Relatedness, Cross-relatedness and Regional Innovation Specializations: An Analysis of Technology, Design, and Market Activities in Europe and the US

References

• Abbasiharofteh, M., Castaldi, C., and Petralia, S. 2022. From patents to trademarks: Towards a concordance map. Final report EPO Academic Research Program. https://www.epo.org/learning/materials/academic-research-programme/research-project-grants.html.
   Google Scholar
• Apa, R., De Noni, I., Orsi, L., and Sedita, S. R. 2018. Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions. Research Policy 47 (9): 1700–12. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., and Coenen, L. 2005. Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy 34 (8): 1173–90. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balassa, Bela. 1965. Trade liberalisation and “revealed” comparative advantage. Manchester School 33 (2): 99–123. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balland, P-A., and Boschma, R. 2021. Complementary interregional linkages and smart specialisation: An empirical study on European regions. Regional Studies 55 (6): 1059–70. doi:10.1080/00343404.2020.1861240.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., and Rigby, D. L. 2019. Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies 53 (9): 1252–68. doi:10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbieri, N., Perruchas, F., and Consoli, D. 2020. Specialization, diversification, and environmental technology life cycle. Economic Geography 96 (2): 161–86. doi:10.1080/00130095.2020.1721279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bei, X. 2019. Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation. Research Policy 48 (9): 103709. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., and Mullainathan, S. 2004. How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics 119 (1): 249–75. doi:10.1162/003355304772839588.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bessen, J., and Meurer, M. J. 2008. Patent failure: How judges, bureaucrats, and lawyers put innovators at risk: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boldrin, M., and Levine, D. K. 2013. The case against patents. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27 (1): 3–22. doi:10.1257/jep.27.1.3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. 2017. Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies 51 (3): 351–64. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., Balland, P.-A., and Kogler, D. F. 2015. Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change 24 (1): 223–50. doi:10.1093/icc/dtu012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., Heimeriks, G., and Balland, P.-A. 2014. Scientific knowledge dynamics and relatedness in biotech cities. Research Policy 43 (1): 107–14. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., Minondo, A., and Navarro, M. 2013. The emergence of new industries at the regional level in Spain: A proximity approach based on product relatedness. Economic Geography 89 (1): 29–51. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01170.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breznitz, D. 2021. Innovation in real places: Strategies for prosperity in an unforgiving world. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Capello, R., and Lenzi, C. 2013. Territorial patterns of innovation: A taxonomy of innovative regions in Europe. Annals of Regional Science 51 (1): 119–54. doi:10.1007/s00168-012-0539-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castaldi, C., Frenken, K., and Los, B. 2015. Related variety, unrelated variety and technological breakthroughs: An analysis of US state-level patenting. Regional Studies 49 (5): 767–81. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.940305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castaldi, C., and Mendonça, S. 2022. Regions and trademarks: Research opportunities and policy insights from leveraging trademarks in regional innovation studies. Regional Studies 56 (2): 177–89. doi:10.1080/00343404.2021.2003767.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catalán, P., Navarrete, C., and Figueroa, F. 2020. The scientific and technological cross-space: Is technological diversification driven by scientific endogenous capacity? Research Policy 51 (8): 104016. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.104016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., and Battaglia, R. D. 2015. Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design? Telecommunications Policy 39 (3–4): 162–75. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2014.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan, T. H., Mihm, J., and Sosa, M. E. 2017. On styles in product design: An analysis of US design patents. Management Science 64 (3): 1230–49. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2016.2653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., and Etxebarria, G. 1997. Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy 26 (4–5): 475–91. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corradini, C., and Karoglou, M. 2022. On the persistence and complementarities of design and technological change: A regional perspective. Regional Studies. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2022.2120975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dan, S. M., Spaid, B. I., and Noble, C. H. 2018. Exploring the sources of design innovations: Insights from the computer, communications and audio equipment industries. Research Policy 47 (8): 1495–504. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2018.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davids, M., and Frenken, K. 2018. Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: Towards an integrated framework. Regional Studies 52 (1): 23–34. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1287349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Ippolito, B. 2014. The importance of design for firms’ competitiveness: A review of the literature. Technovation 34 (11): 716–30. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2014.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., and Verona, G. 2012. Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research Policy 41 (8): 1283–95. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosi, G. 2000. Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. In Innovation, organization and economic dynamics, 145–62. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Drivas, K. 2022. The role of technology and relatedness in regional trademark activity. Regional Studies 56 (2): 242–55. doi:10.1080/00343404.2020.1808883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Essletzbichler, J. 2015. Relatedness, industrial branching and technological cohesion in US metropolitan areas. Regional Studies 49 (5): 752–66. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.806793.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2021. Key elements of smart specialization strategies. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/portlet_file_entry/20125/S3-Key-Elements.pdf/23a14b4c-f871-9a77-7e93-0b19e4b910f1.
