# 24.07 Fueling the Fire? How Government Support Drives Technological Progress and Complexity

Carolin Nast, Tom Broekel & Doris Entner

pdf

Abstract:

This study investigated two major trends shaping contemporary technological progress: the growing complexity of innovation and the increasing reliance on government support for private research and development (R&D). We analyzed United States patent data from 1981 to 2016 using structural vector autoregressions and uncovered an indirect interplay between these trends. Our findings showed that government incentives and support played a crucial role in spurring private-sector innovation. This government-fueled innovation, in turn, paved the way for advancements in more intricate and sophisticated technological areas.

Our study sheds light on the dual role of the United States’ innovation policy over the past four decades; the policy has not only accelerated technological advancement but also steered it toward increasingly complex domains. While this trend presents opportunities for economic growth and technological breakthroughs, it also poses challenges, including the potential for further escalating R&D costs. This research has significant implications for policymakers and industry leaders, suggesting a need for a balanced approach to fostering innovation while considering the long-term economic and technological landscape.

# 23.08 Boosting, Sorting, and Complexity – Urban Scaling of Innovation Around the World

Tom Broekel, Louis Knüpling & Lars Mewes

pdf

Abstract:

It is widely understood that innovations tend to be concentrated in cities, which is evidenced by innovative output increasing disproportionately with city size. Yet, given the heterogeneity of countries and technologies, few studies explore the relationship between population and innovation numbers. For instance, in the USA, innovative output scaling is substantial and is particularly pronounced for complex technologies. Whether this is a universal pattern of complex technologies and a potential facilitator of scaling, is unknown. Our analysis compared urban scaling in urban areas across 33 countries and 569 technologies. Considerable variation was identified between countries, which is rooted in two fundamental mechanisms (sorting and boosting). The sorting of innovation-intensive technologies is found to drive larger innovation counts among cities. Among most countries, this mechanism contributes to scaling more than city size boosting innovation within specific technologies. While complex technologies are concentrated in large cities and benefit from the advantages of urbanization, their contribution to the urban scaling of innovations is limited.

# 23.07 Relatedness, Cross-relatedness and Regional Innovation Specializations: An Analysis of Technology, Design and Market Activities in Europe and the US

Carolina Castaldi & Kyriakos Drivas

pdf

Abstract:

This paper examines how regions develop new innovation specializations, covering different activities in the whole process from technological invention to commercialization. We develop a conceptual framework anchored in two building blocks: first, the conceptualization of innovation as a process spanning technology, design and market activities; second, the application and extension of the principle of relatedness to understand developments within and between the different innovation activities. We offer an empirical investigation where we operationalize the different innovation activities using three intellectual property rights (IPRs): patents, industrial designs and trademarks. We provide two separate analyses of how relatedness and cross-relatedness matter for the emergence of new specializations: for 259 NUTS-2 European regions and for 363 MSAs of the US. While relatedness is significantly associated with new regional specializations for all three innovation activities, cross-relatedness between activities also plays a significant role. Our study has important policy implications for developing and monitoring Smart Specialization regional strategies.

## 22.19 Varieties of Regional Innovation Systems around the World and Catch-up by Latecomers

Jinhee Kim & Keun Lee

pdf

Abstract:

This study identifies the characteristics and types of the regional innovation systems (RIS) of regions and cities in emerging economies in comparison to those in advanced economies. It uses the citation data of the US patents filed by 30 regions. Some RIS variables are newly developed, and they include intra-regional, inter-regional, and inter-national sourcing of knowledge and local ownership of innovation. The cluster analysis of these variables enables us to identify four major types of RIS around the world and link them to regional economic performance. The four types are, in the descending order of their per capita income levels, as follows: large, mature RIS characterized by a combination of long cycle technology specialization and high local ownership (Group 1), mixed RIS characterized by a long cycle and low local ownership (Group 2), “strong catch-up” characterized by short cycle and high local ownership (Group 3), and “weak catch-up” characterized by short cycle and low local ownership (Group 4). Groups 3 and 4 include only the regions in emerging world. They similarly specialize in the same short cycle time of technologies (CTT)-based sectors but show different records of economic performance. The key differentiating variable is the degree of local ownership of knowledge, which can be a basis for increasing domestic sourcing of knowledge and sustained catching up. Another important variable is decentralization, of which the level is lower in the strong catch-up group than in the weak catch-up group. In this Group 3, catching up is led by big businesses. Several cities experiencing upgrading, like Moscow, Beijing, and Shanghai, also show an increasing trend of local ownership and centralization.

