Innovation and spillovers in regions: Evidence from European patent data

Foreign Direct Investment and Local Economic Development: Beyond Productivity Spillovers

“…This may not be surprising given that there is a fair amount of evidence that linkages, either horizontal or vertical, between production units are mostly local in nature. This may be even more so when one considers effects arising from foreign direct investment as multinationals are considered to be more R&D intensive than local firms (see Markusen, 1995), and there is plenty of support according to which knowledge flows measured through R&D are subject to distance decay effects (see Bottazzi and Peri, 2001 (Görg and Ruane, 2001) as well as the possible benefits from agglomeration economies (Barry et al, 2003), can be expected to have impacted upon the contribution of MNCs to indigenous development. 15 This implies that our empirical results, while they may in some senses be encouraging for other countries attempting to embark on industrial development with the help of attracting MNCs, may not be the same for other countries.…”

The innovation–economic growth nexus: Global evidence

“…To our best knowledge, there are very few comprehensive studies examining innovation and economic growth in a crosscountry setting using patent data (Maurseth and Verspagen, 2002;Bottazzi and Peri, 2003). In this paper, we try to address this need by constructing a cross-country sample, and address some unanswered questions with the help of a recently available global patent database.…”

“…Audretsch and Feldman (1996) find that innovation spillovers tend to be localized in the sense that industries with a prevalence of knowledge spillovers have a high propensity to be clustered. For example, there may be important barriers to knowledge flow even between European countries (Maurseth and Verspagen, 2002;Bottazzi and Peri, 2003).…”

“…This is a relatively common practice in the literature at multiple levels of analysis (e.g., Ahuja and Katila, 2001;Bottazzi and Peri, 2003;Maurseth and Verspagen, 2002) because (1) patents do indeed represent inventive output, and such output is intended to (usually, see below) be commercialized; (2) detailed statistics have been collected and kept over the years; and (3) patents are in general costly to obtain and defend, implying some kind of financial benefit in return. Thus if innovation = invention + exploitation, as Roberts (1988) has proposed, it does appear that the inventive output plus the intention and incentive to commercialize (exploit) would lead to something akin to innovation.…”

Measuring Regional Innovativeness - A Methodological Discussion and an Application to One German Industry

“…Furthermore, it is argued in the literature that knowledge transfers can be regionally bounded (Broekel and Binder, 2007). This regional local nature of R&D knowledge spill-overs is empirically confirmed by e.g., Bottazzi and Peri (2003). In the case of public research institutes Beise and Stahl (1999) show that firms' tend to name those institutes more often that are located close by.…”