Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may AbstractThe paper re-examines critically the growing literature on localized knowledge spillovers (LKSs), and finds the econometric evidence on the subject still lacking of a firm enough theoretical background, especially in respect of the more recent developments in the economics of knowledge. Therefore such evidence, and even more the concept itself of LKS, should not be read as supportive of new industrial geographers' work on industrial districts, hi-tech agglomerations and 'milieux innovateur'. Rather, they represent a threath to the necessary efforts for gaining more theoretical rigour and getting more empirical fieldwork done.1

No abstract

This paper proposes that the speci®c pattern of innovative activities in an industry can be explained as the outcome of different technological (learning) regimes. A technological regime is de®ned by the particular combination of technological opportunities, appropriability of innovations, cumulativeness of technical advances and properties of the knowledge base. Building upon the distinction between Schumpeter Mark I and Schumpeter Mark II industries, this paper provides empirical estimates of the relationships between indicators of the Schumpeterian patterns of innovation (concentration of innovative activities, stability in the hierarchy of innovators and importance of new innovators) and indicators of the variables de®ning technological regimes.

This article illustrates the contribution of mobile inventors and networks of inventors to the diffusion of knowledge across firms and within cities or states. It is based upon an original data set on US inventors' patent applications at the European Patent Office, in the fields of drugs, biotechnology and organic chemistry. The study combines the methodology originally proposed by Jaffe et al. (1993, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 577-598) with tools from social network analysis, in order to evaluate extent of the localization of knowledge flows, as measured by patent citations. After controlling for inventors' mobility and for the resulting co-invention network, the residual effect of spatial proximity on knowledge diffusion is found to be greatly reduced. We argue that the most fundamental reason why geography matters in constraining the diffusion of knowledge is that mobile researchers are not likely to relocate in space, so that their co-invention network is also localized. In the light of these results, we revisit common interpretations of localized knowledge flows as externalities.

No abstract