   Google Scholar
• Farinha, T., Balland, P.-A., Morrison, A., and Boschma, R. 2019. What drives the geography of jobs in the US? Unpacking relatedness. Industry and Innovation 26 (9): 988–1022. doi:10.1080/13662716.2019.1591940.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. P. 1994. The geography of innovation, vol. 2. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Filippetti, A., and D’Ippolito, B. 2017. Appropriability of design innovation across organisational boundaries: Exploring collaborative relationships between manufacturing firms and designers in Italy. Industry and Innovation 24 (6): 613–32. doi:10.1080/13662716.2016.1263888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filippetti, A., Gkotsis, P., Vezzani, A., and Zinilli, A. 2019. How to survive an economic crisis? Lessons from the innovation profiles of EU regions. Working Paper. Seville, Spain: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Filitz, R., Henkel, J., and Tether, B. S. 2015. Protecting aesthetic innovations? An exploration of the use of registered community designs. Research Policy 44 (6): 1192–206. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flikkema, M., Castaldi, C., de Man, A.-P., and Seip, M. 2019. Trademarks’ relatedness to product and service innovation: A branding strategy approach. Research Policy 48 (6): 1340–53. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flikkema, M. J., de Man, A.-P., and Castaldi, C. 2014. Are trademark counts a valid indicator of innovation? Results of an in-depth study of new Benelux trademarks filed by SMEs. Industry and Innovation 21 (4): 310–31. doi:10.1080/13662716.2014.934547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foray, D., and Hall, B. 2011. Smart specialisation from academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. MTEI Working Paper 2011-001. Lausanne, Switzerland: Management of Technology and Entrepreneurship Institute, College of Management of Technology. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~bhhall/papers/ForayDavidHall11_smart_specialisation_MTEI-WP-2011-001.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., Morgan, K., and Radosevic. S. 2018. The role of smart specialisation in the EU research and innovation policy landscape. Brussels: European Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Fritsch, M., and Wyrwich, M. 2021. Does successful innovation require large urban areas? Germany as a counterexample. Economic Geography 97 (3): 284–308. doi:10.1080/00130095.2021.1920391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fotheringham, A. S., and Wong, D. W. 1991. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environment and Planning A 23 (7): 1025–44. doi:10.1068/a231025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghisetti, C., Montresor, S., and Vezzani, A. 2021. Design and environmental technologies: Does ‘green-matching’ actually help? Research Policy 50 (5): 104208. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2021.104208.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gomila, R. 2021. Logistic or linear? Estimating causal effects of experimental treatments on binary outcomes using regression analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150 (4): 700–9. doi:10.1037/xge0000920.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, S. J. H., Hancock, G., Marco, A. C., and Fila Myers, A. 2013. The USPTO Trademark case files dataset: Descriptions, lessons, and insights. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 22 (4): 669–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, W. 1994. Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. Working Paper EC-94-10. New York: New York University.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W. 2012. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. New York: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, C., and Rogers, M. 2010. Innovation, intellectual property, and economic growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greenhalgh, C., and Rogers, M. 2012. Trade marks and performance in services and manufacturing firms: Evidence of Schumpeterian competition through innovation. Australian Economic Review 45 (1): 50–76. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8462.2011.00665.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Working Paper 3301. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Hair Jr., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hausmann, R., and Klinger, B. 2007. The structure of the product space and the evolution of comparative advantage. Working Paper 146. Cambridge, MA: Center for International Development, Harvard University. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/cid/publications/faculty-working-papers/structure-product-space-and-evolution-comparative-advantage.
   Google Scholar
• Heikkilä, J., and Peltoniemi, M. 2019. Great expectations: Learning the boundaries of design rights. Research Policy 48 (9): 103795. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.05.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, C. A., Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Delgado, M., Feldman, M., Frenken, K., Glaeser, E., He, C., Kogler, D. F., and Morrison, A. 2018. The principle of relatedness. International Conference on Complex Systems, July 22–27, New England Complex Systems Institute, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, C. A., Klinger, B., Barabási, A.-L., and Hausmann, R. 2007. The product space conditions the development of nations. Science 317 (5837): 482–87. doi:10.1126/science.1144581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hise, R. T., O'Neal, L., McNeal. J. U., and Parasuraman, A. 1989. The effect of product design activities on commercial success levels of new industrial products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 6 (1): 43–50. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.610043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogler, D. F., Rigby, D. L., and Tucker, I. 2013. Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. European Planning Studies 21 (9): 1374–91. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.755832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, N., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. 2013. Innovation and spatial inequality in Europe and USA. Journal of Economic Geography 13 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lerner, J. 2009. The empirical impact of intellectual property rights on innovation: Puzzles and clues. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 99 (2): 343–48. doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leten, B., Belderbos, R., and Van Looy, B. 2007. Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 24 (6): 567–79. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00272.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques, P., and Morgan, K. 2018. The heroic assumptions of smart specialisation: A sympathetic critique of regional innovation policy. In New avenues for regional innovation systems-theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons, ed. A. Isaksen, R. Martin, and M. Trippl, 275–93. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Maraut, S., Dernis, H., Webb, C., Spiezia, V., and Guellec, D. 2008. The OECD REGPAT database: A presentation. STI Working Paper 2008/2. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Mendonça, S. 2014. National adaptive advantages: Soft innovation and marketing capabilities in periods of crisis and change. In Structural change, competitiveness and industrial policy, ed. A. Teixeira, E. Silva, and R. Mamede, 149–66. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mendonça, S., and Fontana, R. 2011. Estudo sobre o Contributo das Marcas para o Crescimento Económico e para a Competitividade Internacional [Study on the contribution of trademarks to economic growth and international competitiveness]. Lisbon, Portugal: Portuguese Institute of Industrial Property.
