Knowledge networks across Europe: which distance matters?

Abstract

R12, F14, D85, O31,

A Network-based view of regional growth

“…Therefore, despite the recognised importance of spatial proximity to network development, there is an increasing emphasis on the importance of understanding networks and knowledge flows in an environment that is simultaneously local and global (Simard and West, 2006;Andersson and. Karlsson, 2007;Lorentzen, 2008;Van Geenhuizen, 2008;Maggioni and Uberti, 2009;Broekel and Boschma, 2011;Laursen et al, 2011). In particular, globalisation and technological progress are considered to spur openness in the innovation process across the globe by expanding the extent of the market, allowing for increased divisions of labour and providing new ways to collaborate and coordinate across geographical distances (Gassmann, 2006;Drejer and Lund Vinding, 2007;Moodysson, 2008;Crevoisier and Jeannerat 2009;Trippl et al, 2009;Dahlander and Gann, 2010).…”

“…In an effort to reify an understanding of the nature of knowledge flow, and perhaps better align knowledge spillover and cumulative causation theories of growth, the role of inter-organisational networks as facilitators of knowledge flow has increasingly come to prominence across the economics, geography and management fields (Zucker et al, 2007;Tappeiner et al, 2008;Maggioni and Uberti, 2009;Bergenholtz and Waldstrøm, 2011;Colombo et al, 2011). Inter-organisational networks in this sense are defined as consisting of the interactions and relationships organisations (principally firms) utilise to access knowledge beyond their market relationships.…”

Embedding network analysis in spatial studies of innovation

“…Although fewer countries are observed, the contrasting network flows between five large European countries studied by Maggioni and Uberti (2008) provide an international study of multiple network architectures by eliminating the intracountry links, which Paci and Usai (2008) found to be losing influence. Maggioni and Uberti model evidence of international knowledge flows represented by Internet hyperlinks, EPO copatent applications, Erasmus student mobility, and European research networks at NUTS 2 level regions.…”

“…The possibility raised by Maggioni and Uberti (2008) that collaborative knowledge flows may now track distinct core-periphery trajectories is explicitly investigated by Hoekman et al (2008). They study the evidence of international copatenting and copublication across the 1316 NUTS 3 regions of 29 European countries to detect whether collaboration is dominated by either national capitol regions or regions associated with innovative and scientific excellence.…”

Barriers to cross-region research and development collaborations in Europe: evidence from the fifth European Framework Programme

“…As in Ponds et al (2007), Hoekman et al (2009), Maggioni andUberti (2009), Barber (2009, 2011), we adopt a spatial interaction modelling perspective to estimate the barrier effects. The study area is composed of 255 NUTS-2 regions that cover the pre-2007 member states of the European Union (excluding Malta and Cyprus), as well as Norway and Switzerland.…”