Are organizational and economic proximity driving factors of scientific collaboration? Evidence from Spanish universities, 2001–2010.

Fernández, Ana and Ferrándiz, Esther and León, María Dolores (2021): Are organizational and economic proximity driving factors of scientific collaboration? Evidence from Spanish universities, 2001–2010. Published in: Scientometrics , Vol. 1, No. 126 (2021): pp. 579-602.

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the effects that organizational and economic proximity have on scientific collaboration (SC) among Spanish universities, which are institutions in a peripheral country to EU-15. The methodology to address our research relies on data from a set of co-authored articles indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) provided by Web of Science (WoS) and published between 2001 and 2010 by 903 pairs of collaborating universities. This paper contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, we aim to study how Spanish academic SC evolved in the period 2001-2010 in order to identify which universities were more prone to collaborate. Second, we analyse how collaboration across distance has evolved over time, considering two periods: 2001-2005 and 2006- 2010. Finally, we put forward an econometric model to analyse how geographical,cognitive, institutional, social, organizational and economic proximity affect SC. Among other results, we find that differences in the size of the collaborating universities are not relevant to explaining academic SC, while disparities in ages and international vocation affect SC. With regard to economic proximity, differences in GDP are not relevant, while differences in financial funding suggest a stronger rate of collaboration among universities with different levels of funding. Building on our results, we provide some policy implications.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Scientific collaborations, Organizational proximity, Economic proximity, Proximity 46 dimensions, Gravity equation
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O30 - General; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O32 - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

References

• Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C., & Di Costa, F. (2009a). Research collaboration and productivity: Is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155–171.

• Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C., and Di Costa, F., & Solazzi, M. (2009b). University-industry collaboration in Italy: A bibliometric examination. Technovation, 29(6–7), 498–507.

• Acosta, M., Coronado, D., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2011). Factors affecting inter-regional academic scientific collaboration within Europe: The role of economic distance. Scientometrics, 87(1), 63–74.

• Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Martinez, M. A. (2012). Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter? Research Policy, 41, 692–703.

• Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. E. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaborations: Evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34, 259–285.

• Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60, 323–351.

• Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1998). Endogenous growth. Cambridge: MIT Press.

• Amano, K., & Fujita, M. (1970). Long run economic effect analysis of alternative transportation facility plans-regional and national. Journal of Regional Science, 10, 297–323.

• Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422–448.

• Azagra-Caro, J. M., Archontakis, F., & Yegros-Yegros, A. (2005). Is regional catching-up a motivation for university patenting? In 5TH Triple Helix conference: The capitalization of knowledge: Cognitive, economic, social and cultural aspects. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9e02/212dfcd45932661cc6c5fe72ab3bf4a9a036.pdf. Retrieved Date June 26, 2018. • Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15, 107–207.

• Balland, P. A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and development projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46, 741–756.

• Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907–920.

• Boardman, P. G., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Reseach Policy, 37, 900–913.

• Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.

• Boschma, R. A., & Frenken, K. (2009). Some notes on institutions in evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 85(2), 151–158.

• Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.

• Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9, 439–468.

• Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. A. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12, 409–433.

• Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometrics models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1(1), 29–93.

• Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1990). Regression-based tests for overdispersion in the Poisson model. Journal of Econometrics, 46(3), 347–364. MathSciNet • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (1998). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station: Stata Press.

• Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2013). Regression analysis of count data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Carrincazeaux, C., Lung, Y., & Vicente, J. (2008). The scientific trajectory of the French school of proximity: Interaction- and institution-based approaches to regional innovation systems. European Planning Studies, 16(5), 617–628.

• Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation.. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

• Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Research Policy, 36, 1620–1634.

• D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of univeristy-industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558.

• D'Este, P., and Patel, P. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.

• Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305.

• Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

• Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national system and ‘mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

• Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2016). Proximity dimensions and scientific collaboration among academic institutions in Europe: The closer, the better? Scientometrics, 106, 1073–1092.

• Fernández, A., Ferrándiz, E., & León, M. D. (2017). El efecto de la distancia económica sobre la colaboración científica entre universidades. Evidencia para las regiones del sur de Europa. Journal of Regional Research - Investigaciones Regionales, 37, 55–76.

• Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938–954.

• Franceschet, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 540–553.

• Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., & Hoekman, J. (2009). Spatial scientometrics: Towards a cumulative reseach program. Journal of Informetrics, 3, 222–232.

• Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 17–30.

• Gaillard, J. (1992). Use of publication lists to study scientific production and strategies of scientists in developing countries. Scientometrics, 23(1), 57–73. MathSciNet • Gay, G., & Dousset, B. (2005). Innovation and network structural dynamics: Study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 34, 1457–1475.

• Gertler, M. S. (1995). Being there: Proximity, organization and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies. Economic Geography, 71, 1–26.

• Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Duysters, G. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technologial distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–1731.

• Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of valuable university-industry linkages? Insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38, 906–921.

• Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34, 47–68.

• Hazelkorn, E. (2014). Reflections on a decade of global rankings: What we’ve learned and outstanding issues. European Journal of Education, 49(1), 12–28.

• Hennemann, S., Rybski, D., & Liefner, I. (2012). The myth of global science collaboration-collaboration patterns in epistemic communities. Journal of Informetrics, 6, 217–225.

• Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2012). Reseach intensity and knowledge transfer activity in UK universities. Research Policy, 41(2), 262–275.

• Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Tijssen, R. J. W. (2010). Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy, 39, 662–673.

• Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & Van Oort, F. (2009). The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. Annals of Regional Science, 43, 721–738.

• Hong, W., & Su, Y. S. (2013). The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university-industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data. Research Policy, 42, 454–464.

• Howells, J. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 29(5–6), 871–884.

• Hwang, K. (2008). International collaboration in multilayered center-periphery in the globalization of science and technology. Science Technology Human Values, 33, 101–133.

• Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.

• Jiang, L. A., Zhu, N., Yang, Z., Xu, S., & Jun, M. (2018). The relationships between distance factors and international collaborative research outcomes: A bibliometric examination. Journal of Informetrics, 12(3), 618–630.

• Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

• Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.

• Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration. A literatura review. International Journal of Management Review, 8, 71–89.

• Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 561–592.

• Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.

• Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

• Lucas, J. R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.

• Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Frances Pinter.

• Marrocu, E., Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2013). Proximity, networking and knowledge production in Europe: What lessons for innovation policy? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80, 1484–1498.

• Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studing research collaboration using co-authorship. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

• Moed, H. F. (2017). A critical comparative analysis of five world university rankings. Scientometrics, 110(2), 967–990.

• Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2004). Universities in National innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van Den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.

• Nooteboom, B. W. (1999). Innovation, learning and industrial organization. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 127–150.

• Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15(2), 139–178.

• Paci, R., & Usai, S. (2009). Knowledge flows across European regions. The Annals of Regional Science, 43, 669–690.

• Padgett, J., & Powell, W. (2012). The problem of emergence. In N. J. Padgett & W. Powell (Eds.), The emergence of organizations and markets (pp. 1–30). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

• Paier, M., & Scherngell, T. (2011). Determinants of collaboration in European R&D networks: Empirical evidence from a binary choice model perspective. Industry and Innovation, 18(1), 89–104.

• Petruzzelli, A. M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31, 309–319.

• Plotnikova, T., & Rake, B. (2014). Collaboration in pharmaceutical research: Exploration of country-level determinants. Scientometrics, 98(2), 1173–1202.

• Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. G., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 423–443.

• Rallet, A., & Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of the global economy. GeoJournal, 49, 373–380.

• Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94, 1002–1037.

• Romer, P. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.

• Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures. An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369–386.

• Salager-Meyer, F. (2008). Scientific publishing in developing countries: Challenges for the future. Journal of English for Academic Purpose, 7, 121–132.

• Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31(3), 303–328.

• Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2009). Spatial interaction modelling of cross-region R&D collaborations: Empirical evidence from the 5th EU Framework Programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3), 531–546.

• Schott, R. (1998). Ties between center and periphery in the scientific world-system: Accumulation of rewards, dominance and self-reliance in the center. Journal of World-Systems Research, 4, 112–144.

• Schubert, T., & Sooryamoorthy, R. (2010). Can the centre-periphery model explain patterns of international scientific collaboration among threshold and industrialized countries? The case of South Africa and Germany.. Scientometrics, 83, 181–203.

• Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51, 756–770.

• Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration: A synthesis of challenges and strategies. In B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology (pp. 643–681). Medford: Information Today, Inc. • Tijssen, R. J. W., & Van Leeuwen, T. N. 2003. Bibliometric analyses of world science, extended technical. In Annex to Chap. 5 of the Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?, https://doi.org/10.1.1.739.3700&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Retrieved Date April 15, 2017. • Tojeiro-Rivero, D., & Moreno, R. (2019). Technological cooperation, R&D outsourcing, and innovation performance at the firm level: The role of the regional context. Research Policy, 48(7), 1798–1808.

• Torre, A., & Gilly, J. P. (2000). On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34, 169–180.

• Torres-Salinas, D., Delgado-López-Cozar, E., García-Moreno, J., & Herrera, F. (2011). Rankings ISI de las Universidades Españolas según Campos Científicos: Descripción y Resultados. Profesional de la Informacion, 20(1), 111–122.

• Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674–698.

• Varga, A., & Horváth, M. (2014). Institutional and regional factors behind university patenting in Europe: An exploratory spatial analysis using EUMIDA data. In A. Bonaccorsi (Ed.), Knowledge, diversity and performance in European higher education: A changing landscape (pp. 167–204). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.