Types of Agglomeration Economies : Effects on Business Innovation

• Autorzy: Enrique Claver-Cortés , Bartolome Marco-Lajara , Encarnacion Manresa-Marhuenda
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A review of the literature does not provide conclusive results about the effects caused by firm agglomeration on innovation. In order to shed light on this issue, this paper draws a distinction among three kinds of agglomeration economies and empirically tests their respective impact on business innovation. The advantage that external knowledge generated through concentration can bring to each company depends on its absorptive capacity. Hence, it is posited that this dynamic capability acts as a mediator in the relationship between agglomeration and innovation. Using data from a survey conducted in 2013 by the Technological Innovation Panel (PITEC), an analysis of these ideas was performed using a sample of 2,906 high and medium-high technology companies. The results obtained indicate that several types of agglomeration economies exist and that the net effect each one of them has on innovation is different. More specifically, only urbanization economies favor innovation. Additionally, all of our findings reveal that firms increase their greater absorptive capacity in the context of agglomeration. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Innovations; Innovative character

PL

Innowacje; Innowacyjność

• Czasopismo: Contemporary Economics
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 3
• Strony: 217--231

Twórcy

autor

Enrique Claver-Cortés

• University of Alicante, Spain

autor

Bartolome Marco-Lajara

• University of Alicante, Spain

autor

Encarnacion Manresa-Marhuenda

• University of Alicante, Spain

Bibliografia

• Alcácer J., & Chung W. (2014). Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science, 53(5), 760-776.
• Anselin L., Varga A. & Acs Z.J. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42(3), 422-448.
• Appold S.J. (1995). Agglomeration, interorganizational networks, and competitive performance in the US metalworking sector. Economic Geography, 71(1), 27-54.
• Arikan A.T., & Schilling M.A. (2010). Structure and governance in industrial districts: Implications for competitive advantage. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 772-803.
• Audretsch D.B. (2003). Innovation and spatial externalities. International Regional Science Review, 26(2), 167-174.
• Barge-Gil A., Vásquez-Urriago A. & Modrego-Rico A., (2011). El impacto de los parques científicos y tecnológicos españoles sobre la innovación empresarial según distintos tipos de empresas. La innovación como factor de competitividad de la empresa española [The impact of the Spanish science and technology parks on business innovation according to different types of firms. Innovation as a factor in the competitiveness of the Spanish firm]. ICE: Revista de economía, 860, 73-88.
• Baron R.M., & Kenny D.A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
• Beugelsdijk S. (2007). The regional environment and a firm´s innovative performance: A plea for a multilevel interactionist approach. Economic Geography, 83(2), 181-199.
• Boschma R.A. & Ter Wal A.L.J. (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177-199.
• Breschi S., & Lissoni F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005.
• Caloghirou Y., Kastelli I., & Tsakanikas A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1), 29-39.
• Cepeda-Carrión G., Cegarra-Navarro J.G., & Jiménez-Jiménez D. (2012). The effects of absorptive capacity on innovativeness: context and information systems capability as catalysts. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 110-129.
• Chesbrough H.W. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33-58.
• Cohen W.M., & Levinthal D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
• Colombo M.G., & Delmastro M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103-1122.
• Damanpour F., & Gopalakrishnan S. (1998). Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 1-24.
• Díez-Vial I., & Fernández-Olmos M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70-84.
• Dutta S., & Weiss A.M. (1997). The relationship between a firm's level of technological innovativeness and its pattern of partnership agreements. Management Science, 43(3), 343-356.
• Felsenstein D. (1994). University-related science parks - 'seedbeds' or 'enclaves' of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93-110.
• Ferguson R., & Olofsson C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs-location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(1), 5-17.
• Flyer F., & Shaver J.M. (2003). Location choices under agglomeration externalities and strategic interaction. In: J.A.C. Baum, O. Sorenson (Eds.), Advances in Strategic Management: Geography and Strategy (Vol. 20, pp. 193-214). Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.
• Folta T.B., Cooper A.C., & Baik Y. (2006). Geographic cluster size and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(2), 217-242.
• Frenken K., van Oort F., & Verburg T. (2007). Relate variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685-697.
• George G., Zahra S.A., Wheatley K., & Khan R. (2001), The effects of alliance portfolio characteristics and absorptive capacity on performance: a study of biotechnology firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(2), 205-227.
• Giuliani E., & Bell M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68.
