Co-patenting and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox

Co-patenting and inventive performance: in

search of the proximity paradox

Lorenzo Cassi

Université Paris 1, CES & OST

Anne Plunket

Université Paris Sud 11, ADIS

Aim of the paper: Consider the joint impact of network and proximity factors and Contrast their impact on

Collaboration through co-inventor dyad formationInventive performance through forward citations

Geographical (and other forms of) proximity and networks

The role of geographical proximity

Knowledge diffusion and innovation are highly localized and embedded in industrial clusters

Long studied through knowledge externalities and their impact on knowledge creation (Jaffe, 1989; Audretsch and Feldaman, 1996)Under what conditions individuals and firms benefit from knowledge externalities?

The role of networks as Channels of knowledge diffusion Social proximity : individuals need to be embedded in networks: knowledge flows follow inter-personal links build through mobility, co-ethnicity, friendship, etc. (Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Agrawal et al., 2008; Breschi and Lissoni, 2009;)Networks are local to the extent that individuals are not very mobile (Breschi and Lissoni, 2009)Other forms of proximity mediate knowledge diffusion: organizational and technological proximity (Boschma, 2005, Nooteboom, et al. 2007)


Other forms of proximity: substitutes or complementsOther forms of proximity mediate knowledge diffusion

organizational proximity and technological proximity (Boschma, 2005)Social, organizational and geographical proximity are substitutes: similar roles in favoring learning and knowledge sharing

In sum:

1. Individuals need proximity to become connected, to share knowledge

2. Various forms of proximity may act as substitutes or complements

3. Individuals need to be embedded in networks

What about network positions ?


Network positions are important to access knowledge and resources:

Closure positions (= within component) - Coleman, 1988Share social proximity : have partners in common ; closure positions are highly localized (Ter Wal, 2011)Cohesive networks: reduce coordination cost and promotes trust and collaborationRisk of redundancy: similar knowledge bases and technological skills

Bridging positions (=across components) - Burt, 1992Brokerage position: link between separate components; channel across clustersAccess non redundant and novel sources of information and knowledge Promote creativity and provide opportunities for novel combinations “Weak ties”: difficult to coordinate and mobilize (but possibly compensated through other forms of proximity to reduce uncertainty)

Networks and knowledge

The proximity paradox?Network relations and proximity are “facilitators” of coordination, knowledge sharing and diffusion, they do not necessarily favor innovative performance (Boschma and Frenken, 2009)

Too much proximity may be harmful for innovation

Technological capabilities and cognitive/technological proximity play a more prominent role (Nooteboom, et al. 2007, Broekel and Boschma, 2011)

Data and network construction methodEPO patents in genomics (1990-2006) – ANR Corpus genomic with OST-INRA-ADIS - from Patstat

All co-inventor dyads between inventors reporting a European postal address (EU15 and Switzerland and Norway - 12,968 patents – 4406 applicants – 24,708 inventors

Network built using five-year windows (links die out) : network in 1994 is built on patents published between 1990 and 1994

All ties and potential ties

To avoid simultaneity biases, we consider all proximity determinants with a lag of one period

We investigate only links among already active actors – bridging and intracomponent ties

Links Total number

%

1. Bridging links 1,084 2.592. New Component link 24,460 57.853. Pendant links 15,470 36.894. Intra-component link 1,120 2.67Total 41,934 100

Independent variables and controlsUnit of analysis: co-inventor dyads (closure or bridging dyads)

Proximity variables based on inventors’ individual characteristics (previsous period)

Geographical proximity: geographical location of inventors at the NUTS 3 level -Organizational proximity

Same applicant: within the same governance structure - (private company, research institutes and universities, non for-profit organizations and individuals Same organizational type: between firms or between academics

Technological proximity : Jaffe Index based on IPC codes Social proximity between already indirectly connected inventors (when social distance is == 2, 3 and 4)

Control variablesAverage and absolute degree (preferential attachement)Average and absolute experience (time since first patent)Border (neighbor countries)Number of inventors Cosure and bridging patent: Mixed ties

Dependent variables and estimation1. The likelihood of collaboration

How proximity (spatial, social, cognitive, organizational and institutional proximity) affect the choice of collaboration partners?

