The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry

Giuliani, Elisa

doi:10.1093/jeg/lbl014

Cited by 618 publications

(594 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

512

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to Giuliani (2007) who finds that business networks are more pervasive than knowledge networks, I could not find evidence of widespread business relationships in the Cambridge IT Cluster.…”

contrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Instead this supports a more critical view that knowledge networks can be selective (Giuliani, 2007;Morrison and Rabellotti, 2009;Østergaard, 2009), and more fundamentally, even in an innovative technology cluster the sourcing of knowledge from the Cluster environment can be very limited. Furthermore, Table 2 also illustrates that R&D Managers and Managing Directors benefit more from the Cluster (median: '3') than 'pure' engineers or developers (median: '5').…”

mentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Many assumptions in the literature actually remain untested as highlighted, for instance, by Breschi and Lissoni (2001a) or Döring and Schnellenbach (2006). Whilst a few recent empirical contributions have suggested that the knowledge advantages of clusters might not be that clear-cut (Giuliani, 2007;Moodysson, 2008), more empirical research is needed to clarify the role of clusters for knowledge flows.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers

Huber

2011

Journal of Economic Geography

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A widespread assumption in economic geography and the economics of innovation is that firms located in clusters benefit from territorial learning and knowledge spillovers. However, it remains unclear to what extent these benefits actually occur. This paper aims to address this issue and examines to what extent research and development (R&D) workers in the Cambridge Information Technology (IT) Cluster benefit from being located in the Cluster. The study shows why many do not believe that their work benefits from being located in the Cluster. The results suggest that academics as well as policy makers need to be more careful with the assumption of technological knowledge spillovers in innovative clusters. The significant advantages of the Cambridge IT Cluster seem to be of a different nature; in particular they concern labour market advantages and benefits from the global 'brand' of Cambridge.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers

Huber

2011

Journal of Economic Geography

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At least three forms of knowledge spillovers can be distinguished (Boschma and Frenken 2006): spin-off firms, labour mobility, and R&D collaboration. These topics have been addressed systematically in empirical research (Uzzi 1996;Almeida and Kogut 1999;Breschi and Lissoni 2003;Giuliani 2007;Klepper 2007;Ponds et al 2007;Morrison 2008). In particular, two findings stand out (Burger et al 2009):…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From innovation to commercialization through networks and agglomerations: analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study claims that policy makers may not be sufficiently aware of the importance of maintaining an appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation networks for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). On the basis of the open innovation model, policy makers are also increasingly stimulating SMEs to develop their exploration skills. In the Netherlands, a government subsidy called the 'innovation voucher programme' was introduced to stimulate SMEs to develop innovation in cooperation with knowledge institutes. Yet, although many studies show that SMEs tend to have a higher R&D productivity than larger firms, and innovative SMEs are more likely to make external networks with other SMEs or institutions such as universities, there is still little examination of the successfulness of SME's innovation activities. The growing policy attention for the role of SMEs in innovation prompts the questions how innovation in SMEs can be facilitated, and which factors contribute to the success (or failure) of their innovation efforts. This study explores the innovation strategy of innovative Dutch SMEs by means of their sources of innovation, innovation capabilities, innovation performance, and commercialization sources. By means of structural equation modelling of a sample of 243 Dutch SMEs, this study shows that exploring (technology) opportunity together with institutions such as universities and private research establishments is important for successful innovation in SMEs. But, in addition, our model shows that contacts with competitors are also important for successful innovation performance. Our finding that openness of open innovation also applies to the commercialization phase is too often neglected by researchers and policy makers. JEL Classification

show abstract

“…Furthermore, the proximity to scientific institutions and firms within the same or related industries results in the existence of a common knowledge spillover pool. Nevertheless, spatial proximity per se is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for knowledge spillovers (Giuliani 2007, Breschi & Lissoni 2009). The exploitation of existing innovation potentials in certain regions and the efficiency of the regional innovation system depends heavily on the degree of networking among regional actors (Koschatzky 2000, Sternberg 2000, Fritsch & Eickelpasch 2005.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Induced Innovation Networks: The Case of the German “Leading-Edge Cluster Competition”

Cantner

Graf

Hinzmann

2013

The Geography of Networks and R&D Collaborations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe last decades saw a pronounced shift in innovation policy in Germany and many other countries towards increased funding of cooperative R&D. Over the last years, competitions between regional initiatives pushed this trend even further by adding a regional perspective, by increasing the scope of funding, and by fostering interaction between a large number of actors. In 2008 the German ministry for education and research (BMBF) started the "Leading-Edge Cluster competition" ("Spitzencluster-Wettbewerb") in which 15 clusters were selected in three waves (2008, 2010, 2012) and are funded for a five-year period with up to 40 million Euro each. Our paper presents selected results regarding the influence of government funding on cooperation networks within five of the clusters that were successful in the first wave of the "SpitzenclusterWettbewerb". More specifically, we analyse the extent of policy influence on the network of most important cooperation partners, its geographic reach, and the changes of network structure in general. Our empirical analysis is based on original data that was collected in 2011 with cluster actors (firms and public research) who received government funding. Our results indicate that the program was quite effective in initiating new cooperations between cluster actors and in intensifying existing linkages. The vast majority of the linkages which are influenced by the cluster competition are between actors located in the cluster region. With respect to the influence of the cluster competition on network structure, we find an increase in network centralization. Small and medium sized enterprises used the chance to connect with the local 'stars', but not as much among each other.

show abstract

The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry

Cited by 618 publications

References 58 publications

Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers

Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers

From innovation to commercialization through networks and agglomerations: analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs

Policy Induced Innovation Networks: The Case of the German “Leading-Edge Cluster Competition”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About