Maryann P. Feldman

Bio: Maryann P. Feldman is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Entrepreneurship & Technological change. The author has an hindex of 62, co-authored 210 publications receiving 29262 citations. Previous affiliations of Maryann P. Feldman include University of Georgia & University of Oxford.

R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production

Abstract: Previous research has indicated that investment in R&D by private firms and universities can lead to knowledge spillover, which can lead to exploitation from other third-party firms. If the ability of these third-party firms to acquire knowledge spillovers is influenced by their proximity to the knowledge source, then geographic clustering should be observable, especially in industries where access to knowledge spillovers is vital. The spatial distribution of innovation activity and the geographic concentration of production are examined, using three sources of economic knowledge: industry R&D, skilled labor, and the size of the pool of basic science for a specific industry. Results show that the propensity for innovative activity to cluster spatially is more attributable to the influence of knowledge spillovers and not merely the geographic concentration of production. (SFL)

R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production

Abstract: Previous research has indicated that investment in R&D by private firms and universities can lead to knowledge spillover, which can lead to exploitation from other third-party firms. If the ability of these third-party firms to acquire knowledge spillovers is influenced by their proximity to the knowledge source, then geographic clustering should be observable, especially in industries where access to knowledge spillovers is vital. The spatial distribution of innovation activity and the geographic concentration of production are examined, using three sources of economic knowledge: industry R&D, skilled labor, and the size of the pool of basic science for a specific industry. Results show that the propensity for innovative activity to cluster spatially is more attributable to the influence of knowledge spillovers and not merely the geographic concentration of production. (SFL)

Knowledge Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation

Abstract: This chapter focuses on the geographic dimensions of knowledge spillovers. The starting point comes from the economics of innovation and technological change. This tradition focused on the innovation production function however it was aspatial or insensitive to issues involving location and geography. However, empirical results hinted that knowledge production had a spatial dimension. Armed with a new theoretical understanding about the role and significance of knowledge spillovers and the manner in which they are localized, scholars began to estimate the knowledge production function with a spatial dimension. Location and geographic space have become key factors in explaining the determinants of innovation and technological change. The chapter also identifies new insights that have sought to penetrate the black box of geographic space by addressing a limitation inherent in the model of the knowledge production. These insights come from a rich tradition of analyzing the role of both localization and urbanization economies, by extending the focus to the organization of economic activity within a spatial dimension and examine how different organizational aspects influence economic performance. While the endogenous growth theory emphasizes the importance of investments in research and development and human capital, a research agenda needs to be mapped out identifying the role that investments in spillover conduits can make in generating economic growth. It may be that a mapping of the process by which new knowledge is created, externalized and commercialized, hold the key to providing the microeconomic linkages to endogenous macroeconomic growth.

The geography of innovation

Abstract: Preface. 1. Introduction. 2. Why Location Matters for Innovative Activity. 3. Spatial Patterns of Innovation. 4. Technological Infrastructure. 5. Regional Innovative Capacity. 6. Policy Implications. Appendix. Bibliography. Index.

Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment

Abstract: Boschma R. A. (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment, Regional Studies39, 61-74. A key issue in economic geography is to determine the impact of geographical proximity on interactive learning and innovation. We argue that the importance of geographical proximity cannot be assessed in isolation, but should always be examined in relation to other dimensions of proximity that may provide alternative solutions to the problem of coordination. We claim that geographical proximity per se is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for learning to take place. Nevertheless, it facilitates interactive learning, most likely by strengthening the other dimensions of proximity. However, proximity may also have negative impacts on innovation due to the problem of lock-in. Accordingly, not only too little, but also too much proximity may be detrimental to interactive learning and innovation. This may be the case for all five dimensions of proximity discussed in the paper, i.e. cognitive, organizatio...

R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production

Abstract: Previous research has indicated that investment in R&D by private firms and universities can lead to knowledge spillover, which can lead to exploitation from other third-party firms. If the ability of these third-party firms to acquire knowledge spillovers is influenced by their proximity to the knowledge source, then geographic clustering should be observable, especially in industries where access to knowledge spillovers is vital. The spatial distribution of innovation activity and the geographic concentration of production are examined, using three sources of economic knowledge: industry R&D, skilled labor, and the size of the pool of basic science for a specific industry. Results show that the propensity for innovative activity to cluster spatially is more attributable to the influence of knowledge spillovers and not merely the geographic concentration of production. (SFL)

Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy

Abstract: Economic geography during an era of global competition involves a paradox. It is widely recognized that changes in technology and competition have diminished many of the traditional roles of location. Yet clusters, or geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, are a striking feature of virtually every national, regional, state, and even metropolitan economy, especially in more advanced nations. The prevalence of clusters reveals important insights about the microeconomics of competition and the role of location in competitive advantage. Even as old reasons for clustering have diminished in importance with globalization, new influences of clusters on competition have taken on growing importance in an increasingly complex, knowledge-based, and dynamic economy. Clusters represent a new way of thinking about national, state, and local economies, and they necessitate new roles for companies, government, and other institutions in enhancing competitiveness.

Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election

Abstract: Following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, many have expressed concern about the effects of false stories (“fake news”), circulated largely through social media. We discuss the economics of fake news and present new data on its consumption prior to the election. Drawing on web browsing data, archives of fact-checking websites, and results from a new online survey, we find: (i) social media was an important but not dominant source of election news, with 14 percent of Americans calling social media their “most important” source; (ii) of the known false news stories that appeared in the three months before the election, those favoring Trump were shared a total of 30 million times on Facebook, while those favoring Clinton were shared 8 million times; (iii) the average American adult saw on the order of one or perhaps several fake news stories in the months around the election, with just over half of those who recalled seeing them believing them; and (iv) people are much more likely to believe stories that favor their preferred candidate, especially if they have ideologically segregated social media networks.