# 21.25 Migrant Inventors as Agents of Technological Change

Ernest Miguelez & Andrea Morrison

pdf

Abstract:

How do regions enter new and distant technological fields? Who is triggering this process? This work addresses these compelling research questions by investigating the role of migrant inventors in the process of technological diversification. Immigrant inventors can indeed act as carriers of knowledge across borders and influence the direction of technological change. We test these latter propositions by using an original dataset of immigrant inventors in the context of European regions during the period 2003-2011. Our findings show that: immigrant inventors generate positive local knowledge spillovers; they help their host regions to develop new technological specialisations; they trigger a process of unrelated diversification. Their contribution comes via two main mechanisms: immigrant inventors use their own personal knowledge (knowledge creation); they import knowledge from their home country to the host region (knowledge transfer). Their impact is maximised when their knowledge is not recombined with the local one (in mixed teams of inventors), but it is reused (in teams made by only migrant inventors). Our work contributes to the existing literature of regional diversification by providing fresh evidence of unrelated diversification for European regions and by identifying important agents of structural change. It also contributes to the literature of migration and innovation by adding fresh evidence on European regions and by unveiling some of the mechanisms of immigrants’ knowledge transmission.

# 21.12 Does a local knowledge base in Industry 3.0 foster diversification in Industry 4.0 technologies? Evidence from European regions

Matteo Laffi & Ron Boschma

pdf

Abstract:

The aim of the paper is to shed light on the role played by regional knowledge bases in Industry 3.0 in fostering new technologies in Industry 4.0 in European regions (NUTS3) over the period 1991-2015. We find that 4.0 technologies appear to be quite related to 3.0 technologies, with some heterogeneity among different technology fields. The paper investigates the geographical implications. We find that the probability of developing Industry 4.0 technologies is higher in regions that are specialised in Industry 3.0 technologies. However, other types of knowledge bases also sustain regional diversification in Industry 4.0 technologies.

# 20.55 Atypical combination of technologies in regional co-inventor networks

Milad Abbasiharofteh, Dieter F. Kogler & Balázs Lengyel

pdf

Abstract:

Novel combinations of technologies are generated from existing knowledge embedded in collaborative work. Albeit inventors tend to develop specialized skills and participate in specialized work, it is their collaboration with peers with varied experience that facilitates the production of radical novelty. While this is of key importance, we lack full understanding on how the evolution of inventor collaborations is related to the nature of technological combination. In this paper, we analyse how the role of technological specialization and variety in evolving co-inventor networks is related to the creation of ‘atypical’ inventions in European NUTS2 regions. By analysing the community structure of co-inventor networks in each region, we find that the share of atypical patents is growing where co-inventor communities are strongly specialized in certain technologies and these communities are also bridged by collaborations. Evidence suggests that linking communities of dissimilar technological profiles favours atypical knowledge production the most. Our work implies that to produce radical innovative outcomes, regions must support knowledge production in specialized inventor communities and sponsor the bridging of collaborations to induce diversity.

# 20.44 Do Capabilities Reside in Firms or in Regions? Analysis of Related Diversification in Chinese Knowledge Production

Yiou Zhang & David L. Rigby

pdf

Abstract:

Do capabilities reside in firms, in regions, or in both? Most models of related diversification, building on the early work of Hidalgo et al. (2007), examine how the structure of economic activity within a region conditions the trajectory of diversification. Inter-regional flows are sometimes added to these models. The logic here is that capabilities are largely built-up within regions and sometimes shared between them. We challenge that logic, exploring whether capabilities are more likely to be built within the firm and to flow across spatial boundaries than they are to be built within the region flowing across firm boundaries. Analysis focuses on Chinese patent data spanning 286 cities over the period 1991 to 2015. We develop standard models of related diversification before examining how the branches of multi-locational firms diversify their knowledge portfolios. Evidence shows that the knowledge structure of firms is more important than the knowledge structure of regions in shaping branch diversification. We show that the influence of the firm and the region on diversification vary significantly between headquarters (HQ) branches and non-HQ branches of firms, and between the non-HQ branches of firms that are located in core and peripheral cities of China.

# 20.10 Is innovation (increasingly) concentrated in large cities? An international comparison

Michael Fritsch and Michael Wyrwich

pdf

Abstract:

We investigate the geographic concentration of patenting in large cities using a sample of 14 developed countries. There is wide dispersion of the share of patented inventions in large metropolitan areas. South Korea and the US are two extreme outliers where patenting is highly concentrated in large cities. We do not find any general trend that there is a geographic concentration of patents for the period 2000-2014. There is also no general trend that inventors in large cities have more patents than in rural areas (scaling). Hence, while agglomeration economies of large cities may offer advantages for innovation activities, the extent of these advantages is not very large. We conclude that popular theories over-emphasize the importance of large cities for innovation activities.

# 20.09 Does Successful Innovation Require Large Urban Areas? Germany as a Counterexample

Michael Fritsch and Michael Wyrwich

pdf

Abstract:

Popular theories claim that innovation activities should be located in large cities because of more favorable environmental conditions that are absent in smaller cities or remote and rural areas. Germany provides a clear counterexample to such theories. We argue that a main force behind the geography of innovation in Germany is the country’s federal tradition that has shaped the settlement structure, the geographic distribution of universities and public research institutions, as well as local access to finance. Additional factors that may play a role in this respect are the system of education and the tax treatment of inheriting a business. We demonstrate the long-lasting effect of the historical political structure and distribution of knowledge sources on innovation activities today. We conclude that historical factors that shape the settlement structure and location of knowledge sources are of key importance for the geographic location of innovation activities.