Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type

Belderbos, René; Braito, Nazareno; Wang, Jian Article — Published Version Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type The Journal of Technology Transfer Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Belderbos, René; Braito, Nazareno; Wang, Jian (2024) : Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type, The Journal of Technology Transfer, ISSN 1573-7047, Springer US, New York, NY, Vol. 49, Iss. 5, pp. 1959-1989, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10066-w This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/315302 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) The Journal of Technology Transfer (2024) 49:1959–1989 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10066-w 1 3 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, andinvestment type RenéBelderbos1,2,3· NazarenoBraito4· JianWang5 Accepted: 19 January 2024 / Published online: 2 March 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Universities play an important role in regional development and innovation and engage with the industry through various channels. In this paper, we examine the role of heterogeneous characteristics of university research, in particular universities’ orientation towards basic or applied research and the quality of this research, in attracting firms’ R&D investment. We analyze the location decisions in the United States by foreign multinational firms at the level of metropolitan areas. We contrast research and development projects and explore whether they are driven by different factors. We find that the drivers of location choice differ importantly as a consequence of the type of the focal R&D investment of the firm. Universities with an orientation towards applied scientific research and exhibiting higher academic quality of applied research attract more R&D investment focusing on development activities. In contrast, firms’ investments in research activities are attracted by the academic quality of basic scientific research of local universities. Hence, increased university emphasis on academic engagement and applied research may have negative consequences for industrial research in the region. Keywords Location choice· R&D FDI· Industry science links· Basic and applied research· Academic quality * Jian Wang [email protected] René Belderbos [email protected] Nazareno Braito [email protected] 1 Department ofManagement, Strategy andInnovation, Faculty ofEconomics andBusiness, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000Louvain, Belgium 2 UNU-MERIT, Boschstraat 24, 6211AXMaastricht, TheNetherlands 3 School ofBusiness andEconomics, Maastricht University, Tongersestraat 53, 6211LMMaastricht, TheNetherlands 4 Department ofManagement, Strategy andInnovation, Brussels Campus, Faculty ofEconomics andBusiness, KU Leuven, Warmoesberg 26, 1000Brussel, Belgium 5 Lancaster University Leipzig, Nikolaistrasse 10, 04109Leipzig, Germany 1960 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 JEL Classification F21· F23· O32 1 Introduction Universities play an important role in regional development and innovation, and are increasingly expected to perform the ‘third mission’ of engagement in serving the economy and society, in addition to their traditional missions of teaching and research (Bozeman, 2000; Bozeman etal., 2015; Perkmann etal., 2013). The technology transfer literature has extensively studied university-industry collaboration (Belderbos etal., 2021; Bruneel etal., 2010; Lehmann & Menter, 2016; Rybnicek & Königsgruber, 2019), university patenting and licensing (Geuna & Nesta, 2006; Mazzoleni, 2006; Mowery etal., 2001), university spin-offs and entrepreneurship (Mathisen & Rasmussen, 2019; Wang etal., 2022; Zucker etal., 1998), the role of intermediaries such as technology transfer offices (Bolzani etal., 2021; O’Kane etal., 2021; Siegel etal., 2003) and incubators at universities (Cadorin etal., 2021; Rothaermel & Thursby, 2005; Youtie & Shapira, 2008). This expanding literature has contributed important insights into how universities interact with incumbent firms or spawn new ventures. An important conclusion is that universities differ importantly in their resources and capabilities, and their academic engagement with industry and involvement in entrepreneurial activities (Grimaldi etal., 2011; Perkmann etal., 2013). Competitive and societal pressures and declining government support have provided impetus to an increased focus on academic entrepreneurship on the part of universities, and greater involvement of industry in funding university research (Siegel & Wright, 2015). An influential policy recommendation for advancing the third mission of engagement is to shift the focus of university research from basic research that is concerned with fundamental understanding to applied research that focuses on practical utility (Gibbons, 1994), although whether universities are driven away from curiosity-driven basic research toward applied research is still a subject of debate (Fini etal., 2021; Henderson etal., 1998; Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002; Perkmann etal., 2021; Thursby & Thursby, 2011). A salient unanswered question is whether heterogeneity in the characteristics of university research, in particular their orientation toward basic or applied research, has a material impact on the role universities play in economic development. In this paper, we seek to answer this question in a context of university research attracting (foreign) R&D investments to their regions. A number of studies have found evidence for a positive association between university research and industrial R&D investments, at the regional level (Abramovsky et al., 2007; Autant-Bernard, 2001; Belderbos etal., 2014, 2017; Cantwell & Piscitello, 2005). However, it remains unclear how this association differs depending on the characteristics of academic research the university is involved in. In this paper, we focus on two important features of academic research: its applied or basic nature and its academic quality. A pertinent question is whether a focus on applied rather than basic scientific research may makes university research more directly relevant and accessible to firms. On the one hand, applied research might be more directly useful for the industry and is prescribed as a key for advancing the third mission (Gibbons, 1994; Nelson, 2003). On the other hand, given the observation that technological innovation is increasingly relying on science (Marx & Fuegi, 2020), while basic research activities conducted internally by firms are declining (Arora etal., 2018) and require a strong intellectual property protection regime (Simeth & Raffo, 2013), it is conceivable that the complementary role of basic research at universities 1961 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 is important for firms. A second relevant question it is whether science that is perceived to be of high quality by other scientists will also be more valuable for corporate R&D, given the conflicting logics of science and technology (Ali & Gittelman, 2016; Gittelman & Kogut, 2003; Sauermann & Stephan, 2013). Understanding the alignment or conflict between the academic and industry logics in terms of quality standards is important for informing policy and managerial practices supporting the “third mission.” We aim to provide a nuanced answer to these questions by recognizing that firms’ R&D investments are also heterogeneous in nature and objectives. We examine to what extent the influence heterogeneous university research depends on the type of R&D investments undertaken by the firms: i.e., whether the R&D investment focuses on research activities or development activities. The motivation for (multinational firms’) R&D investments have generally been distinguished between market adaptation (development) and knowledge sourcing and creation (research) (Belderbos etal., 2009; Shimizutani & Todo, 2008; von Zedtwitz & Gassmann, 2002). While development activities may be expected to benefit most from applied academic research, firms’ research activities may be more likely to draw on basic scientific research conducted at universities. We examine the role of such heterogeneous academic research in attracting heterogeneous R&D investments by considering location decisions of foreign multinational firms in the United States at a fine-grained regional level of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), which are regions delineated in terms of economic integration (Mowery & Ziedonis, 2015). Analyzing foreign firms’ R&D investment location decisions has the advantage that these firms are relatively free to choose a location based on its merits, as they have no home region in the US in which they are strongly embedded that may influence such decisions. We develop geocoded academic publication data based on Clarivate’s Web of Science to characterize the academic research profile of universities in each MSA across scientific domains, including the academic quality of their publications (scientific citations received), and their orientation toward basic or applied research. We take into account the varying relevance of regional academic research (Hausman, 2020) for R&D investments across industries by utilizing a concordance between science fields, technologies, and industries. Our analysis takes into account other channels through which university research can influence corporate R&D such as the supply of doctoral graduates, university patenting activities. We estimate random coefficient (mixed) logit models (Alcacer & Chung, 2007, 2014; Head etal., 1995) allowing for investor heterogeneity to analyze the location decisions for 148 research and 325 development projects across 354 MSAs during 2003–2012. We adapt a model that identifies agglomeration economies stemming from labor, supplier and customer specialization in a region (Alcacer & Chung, 2014; Glaeser & Kerr, 2009), treating academic research as an input to R&D at the firm level. We find that an applied scientific research focus and the academic quality of this applied research of the universities in an MSA exert a positive influence on the likelihood that the MSA is chosen for R&D investments in general and for development investments in particular. In contrast, research investments are drawn to regions with a higher academic quality of basic scientific research, whereas an applied research focus and the academic quality of applied research play no role here. R&D investments are furthermore attracted by MSAs with universities specialized in the science domains relevant for the investing firm and delivering doctoral graduates with a relevant doctoral degree. Our research contributes to the literature on university technology transfer, by providing important nuance to the debate on the relative importance of basic or applied academic research for firm innovation and the debate about the conflicting logics between science and technology (Cassiman etal., 2008; Grimaldi etal., 2011; Hausman, 2020; Perkmann etal., 1962 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 2013; Zahringer etal., 2017). We suggest that fundamental academic research strengths remain important to provide an attractive environment for more profound industrial R&D activities focusing on research rather than development. Our paper also contributes new insights to the literature on R&D investment location decisions (Alcacer & Chung, 2014; Alcacer & Delgado, 2016; Belderbos etal., 2014, 2017) related to the importance of universities and their characteristics on R&D location choice. 2 Theoretical background andhypotheses We review the literature on the relationship between university research and corporate R&D, basic versus applied university research, the role of academic research quality, after which we develop our core hypotheses that the role of basic and applied research at universities and their quality depend on whether firms seek a location for R&D focusing on research rather than development. 2.1 University research andcorporate R&D A large body of evidence supports the important role of university research in stimulating corporate R&D and firm innovative performance (Adams, 1990; Belderbos etal., 2012; Fleming & Sorenson, 2004; Gambardella, 1992; Salter & Martin, 2001; Toole, 2012). Scientific research may yield useful applications (Brooks, 1994; Jaffe, 1989) and may transform the search and problem-solving process underlying technological innovation (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004). Besides the general provision of academic research, universities may affect firms’ innovation activities through many other channels (Cohen etal., 2002; D’Este & Patel, 2007; Link & Siegel, 2005; Salter & Martin, 2001; Thursby & Thursby, 2002). They educate scientists and engineers, who may constitute the future workforce of firms, they provide experts and consultants to help firms solve particular technological problems, they serve as collaboration partners on embryonic and applied projects, and they engage in knowledge transfer through patenting and licensing activities (Belderbos etal., 2016; Cassiman etal., 2008; Hall etal., 2003; Perkmann etal., 2013). One feature of these mechanisms through which universities contribute to firm innovation is the role played by distance. Several studies have underlined the geographically bounded nature of university-firm spillovers and the consequent necessity for firms to be located close to universities in order to fully capture the relevant benefits (Audretsch & Feldman, 2004; Mansfield, 1995, 1998). To successfully capitalize on university research, firms often need access to tacit knowledge not contained in contracts or published work; knowledge that is difficult to be transmitted across long distances (Mowery & Ziedonis, 2015; Von Hippel, 1994). Scientific knowledge related to research can be complex and difficult to codify (Von Krogh etal., 2000), which complicates effective transfer at distance. Several studies have confirmed the bounded nature of knowledge spillovers from universities (Belenzon & Schankerman, 2013; Jaffe etal., 1993) and have documented the geographically constrained mobility choices of university graduates (Berry & Glaeser, 2005; Miguélez & Moreno, 2012). 