Conflict and Knowledge Flows: Evidence From the 9/11 Attacks

Conflict and Knowledge Flows: Evidence From the 9/11 Attacks

Summary

This paper uses the 9/11 attacks as an unexpected geopolitical shock to measure how conflict-induced trust erosion affects cross-border knowledge flows. Using PATSTAT (1990–2015) for patent citations and collaborations, and Bureau van Dijk’s Orbis (Q1 2001–Q4 2003) for patent transactions and grant outcomes, the authors show a marked reduction in knowledge flows between NATO countries and Muslim-majority countries after 9/11. The decline is strongest in high-trust sectors and in patents involving Muslim inventors. The evidence points to trust erosion — rather than trade, FDI or migration — as the primary mechanism, with pre-existing strong ties to NATO partly mitigating the effect.

Key Points

• The 9/11 shock led to significant reductions in patent citations and collaborations between NATO and Muslim-majority countries.
• Declines were larger in sectors and patents where trust matters more (“high-trust” sectors) and for patents involving Muslim inventors.
• Evidence suggests trust erosion, not conventional economic channels (trade, FDI, migration), drove the drop in knowledge flows.
• Countries with stronger pre-existing ties to NATO experienced smaller declines, indicating network ties can buffer trust shocks.
• Datasets: PATSTAT (1990–2015) for citations/collaboration; Orbis (Q1 2001–Q4 2003) for patent transactions and grant outcomes; the design exploits the unexpected timing of 9/11 as a quasi-experiment.

Content Summary

The authors construct cross-country measures of knowledge flows from patent citation and collaboration records and examine short- and medium-term changes around the 9/11 attacks. They document asymmetric patterns: the fall in knowledge flows is concentrated on links between NATO countries and Muslim-majority countries and is most pronounced in contexts where personal and intergroup trust is important for collaboration and knowledge exchange. The paper controls for alternative channels (trade, FDI, migration) and finds these do not explain the observed pattern. Where bilateral ties to NATO were already strong, the negative effects are attenuated, suggesting existing institutional and network relationships can partially offset trust shocks. The findings imply persistent geopolitical events can leave lasting scars on the international circulation of ideas.

Context and Relevance

This research speaks to broader debates about how geopolitics shapes innovation: if trust is a fragile but central ingredient for cross-border knowledge exchange, rising geopolitical tensions and identity-based backlash can fragment global innovation networks. The paper complements recent work on how conflict, political identity and international relations influence trade and knowledge diffusion, and is especially relevant amid contemporary concerns about decoupling, nationalism, and targeted restrictions on scientific collaboration.

Why should I read this?

Short version: if you’re interested in how politics can actually choke off innovation, this is a neat, data-driven read. It uses patents as a proxy for idea flows and treats 9/11 as a natural experiment — showing that trust (not just tariffs or capital flows) matters for whether ideas cross borders. Read it if you care about innovation policy, international research collaboration, or the unintended consequences of geopolitical shocks. The authors have done the heavy lifting so you don’t have to — they parse the mechanism cleanly and show where ties can protect knowledge exchange.

Source

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/roie.70034?af=R