IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/regstd/v34y2000i3p213-229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Geography of Innovation: A Cross-sector Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Stefano Breschi

Abstract

BRESCHI S. (2000) The geography of innovation: a cross-sector analysis, Reg. Studies 34 , 213-229. This paper attempts to identify some broad empirical regularities in the geographical distribution of innovative activities. The basic hypothesis which is advanced is that spatial patterns of innovation vary greatly amongst sectors according to the specific features of the underlying technology, as summarized by the concept of technological regime. In order to verify such a hypothesis, an empirical analysis was carried out by using European Patent Office (EPO) data for the period 1978-91. Two main results emerge from such analysis. On the one hand, the empirical evidence shows the existence of remarkable differences across technological classes in the spatial patterns of innovation. On the other hand, one also typically observes the existence of quite remarkable similarities across countries in the spatial patterns of innovation within each technological class. BRESCHI S. (2000) La geographie de l'innovation: une analyse intersectorielle, Reg. Studies 34 , 213-229. Cet article cherche a identifier quelques facteurs constants empiriques generaux de la distribution geographique des activites innovatrices. L'hypothese fondamental avance affirme que la distribution geographique de l'innovation varie sensiblement suivant le secteur et en fonction des caracteristiques particulieres de la technologie sous-jacente, comme le resume la notion de regime technologique. Pour verifier un tel hypothese, une analyse empirique se voit effectuer a partir des donnees provenant de l'Institut europeenne de la propriete industrielle sur la periode de 1978 a 1991. De cette analyse il se fait jour deux resultats principaux. D'un cote, les preuves empiriques laissent voir la presence des ecarts remarquables dans la distribution geographique de l'innovation en fonction de la categorie technologique . De l'autre cote, on note aussi la presence des similarites considerables dans la distribution geographique de l'innovation au sein de chaque categorie technologique suivant le pays . BRESCHI S. (2000) Die Geographie der Innovation: eine Sektoren uberschreitende Analyse, Reg. Studies 34 , 213-229. Dieser Aufsatz versucht, grobe empirische Unregelmassigkeiten in der geographischen Streuung innovativer Tatigkeiten zu identifizieren. Die hier vorgestellte Hypothese besagt, dass raumliche Innovationsmuster von Sektor zu Sektor starke Abweichungen aufweisen, die auf spezifischen Zugen ihnen zugrundeliegenden Technologien beruhen, welche im Konzept technologischer Systeme zusammengefasst werden. Um solch eine Hypothese zu bestatigen, wird eine empirische Analyse mit Hilfe von EPO (Europaisches Patentamt) Daten fur den Zeitraum 1978-1991 durchgefuhrt. Sie erbrachte zwei Hauptergebnisse. Einerseits zeigt das empirische Beweismaterial, dass in den raumlichen Mustern der Innovationen beachtliche Unterschiede uber technologische Systemklassen hinweg bestehen. Andrerseits kann man auch typisch das Bestehen durchaus beachtlicher Ahnlichkeiten uber ganze Lander hinweg in den raumlichen Innovationsmustern innerhalb jeder einzelnen technologischen Klasse beobachten.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefano Breschi, 2000. "The Geography of Innovation: A Cross-sector Analysis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(3), pages 213-229.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:regstd:v:34:y:2000:i:3:p:213-229
    DOI: 10.1080/00343400050015069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00343400050015069
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00343400050015069?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. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-1037, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Cohen, Wesley M. & Levin, Richard C., 1989. "Empirical studies of innovation and market structure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 18, pages 1059-1107, Elsevier.
    4. Jaffe, Adam B, 1989. "Real Effects of Academic Research," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 957-970, December.
    5. Breschi, Stefano & Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 2000. "Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 388-410, April.
    6. Jaffe, Adam B., 1989. "Characterizing the "technological position" of firms, with application to quantifying technological opportunity and research spillovers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 87-97, April.
    7. Arthur, W. Brian, 1990. "'Silicon Valley' locational clusters: when do increasing returns imply monopoly?," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 235-251, June.
    8. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    9. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1987. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 18(3, Specia), pages 783-832.
    10. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    11. Krugman, Paul, 1991. "History and Industry Location: The Case of the Manufacturing Belt," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(2), pages 80-83, May.
