IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v42y2013i2p465-480.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

We need to talk – or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research

Author

Listed:
  • Buenstorf, Guido
  • Schacht, Alexander

Abstract

Using a new dataset with detailed geographic information about licensing activities of the German Max Planck Society, we analyze how the probability and magnitude of commercial success are affected by geographic distance between licensors and licensees. Our evidence suggests that proximity does not generally lead to superior commercialization outcomes. A significantly negative association between distance and commercialization success is identified only for foreign licensees within the subsample of inventions licensed to more than one firm. Positive associations between distance and performance indicators are not robust to controlling for invention quality or selection into licensing.

Suggested Citation

  • Buenstorf, Guido & Schacht, Alexander, 2013. "We need to talk – or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 465-480.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:2:p:465-480
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873331200159X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.010?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    3. Daniel Elfenbein, 2007. "Publications, Patents, and the Market for University Inventions," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Cassiman, Bruno, 2005. "R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(5-6), pages 355-379, June.
    5. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    6. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 99-119, January.
    7. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Brent Goldfarb & Scott A. Shane & Marie C. Thursby, 2003. "Appropriability and the timing of innovation: Evidence from MIT inventions," NBER Working Papers 9735, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2009. "University Knowledge Transfer: Private Ownership, Incentives, and Local Development Objectives," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 111-144, February.
    9. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    10. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    11. Luc Anselin & Attila Varga & Zoltan Acs, 2008. "Local Geographic Spillovers Between University Research and High Technology Innovations," Chapters, in: Entrepreneurship, Growth and Public Policy, chapter 9, pages 95-121, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    13. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    14. Anthony Arundel & Aldo Geuna, 2004. "Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 559-580.
    15. Wesley M. Cohen & Richard R. Nelson & John P. Walsh, 2003. "Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D," Chapters, in: Aldo Geuna & Ammon J. Salter & W. Edward Steinmueller (ed.), Science and Innovation, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    17. Sidonia von Proff & Guido Buenstorf & Martin Hummel, 2012. "University Patenting in Germany before and after 2002: What Role Did the Professors' Privilege Play?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 23-44, January.
    18. Figueiredo, Octavio & Guimaraes, Paulo & Woodward, Douglas, 2002. "Home-field advantage: location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 341-361, September.
    19. Edward E Leamer & Michael Storper, 2001. "The Economic Geography of the Internet Age," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 32(4), pages 641-665, December.
    20. Michael S. Dahl & Olav Sorenson, 2012. "Home Sweet Home: Entrepreneurs' Location Choices and the Performance of Their Ventures," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1059-1071, June.
    21. Maskell, Peter & Malmberg, Anders, 1999. "Localised Learning and Industrial Competitiveness," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 167-185, March.
    22. David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2001. "The Geographic Reach of Market and Non-Market Channels of Technology Transfer: Comparing Citations and Licenses of University Patents," NBER Working Papers 8568, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    23. Kenney, Martin & Patton, Donald, 2009. "Reconsidering the Bayh-Dole Act and the Current University Invention Ownership Model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1407-1422, November.
    24. Michael Fritsch & Viktor Slavtchev, 2007. "Universities and Innovation in Space," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 201-218.
    25. Elfenbein, Daniel W., 2007. "Publications, patents, and the market for university inventions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 688-715, August.
    26. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 465-466, March.
    27. Peter Thompson & Melanie Fox-Kean, 2005. "Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 95(1), pages 450-460, March.
    28. Jurgen Egeln & Sandra Gottschalk & Christian Rammer, 2004. "Location Decisions of Spin-offs from Public Research Institutions," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 207-223.
    29. Ajay Agrawal & Rebecca Henderson, 2002. "Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 44-60, January.
    30. Marie Thursby & Richard Jensen, 2001. "Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(1), pages 240-259, March.
    31. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    32. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    33. Guido Buenstorf & Matthias Geissler, 2013. "Not Invented Here: Technology Licensing, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Based on Public Research," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 77-107, Springer.
    34. Audretsch, David B & Stephan, Paula E, 1996. "Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 641-652, June.
    35. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    36. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2006. "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 772-789, July.
    37. Scott Shane, 2002. "Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(1), pages 122-137, January.
