http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5746-2239
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Are knowledge flows all alike? Evidence from European regions. Regional Studies. The paper investigates the impact of distance, contiguity and technological proximity on cross-regional knowledge flows by comparing the evidence concerning co-inventorship, applicant–inventor relationships and citation flows. Evidence is found of significant differences across these diverse kinds of knowledge flows for what concerns the role of distance, and the moderating role of contiguity and technological proximity. Moreover, it is shown that border effects may prove crucial in a twofold sense. On the one hand, contiguity between regions belonging to two different countries still plays a moderating role, although weaker as compared with that of within-country contiguity. On the other hand, regions sharing a frontier with a foreign country are more likely to exchange knowledge with this foreign country than other regions which are far from the border.
摘要
知识流动皆相似吗？来自欧洲区域的证据。区域研究。本文透过比较有关共同发明、申请人—发明人关係和引用流的证据，探讨距离、接近和技术相似度对于跨区域知识流动的影响。证据显示，在考量距离的角色时，这些多样的知识流动之间具有着显着的差异，而接近与知识相似度的角色则较为一般。再者，本研究显示，边界效应可能在双重意义上证明是关键的。一方面，不同国家中的区域相互接近，仍然扮演着适度的角色，尽管较一国内部的区域相互接近更为微弱。另一方面，和外国共享边境的区域，与距离边界更为遥远的其他区域相较之下，更可能与该国交换知识。
RÉSUMÉ
Les flux de connaissances, sont-ils comparables? Des preuves provenant des régions européennes. Regional Studies. Ce présent article examine l’impact de la distance, de la contiguité et de la proximité technologique sur les flux de connaissances transrégionaux en faisant une comparaison des preuves quant à la qualité de co-inventeur, au rapport déposant-inventeur et aux flux de citations. Il s’avère des preuves d’importantes différences selon les diverses sortes de flux de connaissance pour ce qui est du rôle de la distance, et du rôle de modérateur de la contiguité et de la proximité technologique. En outre, on montre que les effets frontière pourraient s’avérer essentiels à deux temps. D’un côté, la contiguité des régions situées en deux pays différents joue toujours le rôle de modérateur, quoique le rôle soit moins fort par rapport à celui de la contiguité au sein d’un pays. De l’autre côté, les régions limitrophes sont plus susceptibles d’échanger leurs connaissances avec le pays frontalier en question que ne le sont d’autres régions situées loin de la frontière.
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Sind alle Wissensströme gleich? Evidenz aus europäischen Regionen. Regional Studies. In diesem Beitrag untersuchen wir durch einen Vergleich der Evidenzlage im Bereich der gemeinsamen Erfindungen, der Beziehungen zwischen Antragstellern und Erfindern sowie der Zitatströme die Auswirkungen von Entfernung, Nachbarschaft und technischer Nähe auf überregionale Wissensströme. Es ergeben sich Anzeichen für signifikante Unterschiede zwischen diesen verschiedenen Arten von Wissensströmen, was die Rolle der Entfernung sowie die moderierende Rolle der Nachbarschaft und technischen Nähe anbelangt. Darüber hinaus zeigt sich, dass Grenzeffekte in doppelter Hinsicht von entscheidender Bedeutung sein können. Einerseits spielt die Nachbarschaft von Regionen in zwei verschiedenen Ländern nach wie vor eine moderierende Rolle, die allerdings schwächer ausfällt als bei benachbarten Regionen im selben Land. Andererseits fällt bei Regionen mit Auslandsgrenze die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Wissensaustauschs mit dem betreffenden Land höher aus als bei weiter von der Grenze entfernten Regionen.
RESUMEN
¿Son iguales todos los flujos de conocimiento? Evidencia de las regiones europeas. Regional Studies. En este artículo investigamos el impacto de la distancia, la contigüidad y la proximidad tecnológica en los flujos de conocimiento transregionales comparando la evidencia con respecto a las invenciones conjuntas, las relaciones entre el solicitante y el inventor y los flujos de citación. Observamos indicios de diferencias significativas en estos tipos diferentes de flujos de conocimiento en lo que se refiere al papel de la distancia y el papel moderador de contigüidad y proximidad tecnológica. Además, mostramos que los efectos fronterizos podrían ser fundamentales en un sentido dual. Por una parte, la contigüidad entre regiones que pertenecen a dos países diferentes todavía desempeña un papel moderador, aunque más débil si se compara con la contigüidad entre regiones del mismo país. Por otra parte, es más probable que las regiones que comparten una frontera con un país extranjero intercambien conocimiento con este país extranjero que otras regiones que están lejos de la frontera.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preliminary versions of this paper were presented at the conference of the Italian branch of the Regional Science Association (AISRE) held in Palermo, September 2013; the Geography of Innovation conference held in Utrecht, the Netherlands, January 2014); the Regional Studies Association (RSA) conference held in London, UK, November 2013; at a seminar held at the University of Padua, Italy, November 2013; and at the annual meeting of the Italian Economists Society held in Trento, October 2014. The authors thank the participants for comments and remarks.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at http://dx.doi.org10.1080/00343404.2016.1240867
ORCiD
Francesco Quatraro http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5746-2239
Stefano Usai http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5619-1350
Notes
1. Data on patents in the OECD REGPAT database (Maraut, Dernis, Webb, Spiezia, & Guellec, Citation2008) provide information on inventive activity and its multiple dimensions (e.g., geographical location, technical and institutional origin, individuals and networks).
2. It is emphasized here that knowledge flows do not necessarily imply spillovers: co-inventorships and applicant–inventors links operate most of the time within the boundaries of a firm, which therefore internalizes potential externalities.
3. In some patents the applicant can be the inventor him/herself. This does not create any problem in this context, as in these cases inventor and applicant appear to belong to the same region and therefore they are not counted.
4. The case in which the applicant ID is the same as the inventor ID is not taken into account by definition.
5. These domains are identified by the OECD (Citation2009) for analytical and political interests on the basis of the available information: the International Patent Classification (IPC) code and/or the textual data.
6. See Strumsky, Lobo, and Van der Leeuw (Citation2012) for a critical assessment of opportunities and shortcomings related to the use of technological classes in empirical analyses.
7. By way of a robustness check, additional estimations were also run to control for the impact of (1) regions’ size by considering the gross domestic product (GDP) levels instead of employment or R&D expenditure; (2) regional dummies together with pair-level mass variables instead of regional variables; (3) the impact of contemporaneous knowledge stock instead of the lagged one; and (4) the dummy for the sharing the same languages. The results are reported in Table A5 in Appendix A in the supplemental data online. While the estimations yield significant coefficients with the expected sign for these variables, the key results on the proximity measures mostly persist and are consistent with those already discussed in the fourth section.