pablo_deste
Post on 08-Apr-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
1/41
Shaping the formation of university-business
research collaborations:What type of proximity does really matter?
Pablo DEste (INGENIO, CSIC-UPV)Frederick Guy (Birkbeck College, London)Simona Iammarino (London School of Economics, LSE)
5th May 2011, Barcelona
2nd
MOVE-ACC1-IESE Workshop on Innovation Series
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
2/41
Aim of the study
To examine:
the conditions that explain the formation ofuniversity-business (U-B) research collaborations
the role of different types of proximity (not only
geographical) in shaping U-B collaborations
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
3/41
Setting the scene (I) U-B interactions have become prominent as subject of academic
research and as policy instruments to foster innovation:
U-B interactions facilitate bi-directional flows of knowledge:
Increase awareness, among industrial practitioners, of the potentialapplications of the findings from fundamental / embryonic research at univ.
New ideas for university research that emerge from the problems faced by
businesses in their innovation-related activities
U-B interactions favour the establishment ofenduring social
networksbetween the partners involved:
build truthful relationships, conducive to the transmission of sensitiveinformation
create favourable conditions for successful learning processes (ofteninvolving complex problem-solving activities from upstream research tocommercialisation)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
4/41
Setting the scene (II) however, there are also potential downsides associated to
U-B research collaborations:
may restrict a wider or faster dissemination of academic research
findings (because business partners may be reluctant to disclose sensitiveinformation)
could shift academic research agendas towards more applied research
(as opposed to a more basic one)
might conflict with the pursuit of blue-sky, curiosity-driven research,
favouring more targeted / short term research objectives
The relative balance will largely depend on the specific characteristics
of the learning processand the actual management of the relationship
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
5/41
Theoretical framework (I): on the formation of U-B researchpartnerships
Geographical proximity matters:
Wide support from the literature to the existence oflocalised knowledgespillovers from university research to industrial innovation:
Advantages obtained by social actors in accessing and using knowledge created byother co-located actors (Jaffe, 1989; Jaffe et al., 1993; Audretsch & Feldman, 1996: van Oort, 2004)
Spatial proximity is expected to favour linkages that involve exchanges of advancedtechnical and scientific expertise, which require frequent personal contacts foreffective transmission (Mansfield & Lee, 1996; Breschi & Lissoni, 2001; Storper & Venables, 2004)
U-B research collaborations constitute a prototypical example of interaction
susceptible to:
benefit from spatial proximity requires frequent face-to-face contacts for successfullearning at the interface between technical and scientific knowledge
generate localised knowledge spillovers - involve intended and un-intendedknowledge flows
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
6/41
Theoretical framework (I): the formation of U-B researchpartnerships and geographical proximity Geographical proximity matters:
Wide support from the literature to the existence of localised knowledge
spillovers from university research to industrial innovation: Advantage that social actors accrue in accessing and using knowledge created by
other co-located actors
Spatial proximity is expected to favour linkages that involve exchanges of advancedtechnical and scientific expertise, which requires face-to-face contacts for effective
transmission
U-B research collaborations constitute a prototypical example of interaction
susceptible to: U-B benefit from spatial proximity
involve intended and non-intended knowledge flows localised knowledge spillovers
H1: The probability of a new research partnership between a university
and a firm increases with the level of geographical proximity betweenthose organisations
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
7/41
Theoretical framework (II)
However, the effects of geographical proximity may be weakened orstrengthened by other forms of proximity(Kirat & Lung, 1999; Torre & Gilly, 2000; Boschma, 2005, Ponds et al., 2007)
[] geographical proximity per se is neither a necessary nor asufficient condition for learning to take place (Boschma, 2005, 62)
It is not a necessary condition, because other forms of proximity may
function as substitutes: ex.Institutional Proximitybetween partners may help solving problems of
coordination, regardless of spatial considerations
