IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jahrfr/v42y2022i1d10.1007_s10037-021-00151-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of cross-border co-patents: empirical evidence from 45 European regions
[Determinanten grenzüberschreitender Ko-Patentaktivitäten: Empirische Befunde aus 45 europäischen Regionen]

Author

Listed:
  • Henrik Basche

    (RWTH Aachen University)

Abstract

Innovation processes are often interactive because the actors involved require complementary knowledge assets. Given the potentially lower institutional proximity (in terms of language, culture and formal regulations) when compared to domestic counterparts, cross-border interactive innovation processes between actors are less likely to occur. However, these processes are important for firms and (cross-border) regions to ensure economic growth and competitiveness in the long term. In addition, cross-border interactive innovation processes provide opportunities to enhance creative potentials through the combination of knowledge generated in different (national) innovation systems. By simultaneously exploring the effects of institutional proximity, technological proximity, spatial distance and European integration, this paper further enriches the literature. Negative binomial gravity models give insight into the reasons for differences in the number of generated co-patents in 45 European cross-border regions. As expected, spatial and technological distance have negative impacts on co-patent activities in all models. Sharing a common official language (i.e., institutional proximity) significantly increases the number of cross-border co-patents ceteris paribus by a factor of 1.83 to 2.49. Further (qualitative) research is, however, necessary to concretely determine the underlying language effects and to isolate these from cultural factors. Surprisingly, the results also reveal that, ceteris paribus, length of EU membership exerts a significant negative effect on co-patenting, whereas belonging to ‘Central and Eastern European Countries’ has a significant positive effect on co-patenting. Consequently, cross-border regions of the founding EU member states are relatively and ceteris paribus less involved in cross-border co-patenting activities than their Eastern European counterparts.

