Disembodied knowledge flows among industrial clusters: A patent analysis of the Korean manufacturing sector

Technology in Society

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 73-84

  Park, Jongyong ^a   Lee, Hakyeon ^a   Park, Yongtae ^a  

^a Seoul National University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Disembodied knowledge flow; Industrial clusters; Korea; National innovation system; Network analysis; Patents

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC NETWORK ANALYSIS; INDUSTRY; MACHINERY; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PURCHASING;

DISEMBODIED KNOWLEDGE FLOW; INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS; KOREA; NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM; NETWORK ANALYSIS; PATENTS;

INNOVATION;

ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY; INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; INDUSTRIAL POLICY; INNOVATION; POLICY MAKING; SPILLOVER EFFECT;

ASIA; EURASIA; FAR EAST; KOREA;

EID: 59949097937     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2008.10.011     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. OECD. Dynamising national innovation systems (2002), OECD, Paris
2. Morgan K. Learning-by-interacting: inter-firm networks and enterprise support. In: OECD (Ed). Networks of enterprises and local development (1996), OECD, Paris 53-66
3. Jaffe A.B., and Trajtenberg M. International knowledge flows: evidence from patent citations. Econ Innov New Technol 8 1/2 (1999) 105-136
4. Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M., and Fogarty M.S. Knowledge spillovers and patents citations: evidence from a survey from inventors. Am Econ Rev 90 2 (2000) 215-218
5. Hu A., and Jaffe A.B. Patent citations and international knowledge flow: the cases of Korea and Taiwan. Int J Indust Organ 21 6 (2003) 849-880
6. Grant R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J 17 (1996) 109-121
7. Ham R.M., Linden G., and Appleyard M.M. The evolving role of semiconductor consortia in the United States and Japan. Calif Manage Rev 41 (1998) 137-163
8. OECD. Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation systems (2001), OECD, Paris
9. Park Y., and Kim M. A taxonomy of industries based on knowledge flow structure. Technol Strateg Manage 11 4 (1999) 541-549
10. Verbeek H. Innovative clusters: identification of value-adding production chains and their networks of innovation, an international study. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam; 1999.
11. Hauknes J. Norwegian input-output clusters and innovation patterns. In: OECD (Ed). Boosting innovation: the cluster approach (1999), OECD, Paris 61-90
12. Roelandt T.J.A., den Hertog P., van Sinderen J., and van den Hove N. Cluster analysis and cluster-based policy in the Netherlands. In: OECD (Ed). Boosting innovation: the cluster approach (1999), OECD, Paris 9-26
13. Bergman E.M., and Feser E.J. Industry clusters: a methodology and framework for regional development policy in the United States. In: OECD (Ed). Boosting innovation: the cluster approach (1999), OECD, Paris 243-268
14. Archibugi D., and Coco A. Measuring technological capabilities at the country level: a survey and a menu for choice. Res Policy 34 2 (2005) 175-194
15. Park Y., Yoon B., and Lee S. The idiosyncrasy and dynamism of technological innovation across industries: patent citation analysis. Technol Soc 27 4 (2005) 471-485
16. Han Y., and Park Y. Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: the case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Inform 28 3 (2006) 235-247
17. Shin J., and Park Y. Building the national ICT frontier: the case of Korea. Inform Econ Policy 19 2 (2007) 249-277
18. Chang Y.C., and Chen M.H. Comparing approaches to systems of innovation: the knowledge perspective. Technol Soc 26 1 (2004) 17-37
19. Niosi J., Saviotti P., Bellon B., and Crow M. National systems of innovation: in search of a workable concept. Technol Soc 15 2 (1993) 207-227
20. Baptista R. Do innovations diffuse faster within geographical clusters?. Int J Indust Organ 18 3 (2000) 515-535
21. Fromhold-Eisebith M., and Eisebith G. How to institutionalize innovative clusters? Comparing explicit top-down and implicit bottom-up approaches. Res Policy 34 8 (2005) 1250-1268
22. OECD. Boosting innovation: the cluster approach (1999), OECD, Paris
23. Edquist C., and Hommen L. Systems of innovation: theory and policy for the demand side. Technol Soc 21 1 (1999) 63-79
24. Sorenson O., Rivkin J.W., and Fleming L. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res Policy 35 7 (2006) 994-1017
25. Ejermo O., and Karlsoon C. Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Res Policy 35 3 (2006) 412-430
26. Criscuolo P. On the road again: researcher mobility inside the R&D network. Res Policy 34 9 (2005) 1350-1365
27. Gay B., and Dousset B. Innovation and network structural dynamics: study of the alliance network for a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Res Policy 34 10 (2005) 1457-1475
28. Basberg B.L. Patents and the measurement of technological change: a survey of literature. Res Policy 16 2/4 (1987) 131-141
29. Grilliches Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. J Econ Lit 28 4 (1990) 1661-1707
30. Archibugi D., and Pianta M. Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation 16 9 (1996) 451-458
31. Ernst H. Patent information for strategic technology management. World Patent Inform 25 3 (2003) 233-242
32. Wartburg I., Teichert T., and Rost K. Inventive progress measured by multi-stage patent citation analysis. Res Policy 34 10 (2005) 1591-1607
33. Harhoff D., Scherer F.M., and Vopel K. Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Res Policy 32 8 (2003) 1343-1363
34. Narin F. Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 30 1 (1994) 147-155
35. Narin F., Noma E., and Perry R. Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Res Policy 16 2/4 (1987) 143-155
36. Trajtenberg M. A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of inventions. Rand J Econ 21 1 (1990) 172-187
37. Breitzman A., and Thomas P. Using patent citation analysis to target/value MandA candidates. Res Technol Manage 45 5 (2002) 28-46
38. Lanjouw J, Schankerman M. The quality of ideas: measuring innovation with multiple indicators. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 7345; 1999.
39. Hirschey M., and Richardson V.J. Valuation effects of patent quality: a comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms. Pac Bas Finance J 9 1 (2001) 65-82
40. Hall BH, Jaffe AB, Trajtenberg M. The NBER patent citations data file: lessons, insights and methodological tools. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper no. 8498; 2001.
41. Mowery D.C., Oxley J.E., and Silverman B.S. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Res Policy 27 5 (1998) 507-523
42. Lai K.K., and Wu S.J. Using the patent co-citation approach to establish a new patent classification system. Inform Process Manage 41 2 (2005) 313-330
43. Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: toward a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy 13 6 (1984) 343-373
44. Reitzig M. Improving patent valuations for management purposes-validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Res Policy 33 6/7 (2004) 939-957
45. Yoon B., and Park Y. A text-mining based patent network: analytical tool for high-technology trend. J High Tech Manage Res 15 1 (2004) 37-50
46. Knoke D., and Kuklinski J. Network analysis (1982), Sage, London
47. Freeman L.C. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc Networks 1 3 (1979) 215-239
48. Anderson E. Techno-economic paradigms as typical interfaces between producers and users. J Evol Econ 1 2 (1991) 119-144