Tie formation using a conditional logit model – tie versus no tie formation

for any observed tie, we randomly select five possible but not realized co-inventor ties, which provide five controls for each co-inventor

Dyad formation using conditional logit = f(proximity, proximity interactions, controls)

2. The value of inventions:

How proximity affect the value of patents?Number of citations per patent as a proxy for the value of an invention (Harhoff, et al. 2003; Gambardella, Harhoff, and Verspagen, 2008)Citations based on patent families – 5 years - (Martinez, 2010, OECD) # forward Citations using

negative binomial = f(proximity, proximity interactions, controls)

Network tie formation regressions

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)VARIABLES Closure Closure Closure Closure Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

Geographical proximity 0.815*** 0.469*** 0.683*** 0.681*** 0.729*** 0.684*** 0.608*** 0.684***

[19.24] [9.75] [18.69] [18.82] [21.70] [21.26] [15.01] [21.27]Same applicant 1.460*** 4.342*** 5.400*** 4.027*** 0.366 3.218*** 2.698*** 2.610***

[4.88] [16.94] [8.07] [16.38] [1.08] [3.65] [10.95] [10.21]Same type 0.347* 2.372*** 0.389* -0.011 -0.075 -0.068 0.698* -0.458

[2.04] [5.95] [2.53] [-0.02] [-0.78] [-0.74] [2.17] [-1.40]Technological proximity 2.884*** 2.871*** 3.347*** 2.631*** 1.734*** 1.818*** 1.756*** 1.468***

[8.47] [8.62] [9.23] [5.24] [7.67] [7.82] [7.75] [4.61]Geographical proximity x same applicant -0.690*** -0.573***

[-10.27] [-7.24]Geographical proximity x Same type 0.397*** 0.146**

[5.92] [2.70]Technological proximty x Same applicant -1.932* -0.887

[-2.22] [-0.75]Technological proximity x Same type 0.551 0.567

[0.83] [1.24]Border -1.706*** -1.672*** -1.599*** -1.626*** -1.201*** -1.176*** -1.178*** -1.174***

[-7.93] [-8.41] [-8.91] [-8.97] [-9.62] [-9.81] [-9.77] [-9.77]Degrees - Avrg 0.954*** 1.009*** 0.972*** 0.986*** -0.683*** -0.667*** -0.657*** -0.663***

[5.40] [5.87] [5.89] [5.90] [-5.24] [-5.23] [-5.17] [-5.17]Degrees - Abs.diff. -0.237** -0.264** -0.274** -0.268** 0.325*** 0.333*** 0.331*** 0.333***

[-2.67] [-3.01] [-3.26] [-3.17] [3.72] [3.86] [3.84] [3.85]Experience - Abs.diff -0.376+ -0.319+ -0.292 -0.287 0.327** 0.310** 0.307** 0.311**

[-1.92] [-1.74] [-1.63] [-1.59] [2.75] [2.69] [2.64] [2.68]Experience - Avrg -0.187+ -0.211* -0.201* -0.206* -0.121 -0.124+ -0.127+ -0.125+

[-1.79] [-2.08] [-2.04] [-2.08] [-1.60] [-1.67] [-1.71] [-1.67]

Observations 11,584 11,584 11,584 11,584 11,656 11,656 11,656 11,656Log Likelihood -650.8 -679.6 -700.5 -703.6 -1244 -1269 -1265 -1269

D.F. 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10Chi2 707.4 679.0 723.3 721.3 924.0 797.5 796.5 792.0

Dep.Var type type type type type type type type

Robust z-statistics in brackets *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1

Tie formation

(9) (10) (11) (12)VARIABLES Closure Closure Closure Closure

Social proximity (= 2) 2.689*** 5.460*** 6.573*** 4.680***[5.91] [5.42] [15.03] [12.14]

