Does Proximity Matter for Knowledge Transfer from Public Institutes and Universities to Firms

'National Innovation Systems' theories are built upon the assumption that linkages among organisations matter to innovation. Specifically, proximity is a crucial factor in most of the explanations of regional innovation systems. Yet several thing, such as the rapid growth of the internet and email, suggest that the role of proximity could be breaking down, particularly for large firms with the financial resources to seek out knowledge anywhere in the world.However, the need to access tacit knowledge in rapidly evolving science-based technologies could counter the centrifugal features of modern communication technologies. This study examines the effect of proximity on the sourcing of knowledge by firms from suppliers, customers, joint ventures, competitors (via reverse engineering) and publicly-funded research organisations (PROs). The focus is on PROs, since they are an essential component of National Innovation Systems. Relevant data for up to 615 firms are available from the 1993 PACE survey of Europe's largest industrial firms. Descriptive results show that compared to four other information sources proximity effects are greatest for PROs. The factors that influence the importance of proximity to the use of information from PROs are explored through an ordered logit model. The dependent variable is the relative importance of domestic and foreign PROs. The independent variables include firm size, activity in foreign markets, R&D intensity, a proxy for codified knowledge, and two proxies for the quantity and quality of the scientific base of a country. The ordered logit model results show that proximity effects decline with an increase in the firm's R&D expenditures, the importance attached to basic research results in publications, and activity in the North American market, but increase with the quality and availability of outputs from domestic PROs.

[1]  Graham K. Rand,et al.  Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences , 1983 .

[2]  Robin Cowan,et al.  The dynamics of collective invention , 2003 .

[3]  B. Lundvall.  National Systems of Innovation , 1992 .

[4]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Localized Learning and Industrial Competitiveness , 1995 .

[5]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[6]  Léa Velho,et al.  Knowledge Frontiers: Public Sector Research and Industrial Innovation in Biotechnology, Engineering Ceramics, and Parallel Computing , 1995 .

[7]  Keith Pavitt,et al.  National systems of innovation under strain: the internationalisation of corporate R&D. , 2000 .

[8]  D. Massey,et al.  Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model* , 1992 .

[9]  E. Mansfield.  Academic Research Underlying Industrial Innovations , 1995 .

[10]  K. Pavitt.  What makes basic research economically useful , 1991 .

[11]  M. Feldman.  The New Economics Of Innovation, Spillovers And Agglomeration: Areview Of Empirical Studies , 1999 .

[12]  P. Saviotti.  On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge , 1998 .

[13]  W. Edward Steinmueller,et al.  Basic Research and Industrial Innovation , 1995 .

[14]  Francis Narin,et al.  Status report: Linkage between technology and science , 1992 .

[15]  E. Hippel.  Cooperation between Rivals: Informal Know-How Trading , 1987 .

[16]  A. Marshall,et al.  Principles of Economics , 1891 .

[17]  Kimberly S. Hamilton,et al.  The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science , 1997 .

[18]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[19]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[20]  E. Mansfield.  Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1 , 1998 .

[21]  Bart Verspagen.  Large Firms and Knowledge Flows in the Dutch R&D System : A Case Study of Philips Electronics , 1998 .

[22]  Joanne Roberts.  From Know-how to Show-how? Questioning the Role of Information and Communication Technologies in Knowledge Transfer , 2000 .

[23]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[24]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Three Levels of Networking for Sourcing Intellectual Capital in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[25]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[26]  Anthony Arundel,et al.  The use of patent databases by european small and medium-sized enterprises , 1998 .

[27]  Paul A. David,et al.  The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness , 2000 .

[28]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  On the Sources and Significance of Interindustry Differences in Technological Opportunities , 1995 .

[29]  S. Breschi,et al.  Knowledge Spillovers And Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey , 2001 .

[30]  James D. Adams,et al.  Comparative Localization of Academic and Industrial Spillovers , 2001 .

[31]  Marian Beise,et al.  Public research and industrial innovations in Germany , 1999 .

[32]  C. Freeman.  Technology policy and economic performance : lessons from Japan , 1987 .

[33]  J. Senker.  Tacit Knowledge and Models of Innovation , 1995 .

[34]  E. Mansfield,et al.  The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support , 1996 .

[35]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  The Economic Geography of the Internet Age , 2001 .

[36]  Leo Sveikauskas,et al.  The Contribution of R&D to Productivity Growth. , 1986 .

[37]  J. Senker,et al.  Overseas Biotechnology Research by Europe's Chemical/Pharmaceuticals Multinationals: Rationale and Implications , 1996 .