1 Introduction
2 Literature review
2.1 The quality of inventions: radicalness, originality, and generality
2.2 The role and impact of network embeddedness on the quality of inventions
-
Research question 1: How is network embeddedness related to the quality of inventions?
2.3 The link between scientific orientation and the quality of inventions
-
Research question 2: How is scientific orientation (basic vs applied research) related to the quality of inventions?
2.4 The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on the quality of inventions
-
Research question 3: How is entrepreneurial orientation related to the quality of inventions?
3 Data and methodology
3.1 The German research landscape
-
Fraunhofer is the leading application-oriented research organization in Europe. The Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft consists of 72 institutes and research facilities with more than 26,000 employees. The institutes focus on six major research areas: (1) health, (2) security, (3) communication, (4) mobility, (5) energy, and (6) environment.
-
The Helmholtz Association is the largest German scientific organization. It contains 19 autonomous research centers with more than 40,000 employees who conduct research in the following six areas: (1) energy; (2) earth and environment; (3) health; (4) aeronautics, space, and transport; (5) matter; and (6) key technologies.
-
The Leibniz Association connects more than 90 independent research institutes that employ around 20,000 employees. The research focus is rather broad, ranging from natural sciences to social sciences and humanities.
-
The Max Planck Society maintains 86 institutes and research facilities and employs more than 23,000 employees who conduct basic research in natural sciences, life sciences, humanities, and social sciences.
3.2 Data
3.2.1 Patent selection: university patents and control patents
3.2.2 Dependent variables
3.2.3 Independent and control variables
3.3 Descriptive statistics and methodological approach
Variable | Obs. | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Pctl(25) | Pctl(75) | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dependent variables | |||||||
Radicalness | 79,287 | 0.381 | 0.273 | 0.000 | 0.154 | 0.579 | 1.000 |
Originality | 79,261 | 0.722 | 0.217 | 0.000 | 0.649 | 0.872 | 0.980 |
Generality | 23,936 | 0.362 | 0.273 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.602 | 0.908 |
Independent variables | |||||||
Degree rank | 82,625 | 0.246 | 0.293 | 0.001 | 0.011 | 0.443 | 0.888 |
Betweenness centrality | 82,625 | 0.015 | 0.029 | 0 | 0 | 0.015 | 0.227 |
EO_total | 3,216 | 198.195 | 48.591 | 67.000 | 169.000 | 231.000 | 316.000 |
EO_education | 3,216 | 26.858 | 19.099 | 0.000 | 12.000 | 39.000 | 87.000 |
EO_extracurr. qualification | 3,216 | 37.081 | 9.553 | 0.000 | 30.000 | 43.000 | 59.000 |
EO_external networking | 3,216 | 21.544 | 6.572 | 0.000 | 17.000 | 27.000 | 38.000 |
EO_cooperation | 3,216 | 17.454 | 9.602 | 0.000 | 10.000 | 23.000 | 40.000 |
EO_communication | 3,216 | 30.179 | 12.985 | 8.000 | 22.000 | 36.000 | 74.000 |
EO_spin-off activities | 3,195 | 14.096 | 7.589 | 1.000 | 8.000 | 18.000 | 39.000 |
Control variables | |||||||
Regional GDP per capita | 81,062 | 47,069 | 18,303 | 14,094 | 32,133 | 58,072 | 91,969 |
Regional population density | 81,062 | 2,074 | 1,140 | 60.306 | 1,326 | 2,981 | 3,981 |
University third-party funding | 5,435 | 301.782 | 138.688 | 49.319 | 196.279 | 406.005 | 925.012 |
University scientific staff | 5,649 | 4,690.961 | 1,951.197 | 204 | 3,409 | 6,101 | 10,031 |
4 Results
4.1 The impact of regional network embeddedness and scientific orientation
Model I | Model II | Model III | |
---|---|---|---|
Radicalness | Originality | Generality | |
Degree rank+ | − 0.012 | − 0.018** | − 0.048** |
(0.011) | (0.007) | (0.024) | |
Betweenness centrality | − 0.028 | − 0.110*** | 0.001 |
(0.047) | (0.032) | (0.116) | |
Type Max Planck Society | 0.076*** | − 0.011 | 0.075*** |
(0.015) | (0.010) | (0.026) | |
Type Leibniz Association | 0.141*** | 0.050*** | − 0.240*** |
(0.027) | (0.019) | (0.083) | |
Type Helmholtz Association | 0.056*** | − 0.015 | 0.050 |
(0.016) | (0.011) | (0.036) | |
Type University | 0.044*** | 0.003 | − 0.003 |
(0.006) | (0.004) | (0.015) | |
Type Polytechnic | − 0.011 | − 0.022 | − 0.020 |
(0.049) | (0.034) | (0.163) | |
Type Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft | − 0.026*** | − 0.030*** | − 0.099*** |
(0.007) | (0.005) | (0.017) | |
Type Firm | − 0.023*** | 0.018*** | − 0.001 |
(0.005) | (0.003) | (0.011) | |
Degree rank × Type Max Planck Society | 0.234*** | 0.195*** | − 0.018 |
(0.082) | (0.057) | (0.123) | |
Degree rank × Type Leibniz Association | 0.248*** | 0.084* | − 0.479*** |
(0.063) | (0.044) | (0.161) | |
Degree rank × Type Helmholtz Association | − 0.017 | 0.079* | 0.536*** |
(0.061) | (0.043) | (0.179) | |
Degree rank × Type University | 0.056 | 0.042 | 0.259** |
(0.042) | (0.029) | (0.110) | |
Degree rank × Type Polytechnic | − 0.112 | − 0.092 | 0.055 |
(0.093) | (0.065) | (0.323) | |
Degree rank × Type Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft | − 0.300*** | − 0.141*** | − 0.137 |
(0.064) | (0.045) | (0.157) | |
Degree rank × Type Firm | − 0.005 | 0.033*** | 0.072*** |
(0.011) | (0.008) | (0.026) | |
Regional GDP per capita | − 0.00000** | − 0.00000*** | − 0.00000*** |
(0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | |
Regional population density | 0.00000* | 0.00000 | − 0.00001** |
(0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | |
Constant | − 9.264*** | − 0.180 | 11.940*** |
(0.584) | (0.406) | (1.422) | |
Year dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Tech. field dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Observations | 77,821 | 77,795 | 23,914 |
Log likelihood | − 28,208.240 | 4,544.856 | − 13,620.950 |
Wald test (df = 53) | 5,384.621*** | 8,690.103*** | 2,511.757*** |
4.2 The impact of regional network embeddedness and entrepreneurial orientation
Model IV | Model V | Model VI | Model VII | Model VIII | Model IX | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Radicalness | Originality | Generality | Radicalness | Originality | Generality | |
Degree rank+ | − 0.012 | 0.050 | 0.283** | − 0.001 | 0.050 | 0.286** |
(0.055) | (0.037) | (0.129) | (0.056) | (0.038) | (0.131) | |
Betweenness centrality | − 0.249 | − 0.094 | − 0.187 | − 0.320 | − 0.148 | − 0.279 |
(0.258) | (0.176) | (0.529) | (0.265) | (0.181) | (0.553) | |
EO_total | − 0.0002 | − 0.0001 | − 0.0002 | |||
(0.0001) | (0.0001) | (0.0003) | ||||
EO_education | 0.001 | 0.00000 | 0.0003 | |||
(0.0004) | (0.0003) | (0.001) | ||||
EO_extracurr. qualification | − 0.001 | − 0.001** | 0.002 | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | ||||
EO_external networking | − 0.001 | − 0.001 | − 0.004* | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.003) | ||||
EO_cooperation | − 0.001 | − 0.0002 | 0.002 | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | ||||
EO_communication | − 0.001 | − 0.00004 | − 0.003* | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | ||||
EO_spin-off activities | 0.0005 | 0.002** | 0.001 | |||
(0.001) | (0.001) | (0.002) | ||||
Regional GDP per capita | 0.00000 | − 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | − 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
(0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | |
Regional population density | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00001 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00001 |
(0.00001) | (0.00001) | (0.00002) | (0.00001) | (0.00001) | (0.00002) | |
University third-party funding | − 0.00005 | 0.00002 | − 0.0002** | − 0.00004 | 0.00001 | − 0.0003** |
(0.0001) | (0.00004) | (0.0001) | (0.0001) | (0.00004) | (0.0001) | |
University scientific staff | 0.00000 | − 0.00001** | 0.00002** | 0.00000 | − 0.00001** | 0.00002** |
(0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00001) | (0.00000) | (0.00000) | (0.00001) | |
Constant | − 26.117*** | − 4.484 | − 1.381 | − 28.401*** | − 12.274*** | 11.637 |
(4.902) | (3.339) | (10.307) | (6.873) | (4.692) | (14.663) | |
Year dummies | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Tech. field dummies | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | No |
Observations | 2,954 | 2,953 | 1,002 | 2,937 | 2,936 | 1,000 |
Log likelihood | − 1,197.731 | 86.776 | − 635.054 | − 1,189.031 | 85.973 | − 631.192 |
Wald test | 272.096*** (df = 42) | 269.625*** (df = 42) | 17.487** (df = 8) | 274.849*** (df = 47) | 279.785*** (df = 47) | 23.710** (df = 13) |
5 Discussion
Research questions | Results and policy implications | |
---|---|---|
1 | How is network embeddedness related to the quality of inventions? | • General statements about the impact of regional network embeddedness (“the more central, the better”) on the quality of inventions are inappropriate and misleading • Network embeddedness matters to a varying degree and may reinforce the outcomes of basic research • One-size-fits-all approaches to strengthening the regional network embeddedness of all public research institutions may lead to some unintended negative consequences • Nuanced policy approaches are needed that incentivize a higher degree of integration of public research institutes within innovation networks |
2 | How is scientific orientation (basic vs applied) related to the quality of inventions? | • There is a tendency of basic research to produce more radical, original, and general patents, which seems to be reinforced by a central network position • Institutions with a core focus on basic research should, therefore, be encouraged and incentivized to abandon an ivory tower culture and move towards a more active and central role within regional innovation systems • Policymakers need to orchestrate public research activities and take advantage of the plurality of public research institutions and the diverse scientific orientation that may complement each other |
3 | How is entrepreneurial orientation related to the quality of inventions? | • General statements about the entrepreneurial orientation of an institution (“the more entrepreneurial, the better”) considering the quality of inventions are inappropriate and misleading • Our results do not confirm the generally assumed stimulating effect of a higher degree of entrepreneurial orientation of public research institutes on the quality of inventions, which may even be counterproductive for more original or general patents • Higher levels of entrepreneurial orientation may facilitate a paradigm shift, making the public sector more proactive and market-oriented, yet may not be a panacea for an enhanced quality of inventions |