IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs

  • Agrawal, Ajay
  • Cockburn, Iain
  • Galasso, Alberto
  • Oettl, Alexander

We study the impact of small firms on innovation in regions where large labs are present. Small firms generate demand for specialized services that lower entry costs for others. This effect is particularly relevant in the presence of large firms that spawn spin-outs caused by innovations deemed unrelated to the firm’s overall business. We examine MSA-level patent data during the period 1975–2000 and find that innovation output is higher in regions where both a sizable population of small firms and large labs are present. The finding is robust to across-region as well as within-region analysis and the effect is stronger in certain subsamples in a manner that is consistent with our explanation.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094119014000266
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Urban Economics.

Volume (Year): 81 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 149-165

as
in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:juecon:v:81:y:2014:i:c:p:149-165
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622905

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Glaeser, Edward Ludwig & Kallal, Hedi D. & Scheinkman, Jose A. & Shleifer, Andrei, 1992. "Growth in Cities," Scholarly Articles 3451309, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  2. Ajay Agrawal & Avi Goldfarb, 2008. "Restructuring Research: Communication Costs and the Democratization of University Innovation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(4), pages 1578-90, September.
  3. Glenn Ellison & Edward L. Glaeser & William R. Kerr, 2007. "What Causes Industry Agglomeration? Evidence from Coagglomeration Patterns," Harvard Business School Working Papers 07-064, Harvard Business School.
  4. Geroski, P A, 1990. "Innovation, Technological Opportunity, and Market Structure," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(3), pages 586-602, July.
  5. Noel, Michael D. & Schankerman, Mark, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," CEPR Discussion Papers 5701, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  6. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
  7. Cassiman, Bruno & Ueda, Masako, 2002. "Optimal Project Rejection and New Firm Start-Ups," CEPR Discussion Papers 3429, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  8. Howitt, Peter & Griffith, Rachel & Aghion, Philippe & Blundell, Richard & Bloom, Nick, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship," Scholarly Articles 4481507, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  9. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2007. "Americans Do I.T. Better: US Multinationals and the Productivity Miracle," NBER Working Papers 13085, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  10. Agrawal, Ajay & Cockburn, Iain, 2003. "The anchor tenant hypothesis: exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 1227-1253, November.
  11. Joshua S. Cans & Scott Stern, 2000. "Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 485-511, December.
  12. Edward L. Glaeser & William R. Kerr, 2008. "Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Much of the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain?," Harvard Business School Working Papers 09-055, Harvard Business School.
  13. Steven Klepper & Sally Sleeper, 2005. "Entry by Spinoffs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(8), pages 1291-1306, August.
  14. Galasso, Alberto & Schankerman, Mark & Serrano, Carlos, 2011. "Trading and Enforcing Patent Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 8573, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  15. Mark J. Garmaise, 2011. "Ties that Truly Bind: Noncompetition Agreements, Executive Compensation, and Firm Investment," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 376-425.
  16. Lerner, Josh, 2012. "The Architecture of Innovation: The Economics of Creative Organizations," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199639892, December.
  17. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic patenting and software innovation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 3727, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  18. Cockburn, Iain M. & Henderson, Rebecca M., 2001. "Scale and scope in drug development: unpacking the advantages of size in pharmaceutical research," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 1033-1057, November.
  19. Grossman, G.M. & Helpman, E., 1989. "Quality Ladders And Product Cycles," Papers 152, Princeton, Woodrow Wilson School - Public and International Affairs.
  20. Cohen, Wesley M & Klepper, Steven, 1996. "A Reprise of Size and R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 925-51, July.
  21. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
  22. Wooldridge, J.M., 1990. "Distribution-Free Estimation Of Some Nonlinear Panel Data Models," Working papers 564, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  23. Hausman, Jerry & Hall, Bronwyn H & Griliches, Zvi, 1984. "Econometric Models for Count Data with an Application to the Patents-R&D Relationship," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 909-38, July.
  24. Griliches, Zvi, 1990. "Patent Statistics as Economic Indicators: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
  25. Cullen, Julie Berry & Gordon, Roger H., 2007. "Taxes and entrepreneurial risk-taking: Theory and evidence for the U.S," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1479-1505, August.
  26. April Franco & Darren Filson, 2000. "Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility," Staff Report 272, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
  27. Poterba, James M., 1989. "Capital Gains Tax Policy Toward Entrepreneurship," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 42(3), pages 375-89, September.
  28. Anton, James J & Yao, Dennis A, 1995. "Start-ups, Spin-offs, and Internal Projects," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 362-78, October.
  29. Levin, Richard C & Cohen, Wesley M & Mowery, David C, 1985. "R&D Appropriability, Opportunity, and Market Structure: New Evidence on Some Schumpeterian Hypotheses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 20-24, May.
  30. Alberto Galasso & Mark Schankerman & Carlos J. Serrano, 2013. "Trading and enforcing patent rights," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 44(2), pages 275-312, 06.
  31. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic patenting and software innovation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 4653, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
  32. repec:fth:harver:1473 is not listed on IDEAS
  33. Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1998. "Innovation in Cities: Science-Based Diversity, Specialization and Localized Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 1980, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  34. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 523-532, September.
  35. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," CEP Discussion Papers dp0740, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  36. Mercedes Delgado & Michael Porter & Scott Stern, 2010. "Clusters and Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 10-31, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  37. April Mitchell Franco & Darren Filson, 2006. "Spin‐outs: knowledge diffusion through employee mobility," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 841-860, December.
  38. Pakes, Ariel & Griliches, Zvi, 1980. "Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 377-381.
  39. Daniel Feenberg & Elisabeth Coutts, 1993. "An introduction to the TAXSIM model," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 189-194.
  40. Helsley, Robert W. & Strange, William C., 2002. "Innovation and Input Sharing," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 25-45, January.
  41. Klepper, Steven & Thompson, Peter, 2010. "Disagreements and intra-industry spinoffs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 526-538, September.
  42. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, . "Scale, Scope and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," Working Papers ec25/94, Department of Economics, University of Lancaster.
  43. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:841-860 is not listed on IDEAS
  44. Bruce, Donald, 2000. "Effects of the United States tax system on transitions into self-employment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(5), pages 545-574, September.
  45. Rosemarie Ham Ziedonis, 2004. "Don't Fence Me In: Fragmented Markets for Technology and the Patent Acquisition Strategies of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 804-820, June.
  46. Tor Jakob Klette, 1996. "R&D, Scope Economies, and Plant Performance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(3), pages 502-522, Autumn.
  47. Michael Noel & Mark Schankerman, 2006. "Strategic Patenting and Software Innovation," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 43, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
  48. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juecon:v:81:y:2014:i:c:p:149-165. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.