Keywords
public universities
knowledge sources
knowledge transfer
How to Cite
Abstract
This article examines the spatial concentration of granted patents in Poland from 2020 to 2024, focusing on the role of public and ecclesiastical universities in fostering innovation. The study assesses whether higher education institutions serve as key centers of knowledge creation and technological advancement and explores regional disparities in patenting activity. Given the importance of intellectual property as a measure of a country’s innovation capacity, understanding the geographic distribution of patents can provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of knowledge transfer, commercialization of research, and regional innovation ecosystems.
The analysis reveals that Poland’s patenting activity is heavily concentrated in a few major academic and economic centers. The highest number of granted patents was recorded in Warsaw (1,239), followed by Kraków (1,052), Lublin (711), Wrocław (653), and Poznań (529). These cities demonstrate a high correlation between the number of patents and the presence of universities, indicating the significant role of academic institutions in fostering technological progress.
This analysis examines the relative intensity of patenting activity in five major Polish academic centers by assessing two additional indicators: the number of patents per 100,000 inhabitants and the number of patents per university. Lublin demonstrates the highest values in both metrics, indicating a particularly strong academic contribution to patent production relative to its population size and institutional base. These findings suggest a concentrated and efficient innovation system in Lublin, with universities serving as key drivers of knowledge commercialization. In the analyzed urban centers, universities constitute the primary source of patenting activity, accounting for a significant share of all granted patents: Warsaw – 31%, Kraków – 48%, Lublin – 56%, Wrocław – 36%, and Poznań – 41%. In contrast, other institutions such as business incubators and technology parks play a relatively marginal role in the overall structure of patent generation.
A key finding of this study is the pronounced regional disparity in patenting activity. Western and central Poland exhibit significantly higher patenting rates compared to the eastern regions, with Lublin being a notable exception. The spatial concentration of patents in a limited number of metropolitan areas highlights the uneven distribution of innovative potential across the country. The relatively low number of granted patents in smaller cities and rural areas suggests that the benefits of innovation are not evenly distributed and that certain regions may face structural barriers to technological development. These disparities may stem from a variety of factors, including differences in industrial structures, access to research infrastructure, and the extent of collaboration between academia and industry.
The results of the study confirm that universities play a crucial role in the national innovation system, but their impact varies depending on the efficiency of technology transfer mechanisms. The analysis of regional innovation strategies reveals significant variation in how Polish voivodeships conceptualize the role of universities in knowledge creation and patenting. Notably, the Lublin region demonstrates the highest relative intensity of patent activity – both per capita and per university – which aligns with its strategic emphasis on academic institutions as central actors in regional innovation systems. In cities with strong innovation ecosystems, such as Warsaw and Kraków, patenting activity is driven by well-developed research and development (R&D) infrastructure, robust cooperation between universities and the private sector, and access to financial resources. Conversely, in regions with weaker innovation networks, the presence of universities alone does not necessarily translate into high levels of patenting activity.
References
Acs Z.J., Audretsch D.B., Feldman M.P. 1994. Research-and-development spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2): 336-340. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2109888
Archibugi D., Pianta M. 1992. Specialization and Size of Technological Activities in Industrial Countries: The Analysis of Patent Data. Research Policy, 21(1): 79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(92)90028-3
Arrow K.J. 1962. The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing. The Review of Economic Studies., 29(3): 155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2295952
Arrow K.J. 1969. Classificatory Notes on the Production and Transmission of Technological Knowledge. The American Economic Review, 59(2): 29-35.
Autant-Bernard C. 2001. The Geography Of Knowledge Spillovers And Technological Proximity. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 10(4): 237-254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10438590100000010
Balland P.-A., Jara-Figueroa C., Petralia S.G., Steijn M.P.A., Rigby D.L., Hidalgo C.A. 2020. Complex Economic Activities Concentrate in Large Cities. Nature Human Behaviour. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0803-3
Barbieri N., Ramaciotti L., Rizzo U. 2022. The Relationship between R&D Knowledge Spillovers and Employment Entry. The Annals of Regional Science. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-022-01182-2
Bobowski S., Kuźmińska-Haberla A. 2022. Charakterystyka ekosystemu startupowego Wrocławia. [W:] A. Kuźmińska-Haberla, S. Bobowski (red.), Rola ekosystemu w rozwoju startupów. Przypadek Wrocławia. Wroclaw University of Economics and Business, s. 128-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15611/2022.09.1.05
Boschma R. 2015. Do Spinoff Dynamics or Agglomeration Externalities Drive Industry Clustering? A Reappraisal of Steven Klepper’s Work. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(4): 859-873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv024
Boschma R., Balland P.-A., Kogler D.F. 2015. Relatedness and Technological Change in Cities: The Rise and Fall of Technological Knowledge in US Metropolitan Areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1): 223-250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtu012
Boschma R., Frenken K. 2011. Technological Relatedness and Regional Branching. [W:] H. Bathelt, M. Feldman, D.F. Kogler (red.), Beyond territory: dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion, and innovation. Routledge, London, s. 64-81.
Boschma R., Minondo A., Navarro M. 2013. The Emergence of New Industries at the Regional Level in Spain: A Proximity Approach Based on Product Relatedness. Economic Geography, 89(1): 29-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2012.01170.x
Davidsson P., Recker J., von Briel F. 2022. External Enablers of Entrepreneurship. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.383
Feldman M.P. 1994. The Geography of Innovation. Springer, Dordrecht, London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3333-5
Festel G. 2013. Academic Spin-Offs, Corporate Spin-Outs and Company Internal Start-Ups as Technology Transfer Approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4): 454-470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9256-9
Fritsch M., Wyrwich M. 2021. Is Innovation (Increasingly) Concentrated in Large Cities? An International Comparison. Research Policy, 50(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104237
Grossman G.M., Helpman E. 1991. Innovation and Growth in the Global Economy (with Gene M. Grossman). The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Jacobs J. 1969. The Economy of Cities. Random House, New York.
Jaffe A.B., Trajtenberg M. 2002. Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5263.001.0001
Klinger B., Lederman D. 2006. Diversification, Innovation, and Imitation inside the Global Technological Frontier. Policy Research Working Paper, 3872. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-3872
Kogler D.F., Heimeriks G., Leydesdorff L. 2016. Patent Portfolio Analysis of Cities: Statistics and Maps of Technological Inventiveness. arXiv:1612.05810 [Cs].
Kogler D.F., Rigby D.L., Tucker I. 2013. Mapping Knowledge Space and Technological Relatedness in US Cities. European Planning Studies, 21(9): 1374-1391. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.755832
Kuznets S. 1962. Inventive Activity: Problems of Definition and Measurement. [W:] The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., s. 19-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400879762-002
Machlup F. 1972. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States. Princeton Univ. Pr., Princeton.
Machlup F. 1984. Knowledge – Its Creation, Distribution and Economic Significance: The Economics of ... Information and Human Capital. Princeton Univ Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400856022
Marshall A. 1890. Principles of Economics. Vol. 1. Macmillan and Co., London, New York.
Mewes L., Broekel T. 2020. Technological Complexity and Economic Growth of Regions. Research Policy, 104156.
Mewes L., Broekel T. 2022. Technological Complexity and Economic Growth of Regions. Research Policy, 51(8). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104156
Miles I.D., Belousova V., Chichkanov N., Krayushkina Z. 2021. Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in Time of Crisis: The Coronavirus Pandemic. Foresight, 23(2): 125-153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-07-2020-0066
Nelson R.R., Sidney G.W. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
PARP 2013. Systemy innowacji w Polsce. Raport z badań. Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości.
Pylak K. i in. 2022. Analiza i wyznaczenie pokrewnej różnorodności branż tj. branż pokrewnych, których rozwój może być wspierany w ramach Mazowieckiego Systemu Innowacji. Urząd Marszałkowski Województwa Mazowieckiego w Warszawie.
Rivkin J.W. 2000. Imitation of Complex Strategies. Management Science, 46(6): 824-844. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.6.824.11940
Runiewicz-Wardyn M. 2020. W kierunku otwartych ekosystemów innowacji w Polsce: szanse i wyzwania. Kwartalnik Nauk o Przedsiębiorstwie, 55(2): 15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33119/KNoP.2020.55.2.2
Saxenian A.L. 1996. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 16(3): 146-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769601600314
Schumpeter J.A. 1912. Theorie Der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Verlag von Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig.
Solow R.M. 1956. A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1): 65-94. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1884513
Teece D.J. 1977. Technology Transfer by Multinational Firms: The Resource Cost of Transferring Technological Know-How. The Economic Journal, 87(346): 242. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2232084
Teece D.J. 2007. Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Microfoundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13): 1319-1350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
Trippl M. 2013. Scientific Mobility and Knowledge Transfer at the Interregional and Intraregional Level. Regional Studies, 47(10): 1653-1667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.549119
Trippl M., Grillitsch M., Isaksen A. 2017. Exogenous Sources of Regional Industrial Change: Attraction and Absorption of Non-Local Knowledge for New Path Development. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132517700982
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Arleta Kędra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.