41Received 24.01.2025. Revised 17.02.2025. Accepted 03.03.2025.
Acknowledgements. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant no. 25-28-01533 (https://rscf.ru/project/25-28-01533).
Abstract. In the context of globalization and accelerating digitalization, companies’ patent activity has become a key factor in regional economic growth. This paper examines the impact of spatial concentration and interaction effects, as well as government support, on the number of patents filed by technological companies in European regions. The key differences among Marshall, Jacobs, and MAR (Marshall–Arrow–Romer) effects are analyzed in terms of specialization or concentration, types of interactions, and assessment tools. An econometric analysis was conducted using statistical data from 124 regions for the period 2017–2022. The results demonstrate that a significant share of industrial companies exhibit a high level of technological intensity. The COVID‑19 pandemic negatively affected the resilience of European industries, leading to disruptions in supply chains and shortages of goods and components. Nonetheless, industries with high innovation intensity experienced faster growth rates. For most European countries, moderate growth in the number of patent applications was observed, reflecting a general interest in innovation. However, large economies such as Germany, Switzerland, and France continue to dominate, while smaller countries display either rapid growth or unstable trends. Agglomeration processes in regions have a positive impact on companies’ patent activity. The relationship between these two indicators strengthened during the 2017–2022 period, driven by the creation of favorable environments for innovation and knowledge exchange. In regions where enterprises, research institutions, and skilled labor are concentrated, interactions among companies, universities, and research centers intensify, accelerating the diffusion of ideas and technologies. An increase in the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which measures market concentration, leads to a decrease in the number of patent applications in European regions. This can be technically explained by the predominance of large and medium-sized companies in the sample, which are the primary filers of patent applications. However, such growth in market concentration may also reduce competition and resource availability for new entrants, as well as diminish incentives to develop new technologies. Addressing this issue requires fostering competition, creating equal opportunities for startups and small businesses, and incentivizing investment in research activities. Government support has a positive effect on patent activity. The scientific novelty of this study lies in identifying spatial and institutional factors that contribute to enhancing the innovation potential of European regions. The practical significance of the research lies in its potential application for developing policy recommendations aimed at stimulating regional innovation activities.
Keywords: regional agglomeration effects, patent activity, innovation, Herfindahl-Hirschman index, government support for innovation development, regions of European countries
REFERENCES
1. Porter M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London, MacMillan, 1990. 875 p.
2. Breschi S. Spatial Patterns of Innovation. Gambardella A., Malerba F., eds. The Organisation of Economic Innovation in Europe. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 71-102.
3. Audretsch D.B., Feldman M.P. R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production. American Economic Review, 1996, vol. 86, no. 3, pp. 630-640. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118216 (accessed 08.01.2025).
4. Glaeser E., Kallal H., Scheinkman J., Shleifer A. Growth in Cities. Journal of Political Economy, 1992, vol. 100, no. 6, pp. 1126-1152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/261856
5. Beaudry C., Schiffauerova A. Who’s Right, Marshall or Jacobs? The Localization versus Urbanization Debate. Research Policy, 2009, vol. 38, iss. 2, pp. 318-337. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.11.010
6. Jacobs J. The Economies of Cities. New York, Random House, 1969. 268 p.
7. Marshall A. Principles of Economics. London, MacMillan, 1890. 706 p. Available at: http://digamo.free.fr/marshall90.pdf (accessed 08.01.2025).
8. Arrow K. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. Review of Economic Studies, 1962, vol. 29, iss. 3, pp. 155-172. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952
9. Romer P. Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth. Journal of Political Economy, 1986, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 1002-1037. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/261420
10. Saxenian A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1994. 226 p. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/3117181
11. Storper M., Venables A.J. Buzz: Face-to-Face Contact and the Urban Economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 2004, vol. 4, iss. 4, pp. 351-370. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlecg/lbh027
12. Van Der Panne G., van Beers C. On the Marshall–Jacobs Controversy: It Takes Two to Tango. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2006, vol. 15, iss. 5, pp. 877-890. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl021
13. Rothwell J., Lobo J., Strumsky D., Muro M. Patenting Prosperity: Invention and Economic Performance in the United States and Its Metropolitan Areas. Brookings, February 2013. 49 p. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/patenting-prosperity-rothwell.pdf (accessed 03.01.2025).
14. Meliciani V., Evangelista R., Vezzani A. The Specialisation of EU Regions in Fast Growing and Key Enabling Technologies. Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, 2015. Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2791/844794 (accessed 03.01.2025).
15. Uhlbach W.H., Balland P.A., Scherngell T. Public R&D Funding and New Regional Specialisations: The Contingent Role of Technological Relatedness. Industry and Innovation, 2022, vol. 29, iss. 4, pp. 511-553. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2022.2043147
16. Caragliu A., de Dominicis L., de Groot H.L.F. Both Marshall and Jacobs were Right! Economic Geography, 2016, vol. 92, iss. 1, pp. 87-111. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1094371
17. Moreno R., Paci R., Usai S. Innovation Clusters in the European Regions. European Planning Studies, 2006, vol. 14, iss. 9, pp. 1235-1263. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310600933330
18. Rastvortseva S.N., Snitko L.T. Regional Specialization and Agglomeration Effects in the Russian Economy. Ekonomicheskie i Sotsialnye Peremeny, 2020, vol. 13, iss. 3, pp. 46-58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15838/esc.2020.3.69.4
19. Rastvortseva S., Amanalieva A. The Concept of Technological Proximity in the Development of European Union National Innovative Systems. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-Economic Series, 2021, vol. 51, no. 51, pp. 35-46. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2021-0003
20. Porter R., Zona J.D. Bidding, Bid Rigging, and School Milk Prices: Ohio v. Trauth (1994). The Antitrust Revolution: Economics, Competition, and Policy. 4th ed. New York, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 211-232. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237772487_Bidding_Bid_Rigging_and_School_Milk_Prices_Ohio_v_Trauth_1994 (accessed 04.01.2025).
21. Matsumoto A., Merlone U., Szidarovszky F. Some Notes on Applying the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index. Applied Economics Letters, 2012, vol. 19, iss. 2, pp. 181-184. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2011.570705
22. Ruijer E., Meijer A. Open Government Data as an Innovation Process: Lessons from a Living Lab Experiment. Public Performance & Management Review, 2020, vol. 43, iss. 3, pp. 613-635. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1568884
23. Grigoryevsky V.V., Degterev D.A., Piskunov D.A., Prokhorenko I.L. International Political Economy of ICT Industry. World Economy and International Relations, 2023, vol. 67, no. 3, pp. 5-19. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2023-67-3-5-19
24. Mamedyarov Z.À. Development of Science and Technology: Post-Crisis Assessments. World Economy and International Relations, 2022, vol. 66, no. 5, pp. 14-22. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-5-14-22
SOURCES
1. European Patent Organisation (EPO). (In Russ.) Available at: https://www.epo.org/en (accessed 03.01.2025).
2. European Statistical Office. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed 03.01.2025).
3. NUTS – Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. Eurostat. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/nuts/legislation (accessed 03.01.2025).
4. Local Administrative Units (LAU). Eurostat. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/en/web/nuts/local-administrative-units (accessed 03.01.2025).
5. International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities. Rev. 4. New York, UN, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2008. Available at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/seriesm/seriesm_4rev4e.pdf (accessed 03.01.2025).
6. COVID‑19: Trade and Trade-related Measures. Annual Report 2020. World Trade Organization, 2020. 15 p. Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep20_chap1_e.pdf (accessed 03.01.2025).
No comments