Especialización vs diversificación del conocimiento tecnológico universitario en las regiones europeas

  1. Manuel Acosta Seró 1
  2. Daniel Coronado Guerrero 1
  3. María Ángeles Martínez Navarro 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

Revista:
Estudios de economía aplicada

ISSN: 1133-3197,  1697-5731

Año de publicación: 2014

Título del ejemplar: Economía y Cultura

Volumen: 32

Número: 1

Páginas: 349-370

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.25115/EEA.V32I1.3214 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios de economía aplicada

Resumen

Este artículo explora la relación entre los patrones regionales de diversificación/especialización del conocimiento tecnológico generado por las universidades en Europa y sus efectos en la producción de nuevos resultados tecnológicos universitarios medidos por las patentes. Nuestra base de datos incluye 4.580 patentes universitarias relativas a 202 regiones de la Unión Europea-15 para el período 1998-2004. Diversas especificaciones econométricas revelan que la estrategia de diversificación de la producción del conocimiento tecnológico universitario favorece la producción de nuevas patentes universitarias en periodos posteriores. La especialización tiene efectos positivos y significativos en los sectores de alta tecnología

Referencias bibliográficas

  • ACOSTA, M., CORONADO, D., LEÓN, D. y MARTÍNEZ, M.A. (2009): “The production of university technological knowledge in European regions: evidence from patent data”. Regional Studies, 43(9), pp. 1167-1181.
  • ACS, Z.J., ANSELIN, L., y VARGA, A. (2002): “Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge”. Research Policy, 31(7), pp. 1069-1085.
  • AUDRETSCH, D.B. y LEHMANN, E.E. (2005): “Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions?”, Research Policy, 34, pp. 1191-1202.
  • AZAGRA-CARO, J.M., FERNANDEZ-DE-LUCIO, I. y GUTIERREZ-GRACIA, A. (2003): “University patents: output and input indicators... of what?” Research Evaluation, 12 (1), pp. 5-16.
  • AZAGRA-CARO, J.M., YEGROS-YEGROS, A. y ARCHONTAKIS, F. (2006): “What do university patent routes indicate at regional level?”. Scientometrics, 66 (1), pp. 219- 230.
  • BALASSA, B. (1965): “Trade liberalization and “revealed” comparative advantage”. The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies, 32, pp. 99-123.
  • BALDINI, N., GRIMALDI, R. y SOBRERO, M. (2006): “Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002”. Research Policy, 35 (4), pp. 518-532.
  • BAPTISTA, R. y SWANN, P. (1998): “Do firms in clusters innovate more?”. Research Policy, 27, pp. 525-540.
  • BEAUDRY, C. y BRESCHI, S. (2003): “Are firms in clusters really more innovative?”. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12(4), pp. 325-342
  • BEAUDRY, C. y SCHIFFAUEROVA, A (2009): “Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs?. The localization versus urbanization debate”. Research Policy, 38, pp. 318-337.
  • BERCOVITZ, J. y FELDMANN, M. (2006): “Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer: a conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development”. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 (1), pp. 175-188.
  • CARLINO, G.A., CHATTERJEE, S. y HUNT, R.M. (2007): “Urban density and the rate of invention”. Journal of Urban Economics, 61, pp. 389-419.
  • DJOKOVIC, D. y SOUITARIS, V. (2008): “Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with suggestions for further research”. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33 (3), pp. 225-247.
  • EJERMO, O. (2005): “Technological Diversity and Jacobs’ Externality Hypothesis Revisited”. Growth and Change, 36 (2), pp. 167-195.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y KLOFSTEN, M. (2005): “The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development”. R&D Management, 35 (3), pp. 243-255.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H. y ZHOU, C. (2006): “Triple helix twins: innovation and sustainability”. Science and Public Policy, 33, pp. 77-83.
  • ETZKOWITZ, H., RANGA, M., BENNER, M., GUARANYS, L., MACULAN, A.M. y KNELLER, R. (2008): “Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: towards a global convergence”. Science and Public Policy, 35 (9), pp. 681-695.
  • FELDMAN, M.P. y AUDRETSCH, D.B. (1999): “Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition”. European Economic Review 43, pp. 409-429.
  • FRITSCH, M. y SLAVTCHEV, V. (2007): “Universities and innovation in space”. Industry and Innovation, 14 (2), pp. 201-218.
  • GEUNA, A. y NESTA, L.J.J. (2006): “University patenting and its effects on academic research: the emerging European evidence”. Research Policy, 35 (6), pp. 790-807.
  • GLAESER, E.L., KALLAL, H.D., SCHEINKMAN, J.A. y SHLEIFER, A. (1992): “Growth in cities”. Journal of Political Economy, 100 (6), pp. 1126-1152.
  • GREUNZ, L. (2003): “The impact of industrial specialisation and diversity on innovation”. Brussels Economic Review-Cahiers Economiques de Bruxelles, 46 (3), pp. 11-36.
  • GRILICHES, Z. (1979): “Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth”. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, pp. 92-116.
  • GRUPP, H. (1994): “The measurement of technical performance of innovations by technometrics and its impact on established technology indicators”. Research Policy, 23, pp. 175-193.
  • JACOBS, J. (1969): The Economy of Cities. New York: Random House.
  • KELLY, M. y HAGEMAN, A. (1999): “Marshallian externalities in innovation”. Journal of Economic Growth, 4, (1), pp. 39-54.
  • MORENO, R., PACI, R. y USAI, S. (2006): “Innovation Clusters in the European Regions”. European Planning Studies,14 (9), pp.1235-1263.
  • O´HUALLACHÁIN, B. y LEE, D-S. (2011): “Technological Specialization and Variety in Urban Invention”. Regional Studies, 45 (1), pp. 67-88.
  • O’SHEA, R.P., CHUGH, H. y ALLEN, T.J. (2008): “Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework”. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, pp. 653-667.
  • OECD (2002). Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.
  • PACI, R. y USAI, S.(1999): “Externalities, knowledge spillovers and the spatial distribution of innovation”.GeoJournal, 49, pp. 381-390.
  • PAYNE, A. y SIOW, A. (2003): “Does federal research funding increase university research output?”. Advances in Economic Analysis & Policy, 3 (1), pp.1018.
  • SARAGOSSI S. y VAN POTTELSBERGHE B. D. L. P. (2003):”What patent data reveal about universities: the case of Belgium”. Journal of Technology Transfer 28, pp. 47- 51.
  • SCHMOCH, U., LAVILLE, F., PATEL, P. y FRIETSCH, R. (2003): Linking technology areas to industrial sectors. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Research.
  • SHEFER, D. y FRENKEL, A. (1998): “Local milieu and innovations: Some empirical results”. Annals of Regional Science, 32, pp. 185-200.
  • VARGA, A. (1998): University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  • WOODWARD, D., FIGUEIREDO, O. y GUIMARAES, P. (2006): “Beyond the Silicon Valley: university R&D and high-technology location”. Journal of Urban Economics, 60 (1), pp. 15-32.
  • YUSOF, M. y JAIN, K.K. (2010): “Categories of university-level entrepreneurship: a literature survey”. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 6, pp. 81-96.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet