"Cross-Firm" Inventors and Social Networks: Localized Knowledge Spillovers Revisited

2005 ◽  
pp. 189 ◽  
Author(s):  
BRESCHI ◽  
LISSONI
2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Buzard ◽  
Gerald A. Carlino ◽  
Robert M. Hunt ◽  
Jake Carr ◽  
Tony E. Smith

2020 ◽  
Vol 81 ◽  
pp. 103490
Author(s):  
Kristy Buzard ◽  
Gerald A. Carlino ◽  
Robert M. Hunt ◽  
Jake K. Carr ◽  
Tony E. Smith

2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfonso Gambardella ◽  
Marco S. Giarratana

2014 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 967-985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasusada Murata ◽  
Ryo Nakajima ◽  
Ryosuke Okamoto ◽  
Ryuichi Tamura

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ina Ganguli ◽  
Jeffrey Lin ◽  
Nicholas Reynolds

We show evidence of localized knowledge spillovers using a new database of US patent interferences terminated between 1998 and 2014. Interferences resulted when two or more independent parties submitted identical claims of invention nearly simultaneously. Following the idea that inventors of identical inventions share common knowledge inputs, interferences provide a new method for measuring knowledge spillovers. Interfering inventors are 1.4 to 4.0 times more likely to live in the same local area than matched control pairs of inventors. They are also more geographically concentrated than citation-linked inventors. Our results emphasize geographic distance as a barrier to tacit knowledge flows. (JEL D83, O31, O33, O34)


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-293
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn

Abstract Subject and purpose of work: The study aims to explore the role of social capital in the new concept of “effective” cluster, by exploiting not only its human and financial assets but also the social networks with the cluster. Materials and methods: The study presents the case-study findings of the five life-sciences clusters which were conducted in 2018-2019. Additionally, the article discusses the role of social capital and the collaborative efforts within the life sciences clusters during the Covid-19 pandemic. Results: All the analyzed cluster environments have their own social dynamics. Considering the scale and scope of social ties, the Cambridge and Medicon Valley clusters conform with the concept of the “functional clusters”, while the Bay Area and Seattle clusters can be classified as “effective clusters”. Conclusions: All the cluster ecosystems have evolved from different origins and they follow different evolutionary paths. Yet, clusters with richer social capital achieve higher collaborative synergy, leading to an increase in knowledge spillovers and innovations. Public policies should focus on the active promotion of social networks and market-oriented intermediaries connecting main cluster partners.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document