Analyzing Innovation Drivers in the German Laser Industry: the Role of Positioning in the Social and Geographical Space

Empirical and theoretical contributions provide strong evidence that firm-level performance outcomes in terms of innovativeness can either be determined by the firm’s position in the social space (network effects) or by the firm’s position in the geographical space (co-location effects). Even though we can observe quite recently first attempts in bringing together these traditionally distinct research streams (Whittington et al. 2009), research on interdependent network and geographical co-location effects is still rare. Consequently, we seek to answer the following research question: considering that the effects of social and geographic proximity on firm’s innovativeness can be interdependent, what are the distinct and combined effects of firm’s network and geographic position on firm-level innovation output? We analyze the innovative performance of German laser source manufacturers between 1995 and 2007. We use an official database on publicly funded R&D collaboration projects in order to construct yearly networks and analyze firm’s network positions. Based on information on population entries and exits we calculate various types of geographical proximity measures between private sector and public research organizations (PRO). We use patent grants as dependent variable in order to measure firm-level innovation output. Empirical results provide evidence for distinct effect of network degree centrality. Distinct effect of firm’s geographical co-location to laser-related public research organization promotes patenting activity. Results on combined network and co-location effects confirms partially the existence of in-terdependent proximity effects, even though a closer look at these effects reveals some ambiguous but quite interesting findings.

19. October 2010

Authors Muhamed Kudic Peter Bönisch Iciar Dominguez Lacasa

Suggested Reading


Network Positioning, Co-Location or Both?

Muhamed Kudic

in: Innovation Networks in the German Laser Industry. Springer Cham, 2015


Previous research indicates that firm innovativeness can either be determined by a firm’s position within the network dimension or by its position within the geographical dimension. Integrative studies addressing both distinct and combined proximity effects remains rare (cf. Whittington et al. 2009). Thus, we address in this Chapter the following research question: Are firm-level innovation outcomes positively or negatively related to network positioning effects, geographical co-location effects or combined proximity effects; and if the latter case is true, are the combined effects substitutional or complementary in nature? Panel data count models with fixed and random effects were used to analyze a firm’s innovative performance as measured by patent application counts. This last empirical analysis is organized as follows: We start with a short introduction in Sect. 12.1. Next, we provide a brief discussion of theoretical background in Sect. 12.2. In Sect. 12.3 we introduce our conceptual framework and derive our hypotheses. In Sect. 12.4 we introduce the data and methods used. Next, we outline the estimation strategy and report our empirical results in Sect. 12.5. Finally, we discuss our findings and conclude with a number of critical remarks in Sect. 12.6.

read publication

Whom to contact

For Researchers

Dr Muhamed Kudic

If you have any further questions please contact me.

Request per E-Mail

For Journalists

Mitglied der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft LogoTotal-Equality-LogoSupported by the BMWK