Abstract
AbstractInnovation is considered to be highly localized process. It does not appear in space uniformly, but is predominantly spatially concentrated (Crevoisier, 2004). A number of diverse theoretical and empirical frameworks have been developed to analyze spatial dimension of innovation. The theoretical approach to the relationship between innovation and local spaces was initially demonstrated in the concepts of ‘new industrial districts’ and ‘innovative milieu’. The first of them, inspired by the Marshall’s industrial district, was introduced by Becattini (Sforzi, 2015) to emphasize the dynamic linkages between the socio-cultural features of a productive community and the rate of growth of both its productivity and innovativeness (Becattini, 2002). Many theoretical considerations and empirical contributions reveal the impact of belonging to industrial districts on innovation performance (Boix et al., 2018; Boix-Domenech et al., 2019; Cainelli, 2008; Cainelli & De Liso, 2005; Muscio, 2006; Parra-Requena et al., 2020). The existence of dynamic efficiency in industrial districts in the form of positive innovation differentials with regard to the economy average, assigned to the existence of Marshallian external economies (economies of localization) is described by Boix and Galletto (2009) as an ‘I-district effect’.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference132 articles.
1. Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Kitson, M., & Savona, M. (2008). Absorptive capacity and regional patterns of innovation. Department for Innovation, Universities & Skills. Accessed from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100503135839/dius.gov.uk/policies/innovation/white-paper
2. Alecke, B., Blien, U., Frieg, L., Otto, A., & Untiedt, G. (2010). Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2000–2006 financed by the European Regional Development Fund, Work Package 6c: Enterprise support - An exploratory study using counterfactual methods on available data from Germany; Final Report [Working paper]. Accessed from https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/39281
3. Andersson, M., & Karlsson, C. (2007). Knowledge in regional economic growth—The role of knowledge accessibility. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710701252450
4. Antonelli, C., & Colombelli, A. (2017). The locus of knowledge externalities and the cost of knowledge. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1151–1164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1331294
5. Antonelli, C., & Gehringer, A. (2015). Knowledge externalities and demand pull: The European evidence. Economic Systems, 39(4), 608–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2015.03.001
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献