
  8. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1992) Discrete choice theory of product differentiation. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  9. Andersson M, Karlsson C (2004) The role of accessibility for regional innovation systems. In: Karlsson C, Flensburg P, Hörte SA (eds) Knowledge spillovers and knowledge management. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 283–310Google Scholar
  10. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local geographical spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42:422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arundel A, Kabla I (1998) What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Res Policy 27:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Audretsch DB, Feldman M (1994) Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Discussion Paper 953, Centre for Economic Policy Research, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Audretsch DB, Feldman M (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86:630–640Google Scholar
  14. Bade FJ, Nerlinger EA (2000) The spatial distribution of new technology-based firms: empirical results for West-Germany. Pap Reg Sci 79:155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baptista R, Swann P (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more? Res Policy 27:527–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Barrios S et al (2003) Agglomeration economies and the location of industries: a comparison of three small European countries. CORE Discussion paper, 2003-67Google Scholar
  17. Batten DF, Kobayashi K, Andersson ÅE (1989) Knowledge, nodes and networks: an analytical perspective. In: Andersson ÅE, Batten DF, Karlsson C (eds) Knowledge and industrial organization. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–46Google Scholar
  18. Beise M, Stahl H (1999) Public research and industrial innovation in Germany. Res Policy 28:397–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bottazzi L, Peri G (2003) Innovation and spillovers in regions: evidence from European patent data. Eur Econ Rev 47:687–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Branstetter L (2000) Measuring the link between academic science and industrial innovation: the case of California’s research universities. Paper presented at the NBER Summer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  21. Breschi S (1999) Spatial patterns of innovation: evidence from patent data. In: Gambardella, Malerba (eds) The organization of economic innovation in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 71–102Google Scholar
  22. Cantwell J (1998) The globalisation of technology: what remains of the product cycle model? In: Chandler AD, Hagström P, Sölvell O (eds) The dynamic firm: the role of technology, strategy, organization, and regions. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 263–288Google Scholar
  23. Cockburn I, Henderson R (1998) Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behaviour and the organisation of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ XLVI:157–182Google Scholar
  24. Cohen DW et al (1998) Industry and the academy: uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. In: Noll (ed) Challenges to research universities. Brooking Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Cohen DW, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99: 569–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen DW, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cohen DW, Nelson RR, Walsh J (2002) Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manage Sci 48:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Colyvas J et al (2002) How do university inventions go into practice? Manage Sci 48:61–72Google Scholar
  29. Cornes R, Sandler T (1986) The theory of externalities, public goods and club goods. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Devereux MP, Griffith R, Simpson H (1999) The geographic distribution of production activity in the UK. IFS Working Paper W99/26, Institute for Fiscal Studies, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Di Gregorio, Shane S (2000) Why do some universities generate more spillovers than others? University of Maryland, Baltimore (mimeo)Google Scholar
  32. Dorfman NS (1983) Route 128: the development of a regional high technology economy. Res Policy 12:299–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Echeverri-Carrol E (2001) Knowledge spillovers in high technology agglomerations: measurement and modelling. In: Fischer, Fröhlich (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 146–161Google Scholar
  34. Faggian A, McCann P (2006) Human capital flows and regional knowledge assets: a simultaneous equations approach. Oxford Econ Pap 58(3):475–500Google Scholar
  35. Felder J, Fier JA, Nerlinger E (1997a) High Tech in den neuen Ländern: Unternehmensgründungen und Standorte. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie 41:1–17Google Scholar
  36. Felder J, Fier JA, Nerlinger E (1997b) Im Osten nichts Neues? Unternehmensgründungen in High-Tech Industrien. In: Harhoff (ed) Unternehmensgründungen – Empirische Analysen für die alten and neuen Bundesländer, vol 7. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 73–100Google Scholar
