This paper separates two mechanisms through which agglomeration increases average firm innovation: selection (less innovative firms being forced out of agglomerations) and true agglomeration (firms become more innovative). I apply a quantile regression to estimate the distribution of firm innovation and separate these two mechanisms. Linking a unique establishment-level dataset with the patent dataset in the state of Maryland for the period 2004–2013, I find that a 1-mile radius area with above-median employment concentration significantly encourages firm innovation. An average establishment that files for at least one patent during the study period increases citation-weighted patent applications by 31.2% to 31.5% in such employment centers. I also find evidence of selection: non-innovators are 1.3% less likely to survive in agglomerations. The coexistence of agglomeration and selection causes the result of an ordinary least squares regression to be upwardly biased. By eliminating the selection effect, this study more precisely estimates the agglomeration effect, which can be applied to cost–benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses of urban and industrial policies.
AharonsonBSBaumJA, andFeldmanMP (2004) Industrial clustering and the returns to inventive activity: Canadian biotechnology firms, 1991–2000. DRUID Working Paper 04-03, DRUID, Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
2.
AllenTJCohenSI (1969)
Information flow in research and development laboratories. Administrative Science Quarterly14(1): 12–19.
3.
AnderssonMKlaessonJ, andLarssonJP (2016)
How local are spatial density externalities? Neighbourhood effects in agglomeration economies. Regional Studies50(6): 1082–1095.
4.
ArimotoYNakajimaK, andOkazakiT (2014)
Sources of productivity improvement in industrial clusters: The case of the prewar Japanese silk-reeling industry. Regional Science and Urban Economics46: 27–41.
5.
ArzaghiMHendersonJV (2008)
Networking off Madison Avenue. The Review of Economic Studies75(4): 1011–1038.
6.
BaldwinREOkuboT (2006)
Heterogeneous firms, agglomeration and economic geography: Spatial selection and sorting. Journal of Economic Geography6(3): 323–346.
7.
BaptistaRSwannP (1998)
Do firms in clusters innovate more?Research Policy27(5): 525–540.
8.
BeaudryCSchiffauerovaA (2009)
Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Research Policy38(2): 318–337.
9.
BehrensKDurantonG, andRober-NicoudF (2014)
Productive cities: Sorting, selection, and agglomeration. Journal of Political Economy122(3): 507–553.
10.
BelenzonSSchankermanM (2013)
Spreading the word: Geography, policy, and knowledge spillovers. Review of Economics and Statistics95(3): 884–903.
11.
BellGG (2005)
Research notes and commentaries: Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal26(3): 287–295.
12.
BlindKGruppH (1999)
Interdependencies between the science and technology infrastructure and innovation activities in German regions: Empirical findings and policy consequences. Research Policy28(5): 451–468.
13.
BünstorfGSchachtA (2013)
We need to talk: Or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research. Research Policy42(2): 465–480.
BurgerMJvan OortFG, andvan der KnaapB (2010)
A treatise on the geographical scale of agglomeration externalities and the MAUP. Scienze Regionali19(1): 19–40.
CamagniRCapelloR, andCaragliuA (2016)
Static vs. dynamic agglomeration economies. Spatial context and structural evolution behind urban growth. Papers in Regional Science95(1): 133–158.
18.
CarlinoGKerrWR (2015) Agglomeration and innovation. In: Duranton G, Henderson V and Strange WC (eds) Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 5. North-Holland: Elsevier, pp.349–404.
19.
CombesPPDurantonGGobillonL, et al. (2012)
The productivity advantages of large cities: Distinguishing agglomeration from firm selection. Econometrica80(6): 2543–2594.
20.
De SilvaDGMcCombRP (2012)
Geographic concentration and high tech firm survival. Regional Science and Urban Economics42(4): 691–701.
21.
DeyleHGGruppH (2005)
Commuters and the regional assignment of innovative activities: A methodological patent study of German districts. Research Policy34(2): 221–234.
22.
DrennanMP (2018)
Do agglomeration economies decay over short distances? Are they stable in the face of shocks? Evidence from Manhattan. International Journal of Urban Sciences22(1): 1–16.
23.
EllisonGGlaeserEL (1997)
Geographic concentration in US manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy105(5): 889–927.
24.
EllisonGGlaeserE, andKerrWR (2010)
What causes industry agglomeration? Evidence from coagglomeration patterns. American Economic Review100(3): 1195–1213.
25.
FalckOHeblichS, andKiparS (2010)
Industrial innovation: Direct evidence from a cluster-oriented policy. Regional Science and Urban Economics40(6): 574–582.
FerrandYKeltonCMChenK, et al. (2009)
Biotechnology in Cincinnati clustering or colocation?Economic Development Quarterly23(2): 127–140.
28.
FigueiredoOGuimarãesP, andWoodwardD (2015)
Industry localization, distance decay, and knowledge spillovers: Following the patent paper trail. Journal of Urban Economics89: 21–31.
29.
GertlerMS (2003)
Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography3(1): 75–99.
30.
GlaeserEL (1998)
Are cities dying?The Journal of Economic Perspectives12(2): 139–160.
31.
GlaeserEL (2000) The new economics of urban and regional growth. In: ClarkGLFeldmanMPGertlerMS (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp.83–98.
32.
GlaeserEL (ed.) (2010) Agglomeration Economics.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
33.
GlaeserELKerrWR (2009)
Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: How much of the spatial distribution can we explain?Journal of Economics and Management Strategy18(3): 623–663.
34.
HarhoffDNarinFSchererFM, et al. (1999)
Citation frequency and the value of patented inventions. Review of Economics and Statistics81(3): 511–515.
35.
HelsleyRWStrangeWC (2002)
Innovation and input sharing. Journal of Urban Economics51(1): 25–45.
36.
Hervas-OliverJLSempere-RipollFBoronat-MollC (2014)
Process innovation strategy in SMEs, organizational innovation and performance: A misleading debate?Small Business Economics43(4): 873–886.
37.
HirscheyMRichardsonVJ (2001)
Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and US firms. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal9(1): 65–82.
38.
JacobsJ (1969) The Economy of Cities.
New York:
Vintage.
KrugmanPR (1991) Geography and Trade.
Cambridge, MA:
MIT press.
41.
MarshallA (1890) Principles of Political Economy.
London:
MacMillan.
42.
MeijersEJBurgerMJ, andHoogerbruggeMM (2016)
Borrowing size in networks of cities: City size, network connectivity and metropolitan functions in Europe. Papers in Regional Science95(1): 181–198.
PackalenMBhattacharyaJ (2015) Cities and Ideas. Working Paper 20921, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
47.
PorterME (1998)
Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review76(6): 77–90.
48.
RosenthalSSStrangeWC (2001)
The determinants of agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics50(2): 191–229.
49.
RosenthalSSStrangeWC (2003)
Geography, industrial organization, and agglomeration. Review of Economics and Statistics85(2): 377–393.
50.
RuffnerJSpeschaA (2018)
The impact of clustering on firm innovation. CESifo Economic Studies64(2): 176–215.
51.
SaxenianA (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.
Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
52.
SenkerJ (2008) The contribution of tacit knowledge to innovation. In: Williams R, Faulkner W and Fleck J (eds) Cognition, Communication and Interaction. London: Springer, pp.376–392.
53.
SheferDFrenkelA (2005)
R&D, firm size and innovation: An empirical analysis. Technovation25(1): 25–32.
54.
SimonenJMcCannP (2008)
Firm innovation: The influence of R&D cooperation and the geography of human capital inputs. Journal of Urban Economics64(1): 146–154.
55.
SinghJMarxM (2013)
Geographic constraints on knowledge spillovers: Political borders vs. spatial proximity. Management Science59(9): 2056–2078.
56.
StaberU (2001)
Spatial proximity and firm survival in a declining industrial district: The case of knitwear firms in Baden-Wurttemberg. Regional Studies35(4): 329–341.
57.
StorperMVenablesAJ (2004)
Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography4(4): 351–370.
United Nations (2015) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision.
New York:
United Nations.
61.
United States National Research Council (2012) Clustering for 21st Century Prosperity: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).
62.
United States Patent and Trademark Office (2015) Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2133.html (accessed 15 May 2019).
63.
Vásquez-UrriagoÁRBarge-GilARicoAM, et al. (2014)
The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics24(4): 835–873.
64.
WallstenSJ (2001)
An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and establishment-level data. Regional Science and Urban Economics31(5): 571–599.
65.
WintersJV (2014)
STEM graduates, human capital externalities, and wages in the US. Regional Science and Urban Economics48: 190–198.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