    38. Beise, Marian & Stahl, Harald, 1999. "Public research and industrial innovations in Germany," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 397-422, April.
    39. James D. Adams, 2002. "Comparative localization of academic and industrial spillovers," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(3), pages 253-278, July.
    40. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2004. "Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University–Industry Licensing," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(2), pages 162-178, April.
    41. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Thursby, Marie & Thursby, Jerry, 2009. "Shirking, sharing risk and shelving: The role of university license contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 80-91, January.
    42. Robert Lowe, 2006. "Who Develops a University Invention? The Impact of Tacit Knowledge and Licensing Policies," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 415-429, July.
    43. Robert A. Lowe & Arvids A. Ziedonis, 2006. "Overoptimism and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 173-186, February.
    44. Sharon Belenzon & Mark Schankerman, 2010. "Spreading the Word: Geography, Policy and University Knowledge Diffusion," STICERD - Economics of Industry Papers 50, Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, LSE.
    45. Acs, Zoltan J & Audretsch, David B & Feldman, Maryann P, 1992. "Real Effects of Academic Research: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 363-367, March.
    46. Ashish Arora, 1995. "Licensing Tacit Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights And The Market For Know-How," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 41-60.
    47. Reinhold Grotz & Boris Braun, 1997. "Territorial or Trans-territorial Networking: Spatial Aspects of Technology-oriented Cooperation within the German Mechanical Engineering Industry," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 545-557.
    48. David J. Teece & Gary Pisano & Amy Shuen, 1997. "Dynamic capabilities and strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(7), pages 509-533, August.
    49. Janet Bercovitz & Maryann Feldman, 2006. "Entpreprenerial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Knowledge-Based Economic Development," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 175-188, January.
    50. Santoro, Michael D & Gopalakrishnan, Shanthi, 2001. "Relationship Dynamics between University Research Centers and Industrial Firms: Their Impact on Technology Transfer Activities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 26(1-2), pages 163-171, January.
    51. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Conor O’Kane & James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Sara Walton, 2021. "The brokering role of technology transfer offices within entrepreneurial ecosystems: an investigation of macro–meso–micro factors," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1814-1844, December.
    2. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Lee, Yoo Hwan & Graff, Gregory D., 2017. "The Production And Dissemination Of Agricultural Knowledge At U.S. Research Universities: The Role And Mission Of Land-Grant Universities," Journal of Rural Development/Nongchon-Gyeongje, Korea Rural Economic Institute, vol. 40(Special, ), December.
    4. Stefan Krabel & Alexander Schacht, 2014. "Follow the leader? How leadership behavior influences scientists' commercialization behavior (or not)," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 134-160, March.
    5. Rose, Michael E. & Georg, Co-Pierre, 2021. "What 5,000 acknowledgements tell us about informal collaboration in financial economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    6. Chen, Guanghua & Yang, Guoliang & He, Feng & Chen, Kaihua, 2019. "Exploring the effect of political borders on university-industry collaborative research performance: Evidence from China’s Guangdong province," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 82, pages 58-69.
    7. Stefan Krabel & Alexander Schacht, 2012. "The Influence of Leadership on Academic Scientists' Propensity to Commercialize Research Findings," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-027, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    8. Li Fang, 2020. "Agglomeration and innovation: Selection or true effect?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 52(2), pages 423-448, March.
    9. Shen, Huijun & Coreynen, Wim & Huang, Can, 2022. "Exclusive licensing of university technology: The effects of university prestige, technology transfer offices, and academy-industry collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    10. Krammer, Sorin M.S. & Belkouja, Mustapha & Yoon, David, 2019. "Research performance of teams in Business and Management: The impact of team size, knowledge diversity and international diversity," MPRA Paper 104548, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 06 Jun 2019.
    11. Xiyao Xiang & Wei-Chiao Huang, 2019. "Does Distance Affect the Role of Nonlocal Subsidiaries on Cluster Firms’ Innovation? An Empirical Investigation on Chinese Biotechnology Cluster Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-18, November.
    12. Halilem, Norrin & Amara, Nabil & Olmos-Peñuela, Julia & Mohiuddin, Muhammad, 2017. "“To Own, or not to Own?” A multilevel analysis of intellectual property right policies' on academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1479-1489.
    13. Mowery, David C. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2015. "Markets versus spillovers in outflows of university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 50-66.
    14. Lee, Yoo Hwan & Graff, Gregory D., 2016. "Academic Knowledge Spillovers and the Role of Geographic Proximity in Regional Agriculture-related Sectors: The impact of agricultural research at Colorado State University on the Colorado economy, an," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Alexander Schacht, 2012. "Commercializing inventions from public research: Does speed matter?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-026, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.