It is not a sufficient condition, because (complex) learning processes mayrequire other forms of proximity in addition to spatial proximity:
ex. Cognitive proximity may be needed to complement spatial proximity tofacilitate inter-organisational learning processes, as in the case ofTechnologically Related Industrial Clusters
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
8/41
Theoretical framework (III)
Institutional Proximity:
Institutional Proximity refers to the extent to which partners have similarnorms, routines and incentive systems, which facilitate the coordination oflearning processes (Maskell & Malmberg, 1999; Boschma, 2005; Ponds et al., 2007)
What is tacit and difficult-to-transfer knowledge depends on the sharedcodification capabilities and established practices of the actors involved inthe partnerships (Steinmueller, 2000; Cowan et al., 2000)
Collaborative experience gained through participation in previous projects should
produce management skills, shared values and social bonds that strengtheninstitutional proximity
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
9/41
Theoretical framework (III)
Institutional Proximity:
Institutional Proximity refers to the similarity of the partners norms, routines andincentive systems that facilitate the coordination of learning processes (Maskell &Malmberg, 1999; Boschma, 2005; Ponds et al., 2007)
What is tacit and difficult-to-transfer knowledge depends on the sharedcodification capabilities and established practices of the actors involved in thepartnership (Steinmueller, 2000; Cowan et al., 2000)
Collaborative experience gained through participation in previous projects should
produce management skills, shared values and social bonds that strengtheninstitutional proximity
H2.a. The probability of a new research partnership between a university and a firmincreases with the level of institutional proximity between those organisations
H2.b. The experience of partners in prior research collaborations relaxes theimportance of geographical proximity on the formation of a new partnership
Geographical and institutional proximity are likely to be substitutes (in terms of their impacton U-B partnership formation)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
10/41
Theoretical framework (IV)
Industrial Clusters:
By industrial clusters we broadly refer to spatial concentration of firms
(including firms undertaking similar and complementary industrial activities) Linkages between universities and firms could be seen as one component
of a much larger set of inter-organisational knowledge exchanges, the bulkof which is represented by inter-firm linkages
U-B partnerships are likely to be connected to industrial clusters clustered firms (particularly high-tech ones) have strong relational capabilities
and benefit from social networks that help forming ties with local universities U-B links might stimulate the emergence and growth of industrial clusters
(Saxenian, 1994; Zucker et al., 1998; Malmberg & Maskell, 2002; Casper, 2007)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
11/41
Theoretical framework (IV)
Industrial Clusters:
U-B partnerships are likely to be connected to spatial concentrations of firms
either because U-B links stimulate the growth of industrial clusters, or because clustered firms have stronger relational capabilities and benefit from
social networks that help forming ties with local universities (Saxenian, 1990; Zucker et al.,1998; Casper, 2007)
Linkages between universities and firms could be seen as one componentof a much larger set of inter-organisational knowledge exchanges, the bulkof which is represented by inter-firm linkages
H3. The positive impact of geographical proximity on the formation of a new
partnership between a university and a firm is strengthened if the firm is part of anindustrial cluster
Being part of an industrial cluster and being geographically close to a university arecomplements (in terms of favouring U-B partnership formation)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
12/41
Dataset
Our main source of data is based on:
Collaborative research projects from grants awarded by the UK
Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), for theperiod 1999-2003
The data contains 4525 instances of U-B partnerships our unit ofanalysis
There are: 2031 business units / 83 UK universities / 318 universitydepartments
A business unit is a defined by the pair: company name - location Location is given by postcode Multiple locations of a single corporation are treated as different business units
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
13/41
Dataset (II)
Information that we added to the dataset
Scientific field of the academic partners, from universitydepartment details
Industry of the business units (match with ISIC codes; includingmanufacturing and services)
