How proximity matters in innovation networks dynamics along the cluster evolution. A study of the high technology applied to cultural goods

Lazzeretti, Luciana; Capone, Francesco

doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.068

Cited by 124 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In terms of social proximity, the regression coefficients of model 4 and model 5 in Table , are positive and statistically significant at p < 0.01, suggesting that countries are more likely to connect to partners of partners. This result is in line with existing studies showing that social proximity measured through the inverse of geodesic distance or transitivity has a positive role (Lazzeretti and Capone ; Ter Wal ; Usai, Marrocu, and Paci ). Multinational partnerships reduce the network distance between any two countries, that is, indirect ties turn into direct ties, which can enhance the efficiency of knowledge transmission.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The two models show that the coefficient of geographical proximity changes from 912.3651 in 2000–2004 to 556.3179 in 2010–2014, which means that the importance of geographical proximity would decrease over time. This result corroborates finding in German biotechnology networks (Ter Wal ), patent collaborations between European regions (Cappelli and Montobbio ) and inter‐organizational networks of Tuscany (Lazzeretti and Capone ). In the context of information and globalization, information communication technology and low‐cost travel facilitate knowledge exchange (Cassi, Morrison, and Rabellotti ).…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International Knowledge Flows and the Role of Proximity

Gui¹,

Liu²,

Du³

2018

Growth and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

International knowledge flows have become increasingly common and more frequent and are a key driving force promoting the development of global science. However, little attention has been paid to the determinants of international scientific collaboration. Using co‐publication data from the Web of Science database in the period 2000–2014, this paper illustrates spatial patterns of international knowledge flows and estimates the impact of geographical, technological, social, and cultural proximity on the variation of inter‐country collaboration in science. Our findings demonstrate that the coefficients of the four dimensions of proximity are positive and significant in panel estimates and cross‐section estimates—international knowledge flows are facilitated by geographical, technological, social, and cultural proximity. We also find that the effect of geographical and cultural proximity have waned over time, while the impact of social and technological proximity have strengthened.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

International Knowledge Flows and the Role of Proximity

Gui¹,

Liu²,

Du³

2018

Growth and Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the economic geography literature, many recent empirical studies show that spatial proximity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for cooperation and innovation: too much proximity can harm innovative performance. This is known as the ‘proximity paradox

^{'}

(Broekel and Boschma, ; Lazzeretti and Capone, ). This paper provides a theoretical framework through which the role of proximity in innovation can be understood or debated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Location and research activities organization: Could public/private cooperation be harmful?

Cabon-Dhersin

Taugourdeau

2018

Papers in Regional Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the organization and the distribution of research activities between nearby public and private laboratories. In a three‐stage game, the ‘size’, ‘locationprime and ‘research effortprime are determined under the assumption that public spillovers depend on the location of the private laboratory. We compare two scenarios in which the research efforts are decided either cooperatively or non‐cooperatively. We show that for particular levels of subsidy granted to the public lab, higher funding favours spatial proximity and increases the total research effort in the cooperative case, while it diminishes the total effort in the non‐cooperative one. Moreover, compared with the non‐cooperative case, research cooperation: (i) may increase the distance between the two laboratories; (ii) makes the public laboratory smaller; (iii) increases the total research effort; but (iv) is detrimental to the payoff of the whole research sector.

show abstract

“…Luciana Lazzeretti and Francesco Capone (2016) study the role of geographical proximity in the creation of innovation network by focusing on the case of high technologies in the agricultural industry of Tuscany. By using stochastic actor-oriented modelling, the authors prove that geographical proximity has a positive impact on innovation dynamics and on the formation of innovation clusters [7]. Doris Läpple and her co-authors (2016) also discuss the spatial aspect of knowledge transfer in agriculture by analyzing the case of agricultural innovation in Ireland and demonstrate the positive effect that the proximity of leaders of innovation has on their neighbours [8].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%