This paper examines empirically whether firms located in strong industrial clusters are more innovative than firms located outside these regions. The study performs a firm-level analysis for two countries: Italy and the United Kingdom. European patent data for the period 1990-98 are used as indicator of firms' innovative activity, and are related to employment in the region where the firms are located, and other cluster-specific and firm-specific variables. The main result of the paper is that clustering alone is not conducive to higher innovative performance. Whereas location in a cluster densely populated by other innovative firms positively affects the likelihood of innovating, quite strong disadvantages seem to arise from the presence of non-innovative firms in a firm's own industrial sector. Regarding the impact of other industrial sectors, preliminary results seem to indicate, in the case of Italy, that a strong presence of firms in other related industries spurs innovative performance.

This article studies the impact of collaboration and co-inventorship network characteristics of Canadian nanotechnology inventors on the quality of their inventions. We investigate the impact of four types of variables on patent quality, using the number of claims as a proxy for quality: (a) the presence of highly central inventors; (b) the presence of star inventors; (c) repeated collaboration; (d) international collaboration. We show that the presence of more central inventors and of stars in the research team has a positive influence on patent quality, while repeated collaboration has a negative impact. Patents owned by foreign organisations, controlling for whether assignees are firm, yields patents of higher quality.

In most countries, basic research is supported by research councils that select, after peer review, the individuals or teams that are to receive funding. Unfortunately, the number of grants these research councils can allocate is not infinite and, in most cases, a minority of the researchers receive the majority of the funds. However, evidence as to whether this is an optimal way of distributing available funds is mixed. The purpose of this study is to measure the relation between the amount of funding provided to 12,720 researchers in Québec over a 15-year period (1998–2012) and their scientific output and impact from 2000 to 2013. Our results show that in terms of both the quantity of papers produced and their scientific impact, the concentration of research funding in the hands of the so-called ‘elite’ of researchers generally produces diminishing marginal returns. Also, we find that the most funded researchers do not stand out in terms of output and scientific impact.