    12. Wilbur R. Thompson, 1962. "Locational Differences in Inventive Effort and Their Determinants," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 253-272, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Romer, Paul M, 1990. "Endogenous Technological Change," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 71-102, October.
    14. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1995. "Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 47-65, February.
    15. Dosi, Giovanni, 1988. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(3), pages 1120-1171, September.
    16. Malerba, Franco & Orsenigo, Luigi, 1996. "Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 451-478, May.
    17. Richard C. Levin & Alvin K. Klevorick & Richard R. Nelson & Sidney G. Winter, 1988. "Appropriating the Returns from Industrial R&D," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 862, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    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. Trajtenberg, M., 1992. "Ivory Tower Versus Corporate Lab : An Empirical Study of Basic Research and Appropriability," Papers 15-92, Tel Aviv.
    2. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Michele Cincera, 2005. "Firms' productivity growth and R&D spillovers: An analysis of alternative technological proximity measures," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(8), pages 657-682.
    4. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    5. Olof Ejermo, 2002. "Knowledge Production in Swedish Functional Regions 1993-1999," KITeS Working Papers 140, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Feb 2003.
    6. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 1998. "R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence," Economics Working Papers 328, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    7. Iritié, B. G. Jean-Jacques, 2014. "Enjeux des politiques industrielles basées sur les clusters d'innovation: cas des pôles de compétitivité [Issues of Innovative Clusters-based Industrial Policy: Case of Pole of Competitiveness]," MPRA Paper 54429, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Anselin, Luc & Varga, Attila & Acs, Zoltan, 1997. "Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 422-448, November.
    9. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," 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 129-213, Elsevier.
    10. Bastian Rake, 2017. "Determinants of pharmaceutical innovation: the role of technological opportunities revisited," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 691-727, September.
    11. Peretto, P. & Smulders, J.A., 1998. "Specialization, Knowledge Dilution, and Scale Effects in an IO-Based Growth Model," Discussion Paper 1998-02, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Thomas Doring & Jan Schnellenbach, 2006. "What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth?: A survey of the literature," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 375-395.
    13. Samandar Ali Eshtehardi, Mojgan & Bagheri, Seyed Kamran & Di Minin, Alberto, 2017. "Regional innovative behavior: Evidence from Iran," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 128-138.
    14. Ernest Miguélez & Rosina Moreno, 2013. "Do Labour Mobility and Technological Collaborations Foster Geographical Knowledge Diffusion? The Case of European Regions," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 321-354, June.
    15. G Cameron, 1996. "Innovation and Economic Growth," CEP Discussion Papers dp0277, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    16. No, Angela, 2008. "Cities and Growth: Knowledge Spillovers in the Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies," The Canadian Economy in Transition 2008018e, Statistics Canada, Economic Analysis Division.
    17. Karine Pellier, 2007. "Convergence, Patenting Activity and Geographic Spillovers: A Spatial Econometric Analysis for European Regions," Working Papers 07-14, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier, revised Dec 2007.
    18. Montresor, Sandro & Vezzani, Antonio, 2015. "The production function of top R&D investors: Accounting for size and sector heterogeneity with quantile estimations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 381-393.
    19. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissensintensive Unternehmensdienste, Wissens-Spillovers und regionales Wachstum. Teilprojekt 1: Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung Welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert das Wachst," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58342.
    20. Olof Ejermo, 2005. "Technological Diversity and Jacobs’ Externality Hypothesis Revisited," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 167-195, June.

    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:taf:regstd:v:34:y:2000:i:3:p:213-229. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRES20 .

    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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CRES20 .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.