1963 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 2.2 Universities’ research orientation: basic versusapplied scientific research Scientific research is heterogeneous, and different types of research may vary in how valuable they are to technological innovation in firms, as well as through which mechanism their contribution unfolds. In particular, there is an important distinction between basic and applied scientific research. According to the Frascati Manual (OECD, 2002), “basic research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any particular application or use in view.” Applied research is also considered as original investigation to acquire new knowledge. It is, however, “directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.” There still is considerable debate regarding what the relative merits are of basic and applied academic research for firm innovation. On the one hand, we may expect a higher added value from basic research. Fleming and Sorenson (2004) argue that basic research can provide a map for technological innovation; theoretical understanding of the problem and solution space can transform problem-solving from a relatively haphazard search process to a more directed identification of useful new combinations, leading to better solutions (Cassiman etal., 2008; Fleming & Sorenson, 2004). Although basic research is less likely to yield direct practical applications, it may lead to broader, more radical, and unexpected applications, often through a long series of follow-on research and development (Bush, 1945). For example, basic research on the CRISPR/Cas9 genetic scissors may lead to cues for cancer and inherited diseases, and basic quantum research may yield applications beyond quantum computing that may revolutionize many industries. Prior study has found that basic biomedical papers have a higher chance of being cited by patents (Ke, 2020). Furthermore, researchers with a basic research orientation or education are more likely to deliver radical and valuable technologies (Gruber etal., 2013). Studies have also observed that firms benefit from collaborating with “star scientists”, i.e., elite scientists in their scientific discipline, mostly oriented towards basic research (Higgins etal., 2011; Perkmann etal., 2011; Zucker etal., 1998, 2002). On the other hand, we might expect applied research to be more directly valuable for firm innovation, inherent to its goal towards practical use (Nelson etal., 2011; Nightingale, 1998; Rosenberg & Nelson, 1994). Applied research follows an epistemological logic that closely resembles technological development processes characterizing R&D in firms (Gittelman & Kogut, 2003; Nelson, 2003). One important point of concern about university engagement with industry is that it may drive universities away from curiosity-driven basic research toward applied research directly relevant to industry (Fini etal., 2021; Henderson etal., 1998; Mowery & Ziedonis, 2002; Perkmann etal., 2021; Thursby & Thursby, 2011). While this is still debated, it reflects a general believe that applied research is more relevant for the industry. Prior studies suggest that patents building on applied scientific research have a higher technological and economic value than patents building on basic research (Wang & Verberne, 2021). Furthermore, researchers with an applied research orientation or education are better suited for helping firms to create value from R&D (Ali & Gittelman, 2016; Baba etal., 2009; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; Subramanian etal., 2013). Firms more readily collaborate with universities on research that is applied in nature (Godin & Gingras, 2000; Hicks & Hamilton, 1999) and studies have found that it is more advantageous for firms to work with bridging scientists, in particular “Pasteur scientist”, i.e., scientists with an orientation towards applied research (Baba etal., 2009; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; 1964 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 Subramanian etal., 2013). Bikard and Marx (2020) found that geographic hubs facilitate knowledge flow from universities to industry by facilitating applied research. 2.3 Universities’ academic quality ofscientific research There is also an open question regarding whether the quality standards of science and technology are well aligned. Given their different logics, science and technology may also differ in their quality standards, so it is not straightforward that research with high academic quality, i.e., being perceived to be of high quality by other scientists as reflected in forward scientific citations, will also represent high value and relevance for technological innovation. Empirical evidence is mixed and inconclusive. On the one hand, studies have shown that highly cited scientific publications are much more likely to be cited by patents (Ahmadpoor & Jones, 2017; Hicks etal., 2000; Popp, 2017; Veugelers & Wang, 2019) and that references in patents to highly cited publications have higher value (Poege etal., 2019). Highly cited academic publications authored by in-house researchers of firms have also been positively associated with innovation outcomes (Subramanian etal., 2013), and the quality of research departments has been found to stimulate collocated R&D (Abramovsky etal., 2007). On the other hand, Gittelman and Kogut (2003) found a negative association between important scientific papers (i.e., scientific papers that are highly cited by other scientific papers) and high-impact technological inventions (i.e., patents that are highly cited by other patents), and Wang and Verberne (2021) found an insignificant association between citations to scientific research and patent value. Furthermore, Scandura and Iammarino (2022) investigated UK universities and found a negative association between academic research quality and the level of engagement with industry for departments in the basic sciences, but a positive association for those in the applied sciences. This suggests the importance of differentiating between the quality of basic and applied research when examining multinationals R&D location decisions. 2.4 Hypotheses: research versusdevelopment investments anduniversity research The influence of basic or applied academic research and their respective academic quality on industrial R&D is likely to depend on whether firms engage in development or research activities. This follows from the notion that R&D activities carried out by firms are also heterogeneous in tasks and objectives (Belderbos et al., 2009; Sachwald, 2008; Suzuki etal., 2017), with a salient distinction between research activities on the one hand and development activities on the other (Barge-Gil & López, 2014; Czarnitzki etal., 2010; von Zedtwitz & Gassmann, 2002). The heterogeneity among R&D activities is particularly salient in the context of R&D internationalization. R&D activities in foreign affiliates of multinational firms can be tailored to adapt product and technologies to local consumer preferences and supporting manufacturing activities in foreign countries, focusing on development (Kuemmerle, 1997). They can also be motivated by the sourcing foreign technologies augmenting the knowledge base at home (Almeida, 1996; Cantwell & Mudambi, 2005; Florida, 1997; Zanfei, 2000) and focus on research. Shimizutani and Todo (2008) and Belderbos et al. (2009) found initial evidence that the distinction between research and development investments matters for location decisions. They observed that market size was most closely associated with development locations, while local research intensity was more closely associated with research investments. 