Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms

Abstract

We use the results of the policies, appropriation and competitiveness in Europe (PACE) 1993 survey of Europe's largest firms to explore the effect of proximity on knowledge flows from affiliated firms, suppliers, customers, joint ventures, competitors and public research organisations to innovative firms. The focus is on the last. First, we find that public science is among the most important sources of technical knowledge for the innovative activities of Europe's largest industrial firms. Then, after comparing the PACE results with the Community Innovation Survey II (1997) and the Carnegie Mellon Survey (1994), we use the unique information from the PACE survey on the geographic location of knowledge sources and the methods used to access them to develop an econometric analysis of proximity and location. The importance of proximity for sourcing knowledge from public research increases with the quality and output of domestic public research organisations and the importance given to public science by the respondents. It declines with an increase in the firm's R&D expenditure, activity in the North American market and the importance to the firm of codified basic research results. Surprisingly, firms that find informal contacts to be an important method for acquiring public research results are more likely to find proximity less important, even though proximity allows firms to access tacit knowledge. This effect is primarily limited to European countries, suggesting the development of a 'European Research Area'.Public research, Knowledge flows, Proximity, Innovation,

The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry

“…In terms of how public knowledge is accessed, the top four mechanisms were publications and reports, meetings and conferences, informal interactions, and consulting. Arundel and Geuna (2004) found the same ranking using survey data on large R&D performing firms located in Europe. 6 Aside from publications and reports, these other mechanisms of accessing public research are interactive and almost certainly involve bi-directional flows of knowledge between public and private research scientists as described by Cockburn and Henderson (1998).…”

“…Because the information channels connecting public and private researchers are diverse, one cannot conclude that the elasticity estimate reflects only disembodied knowledge spillovers through "open science" mechanisms. This knowledge flow is probably occurring through a number of channels including meetings and conferences, informal contact, and consulting, and so forth (Cohen et al 2002;Monjon and Waelbroeck 2003;Arundel and Geuna 2004).…”

“…2 Focusing on the pharmaceutical industry, Acemoglu and Linn (2004) built a theoretical model to explain the entry of new drugs into medical therapeutic markets. The 2 There are a number of other contributions to this literature including Mansfield (1991Mansfield ( , 1998, Narin et al (1997), Beise and Stahl (1999), and Arundel and Geuna (2004). Salter and Martin (2001) provide a survey.…”

Specialization of Regions and Universities: The New Versus the Old

“…The rationale for this change is the alleged positive experience in the U.S., which goes back to the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980, when universities obtained the intellectual property rights (IPRs) to their research results. Still, opinions differ as regards the effect and desirability of introducing a U.S. based system and the extent to which the Bayh-Dole legislation actually propelled commercialization of university research Ziedonis 2001, 2002;Arundel and Geuna 2004).…”

Are scientific capacities and industrial funding critical for universities' knowledgetransfer activities? - A case study of South Korea

“…Recent empirical studies show that certain industrial sectors are more closely related to universities' knowledge-transfer activities. These include utilities and aerospace (Arundel and Geuna, 2004), TV/radio, communication, drugs and oil (Cohen et al, 2002), and pharmaceutical, aerospace and food (Arundel et al, 1995). In particular, according to Arundel and Geuna (2004), the sectors of firms evaluating public research as important sources of knowledge vary from region to region (i.e.…”