Geographical distances (as the-crow-flies, in Km) for eachpossible pair: Distances were calculated using the postcodes of universities and business
units University - business unit Business unit - business unit
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
14/41
Characteristics of partnerships
Discipline % of partnerships
Chemical Engineering 5.9
Chemistry 9.4
Civil Engineering 11.0
Computer Science 7.4
Electrical and Electronic Engineering 14.5
General Engineering 11.6
Mathematics 2.5
Mechanical, Aero. and Manuf. Eng. 21.3
Metallurgy and Materials 9.9
Physics 6.3
Total (%) 100%
Breakdown by discipline of university departments
involved in the partnerships (no observations: 4525 partnerships)
74% of the
partnerships arewith Engineeringrelated departments
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
15/41
Characteristics of partnerships
Industry % of firms
Chemicals & Chemical Related 11.8
Electrical / Electronics 9.3
Instruments 5.9
Machinery / Metals 10.4
Transport 7.7
Utilities & Construction 7.9
Manufacture n.e.c. 3.9
Computer Services 5.1
Research & Development 5.4
Consultancy and other Business Services 17.4
Services n.e.c. 15.4
Total (%) 100%
Service firmsaccount for43% ofpartnerships
Breakdown by industry (no observations: 4525 partnerships)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
16/41
Distances
Distribution features of distances (in kms)
Mean(kms)
Median(kms)
Min(kms)
Max(kms)
1stQuartile
3rdQuartile
166.5 137.2 0 840.9 64.9 240.4
25% of partnerships involve a spatial distance below 64.9 Kms
75% of partnerships involve a spatial distance below 240 Kms
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
17/41
Geographical distribution
Location of firms () anduniversities () included inthe dataset
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
18/41
Distribution of companies by number of partnerships
60.1
18.6
7.14.8
2 1.5 0.8 1.2 0.62.5
0.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 to 19 20 or
above
%
Number of partnerships with universities
Proportion of firms
60% of the firms had only onepartnership with universities
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
19/41
Method
Case control approach
Pairing each instance of research collaboration in 2003 (i.e. 630
partnerships) with a critical number of U-B pairs that could have happenedbut did not
We used 82 non-occurrence cases for each of the 630 occurrences
These 82 non-occurrences correspond to all the alternative universities withwhich each business unit collaborating in 2003 could have interacted, but did not(e.g. Sorenson & Stuart, 2001; Sorenson et al, 2006)
We exploit the longitudinal dimension of the data by using the first fouryears (i.e. 1999-2002) of the dataset to build our explanatory variables
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
20/41
Method (II)
Main constructs:
Dependent variable:
Dichotomous variable: takes value 1 for actual occurrences of U-Bpartnerships in the final year of our 5-year period (i.e. 2003), andtakes value zero for the paired non-occurrences
Our total number of observations amounts to 52920 (i.e. 630 x 83),of which 630 are actual U-B partnerships
Logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood ofthe formation of U-B research partnerships Also estimated using Rare Events Logit (King & Zeng, 1999)
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
21/41
Method (III)
Independent variables:
Geographical proximity (Geoprox):
Measured as the inverse of the square root of distance between auniversity and a firm in kms (1/dij), where i refers to firm and j refersto university
Institutional proximity (PriorPartnerships):
Measured by the extent of the two partners prior engagement inresearch collaborations, over the period 1999-2002
For each firm and university, we take the number of partnerships in theearlier period. PriorPartnerships is the square root of the product of thefirms and the universitys prior experience
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
22/41
Method (IV)
Clustering Index:For each business in our dataset, we compute a measure of clustering: how
much spatially close one firm is to all other firms in the dataset
Simple Clustering Index (CI):
Sum of inverse distances from firm i to all other business units in our dataset
Where i and j refer to business units, and dij
is the square root ofdistance between i an j in kms
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
23/41
Method (IV) Clustering Index:For each business in our dataset, we compute a measure of clustering: how
much spatially close one firm is to all other firms in the dataset
Simple Clustering Index (CI): Sum of inverse distances from firm i to all other business units in our dataset
Weighted Clustering Index (Technological complementarity CI - TCCI): Similar to CI, but weighting spatial proximity according to the technological
complementarities of the industries (k and l) to which firms belong: Rkl
