Innovative behavior and spatial location: using patent counts and geographic location to estimate innovative spillins

In this paper we examine the relation between geographic location and innovative behavior. Knowledge spillins, as opposed to knowledge spillovers, are modeled as an externality which exists between geographically close economic agents and enters the representative inventor production function explicitly from neighboring regions. To proxy new innovative behavior and new knowledge generated we use counts of patent filings per county. The proposed geographic spillin is tested for the US Midwestern States of Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota and North Dakota using a newly constructed data set and implementing spatial statistical methods. The data set is comprised of primary inventor utility patent filings per county for the years 1975-2000. The results do indeed suggest spatial interaction does occur and innovative activity in surrounding counties is an important factor in explaining new innovative behavior. Further analysis also reveals lagged patenting behavior within the county also has a significant impact on patenting activity suggesting innovative externalities exist over both space and time.

[1]  P. Gould.  THE GEOGRAPHICAL INTERPRETATION OF EIGENVALUES , 1967 .

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

[3]  James P. LeSage,et al.  “Theory and Practice of Spatial Econometrics” , 2015 .

[4]  K. Tinkler,et al.  The physical interpretation of eigenfunctions of dichotomous matrices , 1972 .

[5]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Patents and R and D at the Firm Level: A First Look , 1980 .

[6]  F. Knight.  Diminishing Returns from Investment , 1944, Journal of Political Economy.

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

[8]  L. Anselin,et al.  Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge , 2002 .

[9]  William L. Garrison,et al.  Factor-analytic study of the connectivity of a transportation network , 1964 .

[10]  L. Anselin.  Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models , 1988 .

[11]  Robert S. Pindyck,et al.  Econometric models and economic forecasts / Robert S. Pindyck, Daniel L. Rubinfeld , 1981 .

[12]  D. Rubinfeld,et al.  Econometric models and economic forecasts , 2002 .

[13]  Todd Sandler,et al.  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH EXPENDITURES IN THE UNITED STATES: A PUBLIC GOODS PERSPECTIVE , 1994 .

[14]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Patents and R&D at the firm level: A first report , 1980 .

[15]  Barry Boots,et al.  Comments on the Use of Eigenfunctions to Measure Structural Properties of Geographic Networks , 1982 .

[16]  P. Romer.  Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[17]  E. Glaeser,et al.  Growth in Cities , 1991, Journal of Political Economy.

[18]  J. LeSage,et al.  Likelihood Dominance Spatial Inference , 2003 .

[19]  G. Sweeney,et al.  Innovation, Entrepreneurs and Regional Development , 1987 .

[20]  B. Roe,et al.  Pigs in Space: Modeling the Spatial Structure of Hog Production in Traditional and Nontraditional Production Regions , 2002 .

[21]  Michael D. Intriligator,et al.  Econometric Models, Techniques, and Applications. , 1979 .

[22]  P. Speckman,et al.  Posterior distribution of hierarchical models using CAR(1) distributions , 1999 .

[23]  W. Huffman,et al.  Convergence in U.S. Productivity Growth for Agriculture: Implications of Interstate Research Spillovers for Funding Agricultural Research , 2000 .

[24]  Luc Anselin,et al.  Estimation methods for spatial autoregressive structures. , 1980 .

[25]  James P. LeSage,et al.  Chebyshev approximation of log-determinants of spatial weight matrices , 2004, Comput. Stat. Data Anal..

[26]  Attila Varga,et al.  Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations , 1997 .