This paper examines when and how knowledge moves across geographic boundaries in the biotechnology industry. We define knowledge flows in three geographic contexts: within a region, between regions and between countries. We hypothesise that these flows are determined by various factors, such as technological distance, articulateness and value of knowledge, time lag effects and firm reputation. Our results support the importance of these characteristics for between region flows compared with within region flows. However, between country flows demonstrate contrary patterns. The non-linearity of knowledge flow patterns over increasing distances is a unique result. We are grateful to Pari Patel, for providing information regarding his work on classification of the different patent classes into technical fields.
SaxenianA. (1990) ‘Regional networks and the resurgence of Silicon Valley’, California Management Review, 32(Fall), 39–112.
2.
OliverA.LiebeskindJ. (1997) ‘Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in the biotechnology industry: Implications for studying interorganisational networks’, International Studies of Management and Organisation, 27(4), 76–103.
3.
StuartT.HoangH.HybelsR. (1999) ‘Interorganisational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(20), 315–40.
4.
TallmanS.JenkinsM.HenryN.PinchS. (2000) ‘Knowledge clusters and competitive advantage in global industries’, Presented at The Academy of Management Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
5.
PowellW.KoputK.Smith-DoerrL. (1996) ‘Interorganisational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–45.
6.
WalkerG.KogutB.ShanW. (1997) ‘Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network’, Organisation Science, 8(2), 109–25.
7.
PowellW.KoputK.Smith-DoerrL. (1996) op. cit..
8.
PowellW.BrantleyP. (1992) ‘Competitive cooperation in biotechnology: Learning through networks?’, In: NohriaN.EcclesR. (eds), Networks and Organisations, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 366–94.
9.
AroraA.GambardellaA. (1990) ‘Complementarity and external linkages: The strategies of the large firms in biotechnology’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 38, 361–79.
10.
BarleyS.R.FreemanJ.HybelsR.C. (1992) In: NohriaN.EcclesR. (eds) Networks and Organisations, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, pp. 311–47.
11.
GalaskiewiczJ.ZaheerA. (1999) ‘Networks of competitive advantage’, In: AndrewsS.KnokeD. (eds) Research in the Sociology of Organisations.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
12.
PowellW.BrantleyP. (1992) op. cit..
13.
StuartT.HoangH.HybelsR. (1999) op. cit., 315.
14.
ShanW.SongJ. (1997) ‘Foreign direct investment and the sourcing of technological advantage: Evidence from the biotechnology industry’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 267–84.
15.
AlmeidaP. (1996) ‘Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry’, Strategic Management Journal, 7(Special Issue), 155–65.
CyertR.MarchJ.G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18.
StuartT.PodolnyJ. (1996) ‘Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal, 1, 21–38.
19.
JaffeA.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993) ‘Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–98.
20.
KogutB. (1993) ‘Introduction’, In: KogutB. (ed) Country Competitiveness: Technology and the Organizing of Work, New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
HendersonR.ClarkK.B. (1990) ‘Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 9–30.
22.
TallmanS.JenkinsM.HenryN.PinchS. (2000) op. cit..
23.
JaffeA.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993) op.cit..
24.
TallmanS.JenkinsM.HenryN.PinchS. (2000) op. cit..
25.
PorterM. (1990) Competitive Advantage of Nations.New York: Free Press.
26.
PioreM.SabelC. (1984) ‘Why companies might be moving steadily towards specialization and flexibility’, International Management, 39, 97–100.
27.
PykeF.BecattiniG.SengenbergerW. (1990) Industrial Divide and Inter-firm Co-operation In Italy, Geneva: International Institute of Labor Studies.
28.
MarshallA. (1920) Principles of Economics.London: Macmillan.
29.
GlaeserE.KallalH.ScheinkmanJ.ShleiferA. (1991) ‘Growth in cities’, NBER working paper No. 3787.
30.
BartholomewS. (1997) ‘National systems of biotechnology innovation: Complex interdependence in the global system’, Journal of International Business Studies, 28(2), 241–66.
31.
PorterM. (1990) op. cit..
32.
KogutB. (1991) ‘Country capabilities and the permeability of borders’, Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 33–47.
33.
ZuckerL.DarbyM.ArmstrongJ. (1998) op. cit..
34.
CohenW.M.LevinthalD.A. (1990) ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–52.
35.
SaxenianA. (1990) op. cit..
36.
GranstrandO.PatelP.PavittK. (1997) ‘Multi-technology corporations: Why they have distributed rather than core competencies?’California Management Review, 39(4): 8–25.
37.
ShanW.SongJ. (1997) op. cit..
38.
JaffeA.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993) op. cit..
39.
NarinF.NomaE.PerryR. (1987) ‘Patents as indicators of technological strength’, Research Policy, 16: 143–155.
40.
AudretschD.StephanP. (1996) ‘Company-Scientist Locational Links: The Case of Biotechnology’, American Economic Review, 86 (3), 641–652.