    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. Guido Buenstorf & Matthias Geissler, 2013. "Not Invented Here: Technology Licensing, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Based on Public Research," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Guido Buenstorf & Uwe Cantner & Horst Hanusch & Michael Hutter & Hans-Walter Lorenz & Fritz Rahmeyer (ed.), The Two Sides of Innovation, edition 127, pages 77-107, Springer.
    2. Ferretti, Marco & Guerini, Massimiliano & Panetti, Eva & Parmentola, Adele, 2022. "The partner next door? The effect of micro-geographical proximity on intra-cluster inter-organizational relationships," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Foray, Dominique & Lissoni, Francesco, 2010. "University Research and Public–Private Interaction," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 275-314, Elsevier.
    4. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Daniele Biancardi & Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo & Federico Biagi, 2019. "Study on Higher Education Institutions and Local Development," JRC Research Reports JRC117272, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Broström, Anders, 2010. "Working with distant researchers--Distance and content in university-industry interaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1311-1320, December.
    6. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2013. "University spillovers into small technology-based firms: channel, mechanism, and geography," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 415-431, August.
    7. Caviggioli, Federico & De Marco, Antonio & Montobbio, Fabio & Ughetto, Elisa, 2020. "The licensing and selling of inventions by US universities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    8. Federico Caviggioli & Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Giuseppe Scellato & Elisa Ughetto, 2023. "Co-evolution patterns of university patenting and technological specialization in European regions," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 216-239, February.
    9. Debackere, Koenraad & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2005. "The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 321-342, April.
    10. Julio M. Rosa & Pierre Mohnen, 2007. "Knowledge Transfers between Canadian Business Enterprises and Universities: Does Distance Matter?," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 87-88, pages 303-323.
    11. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    12. Charlotta Dahlborg & Danielle Lewensohn & Rickard Danell & Carl Johan Sundberg, 2017. "To invent and let others innovate: a framework of academic patent transfer modes," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 538-563, June.
    13. Nobuya Fukugawa, 2011. "Impacts and channels of university spillovers before the national innovation system reform in Japan," International Journal of Transitions and Innovation Systems, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(4), pages 383-393.
    14. Lee Branstetter & Kwon Hyeog Ug, 2004. "The Restructuring Of Japanese Research And Development: The Increasing Impact Of Science On Japanese R&D," Discussion papers 04021, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    15. Cowan, Robin & Zinovyeva, Natalia, 2013. "University effects on regional innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 788-800.
    16. Pluvia Zuniga, 2011. "The State of Patenting at Research Institutions in Developing Countries: Policy Approaches and Practices," WIPO Economic Research Working Papers 04, World Intellectual Property Organization - Economics and Statistics Division, revised Dec 2011.
    17. Leten, Bart & Landoni, Paolo & Van Looy, Bart, 2014. "Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1398-1412.
    18. Igors Skute & Kasia Zalewska-Kurek & Isabella Hatak & Petra Weerd-Nederhof, 2019. "Mapping the field: a bibliometric analysis of the literature on university–industry collaborations," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 916-947, June.
    19. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    20. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2014. "The Contribution of Academic Research to Innovation and Growth. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 71," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 50856, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Academic inventions; Licensing; Spin-off entrepreneurship; Geographic distance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L24 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Contracting Out; Joint Ventures
    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital
    • R30 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Real Estate Markets, Spatial Production Analysis, and Firm Location - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eee:respol:v:42:y:2013:i:2:p:465-480. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.