Knowledge, Spillovers and Firms’ International Growth. An Analysis at the Italian NUTS 3 Level

In the framework of analyses on the relationship between geography and technological innovation, the role of universities has received considerable attention. Both theoretical and empirical literature has shown that university research positively influences the capacity for innovation of the surrounding firms (Jaffe, 1989; Feldman, 1994; Acs et al, 2002). Universities play a central role in innovation processes both as the main responsible for basic research and also as forgers of human capital’s skills. Empirical work has highlighted that such effects radiate from major university centres crossing borders and administrative boundaries (Anselin et al., 1997). This paper focuses on the relationship between universities and the innovative capacity at the territorial level. Specifically, our empirical analysis investigates whether university research spillovers are highly localised or they rather flow across borders. Empirical literature has widely investigated intensity and directions of such spillovers, mainly within the theoretical framework of Griliches-Jaffe. However, we extend the empirical evidence exploring whether intensity and directions of spillovers depend on universities’ specificities (e.g. size, fields of specialization, fund rising capacity) and on the local absorptive capacity. The analysis is developed at the Italian NUTS3 level, using an explicit spatial econometric approach applied to a knowledge production function. References Acs, Z., Anselin, L., and Varga, A. (2002): “Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge†, Research Policy 31, pp. 1069-1085. Anselin, L., Varga, A., and Acs, Z. (1997): “Local geographic spillovers between University research and high technology innovations†, Journal of Urban Economics 42, pp. 422-448. Feldman, M. (1994): The Geography of innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers. Dordrecht. Jaffe, A. (1989): “Real effects of academic research†, The American Economic Review, vol 79, n. 5, pp. 957-970.