Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
2.0
1.9
Diferential due to
geographic
proximity
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Diferential due to
organizational proximity
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
Interdependence (
k
)
Note:
The line labeled 'dif erential due to geographic proximity' shows, as a function of
k
, how many times
more likely a citation is in a dyad of patents when the inventors' addresses on the patents reside 10 miles
apart than when they reside 3000 miles apart. When
k
= 0.65, for instance, the multiplier is 1.87 (i.e. 87%
more likely). The line labeled 'dif erential due to organizational proximity' shows, as a function of
k
, how
many times more likely a citation is in a dyad of patents when the same organization owns both patents
relative to when they are owned by dif erent organizations. The i gure is based on model 4 of Table 15.2, with
all variables other than
k
and geographic and organizational proximity set to their mean values.
Figure 15
.
3
Citation multiplier for proximate versus distant actors (in geography and
organizational space) as a function of interdependence
close in the collaboration network is 30 times more likely than a far inventor to cite
a focal patent. For knowledge of moderate interdependence at the gap-maximizing
level of
k
shown in Figure 15.2, this number rises to 39 times. As knowledge becomes
more complex, the number falls, becoming a mere 7 times at
k
= 1. For close and
unconnected inventors, the i gures are 23 times, 48 times, and 11 times, respectively.
18
Similarly, contrast an inventor 10 miles from the source of knowledge and another
3000 miles away (both collaboratively unconnected to the source and in dif erent
organizations). When
k
~ 0, the i rst inventor is 9 percent more likely that the second
to cite the source. When
k
is at the gap-maximizing level, the probability rises to 87
percent. It then falls to 61 percent for
k
= 1. Such dif erences in citation likelihood are
far from negligible.
Despite the apparent consistency of our results with our expectations, proximity -
collaborative, geographic, or organizational - may rel ect factors other than the strength
of social connections, factors that might also inl uence the quality of one's access to the
template. Actors proximate to a given patent might, for instance, work on similar techni-
cal problems and therefore more readily absorb the knowledge embodied in the patent
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Any factor that improves access to the template should
have the ef ect that we hypothesize. It is natural to interpret the proximity measures as
