IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Performance of Gatekeepers in Innovator Networks


  • Holger Graf

    () (Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Economics Department)

  • Jens J. Krüger

    () (Darmstadt University of Technology, Department of Law and Economics)


We investigate the impact of actors' positions within regional innovator networks on their innovative performance. The networks of four selected regions are based on information on patent applicants and inventors. Count data regressions show positive effects on innovation of both the total number of relations and of access to a larger knowledge base. However, when looking at innovators that are characterised by multiple internal and external contacts, our results suggest that these gatekeepers are not able to reap all the benefits associated with their brokering position. This implies that gatekeepers provide some sort of public good to the innovation system.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Graf & Jens J. Krüger, 2009. "The Performance of Gatekeepers in Innovator Networks," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-058, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-058

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Hanna Ågren & Matz Dahlberg & Eva Mörk, 2007. "Do politicians’ preferences correspond to those of the voters? An investigation of political representation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(1), pages 137-162, January.
    2. Wendy Kenyon & Nick Hanley & Ceara Nevin, 2001. "Citizens' Juries: An Aid to Environmental Valuation?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 19(4), pages 557-566, August.
    3. McConnell, K. E., 1997. "Does Altruism Undermine Existence Value?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 22-37, January.
    4. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    5. Bromley, Daniel W., 1990. "The ideology of efficiency: Searching for a theory of policy analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 86-107, July.
    6. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Elina Lampi, 2010. "Dealing with Ignored Attributes in Choice Experiments on Valuation of Sweden’s Environmental Quality Objectives," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(1), pages 65-89, September.
    7. Flores, Nicholas E., 2002. "Non-paternalistic altruism and welfare economics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 293-305, February.
    8. Anna Alberini & Alberto Longo & Patrizia Riganti, 2006. "Using Surveys to Compare the Public’s and Decisionmakers’ Preferences for Urban Regeneration: The Venice Arsenale," Working Papers 2006.137, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    9. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, March.
    10. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-39, January.
    11. John A. List, 2001. "Do Explicit Warnings Eliminate the Hypothetical Bias in Elicitation Procedures? Evidence from Field Auctions for Sportscards," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1498-1507, December.
    12. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753, March.
    13. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, March.
    14. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    15. Norman Gemmell & Oliver Morrissey & Abuzer Pinar, 2004. "Tax perceptions and preferences over tax structure in the united kingdom," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(493), pages 117-138, February.
    16. Ted O'Donoghue & Matthew Rabin, 2003. "Studying Optimal Paternalism, Illustrated by a Model of Sin Taxes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 186-191, May.
    17. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    18. Hammar, Henrik & Jagers, Sverker C. & Nordblom, Katarina, 2006. "What explains attitudes towards tax levels? A multi-tax comparison," Working Papers in Economics 225, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    19. Colombo, S. & Angus, A. & Morris, J. & Parsons, D.J. & Brawn, M. & Stacey, K. & Hanley, N., 2009. "A comparison of citizen and "expert" preferences using an attribute-based approach to choice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(11), pages 2834-2841, September.
    20. Gregory L. Poe & Eric K. Severance-Lossin & Michael P. Welsh, 1994. "Measuring the Difference (X — Y) of Simulated Distributions: A Convolutions Approach," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 76(4), pages 904-915.
    21. Henrik Hammar & Sverker C. Jagers & Katarina Nordblom, 2008. "Attitudes towards Tax Levels: A Multi-Tax Comparison," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 29(4), pages 523-543, December.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver, 2012. "Are technological gatekeepers constraining my cluster? Unfolding the paradox of gatekeepers resilience across cluster life cycle stages," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1206, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised May 2012.
    2. Xavier Molina-Morales, F. & Belso-Martinez, José Antonio & Mas-Verdú, Francisco, 2016. "Interactive effects of internal brokerage activities in clusters: The case of the Spanish Toy Valley," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 1785-1790.
    3. Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver & Jose Albors-Garrigos, 2013. "Are Technological Gatekeepers Constraining my Cluster? Unfolding the paradox of gatekeepers resilience across cluster life cycle stages," DRUID Working Papers 13-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    4. Marina van Geenhuizen & Peter Nijkamp, 2011. "Knowledge Virtualization and Local Connectedness among Smart High-tech Companies," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-119/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Maureen McKelvey & Bastian Rake, 2012. "Research Network Position and Innovative Performance: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," Jena Economic Research Papers 2012-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    6. Mario BENASSI & Matteo LANDONI, 2017. "State Owned Enterprises as Knowledge Explorer Agents," Departmental Working Papers 2017-13, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    7. Tobias Scholl & Antonios Garas & Frank Schweitzer, 2015. "The spatial component of R&D networks," Papers 1509.08291,
    8. Johan Joubert & Kay Axhausen, 2013. "A complex network approach to understand commercial vehicle movement," Transportation, Springer, vol. 40(3), pages 729-750, May.
    9. Kudic, Muhamed & Guhr, Katja, 2013. "Cooperation Events, Ego-Network Characteristics and Firm Innovativeness – Empirical Evidence from the German Laser Industry," IWH Discussion Papers 6/2013, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    10. Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf, 2011. "Innovation Networks: Formation, Performance and Dynamics," Chapters,in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 15 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Annalisa Caloffi & Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2014. "The roles of different intermediaries in innovation networks: A network-based approach," Department of Economics (DEMB) 0030, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Department of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    12. José-Antonio Belso-Martínez & Manuel Expósito-Langa, 2015. "Persistence and extinction of brokerage roles in clusters: the role of status, former experiences and extra-cluster relationships," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1501, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2015.
    13. Julie Le Gallo & Anne Plunket, 2016. "Technological gatekeepers, regional inventor networks and inventive performance," Working Papers hal-01422916, HAL.
    14. Annalisa Caloffi & Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2013. "Does participation in innovation networks improve firms' relational abilities? Evidence from a regional policy framework," DRUID Working Papers 13-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    15. repec:spr:scient:v:113:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2536-2 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Boari, Cristina & Riboldazzi, Federico, 2014. "How knowledge brokers emerge and evolve: The role of actors’ behaviour," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 683-695.

    More about this item


    Innovator networks; Gatekeeper; Zero Inflated Generalised Poisson;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • R11 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Regional Economic Activity: Growth, Development, Environmental Issues, and Changes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2009-058. 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: (Markus Pasche). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    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.