Profiling U.S. Metropolitan Regions by Their Social Research Networks and Regional Economic Performance

Abstract

On the premise that knowledge creation defines contemporary metropolitan regions, we profile them by their inventive networks, as measured by a variety of complementary social network, technology, and patenting metrics that distinguish scalar and structural aspects. Using a comprehensive, multiyear database of patent applications, we investigate whether the knowledge creation network profiles are discriminating characteristics of metropolitan regions by establishing a new urban taxonomy for metropolitan areas in the United States. The four-class taxonomy is not only statistically significant, but it is also economically meaningful in terms of economic performance of metropolitan areas. We find that metropolitan areas benefit from a higher density of inventors in the population, and that there is a positive correlation between economic performance and metropolitan areas with inventor teams working in similar or complementary areas of technology. In fact, the structure of knowledge creation networks are fundamental to economic performance and extends to metropolitan growth rates in jobs and income.

Knowledge networks and industrial structure for regional innovation: An analysis of patents collaborations in Italy

“…For instance, Lobo and Strumsky () find that agglomeration economies of inventors are more relevant than the structure of local knowledge networks. Strumsky and Thill () follow the same line of reasoning, while, from the other perspective, Breschi and Lenzi () point out that the functioning of knowledge networks and, in particular, social proximity are more important than agglomeration economies of inventors.…”

“…Later contributions overpassed this debate on the supremacy of agglomeration economies focusing more on the characteristics of the cities or local systems (Strumsky & Thill, ). More recently some contributions focus more on the internal structures of knowledge networks of inventors, pointing out that social proximity supports knowledge flows and the renewal of a city's knowledge base (Breschi & Lenzi, ).…”

“…There is a wide literature which states that social network structures matter for innovation (e.g., Powell et al, A recent line of research connected to this field is that which seeks to connect network theory with regional sciences and urban economics in order to investigate the innovative capacity of cities and regions. This debate, which developed from the intersection of different research areas, such as innovation studies, network theory and urban and regional sciences, has investigated how knowledge networks support the inventive performances of cities, and it has been thriving in journals such as the Journal of Urban Economics, Research Policy, the Journal of Regional Science and recently in Papers in Regional Science (Breschi & Lenzi, 2016;Hazır, LeSage, & Autant-Bernard, 2018;Lobo & Strumsky, 2008;Strumsky & Thill, 2013;van der Wouden & Rigby, 2019).…”

“…In addition, while most works on knowledge networks focus on inventors, in particular in the US (Breschi & Lissoni, 2009;Lobo & Strumsky, 2008;Strumsky & Thill, 2013), this study focuses at firm level and considers all industries, while most studies deal with specific clusters or industries, such as Whittington, Owen-Smith, and Powell (2009) on biotech, Balconi, Breschi, and Lissoni (2004) on academic inventors and Nicotra, Romano, and Del Giudice (2014) on the ceramic industry in the cluster of Sassuolo.…”

Innovation across cities

“…There is an associated branch of the literature which examines innovative and creative activities in cities. This includes Berry and Glaeser (2005), Bettencourt, Lobo, and Strumsky (2007), Lobo, Strumsky, and West (2010), OhUallachain (1999), and Strumsky and Thill (2013). However, much of this literature focuses on U.S. cities, and is primarily interested in describing the distribution of innovative activity across cities.…”