1965 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 Our conjecture is that investments in research activities are more likely to seek benefits related to high quality basic scientific research at universities, while firms’ investments in development activities are more likely to seek benefits from high quality applied scientific research. Firms conducting research can seek advantages in capitalizing on the basic research performed in academia, expanding the knowledge base on which they can draw for their own innovation activities (Cockburn & Henderson, 1998; Cohen & Levinthal, 1989, 1990; Klevorick et al., 1995). Firms that are aware of new advances in relevant scientific fields are in a better position to identify promising research paths that can then translate into new inventions. This may give a first mover advantage for the introduction of new products and processes (Arora etal., 2021; Fabrizio, 2009; Rosenberg, 1990). Knowledge of basic research is also important because it provides firms with a better understanding of the overall technological landscape, which can help firms to more effectively search for new inventions and avoid wasteful experimentations (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004). In contrast, firms’ development activities are most likely to benefit from applied scientific research, given the closer connection of applied scientific research to development and commercialization and the absence of such a direct connection for basic scientific research (Balconi etal., 2010). Hence, we formulate the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1 Firm investments in research are attracted to locations with universities’ basic research, while firm investments in developed are attracted to location with universities’ applied research. Hypothesis 2 Firm investments in research are attracted to locations with a high quality of universities’ basic research, while firm investments in developed are attracted to location with a high quality of universities’ applied research. 3 Data, variables andempirical model 3.1 Data We construct a dataset on the characteristics of university research at the MSA level and match it with the location decisions of foreign multinational firms’ R&D investments in the United States (2003–2012) obtained from the fDi Markets database of the Financial Times Ltd. The fDi Markets database is considered to be one of the most comprehensive sources of information on cross-border greenfield investments, covering investments made by multinational firms operating across industries and countries. It is based on more than 8000 news and proprietary sources and recorded more than 120,000 worldwide cross-border greenfield investments during the period. Investments are classified into industries that can be mapped into a corresponding 3-digit NAICS sector. Investments are also categorized into different value chain activities: manufacturing, distribution, logistics, R&D, etc. The database has frequently been used in prior research (Castellani etal., 2013; Crescenzi etal., 2014; D’Agostino etal., 2013), and its validity and reliability have been confirmed independently by different researchers (Castellani etal., 2013; Crescenzi etal., 2014). We restrict our analysis to R&D investments made in the United States by firms operating in manufacturing industries. The main reason for this focus is that the use of patents is relatively rare in the service sector, such that concordances between service sectors, technologies, and science fields cannot be established well. The dataset contains 473 foreign 1966 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 R&D investments undertaken by 328 firms based in a variety of countries. Among the 473 R&D investments, 148 could be classified as research investments based on and the text description accompanying each R&D investment in database. Investments are classified as research if the description of the project refers to (basic or fundamental) research, while descriptions of development investments refer to adaptation, solutions, and development. Firms based in Germany are responsible for the largest share of R&D investments (17.5%), followed by firms based in Japan (17.3%), the U.K (9.5%), France (5.5%) and South Korea (5.3%). Most R&D investments take place in the pharmaceutical and chemical industry (27.1%), followed by the computers and electronics industry (24.1%) and the transport equipment industry (16.5%). We are interested in the role played by academic research and its characteristics in attracting R&D investments. With industry science linkages and influences of university research on corporate R&D most salient in geographic proximity, we need to define an appropriate geographical unit of analysis for our study. Such a suitable geographic unit is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) defined by the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and used by several federal government agencies for statistical purposes (Nussle, 2008). Each MSA contains a core urban area with at least 50,000 inhabitants. It consists of one central county plus adjacent counties with a high degree of economic integration with the central county, as measured through worker commuting ties. After each decennial census realized by the Census Bureau, the OMB revises the list of current MSAs to reflect changes in the demographic composition of such areas. Given that investments contained in our database were performed between 2003 and 2012, we use the list of MSAs released by the OMB in 2003 following the 2000 decennial census. We identify the relationships between university research and R&D investments from variation in the volume, type and quality of publications authored by university affiliated researchers across MSAs over time. We posit that an individual firm deciding on a location for a specific R&D project in a given year regards the existing state of university research in MSA regions as given. Whereas (large) domestic incumbent firms may have had an influence on university research through firm-university R&D collaborations and other interactions (Hausman, 2020), this feature will typically be not be present for foreign firms establishing an R&D unit in a region. 3.2 University research We use publications to construct indicators of university research. We assign each academic publication retrieved from Clarivate’s Web of Science (WoS) published by at least one author resident in the United States to an MSA. For each publication within WoS, the addresses of the authors are reported, which may include the state, the city and the first five digits of the zip code. We matched the zip codes to the corresponding MSA using the concordance table provided by the United States Census Bureau. For those WoS addresses that do not include zip codes, we matched on city and state names. The share of publications by resident authors in the United States that have at least one author address in an MSA is 97.1%. We take a fractional count of publications across authors in case there are coauthors based in locations other than the focal MSA or in multiple MSAs. We subsequently distinguish academic publications from publications by firms and research institutes using keyword lists (college, university) and manual validation. To take into account the relevance of scientific research for investing firms in different manufacturing industries, we use concordance tables to match publications to technology 1973 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 Educational Attainment, which is the share of the MSA population with a master’s degree. Data were retrieved from the United States Census Bureau. As data before 2005 were not available, we imputed missing values for the years 2003 and 2004 based on the series of university publications.2 We control for the level of corporate taxes by including the variable Tax, which measures the state level corporate tax rate (from taxfoundation.org). When an MSA spans multiple states, the average of the relevant states’ corporate tax levels is used. We also control for the level of R&D tax credits, employing data at the state level from Wilson (2009) and Falato and Sim (2014). Population Density is retrieved from the United States Census Bureau, as population per square mile, scaled by 1000 for ease of interpretation. The effect of Population Density might be nonlinear, as a densely populated location may allow for greater knowledge spillovers but a high level of density may also lead to congestion. Therefore, we include both linear and squared terms. To control for intra-firm co-location effects (Alcacer & Delgado, 2016; Castellani and Lavoratori, 2020), we construct the variable Previous Investment as a dummy variable taking the value 1 if the MSA already hosts an existing subsidiary of the firm, and 0 otherwise. In constructing this variable, we rely on the ORBIS database on firms’ global affiliates, as well as the information on previous investment by the focal firm contained in the fDi Markets database. All the explanatory variables are one year lagged with respect to the year of the foreign R&D investment decision to allow a response time by the investing firm. All variables except for binary variables and Population Density are taken in natural logarithms, which allows interpretation of the coefficients in conditional and mixed logit models in terms of average elasticities (Head etal., 1995).3 The correlations and descriptive statistics for the variables are presented in Table3. The correlations do not indicate multicollinearity issues. 3.5 Empirical model In order to model the location choices, where each firm chooses one MSA among the set of 354 MSAs, we employ random coefficient conditional logit models. The conditional logit model is widely used in location choice studies (e.g., Head etal., 1995). Based on a utility maximization framework, McFadden (1974) proposed modeling expected utility in terms of choices’ attributes rather than characteristics of agents making the decision. Firm characteristics that do not vary by location, such that firm or industry effects cannot be included in conditional logit models, as their value would be identical across choice such that they would drop out of the equation. This feature of the conditional logit model has led it to be regarded as inherently controlling for time-invariant firm traits such as industry (Alcacer & Chung, 2014; Li etal., 2023). Suppose investing firm f makes a location decision Yf among L alternatives. Let Ufl be the expected utility of the lth choice for the firm. Ufl is an independent random variable with a systematic component x ′ fl𝛽 , where xfl represents a vector of characteristics of the lth choice. Then the expected utility of firm’s R&D location choice is modeled in terms of the observable attributes of the choice (i.e., location; MSA) and an unobservable error term: 2 Unlike data on doctorates, the National Science Foundation does not report the number of master’s degree recipients by academic fields. 3 The average elasticity of the probability of location choice with respect to a logarithmic transformed variable can be calculated as (L−1)/L times the coefficient of the variable, where L equals the total number of location choices. 1974 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 McFadden (1974) showed that if the L alternatives are independent and identically distributed with Type I extreme-value distribution, the probability that firm f chooses to invest in MSA l is given by the following formula: The conditional logit model relies on the independence from irrelevant alternatives (IIA): the odds ratio between two alternatives is independent of changes in any other alternatives. This is an assumption that may not hold. A random coefficient mixed logit model generalizes the conditional logit, relaxes the IIA assumption, and allows for general unobserved heterogeneity in investor preferences (McFadden & Train, 2000). Because we have no priori expectations about whether certain coefficients have a random component or not, we allow all coefficients to be random (Basile etal., 2008; Chung & Alcacer, 2002; Revelt & Train, 1998; Train, 2009). The mixed logit probability is a weighted average of the conditional logit formula evaluated, with the weights provided by the density function of the random part of the parameters: g(λf). The locational choice probability has to be calculated over all possible values of λf. The mixed logit probability is therefore obtained by taking the integral of the multiplication of the conditional probability with the density functions describing the random nature of the coefficients. We follow the most general approach by allowing a normal distribution function (Basile etal., 2008; Belderbos etal., 2014; Chung & Alcacer, 2002); estimates are based on 100 simulation draws (Revelt & Train, 1998; Train, 2009), and we cluster error terms by firm. Since one of our research questions is if the role of local universities’ research in firms’ location decisions is different for research or for development investments, we estimate separate models for the two types of R&D investments (Hoetker, 2007).4 We note that the mixed logit model is actually a more general specification than an alternative branch of random coefficient models, the Latent Class Random Parameter model (Pacifico & Yoo, 2013; Rasciute & Downward, 2017). In the LCRP models the random nature of the influence is modelled at the class level only and the researcher has to predetermine which characteristics would determine class membership. In the mixed logit model, on the other hand, random influences are modelled and random parameters are estimated for each individual firm and there is no requirement to set predetermined firm characteristics that could cause preference heterogeneity. In addition, LRCP models require that variables entering the class membership model are constant across alternatives for the same agent (Pacifico & Yoo, 2013, p. 628), which does not hold for our focal influence: whether a firm invests in research or development can differ for the same firm U fl = x � fl 𝛽 + 𝜀 fl Pr �Yf=l�= exp � x� fl𝛽+𝜀fl � ∑ L k=1exp � x� fk𝛽+𝜀fk � Pr �Yf=l�=∫exp �x� fl𝛽+x� fl𝜆f� ∑ L k=1exp � x� fk𝛽+xfk�𝜆f � g�𝜆f�d�𝜆f � 4 We note that varying residual variations, compounded by the random component specification, prevent the direct comparison of coefficients of different mixed logit models (Allison, 2009; Hoetker, 2007). 