Social proximity (= 3) 1.592** 6.023*** 3.998*** 3.181***[2.86] [6.42] [11.51] [7.85]

Social proximity (= 4) 0.468 4.174*** 3.454*** 2.380***[0.99] [3.47] [9.13] [4.81]

Geographical proximity 0.720*** 0.430*** 0.371*** 0.409***[10.30] [9.21] [7.46] [8.48]

Same applicant 1.744*** 2.057*** 4.136*** 2.289***[4.59] [4.98] [6.70] [5.43]

Same type 0.371 0.387 0.325 -0.150[1.34] [1.60] [1.28] [-0.64]

Technological proximity 0.923+ 1.843** 0.678 0.795[1.78] [2.86] [1.31] [1.57]

Social proximity (= 2) x Geographical proximity -0.700***[-5.86]



Social proximity (= 2) x Technological proximity 0.055[0.04]

Social proximity (= 3) x Technological proximity -3.660**[-3.05]

Social proximity (= 4) x Technological proximity -2.216[-1.35]

Tie formation with social proximity

Tie formation with social proximity - cont

Social proximity (= 2) x Same applicant -3.752***[-5.44]



Social proximity (= 2) x Same type 1.980***[3.64]

Social proximity (= 3) x Same type 0.664[1.09]


Border -2.555*** -2.075*** -2.222*** -2.194***[-4.92] [-6.12] [-5.18] [-5.68]

Degrees - Avrg 0.154 -0.065 -0.012 -0.060[0.57] [-0.25] [-0.05] [-0.23]

Degrees - Abs.diff. -0.031 0.002 0.040 0.064[-0.23] [0.01] [0.28] [0.47]

Experience - Abs.diff 0.436 0.694* 0.618* 0.612*[1.33] [2.28] [2.00] [2.06]

Experience - Avrg -0.168 -0.229 -0.134 -0.190[-1.12] [-1.63] [-0.90] [-1.37]

Observations 11,584 11,584 11,584 11,584Log Likelihood -254.3 -278.1 -261.2 -276.3

Inventive performance - Citations regressions

(2) (3) (4) (5) (12) (13) (14) (15)VARIABLES Closure Closure Closure Closure Bridge Bridge Bridge Bridge

Geographical proximity 0.011 -0.001 -0.026 -0.028 0.006 0.010 0.103 0.012

[0.18] [-0.01] [-0.57] [-0.61] [0.12] [0.21] [1.53] [0.25]Same applicant 0.337 0.494 -2.601 0.557+ -0.460 -3.116 0.274 0.387

[0.87] [1.55] [-0.89] [1.72] [-0.49] [-1.32] [0.84] [1.18]Same type 0.669+ 0.411 0.595 5.270+ 0.925*** 0.886*** 0.231 4.611*

[1.78] [0.89] [1.61] [1.87] [3.43] [3.32] [0.57] [2.54]Technological proximity 10.587* 10.995* 7.764 17.515*** 5.132* 2.816 5.739* 11.004**

[2.34] [2.44] [1.31] [3.36] [2.10] [1.01] [2.51] [2.59]Technological proximity sq -7.086* -7.380* -5.562 -11.616** -3.928* -2.239 -4.253* -7.652*

[-2.26] [-2.37] [-1.33] [-3.28] [-2.24] [-1.10] [-2.50] [-2.51]Geographical proximity x same applicant -0.069

[-0.78]Geographical proximity x Same type -0.085 -0.201*

[-0.93] [-2.22] Technological proximty x Same applicant 7.811 1.165 9.443

[0.95] [0.95] [1.37]Technological proximty sq x Same applicant -4.648 -5.988

[-0.82] [-1.22]Technological proximity x Same type -12.814 -10.548+

[-1.61] [-1.89] Technological proximity sq x Same type 8.351 6.966+

[1.49] [1.71]Border 0.536 0.329 0.439 0.498 -0.707+ -0.683 -0.604 -0.722+

[0.73] [0.47] [0.64] [0.75] [-1.70] [-1.63] [-1.41] [-1.74]Degrees - Avrg 1.158*** 1.158*** 1.152*** 1.131*** -0.158 -0.132 -0.192 -0.128

