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

被引:20
作者
Castaldi, Carolina [1 ]
Drivas, Kyriakos [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utrecht, Dept Human Geog & Spatial Planning, NL-3584 CS Utrecht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Piraeus, Dept Econ, Piraeus 18534, Greece
关键词
innovation; relatedness; cross-relatedness; regional specialization; patents; trademarks; designs; NUTS-2; regions; metropolitan statistical areas; MANUFACTURING FIRMS; PRODUCT DESIGN; TRADE MARKS; KNOWLEDGE; DIVERSIFICATION; PERFORMANCE; INDICATORS; BOUNDARIES; PROXIMITY; LESSONS;
D O I
10.1080/00130095.2023.2187374
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article 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: 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 metropolitan statistical areas 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.
引用
收藏
页码:253 / 284
页数:32
相关论文
共 89 条
[1]  
Abbasiharofteh M., 2022, PATENTS TRADEMARKS C
[2]   Knowledge space oddity: How to increase the intensity and relevance of the technological progress of European regions [J].
Apa, Roberta ;
De Noni, Ivan ;
Orsi, Luigi ;
Sedita, Silvia Rita .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2018, 47 (09) :1700-1712
[3]   Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters [J].
Asheim, BT ;
Coenen, L .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2005, 34 (08) :1173-1190
[4]   TRADE LIBERALISATION AND REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE [J].
BALASSA, B .
MANCHESTER SCHOOL OF ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL STUDIES, 1965, 33 (02) :99-123
[5]   Complementary interregional linkages and Smart Specialisation: an empirical study on European regions [J].
Balland, Pierre-Alexandre ;
Boschma, Ron .
REGIONAL STUDIES, 2021, 55 (06) :1059-1070
[6]   Smart specialization policy in the European Union: relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification [J].
Balland, Pierre-Alexandre ;
Boschma, Ron ;
Crespo, Joan ;
Rigby, David L. .
REGIONAL STUDIES, 2019, 53 (09) :1252-1268
[7]   Specialization, Diversification, and Environmental Technology Life Cycle [J].
Barbieri, Nicolo ;
Perruchas, Francois ;
Consoli, Davide .
ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY, 2020, 96 (02) :161-186
[8]   Trademarks, specialized complementary assets, and the external sourcing of innovation [J].
Bei, Xiaoshu .
RESEARCH POLICY, 2019, 48 (09)
[9]   How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? [J].
Bertrand, M ;
Duflo, E ;
Mullainathan, S .
QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS, 2004, 119 (01) :249-275
[10]  
Bessen J, 2008, PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK, P1