1975 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlations Mean Sd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Location Choice (DV) (1) 0.0028 0.0533 GDP Per Capita (2) 36,279.63 10,484.78 0.07 Wage Costs (3) 69,809.93 9745.94 0.04 0.20 Educational Attainment (4) 9.29% 3.90% 0.06 0.48 0.18 Population Density (5) 0.29 0.47 0.11 0.33 0.13 0.26 Population density Squared (6) 0.31 2.69 0.07 0.18 0.09 0.13 0.86 Tax (7) 6.57 2.66 0.00 0.02 −0.13 0.10 0.02 0.03 R&D Tax Credit (8) 4.90 4.57 0.01 0.04 0.10 −0.10 0.11 0.09 0.30 Previous Investment (9) 0.01 0.10 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.01 0.03 Industry Establishments (10) 27.41 135.55 0.03 0.04 −0.03 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.03 Technology Fit (11) 0.99 1.05 0.10 0.41 0.09 0.31 0.43 0.18 0.02 0.05 0.15 0.18 Doctorates Fit (12) 0.14 0.30 0.04 0.21 0.07 0.38 0.19 0.08 0.01 −0.02 0.06 0.07 0.25 1976 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 Table 3 (continued) Mean Sd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Academic Research Fit (13) 1.04 1.29 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.01 0.00 −0.02 −0.02 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.13 Ratio nonUniversity Pub. (14) 37.78% 32.60% 0.00 −0.03 0.01 −0.23 −0.04 0.00 −0.05 −0.05 −0.02 −0.02 −0.13 −0.32 0.08 University Patents Fit (15) 0.42 3.58 0.01 0.03 −0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.02 −0.02 Applied Share (16) 53.91% 31.62% 0.00 −0.04 −0.06 −0.16 −0.03 −0.03 −0.02 −0.02 0.00 0.00 −0.08 −0.12 0.26 0.34 0.01 Academic Quality: Applied (17) 0.61 0.63 0.04 0.26 0.20 0.43 0.22 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.27 0.29 0.07 −0.25 0.02 −0.23 Academic Quality: Basic (18) 0.64 0.50 0.04 0.27 0.18 0.40 0.21 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.27 0.31 0.10 −0.24 0.03 −0.12 0.47 Means and standard deviations reported before logarithmic transformation 1977 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 per investment project. We conclude that the LCRP model is less suitable for our research endeavors. 4 Results 4.1 University research andR&D location choice Results of five mixed logit models are reported in Table4. In the first column, we report the model estimated on the full sample of 473 investments with only the control variables. In the second column, we add a set of university characteristics except for the focal variables, i.e., Applied Share, Academic Quality: Basic and Academic Quality: Applied. In column three, we add these focal variables. Finally, in column four and five we report models separating research and development investments. In model 1, all the control variables have the expected sign except for Wage Costs, which displays a positive effect (β = 2.172, p = 0.004). As pointed out by Crescenzi etal. (2014), wages may also proxy for the availability of skilled workers, and thus higher wages may be positively associated with location choice for high value-added functions such as R&D. Coefficients for GDP Per Capita, Previous Investment and R&D Tax Credits are all positive, while Tax does not seem to have an effect (β = −0.121, p = 0.141). The positive coefficient of Population Density and the negative coefficient of Population Density Squared suggest that firms are attracted to dense locations up to a certain point, after which congestion effects may render higher population density less attractive. The turning point of this relation is at the 95th percentile of the distribution of population density (about 3500 inhabitants per square mile). The variable Industry Establishments, as a general indicator of the level of agglomeration in the MSA, displays a positive and sizable coefficient (β = 0.721, p < 0.001), as expected. Similarly, the presence of agglomeration economies stemming from the presence of relevant technological knowledge and R&D agglomeration (Technology Fit) also exhibits a strong positive effect (β = 0.993, p < 0.001). In model 2 university related agglomeration economies stemming from labor supply (Doctorates Fit, β = 0.965, p = 0.016) and the supply of academic knowledge (Academic Research Fit, β = 0.891, p < 0.001) both display positive effects. Patenting activities by universities (University Patent Fit, β = 0.0786, p = 0.356) and academic research by other non-university actors (Ratio Non-University Publications, β = 0.395, p = 0.328) have no additional significant influence. Results of model 3 show that a focus on applied academic research attracts R&D investments, as indicated by the sizable and significant coefficient of Applied Share (β = 2.089, p = 0.004). Academic Quality: Applied also positively affects the location of R&D investments (β = 1.265, p < 0.001), but Academic Quality: Basic does not have an effect (β = 0.917, p = 0.075). 4.2 Research versusdevelopment investments We now examine differences in the locational drivers between research and development investments. The subsample models focusing on either research investments or development investments are presented in Table4, columns 4 and 5. Results suggest a major heterogeneity in the role of university research depending on the type of R&D investment. For research investments Applied Share (β = 0.959, p = 0.322) is insignificant, while for 1978 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 Table 4 Mixed logit estimates of the determinants of R&D investment location choices among MSAs Estimation results of mixed logit models. Robust standard errors clustered by parent firm, and corresponding p values in parentheses Control Basic Full Research Development GDP Per Capita 1.105 1.193 0.948 1.705 0.656 (0.000) (0.000) (0.005) (0.001) (0.055) Wage Costs 2.172 1.975 1.827 1.520 1.784 (0.004) (0.008) (0.017) (0.128) (0.037) Educational Attainment 1.269 1.174 1.133 1.318 1.066 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001) Population Density 0.530 0.542 0.534 0.921 0.451 (0.029) (0.031) (0.059) (0.077) (0.160) Population Density Squared −0.0706 −0.0718 −0.0804 −0.240 −0.0798 (0.030) (0.033) (0.196) (0.066) (0.098) Tax −0.121 −0.117 −0.0892 −0.213 −0.00510 (0.141) (0.150) (0.299) (0.284) (0.958) R&D Tax Credit 0.124 0.123 0.115 0.199 0.0511 (0.037) (0.038) (0.054) (0.059) (0.481) Previous Investment 2.147 2.129 2.103 2.252 2.024 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Industry Establishments 0.721 0.708 0.658 0.487 0.796 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Technology Fit 0.993 0.951 0.971 1.223 0.899 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Doctorates Fit 0.965 0.911 1.136 0.898 (0.016) (0.032) (0.122) (0.065) Academic Research Fit 0.891 0.862 1.010 0.825 (0.000) (0.001) (0.029) (0.011) Ratio Non-University Pubs 0.395 0.531 0.303 0.701 (0.328) (0.263) (0.674) (0.165) University Patents Fit 0.0786 0.0729 −0.767 0.164 (0.356) (0.395) (0.269) (0.063) Applied Share 2.089 0.959 2.561 (0.004) (0.322) (0.004) Academic Quality: Applied 1.265 0.677 1.518 (0.000) (0.241) (0.000) Academic Quality: Basic 0.917 2.227 0.266 (0.075) (0.001) (0.687) # Investments 473 473 473 148 325 # Alternative Choices 354 354 354 354 354 Wald Chi21086.61 1039.28 1175.32 364.09 739.25 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Significant