[3.46] [3.50] [3.43] [3.39] [-0.40] [-0.34] [-0.50] [-0.35]Degrees - Abs.diff. -0.313+ -0.313+ -0.319* -0.326* 0.042 0.040 0.035 0.043

[-1.92] [-1.94] [-1.98] [-2.04] [0.21] [0.20] [0.18] [0.22]Experience - Abs.diff -0.622* -0.629* -0.633* -0.667* -0.524+ -0.522+ -0.554+ -0.545+

[-2.14] [-2.17] [-2.17] [-2.31] [-1.72] [-1.70] [-1.85] [-1.82]Experience - Avrg 0.045 0.063 0.061 0.071 0.198 0.166 0.168 0.179

[0.26] [0.37] [0.36] [0.43] [1.13] [0.94] [0.95] [1.00]# inventors per patent -1.010** -0.991* -0.981* -0.957* -0.000 -0.005 -0.012 -0.005

[-2.60] [-2.55] [-2.56] [-2.48] [-0.00] [-0.02] [-0.04] [-0.02]Closure and briging patent 1.068** 1.041** 1.042** 1.041** -0.239 -0.190 -0.269 -0.181

[2.81] [2.76] [2.78] [2.76] [-0.71] [-0.57] [-0.80] [-0.55]Constant -6.330*** -6.555*** -5.274* -8.960*** -3.243** -2.488+ -3.013* -5.337**

[-3.56] [-3.68] [-2.35] [-4.23] [-2.65] [-1.87] [-2.53] [-3.25]

Observations 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,065 1,065 1,065 1,065Log Likelihood -466.0 -465.9 -465.6 -465.2 -470.4 -470.0 -469.3 -469.8

D.F. 23 23 24 24 23 24 23 24Robust z-statistics in brackets *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1

(6) (7) (8) (9)VARIABLES Closure Closure Closure Closure

Social proximity (= 2) -1.064+ -0.017 -0.631 -1.730***

[-1.88] [-0.01] [-0.86] [-3.71]Social proximity (= 3) -1.275+ -11.024* -1.576+ -1.818***

[-1.89] [-2.26] [-1.70] [-3.52]Social proximity (= 4) -1.677* 6.789 -2.125* -2.077***

[-1.99] [1.43] [-2.09] [-3.34]Degrees - Avrg 1.418*** 1.401*** 1.338*** 1.318***

[4.18] [3.90] [3.95] [3.90]Degrees - Abs.diff. -0.318+ -0.283+ -0.314+ -0.299+

[-1.95] [-1.73] [-1.92] [-1.81]Geographical proximity -0.108 -0.005 -0.008 -0.007

[-0.85] [-0.10] [-0.17] [-0.16]Same applicant 0.418 0.395 1.410+ 0.385

[1.28] [1.17] [1.80] [1.18]Same type 0.519 0.515 0.600 -0.346

[1.42] [1.42] [1.59] [-0.40]Technological proximity 8.851* 9.597 8.919+ 8.965*

[1.98] [1.40] [1.94] [1.97]Technological proximity sq -5.938+ -5.465 -6.007+ -6.006+

[-1.95] [-1.05] [-1.91] [-1.92]Border 0.722 0.760 0.575 0.560

[1.03] [1.12] [0.88] [0.85]Experience - Abs.diff -0.763* -0.896** -0.765* -0.756*

[-2.47] [-2.74] [-2.46] [-2.43]Experience - Avrg 0.070 0.081 0.104 0.102

[0.43] [0.50] [0.63] [0.62]# inventors per patent -0.979* -1.005* -0.929* -0.928*

[-2.45] [-2.55] [-2.34] [-2.36]closure and briging 1.225** 1.232** 1.177** 1.222**