  37. Feldman M (1994a) The geography of innovation. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Feldman M (1994b) Knowledge complementarity and innovation. Small Bus Econ 6:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Feldman M et al (2002) Equity and the technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Manage Sci 48:105–121Google Scholar
  40. Feldman MP, Florida R (1994) The geographic sources of innovation: technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 84:210–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fischer MM, Johansson B (1994) Networks for process innovation by firms: conjectures from observations in three countries. In: Johansson B, Karlsson C, Westin L (eds) Advances in spatial and network economics series. Springer, Berlin, pp 261–274Google Scholar
  42. Florida R (1997) The globalisation of R&D: results from a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Res Policy 23:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Florida R, Cohen WM (1999) Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. In: Branscomb LM, Kodama F, Florida R (eds) Industrialising knowledge. University–industry linkages in Japan and the United States. MIT, Cambridge, MA, pp 589–610Google Scholar
  44. Gordon IR, McCann P, Gordon IR (2000) Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks. Urban Stud 37:513–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J Econ 10:92–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Harhoff D (1997a) Innovation in German manufacturing enterprises: empirical studies on productivity, externalities, corporate finance and tax policy. Universität Mannheim, MannheimGoogle Scholar
  47. Harhoff D (ed) (1997b) Unternehmensgründungen – Empirische Analysen für die alten and neuen Bundesländer, vol 7. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  48. Harhoff D (2000) R&D spillovers, technological proximity, and productivity growth – evidence from German panel data. Schmalenbach Bus Rev 52:238–260Google Scholar
  49. Harris RG (2001) The knowledge-based economy: intellectual origins and new economic perspectives. Int J Manage Rev 3:21–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Henderson RM, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (1994) Numbers up, quality down? Trends in university patenting 1965–1992. Presentation to CEPR/AAAS Conference University Goals, Institutional Mechanisms and the Industrial Transferability of Research, Stanford University, 18–20 March 1994Google Scholar
  51. Henderson RM, Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M (1998) Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Rev Econ Stat 80:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Holmberg I, Johansson B, Strömqvist U (2003) A simultaneous model of long-term regional job and population changes. In: Andersson ÅE, Johansson B, Andersson WP (eds), The economics of disappearing distance. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 153–161Google Scholar
  53. Hugosson P, Johansson B (2001) Business trips between functional regions. In: Hugosson P (2001) Interregional business travel and the economics of business interaction. JIBS Dissertation Series No. 009, JönköpingGoogle Scholar
  54. Jaffe AB (1989) Real effects of academic research. Am Econ Rev 79:957–970Google Scholar
  55. Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q J Econ 108:577–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Jensen R, Thursby M (1998) Proofs and prototypes for sale: the tale of university licensing. NBER Working Paper No. 6698, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  57. Johansson B (1997) Regional differentials in the development of economy and population. In: Sörensen (ed) Empirical evidence of regional growth: the centre–periphery discussion. The Expert Committee of the Danish Ministry of the Interior, Copenhagen, pp 107–162Google Scholar
  58. Johansson B (2005) Parsing the menagerie of agglomeration and network externalities. In: Karlsson C, Johansson B, Stough R (eds) Industrial clusters and inter-firm networks. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 107–147Google Scholar
  59. Johansson B, Klaesson J, Olsson M (2002) Time distances and labor market integration. Pap Reg Sci 81:305–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Karlsson C (1994) From knowledge and technology networks to network technology. In: Johansson B, Karlsson C, Westin L (eds) Advances in spatial and network economics series. Springer, Berlin, pp 207–228Google Scholar
  61. Karlsson C, Manduchi A (2001) Knowledge spillovers in a spatial context – a critical review and assessment. In: Fischer, Fröhlich (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 101–123Google Scholar
  62. Kelly M, Hageman A (1999) Marshallian externalities in innovation. J Econ Growth 4:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kobayashi K (1995) Knowledge network and market structure: an analytical perspective. In: Batten DF, Casti J, Thord R (eds) Networks in action. Communication, economics and human knowledge. Springer, Berlin, pp 127–158Google Scholar
  64. Kobayashi K, Andersson ÅE (1994) A Dynamic input–output model with endogenous technical change. In: Johansson B, Karlsson C, Westin L (eds) Advances in spatial and network economics series. Springer, Berlin, pp 243–259Google Scholar
  65. Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3:383–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Liebeskind J et al (1996) Social networks, learning and flexibility: sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms. Organ Sci 7:428–443Google Scholar
  67. Lim K (2000) The many faces of absorptive capacity: spillovers of copper interconnect technology for semiconductor chips. MIT, Cambridge, MA (mimeo)Google Scholar
  68. Luger M, Goldstein H (1997) What is the role of public universities in regional economic development? In: Bingham R, Mier R (eds) Dilemmas of urban economic development. Issues in theory and practice. Sage, London, pp 104–134Google Scholar
  69. MacPherson AD (1998) Academic–industry linkages and small firm innovation: evidence from the scientific instruments sector. Entrepreneurship Reg Dev 10:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Malo S, Geuna A (2000) Science–technology linkages in an emerging research plattform: the case of combinatorial chemistry and biology. Scientometrics 47:303–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mariani M (2002) Next to production or to technological clusters? The economics and management of R&D location. J Manage Gov 6:131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mills E, Carlino G (1989) Dynamics of county growth. In: Andersson Å et al (eds) Advances in spatial theory and dynamics. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  73. Mowery DC, Ziedonis AA (2001) The geographic reach of market and non-market channels of technology transfer: comparing citations and licences of university patents. NBER Working Paper No. 8568, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  74. Narin F, Hamilton KS, Olivastro D (1997) The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Res Policy 26:317–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nelson RR (1986) Institutions supporting technical advance in industry. Am Econ Rev 76:186–189Google Scholar
  76. Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  77. Nerlinger E (1998) Standorte und Entwicklung junger innovativer Unternehmen: Empirische Ergebnisse für West-Deutschland. ZEW-Schriftenreihe 27. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  78. Romer PM (1990) Endogenous technological change. J Polit Econ 98:71–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schumpeter J (1934) The theory of economic development. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  80. Shane S (2002) Selling university technology: patterns from MIT. Manage Sci 48:122–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shaver JM, Flyer F (2000) Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investments in the United States. Strateg Manage J 21:1175–1193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Shimshoni D (1966) Aspects of scientific entrepreneurship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  83. Siegel DS, Westhead P, Wright M (2003) Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. Int J Ind Organ 21:1357–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Soete L (2001) The new economy: a European perspective. In: Archibugi D, Lundvall B-Å (eds) The Globalising learning economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 21–44Google Scholar
  85. Spence MA (1984) Cost reduction, competition and industry performance. Econometrica 52: 101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Stuart TE, Shane S (2002) Organisational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Manage Sci 48:151–170Google Scholar
  87. Teece DJ (1981) The market for know-how and the efficient international transfer of technology. Ann Am Assoc Polit Soc Sci 458:81–86Google Scholar
  88. Teece DJ (1998) Capturing value from knowledge assets: the new economy, markets for know-how and intangible assets. Calif Manage Rev 40:55–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Teplitz P (1965) Spin-off enterprises from a large government-sponsored laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sloan School, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  90. Thursby J, Thursby M (2002) Who is selling the ivory tower? sources of growth in university licensing. Manage Sci 48:90–104Google Scholar
  91. Train K (1993) Qualitative choice analysis – theory econometrics and an application to automobile demand. MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  92. Varga A (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. J Reg Sci 40:289–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Verspagen B (1999) Large firms and knowledge flows in the Dutch R&D system: a case study of Philips Electronics. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 11:211–233Google Scholar
  94. Von Hippel E (1994) Sticky information and the locus of problem solving: implications for innovation. Manage Sci 40:429–439Google Scholar
  95. Wainer HA (1965) The spin-off technology from government-sponsored research laboratories: Lincoln laboratory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Sloan School, MIT, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  96. Ziedonis A (1999) Inward technology transfer by firms: the case of university technology licences. University of California, Berkeley (mimeo)Google Scholar
  97. Zucker L, Darby M, Brewer M (1998) Intellectual capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. Am Econ Rev 88:290–306Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jönköping International Business SchoolJönköping UniversityJönköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations