Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
template. Figure 15A.1 considers the case of incremental search with
d
close
= 4 and
d
distant
= 10. Figure 15A.2 examines the case of long-jump search with
d
close
=
d
distant
= 12, q
close
=
0.6, and q
distant
= 0.4. Figure 15A.3 considers a situation in which both parties start with
a poor replica (
d
close
=
d
distant
= 12), each tweaks uphill to a local peak, each then leaps
toward
s*
with equal accuracy (q
close
= q
distant
= 0.5), but in taking the leap, only the close
actor knows which of its components matches the components of
s*
.
In all cases, greater interdependence undermines both close and distant actors, but the
greatest gap between the two arises at an intermediate level of
K
. To see why, consider
three situations:
When
K
= 0, the close actor has no advantage at all. The smooth landscape allows
both i rms to discover the global peak eventually.
As
●
K
rises, a gap emerges between the close actor's performance and that of the
distant actor. The landscape is rugged enough that the distant actor becomes
stranded far from the global peak, and peaks cluster enough that average peak
height declines with distance from the global peak. The landscape is sui ciently
smooth and clustered, however, that the close actor - starting near
s*
or leaping
toward
s*
accurately - can scale
s*
or a nearby, nearly-as-high peak.
As
●
K
approaches
N
, the gap closes. The landscape becomes so rugged that even the
close actor becomes stranded on a peak other than
s*
. The close actor may i nish
closer to
s*
than the distant actor does, but with high peaks no longer clustered
together, this proximity has little benei t. When components depend on each other
delicately, superior but slightly imperfect access to the template has little more
value than highly imperfect access.
●
Adjusting for frequency of attempts
The results so far report the knowledge-rediscovery
success of the close actor versus the distant actor
conditional on both parties attempting to
rediscover the knowledge embodied in the original success
. In our empirical tests, however,
we examine the rates of patent citations by close and distant actors. We interpret these
rates as an indication of the number of times the knowledge underlying the focal patent
has been received and built upon. Accordingly, the rates rel ect not only the degree of
success conditional on an attempt at rediscovery being made,
but also the frequency with
which attempts are made
. If, for instance, the frequency of attempts varies systematically
with
K
, then the graphs of close- and distant-actor patent counts versus
K
might reveal
shapes that dif er in important ways from the pattern shown in Figures 15A.1-15A.3. In
this light, we consider three scenarios.
First and most simply, suppose that the number of attempts made by close and distant
actors is independent of
K
. Then we would expect the graphs of citation rates to resemble
Figures 15A.1-15A.3 without modii cation. In other words, the frequency of both close-
actor and distant-actor citation would decline with
K
, and the maximal dif erence would
occur at intermediate
K
.
Second, assume that the number of attempts made by socially close and distant actors
increases in proportion to the utility associated with the original success (i.e. more useful
pieces of knowledge attract more attempts at rediscovery). Recall that the utility of the
best piece of knowledge - the height of the global peak on the landscape - rises with
K
,
rel ecting the greater variety that comes from mixing and matching more interdependent