[3.11] [3.27] [3.10] [3.19]Social proximity (= 2) x Geographical proximity 0.103

[0.75]Social proximity (= 3) x Geographical proximity 0.154

[0.84]Social proximity (= 4) x Geographical proximity 0.102

[0.41]


Social proximity (= 2) x Technological proximity sq 0.488[0.07]

Social proximity (= 3) x Technological proximity 29.740*[2.12]

Social proximity (= 3) x Technological proximity sq -22.057*[-2.24]

Social proximity (= 4) x Technological proximity -24.607+[-1.69]




Social proximity (= 2) x Same applicant -1.251[-1.59]

Social proximity (= 3) x Same applicant -0.340[-0.33]

Social proximity (= 4) x Same applicant 0.049[0.04]




Constant -5.038** -5.289* -5.323** -4.466*[-2.88] [-2.10] [-2.82] [-2.43]

Observations 1,070 1,070 1,070 1,070Log Likelihood -461.1 -458.7 -459.8 -460.1

D.F. 28 31 28 28

Robust z-statistics in brackets *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1

ConclusionResults confirm previous studies on:

Collaboration and knowledge flowsSocial, organizational and geographical proximity are substitutesOutside the governance structure, organizational and geographical proximity are complements The various forms of proximity strongly explains the formation of networks and geography remains important even after controlling for other forms of proximity

Innovative performance and the proximity paradox Geographical and organizational proximity is not significantToo close social proximity is negative for closure ties Technological proximity has a key role; it has an inverted u-shape

Less close proximity is more beneficial for bridging ties

Thank you very much for your attention!

CountryPatent Inventors

fractional cumulative fractional cumulative

AT 213,26 844 419,83 427

BE 612,17 1983 897 908

CH 467,13 1554 871,33 896

DE 3630,55 13879 5717,75 5776

DK 510,83 2193 865,75 874

ES 185,92 818 603 606

FI 168,36 662 402 405

FR 1816,37 6407 3456,83 3491

GR 17,83 45 35 35

IE 57,4 215 118 119

IT 358,17 1193 767,67 772

LU 0,25 1 1 1

NL 845,38 2797 1341,42 1357

NO 105,83 299 200 201

PT 9,19 38 32 32

SE 426,5 1303 758,33 767

UK 2241,41 6773 3639,5 3687

others 1301,46 7321 4252,58 4354

Total 12968 48325 24379 24708

Inventors and patent by country (fractional and cumulative counting)

Citations include self-citations

Closure ties Bridging tiesVariable N Mean SD Min Max N Mean SD Min Max

Citations 1070 0.23 0.90 0 9 1065 0.23 0.87 0 9

Degrees - Avrg 1070 2.12 0.52 0.69 3.51 1065 1.82 0.49 0.69 3.60

Degrees - Abs.diff. 1070 1.71 0.87 0 3.95 1065 1.53 0.82 0 3.93

Geographical proximity 1070 -2.66 2.44 -7.30 0 1065 -3.37 2.47 -7.99 0

Same applicant 1070 0.59 0.49 0 1 1065 0.26 0.44 0 1

Same type 1070 0.29 0.45 0 1 1065 0.42 0.49 0 1

Technological proximity 1070 0.73 0.20 0 1 1065 0.71 0.21 0 1

Technological proximity 1070 0.57 0.29 0 1 1065 0.55 0.28 0 1

Border 1070 0.03 0.18 0 1 1065 0.09 0.28 0 1

Experience - Abs.diff 1070 1.54 0.50 0.69 2.71 1065 1.61 0.45 0.69 2.74

Experience - Avrg 1070 1.14 0.77 0 2.71 1065 1.22 0.73 0 2.77

# inventors per patent 1070 1.95 0.37 1.10 2.94 1065 1.91 0.46 1.10 3.85

Closure and briging patent 1070 0.08 0.27 0 1 1065 0.14 0.35 0.00 1

Social proximity (=2) 1070 0.67 0.47 0 1



Co-patenting and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox

Documents

Transcript of Co-patenting and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox