Geographic proximity between parties increases personal interactions and enhances the exchange of tacit information vital to success in collaborative innovation. In a sample of 582 joint R&D ventures, we observe that the distance between partners varies widely. Controlling for the self-selection among partners, we find that more geographically proximate parties tend to establish longer contract duration ex ante to address contracting risks associated with the increased sharing of tacit information. We argue that partner proximity in joint R&D leads to the creation of relationship-specific capital. Thus, the operative governance mode when partners are geographically proximate is organizational in nature.
AbramovskyL.SimpsonH. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm-university innovation linkages: Evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(6), 949–977. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq052
2.
AdamsJ. D.JaffeA. B. (1996). Bounding the effects of R&D: An investigation using matched establishment firm data. The RAND Journal of Economics, 27(4), 700–721. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555878
3.
AgrawalA.CockburnI. M.McHaleJ. (2006). Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 571–591. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl016
4.
ArrowK. J. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In NelsonR. R. (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton University Press.
5.
AudretschD. B.FeldmanM. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.
6.
AudretschD. B.LinkA. N.ScottJ. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31(1), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(00)00158-x
7.
AudretschD. B.StephanP. E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economics Review, 86(3), 641–652.
8.
BuenstorfG.SchachtA. (2013). We need to talk – or do we? Geographic distance and the commercialization of technologies from public research. Research Policy, 42(2), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.06.010
9.
CiccotelloC. S.HornyakM. J. (2000). Cooperation via contract: An analysis of research and development agreements. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-1199(99)00014-0.
10.
CiccotelloC. S.HornyakM. J.PiwowarM. S. (2004). Research and development alliances: Evidence from a federal contracts repository. The Journal of Law and Economics, 47(1), 123–166. https://doi.org/10.1086/378696
11.
CiccotelloC. S.FuR.SubramanianA. (2010). Commercializing public technology through cooperative R&D. Economics Letters, 108(2), 113–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2010.04.036
12.
CrockerK. J.MastenS. E. (1985). Efficient adaptation in long-term contracts: Take or pay provisions for natural gas. American Economic Review, 75(5), 1083–1093.
13.
CrockerK. J.MastenS. E. (1988). Mitigating contractual hazards: Unilateral options and contract length. The RAND Journal of Economics, 19(3), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555660
14.
CrockerK. J.ReynoldsK. J. (1993). The efficiency of incomplete contracts: An empirical analysis of air force engine procurement. The RAND Journal of Economics, 24(1), 126–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555956
JaffeA. B.LernerJ. (2001). Reinventing public R&D: Patent policy and the commercialization of national laboratory technologies. The RAND Journal of Economics, 32(1), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.2307/2696403
17.
JaffeA. B.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
18.
JoskowP. L. (1987). Contract duration and relationship-specific investments: Empirical evidence from coal markets. American Economic Review, 77(1), 168–185.
19.
KochL.SimmlerM. (2020). How important are local knowledge spillovers of public R&D and what drives them?Research Policy, 49(7), 104009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104009
20.
KrugmanP. (1991a). Geography and trade. MIT Press.
21.
KrugmanP. (1991b). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499. https://doi.org/10.1086/261763
LernerJ. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. The Journal of Business, 72(3), 285–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/209616
24.
LublinskiA. E. (2003). Does geographic proximity matter? Evidence from clustered and non-clustered aeronautic firms in Germany. Regional Studies, 37(5), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000089031
25.
MajewskiS. (2004). How do consortia organize collaborative R&D? Evidence from the national cooperative research act. Harvard Law School, Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business. Discussion Paper No. 483.
MulherinJ. H. (1986). Complexity in long-term contracts: An analysis of natural gas contractual provisions. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2(1), 105–117.
29.
OrlandoM. J. (2004). Measuring spillovers from industrial R&D: On the importance of geographic and technological proximity. The RAND Journal of Economics, 35(4), 777–786. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593773
30.
OxleyJ. E. (1997). Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: A transaction cost approach. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 13(2), 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jleo.a023389
31.
PisanoG. P. (1989). Using equity participation to support exchange: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 5(1), 109–126.
32.
PisanoG. P. (1990). The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393554
33.
SantamaríaL.Barge-GilA.ModregoA. (2010). Public selection and financing of R&D cooperative projects: Credit versus subsidy funding. Research Policy, 39(4), 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.011
34.
SorensenJ. B.StuartT. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666980
35.
StockJ. H.WrightJ. H.YogoM. (2002). A survey of weak instruments and weak identification in generalized method of moments. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 20(4), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1198/073500102288618658
36.
StockJ. H.YogoM. (2005). Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. In StockJ. H.AndrewsD. W. K. (Eds.), Identification and inference for econometric models: Essays in honor of Thomas, J. Rothenberg. Cambridge University Press. Ch.5.
37.
StuartT.SorensonO. (2003). The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00098-7
38.
WilliamsonO. E. (1979). Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233–261. https://doi.org/10.1086/466942
39.
WilliamsonO. E. (1983). Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange. American Economic Review, 73(4), 519–540.
