Multiple economic development theories suggest that research and innovation in emerging technologies will cluster in certain locations rather than being equally distributed among all regions. If this is the case, this distributional pattern has implications for where future economic opportunities and future risks will be concentrated. In this article, the authors probe nanotechnology research and commercialization at a regional level. The study examines the top 30 U.S. “nanodistricts,” or metropolitan areas that lead in nanotechnology research activity, during the 1990 to 2006 time frame. The authors explore the factors underlying the emergence of these 30 metropolitan areas through exploratory cluster analysis. The results indicate that although most of the leading nanodistricts are similar to top cities in previous rounds of emerging technologies, new geographic concentrations of nanotechnology research have surfaced as a result of having made concentrated investments in nanotechnology R&D into a single institution.
Agrawal, A., & Cockburn, I. (2003). The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1227-1253.
2.
Aharonson, B., Baum, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Industrial clustering and the returns to inventive activity: Canadian biotechnology firms, 1991-2000 (Working Paper 04-03). Aahlborg, Denmark: Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics.
3.
Aldenderfer, M., & Blashfield, R. (1984). Cluster analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4.
Audretsch, D., & Feldman, M. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630-640.
5.
Audretsch, D., & Stephan, P. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 86(3), 641-652.
6.
Boschma, R.A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment . Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
7.
Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. (2002). A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy , 31, 769-794.
8.
Cortright, J., & Mayer, H. (2002). Signs of life: The growth of biotechnology centers in the U.S. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9.
Davenport, S., & Daellenbach, U. (2006, March). Building a "nanonation"? The role of the MacDiarmid Institute in New Zealand. Paper presented at the Workshop on Mapping the Emergence of Nanotechnologies and Understanding the Engine of Growth and Development, Grenoble, France.
10.
Dosi, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. (2005, June). Evaluating and comparing the innovation performance of the United States and the European Union. Paper prepared for the TrendChart Policy Workshop, Brussels , Belgium.
11.
Fuchs, G., & Shapira, P. (Eds.). (2005). Rethinking regional innovation and change. Path dependency or regional breakthrough?Boston: Springer.
12.
Geiger, R.L., & Hallacher, P. (2005). Nanotechnology and the states: Public policy, university research, and economic development in Pennsylvania (National Science Foundation Grant 0403783). University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Center for the Study of Higher Education.
13.
Glanzel, W., Thijs, B., & Schlemmer, B. (2004). A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication. Scientometrics , 59(1), 63-77.
14.
Heinze, T. (2006, March). Mapping the evolution of nano S&T: Analytical and empirical tools. Paper presented at workshop on Mapping the Emergence of Nanotechnologies and Understanding the Engine of Growth and Development, Grenoble, France.
15.
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 108(3), 557-598.
16.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483-499.
17.
Lux Research. (2006). The nanotechnology report (4th ed.). New York: Author.
18.
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (1997). Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industry agglomeration. European Planning Studies, 3, 24-41.
19.
Mangematin, V. (2006, March). Emergence of science districts and divergent technology: The case of nanotechnologies. Paper presented at workshop on Mapping the Emergence of Nanotechnologies and Understanding the Engine of Growth and Development, Grenoble, France.
20.
Mangematin, V., Rip, A., Delemarle, A., & Robinson, D.K.R. (2005). The role of regional institutional entrepreneurs in the emergence of clusters in nanotechnologies (Working Paper 2005-15). Grenoble, France: Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory.
21.
National Science & Technology Council. ( 2007). The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and development leading to a revolution in technology and industry (Supplement to the president's 2008 budget). Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology, Committee on Technology, National Science and Technology Council.
22.
Noyons, E., Buter, R., van Raan, A., Schmoch, U., Heinze, T., Hinze, S., et al. (2003). Mapping excellence in science and technology across Europe, nanoscience and nanotechnology (EC-PPN CT-2002-0001). Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
23.
Office of Management and Budget. (2006). Update of statistical area definitions and guidance on their uses (OMB Bulletin No. 07-01). Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
24.
Porter, A., Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Schoeneck, D. (2008, May). Refining search terms for nanotechnology . Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10, 715-728.
25.
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2005). The national nanotechnology initiative at five years: Assessment and recommendations of the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
26.
Rogers, J., & Bozeman, B. (2001). Knowledge value alliances: An alternative to the R&D project focus in evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values, 26(1), 23-55.
27.
Rosenfeld, S. (1992). Competitive manufacturing: New strategies for regional development. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR Press.
28.
Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2007). Case study-R&D policy in the United States: The promotion of nanotechnology R&D. Mannheim, Germany: ZEW.
29.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Mohapatra, S. (2003). Linking research production and development outcomes at the regional level. Research Evaluation, 12(1), 105-116.
30.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Annual estimates of the population of combined statistical areas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CBSA-EST2006-02). Washington, DC : Author.
31.
Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2007). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 123-130.
32.
Zucker, L.G., & Darby, M.R. (2005). Socio-economic impact of nanoscale science: Initial results and nanobank (Working Paper No. 11181). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
33.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., & Brewer, M. (1998). Intellectual human capital and the birth of U.S. biotechnology enterprises. American Economic Review, 81(1), 290-306.
34.
Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., Liu, R., & Ma, H. (2007). Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Research Policy, 36, 850-863.