   Google Scholar
• Mendonça, S., Santos Pereira, T., and Godinho, M. M. 2004. Trademarks as an indicator of innovation and industrial change. Research Policy 33 (9): 1385–404. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millot, V. 2009. Trademarks as an indicator of product and marketing innovations. Working Paper 2009/6. Paris: OECD.
   Google Scholar
• Moser, P. 2005. How do patent laws influence innovation? Evidence from nineteenth-century world's fairs. American Economic Review 95 (4): 1214–236. doi:10.1257/0002828054825501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murmann, J. P., and Frenken, K. 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy 35 (7): 925–52. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neffke, F., Henning, M., and Boschma, R. 2011. How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography 87 (3): 237–65. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2011.01121.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neuhäusler, P., Feidenheimer, A., Frietsch, R., and Kroll, H. 2021. Generating a classification for EUIPO trademark filings: A string matching approach. Discussion Paper Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis No. 69. Karlsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer ISI.
   Google Scholar
• Petralia, S., Balland, P.-A., and Morrison, A. 2017. Climbing the ladder of technological development. Research Policy 46 (5): 956–69. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinate, A. C., Faggian, A., Di Berardino, C., and Castaldi, C. 2022. The heterogenous relationship between migration and innovation: Evidence from Italy. Industry and Innovation. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2022.2138279.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pugliese, E., Cimini, G., Patelli, A., Zaccaria, A., Pietronero, L., and Gabrielli, A. 2019. Unfolding the innovation system for the development of countries: Coevolution of science, technology and production. Scientific Reports 9 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-52767-5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radosevic, S. 2018. Fostering innovation in less-developed and low institutional capacity regions: Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at OECD/EC Workshop June 22, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Tsipouri(2018)FosteringInnovationInLessDevelopedRegions_FI.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Rigby, D. L. 2015. Technological relatedness and knowledge space: Entry and exit of US cities from patent classes. Regional Studies 49 (11): 1922–37. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.854878.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Pose, A., and Lee, N. 2020. Hipsters vs. geeks? Creative workers, STEM and innovation in US cities. Cities 100:102653. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2020.102653.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schautschick, P., and Greenhalgh, C. 2016. Empirical studies of trade marks—The existing economic literature. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 25 (4): 358–90. doi:10.1080/10438599.2015.1064598.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schickl, L. 2013. Protection of industrial design in the United States and in the EU: Different concepts or different labels? Journal of World Intellectual Property 16 (1–2): 15–38. doi:10.1002/jwip.12004.
   Google Scholar
• Schmoch, U., and Gauch, D. 2009. Service marks as indicators for innovation in knowledge-based services. Research Evaluation 18 (4): 323–35. doi:10.3152/095820209X451023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest, and the business cycle, trans. Redvers Opie. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stoneman, Paul. 2010. Soft innovation: Economics, product aesthetics, and the creative industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suarez, F. F., Stine Grodal, S., and Gotsopoulos, A. 2015. Perfect timing? Dominant category, dominant design, and the window of opportunity for firm entry. Strategic Management Journal 36 (3): 437–48. doi:10.1002/smj.2225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres-Preciado, V. H., Polanco-Gaytán, M., and Tinoco-Zermeño, M.-A. 2014. Technological innovation and regional economic growth in Mexico: A spatial perspective. Annals of Regional Science 52:183–200. doi:10.1007/s00168-013-0581-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verganti, Roberto. 2006. Innovating through design. Harvard Business Review 84 (12): 114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walsh, V. 1996. Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm. Research Policy 25 (4): 509–29. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(95)00847-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windrum, P., Frenken, K., and Green, L. 2017. The importance of ergonomic design in product innovation. Lessons from the development of the portable computer. Industrial and Corporate Change 26 (6): 953–71. doi:10.1093/icc/dtx006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojan, T. R. 2019. Geographical differences in intellectual property strategies and outcomes: Establishment-level analysis across the American settlement hierarchy. Regional Studies, Regional Science 6 (1): 574–95. doi:10.1080/21681376.2019.1682651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, J., Boschma, R., and Andersson, M. 2018. Industrial diversification in Europe: The differentiated role of relatedness. Economic Geography 94 (5): 517–49. doi:10.1080/00130095.2018.1444989.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar