Is Geographic Nearness Important for Trading Ideas? Evidence from the US

Drivas, Kyriakos and Economidou, Claire (2014): Is Geographic Nearness Important for Trading Ideas? Evidence from the US. Published in: The Journal of Technology Transfer

Abstract

This paper studies the relative geographic scope of two different channels of knowledge flows, a market channel where knowledge diffuses via patent transactions and a non-market channel where knowledge spillovers operate via patent citations. While there is significant work on informal non-market channels of knowledge diffusion, formal market channels of knowledge transfer are less studied, primarily due to the lack of comprehensive data. Using a newly compiled dataset by the Office of the Chief Economist at the United States Patent and Trademark Office of transactions of US issued patents, we are able to provide novel insights on the spread of patent transaction flows across the states of the US. Our findings support that geographic proximity, in terms of distance and border, matters for the spread of knowledge for both channels; however, it is more essential to the operation of market based (patent trades) than to the operation of non-market based (citations) flows. Although both flows are highly localized, the geographic scope of knowledge flows based on citations is larger than that of traded patents. Intra-sectoral flows are also found to be very localized with Mechanical sector to exhibit the most geographically confined knowledge flows, while flows from information technology sectors, i.e., Electronics and Computers, are the most far reached compared to the knowledge flows from the rest of the sectors, both in the US and abroad. Finally, there is no nuance evidence that the importance of distance has declined over time, either at state or national level for both types of flows.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: patent transactions, citations, knowledge flows, localization, distance
• Subjects: F - International Economics > F1 - Trade > F10 - General; F - International Economics > F2 - International Factor Movements and International Business > F23 - Multinational Firms ; International Business; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences ; Diffusion Processes

References

Ai, C., Norton, E. C., 2003. Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economics Letters 80(1), 123–129.

Alcacer, J., Gittelman, M., 2006. Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4), 774–779.

Aldieri, L., 2011. Technological and geographical proximity effects on knowledge spillovers: evidence from the us patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 20(6), 597–607.

Anton, J., Yao, D., 1994. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. American Economic Review 84(1), 190–209.

Arrow, K., 1962. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 609–625.

Audretsch, D. B., Feldman, M. P., 1996. R&d spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review 86(3), 630–640.

Autant-Bernard, C., Fadairo, M., Massard, N., 2013. Knowledge diffusion and innovation policies within the european regions: Challenges based on recent empirical evidence. Research Policy 42(1), 196–210.

Belenzon, S., Schankerman, M., 2011. Spreading the word: Geography, policy and knowledge spillovers. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 8002, Forthcoming in Review of Economics and Statistics.

Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., 2004. Knowledge networks from patent data: Methodological issues and research targets. Centre for Knowledge,Internationalization and Technology Studies, University of Bocconi, KITeS Working Papers No. 150.

Burhop, C., Wolf, N., 2013. The german market for patents during the "second industrialization," 1884-1913: A gravity approach.Business History Review 87(1), 69–93.

Coe, D., Helpman, E., 1995. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review 39(5), 859–887.

Criscuolo, P., Verspagen, B., 2008. Does it matter where patent citations come from? inventor vs. examiner citations in european patents. Research Policy 37(10), 1892–1908.

Disdier, A., Head, K., 2008. The puzzling persistence of the distance effect on bilateral trade. Review of Economics and Statistics 90(1),37–48.

Ellison, G., Glaeser, E., 1997. Geographic concentration in u.s. manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy 105(5), 889–927.

Fujita, M., Thisse, J.-F., 2002. Economics of Agglomeration. Cities, Industrial Location and Regional Growth. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Furman, J. L., Stern, S., 2011. Climbing atop the shoulders of giants: The impact of institutions on cumulative research. American Economic Review 101(5), 1933–1963.

Gawer, A., Cusumano, M., 2002. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Palm, Cisco and Others Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.

Griffith, R., Lee, S., van Reenen, J., 2011. Is distance dying at last? falling home bias in fixed-effects models of patent citations. Quantitative Economics 2(2), 211–249.

Hall, B., Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., 2001. The nber patents citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBERWorking Paper No. 8498.

Hausman, J., Hall, B., Gril, 1986. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents - r&d relationship. Econometrica 52(4), 909–938.

Holmes, T., Stevens, J., 2004. Spatial distribution of economic activities in north america. In: Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics: Cities and Geography. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(3), 577–598.

Keller, W., 2002. Geographic localization of international technology diffusion. American Economic Review 92(1), 120–142.

Kim, Y., Barkley, D., Henry, M., 2000. Industry characteristics linked to establishment concentrations in nonmetropolitan areas. Journal of Regional Science 40(2), 231–259.

Krugman, P., 1991. Geography and Trade. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Lai, R., Amour, A. D., Yu, A., Sun, Y., Torvik, V., Fleming, L., 2011. Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the u.s. patent inventor database (1975-2010). http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/15705 UNF:5:9kQaFvALs6qcuoy9Yd8uOw== V1 [Version].

Li, Y., 2009. Borders and distance in knowledge flows: Dying over time or dying with age? evidence from patent citations. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 2625.

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

Marcon, E., Puech, F., 2003. Evaluating the geographic concentration of industries using distance-based methods. Journal of Economic Geography 3(4), 409–428.

Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2003. Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography 3(1), 5–35.

Marx, M., Strumsky, D., Fleming, L., 2009. Mobility, skills, and the michigan non-compete experiment. Management Science 55(6), 875–889.

Mowery, D., Ziedonis, A., 2001. The geographic reach of market and non-market channels of technology transfer: Comparing citations and licences of university patents. NBER Working Paper No. 8568.

Peri, G., 2005. Determinants of knowledge flows and their effect on innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics 87, 308–322.

Perkins, R., Neumayer, E., 2011. Transnational spatial dependencies in the geography of non-resident patent filings. Journal of Economic Geography 11(1), 37–60.

Portes, R., Rey, H., 2005. The determinants of cross-border equity flows. Journal of International Economics 65(2), 269–296.

Portes, R., Rey, H., Oh, Y., 2001. Information and capital flows: The determinants of transcations in financial assets. European Economic Review 45(4-6), 783–796.

Rivera-Batiz, L., Romer, P., 1991. Economic integration and endogenous growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(2), 227–244.

Romer, P., 1986. Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy 94(5), 1000–1037.

Santos Silva, J. M. C., Tenreyro, S., 2006. The log of gravity. Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4), 641–658.

Santos Silva, J. M. C., Tenreyro, S., 2010. On the existence of the maximum likelihood estimates for poisson regression. Economics Letters 107, 310–312.

Saxenian, A., 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley nd Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass.

Serrano, C., 2011. Estimating the gains from trade in the market for innovation: Evidence from the transfer of patents. NBERWorking Paper No. 17304.

Spulber, F. D., 2008. Innovation and international trade in technology. Journal of Economic Theory 138(1), 1–20.

Stanford Report, 2004. Intellectual property the next big thing, Stanford Report, Mar. 3. Stanford University.

Thompson, P., 2006. Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: Evidence from inventor- and examiner-added citations. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88(2), 383–388.

WIPO, 2004. Intellectual Property: A Power Tool for Economic Growth. World Intellectual Property Organization.

Wolf, H. C., 2000. Intra-national home bias in trade. Review of Economics and Statistics 82(4), 555–563.