Where i and j refer to business units, and dij is the square root ofdistance between i an j in kms
Computation of Rkl comes from the extent to which twoindustries participate in the same projects more often thanwould have been expected if industries joined projectsrandomly
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
24/41
Proportion of partnerships across scientific disciplines, by industry
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
25/41
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
26/41
Method (VI)
Control variables:
Service dummy:
Dichotomous variable that takes the value 1 if the firm belongs toa service sector
University clustering index:
From the standpoint of each business unit: this is an index ofspatial proximity of each firm to the universities in our sample
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
27/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
28/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 ***
PriorPartnershipsPriorPartnerships * GeoProx
Clustering Index (CI)
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI)
GeoProx * CIGeoProx * TCCI
University Cluster Index (UCI)
GeoProx * UCI
ServicesGeoProx * Services
Constant -4.679 ***
Obsesrvations 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
29/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408
Clustering Index (CI) ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) ---
GeoProx * CI ---GeoProx * TCCI ---
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 *
GeoProx * UCI 0.074
Services -0.193GeoProx * Services 0.031
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
30/41
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
31/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 *** 2.520 *** 3.117 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 *** 3.113 *** 3.592 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408 -1.327 -3.362
Clustering Index (CI) --- 0.065 ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) --- --- 0.236 ***
GeoProx * CI --- -0.539 ** ---GeoProx * TCCI --- --- -0.960 ***
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 * -0.161 * -0.172 **
GeoProx * UCI 0.074 0.272 0.151
Services -0.193 -0.241 * -0.301 **GeoProx * Services 0.031 0.484 0.512
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 *** -4.849 *** -4.912 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039 0.041 0.044* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
32/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 *** 2.520 *** 3.117 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 *** 3.113 *** 3.592 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408 -1.327 -3.362
Clustering Index (CI) --- 0.065 ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) --- --- 0.236 ***
GeoProx * CI --- -0.539 ** ---GeoProx * TCCI --- --- -0.960 ***
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 * -0.161 * -0.172 **
GeoProx * UCI 0.074 0.272 0.151
Services -0.193 -0.241 * -0.301 **GeoProx * Services 0.031 0.484 0.512
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 *** -4.849 *** -4.912 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039 0.041 0.044* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
H1.
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
33/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 *** 2.520 *** 3.117 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 *** 3.113 *** 3.592 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408 -1.327 -3.362
Clustering Index (CI) --- 0.065 ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) --- --- 0.236 ***
GeoProx * CI --- -0.539 ** ---GeoProx * TCCI --- --- -0.960 ***
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 * -0.161 * -0.172 **
GeoProx * UCI 0.074 0.272 0.151
Services -0.193 -0.241 * -0.301 **GeoProx * Services 0.031 0.484 0.512
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 *** -4.849 *** -4.912 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039 0.041 0.044* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
H2a.
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
34/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 *** 2.520 *** 3.117 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 *** 3.113 *** 3.592 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408 -1.327 -3.362
Clustering Index (CI) --- 0.065 ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) --- --- 0.236 ***
GeoProx * CI --- -0.539 ** ---GeoProx * TCCI --- --- -0.960 ***
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 * -0.161 * -0.172 **
GeoProx * UCI 0.074 0.272 0.151
Services -0.193 -0.241 * -0.301 **GeoProx * Services 0.031 0.484 0.512
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 *** -4.849 *** -4.912 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039 0.041 0.044* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
H2b.
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
35/41
Results Logit estimates for the probability of research partnership formation
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Geographical Proximity (GeoProx) 2.471 *** 2.640 *** 2.520 *** 3.117 ***
PriorPartnerships 3.134 *** 3.113 *** 3.592 ***PriorPartnerships * GeoProx -1.408 -1.327 -3.362
Clustering Index (CI) --- 0.065 ---
Tech. Complem. Cluster. I. (TCCI) --- --- 0.236 ***
GeoProx * CI --- -0.539 ** ---GeoProx * TCCI --- --- -0.960 ***
University Cluster Index (UCI) -0.136 * -0.161 * -0.172 **
GeoProx * UCI 0.074 0.272 0.151
Services -0.193 -0.241 * -0.301 **GeoProx * Services 0.031 0.484 0.512
Constant -4.679 *** -4.868 *** -4.849 *** -4.912 ***
Obsesrvations 52920 52920 52920 52920
Pseudo R2
0.021 0.039 0.041 0.044* p< 0.05, ** p< 0.01, *** p< 0.001
H3.H3.
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
36/41
Results (II)
-.002
0
.002
.004
.006
MarginalEffectofFirm-UniversityProximity
0 20 40 60Spatial Clustering of Firms - Unweighted Index
Marginal Effect of Firm-University ProximityProbability of Partnership
As Clustering of Firms Varies
Figure 1a
-.002
0
.002
.004
.006
Marg
inalEffectofFirm-Un
iversityProximity
0 20 40 60Complementarity-Weighted Spatial Clustering of Firms
Marginal Effect of Firm-University ProximityProbability of Partnership
As Clustering of Firms Varies
Figure 1b
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
37/41
Discussion and emerging conclusions
Measuring channels through which knowledge istransmitted:
Many empirical studies on localised knowledge spillovers have assumedco-location in geographically pre-defined spaces as a proxy forknowledge flows
Crucial to find out how knowledge is transmitted, among whom and atwhat distance: this remains a challenge in empirical studies oninnovation and economic geography (Breschi & Lissoni, 2001)
This study has addressed this by looking at one specific channel of inter-
organisational knowledge flows - research collaborations betweenuniversities and businesses:
involve frequent face-to-face contacts between participating actors
involve intended and un-intended knowledge flows between actors
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
38/41
Discussion and emerging conclusions
Geographical proximity matters in shaping U-Bpartnerships:
Spatial proximity increases the probability of forming aresearch partnership between firms and universities
Short distances help bringing people together, favouring
information contacts and facilitating the exchange of tacitknowledge
The strong effect of spatial proximity holds after accounting
for the impact of other forms of proximity that may act assubstitutes
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
39/41
Discussion and emerging conclusions
Institutional proximity alsomatters:
the stronger the actors experience in U-B partnerships, the
more likely that they establish a research collaboration The extent to which the organisations share values and
routines, and build trust and common rules, play a veryimportant role in shaping U-B research collaborations
However, we do not observe a substitution effect betweengeographical and institutional proximity:
institutional proximity does not attenuate the importance ofgeographical proximity in shaping U-B collaborations
Or to put it differently, does not alleviate the disadvantage of spatialdistance
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
40/41
Discussion and emerging conclusions
We find that Industrial Clustering and spatial proximity aresubstitutesin terms of shaping the formation of universityindustry partnerships
Geographical proximity decreases its importance in shaping the probabilityof partnership formation, when firms are part of an industrial cluster
Actually, in the case of the most densely clustered firms, the effect of
geographical proximity becomes almost unimportantin shaping U-Bpartnership formation
While geographical and institutional proximity have a strong impact on shapingU-B partnership formation
Concentrating public resources in universities proximate to existing industrialclusters will not substantially contribute to foster localU-B partnerships
-
8/6/2019 Pablo_DEste
41/41
Discussion and emerging conclusions
Why?
Presence in a dense cluster of knowledge intensive firms may contributeto the firm's ability to establish, or gain from, partnerships at a greater
distance (including partnerships with universities) (Gordon & McCann, 2000)
Clustered firms involved in distant interactions with non-localorganisations, enjoy lower risks of cognitive and social lock-in (Maskell,2001)
top related