random components Previous Investment 1.079 1.103 1.195 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) 1979 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 development investments Applied Share has a large and strongly significant coefficient (β = 2.561, p = 0.004), in support of Hypothesis 1. For research investments, Academic Quality: Basic has a substantial positive association with location decisions (β = 2.227, p = 0.001) but this is not observed for Academic Quality: Applied (β = 0.677, p = 0.241). Similarly, for development investments, Academic Quality: Applied (β = 1.518, p < 0.001) has a positive and significant coefficient, while Academic Quality: Basic has no significant influence (β = 0.266, p = 0.687). These findings support Hypothesis 2. We also observe that Academic Research Fit has roughly similar coefficients across the two models. The variable Doctorates Fit loses significance in terms of p-value in both models, which is perhaps due to the reduced number of observations. The effect sizes of the features of university research are economically relevant: the average elasticity of the probability of receiving R&D investments with respect to Academic Quality: Basic (in the research model) and Academic Quality: Applied (in the development model) are 2.2 and 1.5, respectively. The implied average elasticity of Applied Share in the development model is 2.5, and the estimated average elasticity with respect to Academic Research Fit are 1.0 and 0.8 for research and development investments, respectively. These are in the same order of magnitude or exceed the elasticities of Technology Fit or Educational Attainment. 4.3 Science‑based versusother industries The role of universities in attracting R&D investments may be contingent on the industry of the investing firms. Pavitt (1984) classified industries into four categories: supplier dominated, production intensive, and science based, where production intensive industries are further separated into scale intensive industries and specialized supplier industries. Pavitt’s taxonomy has been widely used and proven valuable for innovation research (Archibugi, 2001; Bogliacino & Pianta, 2016). In the context of our research questions on the role of university research for firm innovation and R&D location decisions, the most important distinction is between science-based industries and the other type of industries. We examine whether the role of academic research is more pronounced in science-based industries, which include the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industry and the computers and electronics industry. Results of models distinguishing between these two groups of industries are reported in Table5. Results indicate that, in line with expectations, for science-based industries, the Academic Research Fit and the quality of university research (both Academic Quality: Basic and Academic Quality: Applied) are crucial, while for the other industries a focus on applied research (i.e., Applied Share) is more important. 4.4 Supplementary analysis We conducted a number of supplementary analyses to examine the robustness of our empirical results, results of which are relegated to the electronic supplementary material. We restricted estimation to foreign firms that established their first R&D investment in the MSA, such that prior R&D activities could not potentially have influenced university research characteristics. Generally, no pronounced differences with the findings reported in Table4 were found. We also examined whether the size of the investment influences empirical results, by estimating the mixed logit model with observations weighted by an indicator of investment size. For size we use an estimate of the dollar value of the project 1980 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 provided by the fDi markets database. This delivered very similar results. Similar results were also obtained when estimating models with state fixed effects included. Finally, we examined the robustness of results to the potential presence of spatial autocorrelation. We may expect this to be a lesser concern in the context of our research for two reasons. First, the mixed logit models allow for random variations in preferences, unrestricted substitution patterns across locations, and correlations in utility (preferences) due to correlation between unobserved factors (McFadden & Train, 2000, p. 649). Hence, the estimates are robust to potential correlations in the error terms across locational choices due to these features. Second, only a minority of MSAs are located adjacent to each other, which mitigates spatial correlation. We examined the sensitivity of the results to the potential presence of spatial autocorrelation by examining models omitting MSAs where such correlation is most likely to occur: geographically adjacent or proximate MSAs. Omitting 29 MSAs with a neighboring MSA within 150 miles, results appeared robust. In addition, when we added spatial lags of a number of variables, these lags were insignificant while the estimates of the focal variable remained robust. 5 Conclusion This paper examined the role of heterogeneous academic research in attracting industrial R&D investments, distinguishing between research investments and development investments. Our findings, which focused on investments by foreign multinational firms in metropolitan areas in the U.S., confirmed that universities play an important role in attracting R&D investments. The specialization of academic research in domains relevant for the focal R&D investment and the supply of doctoral students with relevant specialization both have a positive association with firms’ R&D location decisions. We found support for our hypotheses that the role of university characteristics differs depending on whether firms invest in research or development. While an applied research orientation is generally associated with a greater attractiveness of the MSA to R&D investments, such attractiveness is not present in the case of research investments. Research activities are attracted by the academic quality of basic research, whilst development investments are attracted by the orientation towards applied research and the academic quality of applied research. We conclude that, in order to understand the role of university research in R&D location choices of firms, it is crucial to take into account both the heterogeneity in academic research and the heterogeneity in firms’ R&D investments. Our research contributes to the literature on technology transfer literature and industry-science linkages, in particular the literature on the effects of academic research on corporate innovation (Cassiman et al., 2008; Grimaldi et al., 2011; Hausman, 2020; Perkmann etal., 2013; Zahringer etal., 2017), by providing novel insights to the role of basic versus applied university research. Our finding that the heterogeneity of academic research with respect to academic quality, specialization, and basic vs. applied orientation attracts different types of R&D investments suggests a more nuanced perspective on the role of universities as a positive force in firms’ R&D investments, adding to previous evidence suggesting a predominant importance of applied university research (Ali & Gittelman, 2016; Baba etal., 2009; Rothaermel & Hess, 2007; Subramanian etal., 2013). Our finding on the positive role of the academic quality of university research— including basic scientific research—for corporate R&D suggest that the logics in 1981 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 Table 5 Mixed logit estimates of the determinants of R&D investment location choices among MSAs: science based industries versus other industries Full Research Development Science based industry Other industries Science based industry Other industries Science based industry Other industries GDP Per Capita 1.223 0.826 1.218 2.547 1.228 0.382 (0.003) (0.051) (0.067) (0.013) (0.018) (0.404) Wage Costs 0.883 3.015 0.972 1.993 0.833 2.443 (0.291) (0.002) (0.484) (0.225) (0.442) (0.030) Educational Attainment 0.806 1.204 0.943 1.506 0.881 1.180 (0.014) (0.001) (0.037) (0.015) (0.053) (0.017) Population Density 0.510 0.630 1.270 8.362 −0.132 0.759 (0.127) (0.168) (0.038) (0.000) (0.738) (0.160) Population Density Squared −0.115 −0.132 −0.186 −6.012 0.00984 −0.128 (0.047) (0.146) (0.039) (0.000) (0.895) (0.142) Tax −0.0189 −0.0763 −0.0268 −0.390 −0.0716 0.0372 (0.895) (0.444) (0.932) (0.049) (0.642) (0.764) R&D Tax Credit 0.107 0.0915 0.177 0.244 0.0865 0.0262 (0.203) (0.266) (0.211) (0.144) (0.431) (0.775) PreviousInvestment 2.011 2.493 2.455 2.446 1.316 2.152 (0.000) (0.000) (0.002) (0.001) (0.047) (0.000) Industry Establishments 0.657 0.759 0.279 1.026 0.910 0.736 (0.000) (0.000) (0.127) (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) Technology Fit 0.617 0.985 0.765 1.318 0.714 0.920 (0.044) (0.000) (0.069) (0.002) (0.067) (0.000) Doctorates Fit 1.250 0.876 1.638 1.235 0.539 1.033 (0.031) (0.085) (0.045) (0.346) (0.446) (0.121) Academic Research Fit 1.589 0.933 1.631 1.150 1.392 0.680 (0.026) (0.002) (0.176) (0.039) (0.187) (0.161) 1982 R.Belderbos et al. 1 3 Estimation results of mixed logit models. Robust standard errors clustered by parent firm, and corresponding p values in parentheses Table 5 (continued) Full Research Development Science based industry Other industries Science based industry Other industries Science based industry Other industries Ratio Non-University Pubs 0.904 0.275 1.403 −2.212 0.460 0.954 (0.150) (0.600) (0.148) (0.058) (0.574) (0.124) University Patents Fit −2.421 0.0168 −6.172 −1.612 −1.826 0.0786 (0.110) (0.900) (0.055) (0.026) (0.250) (0.528) Applied Share −0.248 3.051 −0.904 3.249 0.142 3.292 (0.824) (0.005) (0.556) (0.016) (0.930) (0.007) Academic Quality: Applied 1.538 1.250 2.280 0.234 0.577 1.651 (0.001) (0.001) (0.000) (0.828) (0.449) (0.000) Academic Quality: Basic 2.073 −0.0555 2.489 1.495 1.762 −0.443 (0.002) (0.940) (0.015) (0.252) (0.047) (0.579) # R&D Investments 232 241 86 62 146 179 # Alternative Choices 354 354 354 354 354 354 Wald Chi2 565.89 639.75 292.76 231.52 498.96 468.37 (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) Significant Random Components Wage Costs 3.476 (0.000) Population Density 6.607 0.254 (0.000) (0.047) Previous Investment 1.088 1.988 2.113 1.224 (0.035) (0.000) (0.003) (0.024) 1989 Heterogeneous university research andfirm R&D location… 1 3 Scandura, A., & Iammarino, S. (2022). Academic engagement with industry: The role of research quality and experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47(4), 1000–1036. Schmoch, U., Laville, F., Patel, P., & Frietsch, R. (2003). Linking technology areas to industrial sectors. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Research, 1, 100. Shimizutani, S., & Todo, Y. (2008). What determines overseas R&D activities? The case of Japanese multinational firms. Research Policy, 37(3), 530–544. Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: Time for a rethink? British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582–595. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 14678551. 12116 Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45(8), 1109–1124. Simeth, M., & Raffo, J. D. (2013). What makes companies pursue an open science strategy? Research Policy, 42(9), 1531–1543. Subramanian, A. M., Lim, K., & Soh, P.-H. (2013). When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances. Research Policy, 42(3), 595–612. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2012. 12. 002 Suzuki, S., Belderbos, R., & Kwon, H. U. (2017). The location of multinational firms’ R&D activities abroad: Hostcountry university research, university–industry collaboration, and R&D heterogeneity. Advances in Strategic Management, 36, 125–159. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2002). Who is selling the ivory tower? Sources of growth in university licensing. Management Science, 48(1), 90–104. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 48.1. 90. 14271 Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2011). Has the Bayh–Dole act compromised basic research? Research Policy, 40(8), 1077–1083. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2011. 05. 009 Toole, A. A. (2012). The impact of public basic research on industrial innovation: Evidence from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 41(1), 1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2011. 06. 004 Train, K. E. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Veugelers, R., & Wang, J. (2019). Scientific novelty and technological impact. Research Policy, 48(6), 1362– 1372. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2019. 01. 019 Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem-solving—Implications for innovation. Management Science, 40(4), 429–439. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 40.4. 429 von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31(4), 569–588. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s00487333(01) 00125-1 Wang, M., Soetanto, D., Cai, J., & Munir, H. (2022). Scientist or Entrepreneur? Identity centrality, university entrepreneurial mission, and academic entrepreneurial intention. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47, 119–146. Wang, J., & Verberne, S. (2021). Two tales of science technology linkage: Patent in-text versus front-page references. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2103. 08931. Wilson, D. J. (2009). Beggar thy neighbor? The in-state, out-of-state, and aggregate effects of R&D tax credits. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2), 431–436. Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188–1204. Zahringer, K., Kolympiris, C., & Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2017). Academic knowledge quality differentials and the quality of firm innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 26(5), 821–844. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ icc/ dtw050 Zanfei, A. (2000). Transnational firms and the changing organisation of innovative activities. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24(5), 515–542. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ cje/ 24.5. 515 Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138–153. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 48.1. 138. 14274 Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 88(1), 290–306. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 116831 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.