Suggested Citation

  • Henrik Basche, 2022. "Determinants of cross-border co-patents: empirical evidence from 45 European regions [Determinanten grenzüberschreitender Ko-Patentaktivitäten: Empirische Befunde aus 45 europäischen Regionen]," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 42(1), pages 1-22, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:jahrfr:v:42:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10037-021-00151-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s10037-021-00151-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10037-021-00151-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10037-021-00151-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hilbe,Joseph M., 2014. "Modeling Count Data," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107611252.
    2. Manuel Trajtenberg, 1990. "A Penny for Your Quotes: Patent Citations and the Value of Innovations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 21(1), pages 172-187, Spring.
    3. Luca Benedictis & Lucia Tajoli, 2007. "Economic integration and similarity in trade structures," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 117-137, April.
    4. Claudiu T. Albulescu, 2011. "Economic and Financial Integration of CEECs: The Impact of Financial Instability," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 5(1), pages 027-045, March.
    5. Knut Koschatzky & Rolf Sternberg, 2000. "R&D Cooperation in Innovation Systems—Some Lessons from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS)," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 487-501, August.
    6. Vuong, Quang H, 1989. "Likelihood Ratio Tests for Model Selection and Non-nested Hypotheses," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 307-333, March.
    7. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
    8. Berger, Helge & Nitsch, Volker, 2008. "Zooming out: The trade effect of the euro in historical perspective," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 1244-1260, December.
    9. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril98-1, March.
    10. Jarno Hoekman & Koen Frenken & Frank Oort, 2009. "The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 43(3), pages 721-738, September.
    11. Zeileis, Achim & Kleiber, Christian & Jackman, Simon, 2008. "Regression Models for Count Data in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 27(i08).
    12. Qinchang Gui & Chengliang Liu & Debin Du, 2018. "International Knowledge Flows and the Role of Proximity," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(3), pages 532-547, September.
    13. Faber, Jan & Hesen, Anneloes Barbara, 2004. "Innovation capabilities of European nations: Cross-national analyses of patents and sales of product innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 193-207, March.
    14. Beneito, Pilar, 2006. "The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R&D in terms of patents and utility models," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 502-517, May.
    15. Mila Davids & Koen Frenken, 2018. "Proximity, knowledge base and the innovation process: towards an integrated framework," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(1), pages 23-34, January.
    16. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 287-343, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    18. Zoltan J. Acs & Luc Anselin & Attila Varga, 2008. "Patents and Innovation Counts as Measures of Regional Production of New Knowledge," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 11, pages 135-151, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Lars Coenen & Jerker Moodysson & Bjørn T. Asheim, 2004. "Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley biotech cluster," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(7), pages 1003-1018, June.
    20. Tamás Krisztin & Manfred M. Fischer, 2015. "The Gravity Model for International Trade: Specification and Estimation Issues," Spatial Economic Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 451-470, December.
    21. Bar, Talia & Leiponen, Aija, 2012. "A measure of technological distance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 457-459.
    22. Morescalchi, Andrea & Pammolli, Fabio & Penner, Orion & Petersen, Alexander M. & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2015. "The evolution of networks of innovators within and across borders: Evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 651-668.
    23. Michaela Trippl, 2010. "Developing Cross‐Border Regional Innovation Systems: Key Factors And Challenges," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(2), pages 150-160, April.
    24. Meric S. Gertler, 2003. "Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there)," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(1), pages 75-99, January.
    25. Thomas Scherngell & Michael J. Barber, 2009. "Spatial interaction modelling of cross‐region R&D collaborations: empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(3), pages 531-546, August.
    26. Cameron, A. Colin & Trivedi, Pravin K., 1990. "Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 347-364, December.
    27. Karl-Johan Lundquist & Michaela Trippl, 2013. "Distance, Proximity and Types of Cross-border Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 450-460, March.
    28. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    29. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    30. Jerome Dumetz & Eva Gáboríková, 2016. "The Czech and Slovak Republics: A cross-cultural comparison," Marketing Science & Inspirations, Comenius University in Bratislava, Faculty of Management, vol. 11(4), pages 2-13.
    31. Arundel, Anthony & Kabla, Isabelle, 1998. "What percentage of innovations are patented? empirical estimates for European firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 127-141, June.
    32. Griliches, Zvi, 1998. "R&D and Productivity," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226308869, December.
    33. Rafael Lata & Sidonia Proff & Thomas Brenner, 2018. "The influence of distance types on co-patenting and co-publishing in the USA and Europe over time," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 61(1), pages 49-71, July.
    34. Ron Boschma, 2004. "Competitiveness of Regions from an Evolutionary Perspective," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 1001-1014.
    35. Belderbos, René & Cassiman, Bruno & Faems, Dries & Leten, Bart & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 841-852.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Takashi Iino & Hiroyasu Inoue & Yukiko U. Saito & Yasuyuki Todo, 2021. "How does the global network of research collaboration affect the quality of innovation?," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 5-48, January.
    2. Marcel Bednarz & Tom Broekel, 2019. "The relationship of policy induced R&D networks and inter-regional knowledge diffusion," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1459-1481, November.
    3. Hagedoorn, John & Wang, Ning, 2010. "Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies?," MERIT Working Papers 2010-005, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    4. Fu, Xiaolan & Fu, Xiaoqing (Maggie) & Ghauri, Pervez & Hou, Jun, 2022. "International collaboration and innovation: Evidence from a leading Chinese multinational enterprise," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(4).
    5. Hoenen, Sebastian & Kolympiris, Christos & Schoenmakers, Wilfred & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas, 2014. "The diminishing signaling value of patents between early rounds of venture capital financing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 956-989.
    6. Laurent R. Bergé, 2017. "Network proximity in the geography of research collaboration," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 785-815, November.
    7. Marina Knickel & Sabine Neuberger & Laurens Klerkx & Karlheinz Knickel & Gianluca Brunori & Helmut Saatkamp, 2021. "Strengthening the Role of Academic Institutions and Innovation Brokers in Agri-Food Innovation: Towards Hybridisation in Cross-Border Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    8. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    9. Tatiana Plotnikova & Bastian Rake, 2014. "Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: exploration of country-level determinants," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1173-1202, February.
    10. Jianghua Zhou & Rui Wu & Jizhen Li, 2019. "More ties the merrier? Different social ties and firm innovation performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 445-471, June.
    11. Dziallas, Marisa & Blind, Knut, 2019. "Innovation indicators throughout the innovation process: An extensive literature analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 3-29.
    12. David Rigby, 2012. "The Geography of Knowledge Relatedness and Technological Diversification in U.S. Cities," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1218, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Oct 2012.
    13. Bart Leten & Rene Belderbos & Bart Van Looy, 2016. "Entry and Technological Performance in New Technology Domains: Technological Opportunities, Technology Competition and Technological Relatedness," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(8), pages 1257-1291, December.
    14. Miguélez, Ernest & Moreno, Rosina, 2015. "Knowledge flows and the absorptive capacity of regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(4), pages 833-848.
    15. Christoph Grimpe & Roberto Patuelli, 2011. "Regional knowledge production in nanomaterials: a spatial filtering approach," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 46(3), pages 519-541, June.
    16. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Li, Xibao, 2009. "China's regional innovation capacity in transition: An empirical approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 338-357, March.
    18. Hagedoorn, John & Cloodt, Myriam, 2003. "Measuring innovative performance: is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1365-1379, September.
    19. Albahari, Alberto & Pérez-Canto, Salvador & Barge-Gil, Andrés & Modrego, Aurelia, 2017. "Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 13-28.
    20. Rafael Lata & Sidonia Proff & Thomas Brenner, 2018. "The influence of distance types on co-patenting and co-publishing in the USA and Europe over time," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 61(1), pages 49-71, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jahrfr:v:42:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10037-021-00151-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.