• Glaeser E.L., Kallal H.D., Scheinkman J.A., & Shleifer A. (1992). Growth in Cities. The Journal of Political Economy, 100(6), 1126-1152.
• Glasmeier A.K. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: the case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469-485.
• Henderson R.M. & Clark K.B. (1990). Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9-30.
• Henderson R., & Cockburn I. (1994). Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 63-84.
• Huang K.F., Yu C.M., & Seetoo D.H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: the smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 715-731.
• Jacobs J. (1969). The Economy of Cities. New York, NY: Random House.
• Jansen J.J.P., Van Den Bosch F.A.J., & Volberda H.W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do organizational antecedents matter? Academy Management Journal, 48(6), 999-1015.
• Jiménez-Moreno J.J., Martínez-Cañas R., Ruiz-Palomino P., & Sáez-Martínez F.J. (2013). The role of science and technology parks in the generation of firm level social capital through university-firm relations: an empirical study in Spain. In: J.J.M. Ferreira, M. Raposo, R. Rutten, & A. Varga (Eds.), Cooperation, clusters, and knowledge transfer (pp. 19-34). Berlin: Springer.
• Judd C.M., & Kenny D.A. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating mediation in treatment evaluation. Evaluation Review, 5, 602-619.
• Kaiser U. (2002). An empirical test of models explaining research expenditures and research cooperation: evidence for the German service sector. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20(6), 747-774.
• Katila R., & Ahuja G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.
• Kim L. (1998). Crisis construction and organizational learning: Capability building in catching up at Hyundai Motor. Organization Science, 9(4), 506-521.
• Knoben J., Raspe O., Arikan A. & Oort F. (2016). Agglomeration and firm performance: One firm's medicine is another firm's poison. Environment and Planning, 48(1), 132-153.
• Lane P., Koka B., & Pathak S. (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. The Academy Management Review, 31(4), 833-863.
• Laursen K., & Salter A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
• Löfsten H., & Lindelöf P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden - industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), 309-322.
• Löfsten H., & Lindelöf P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation, 23(1), 51-64.
• Mangematin V., & Nesta L. (1999). What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3-4), 149-172.
• Marco-Lajara B., Claver-Cortés E., Úbeda-García M., & Zaragoza-Sáez P.C. (2016). Hotel Performance and Agglomeration of Tourist Districts. Regional Studies, 50(6), 1016-1035.
• Marshall A. (1920). Principles of Economics (8th ed.). London, UK: MacMillan.
• Martínez-Senra A.I., Quintás M.A., Sartal A., & Vázquez X.H. (2013). Es rentable "pensar por pensar"? Evidencia sobre innovación en España [Is it profitable 'thinking by thinking'? Evidence on innovation in Spain]. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 16, 142-153.
• Maskell P., & Malmberg A. (1999). Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 167-185.
• Melo P.C., Graham D.J., & Noland R.B. (2009). A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(3), 332-342.
• Molina-Morales F.X., García-Villaverde P.M., & Parra-Requena G. (2014). Geographical and cognitive proximity effects on innovation performance in SMEs: a way through knowledge acquisition. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(2), 231-251.
• Montoro-Sánchez M.A., Mora-Valentín E.M., & Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado M. (2012). Localización en parques científicos y tecnológicos y cooperación en I+D+i como factores determinantes de la innovación [Science and technology parks location and R+D+i cooperation as determinant factors of innovation]. Revista Europea de Dirección y Economía de la Empresa, 21(2), 182-190.
• Morrison A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: Who they are, how do they interact? Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835.
• Morrison A., & Rabellotti R (2009). Knowledge and information networks in an Italian wine cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983-1006.
• Murovec N., & Prodan I. (2009). Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation, 29(12), 859-872.
• OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. Available from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oslo-manual_9789264013100-en
• PITEC (2013). Panel de Innovación Tecnológica [Technological Innovation Panel]. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología.
• Pouder R., & St. John C.H. (1996). Hot spots and blind spots: Geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1192-1225.
• Prevezer M. (1997). The dynamics of industrial clustering in biotechnology. Small Business Economics, 9(3), 255-271.
• Rothaemel F.T., & Hess A.M. (2007). Building dynamic capabilities: Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science, 18(6), 898-921.
• Siegel D.S., Westhead P., & Wright M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1357-1369.
• Sofoulli E., & Vonortas N. (2007). S&T parks and business incubator in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(5), 525-544.
• Squicciarini M. (2008). Science parks' tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A Duration Model," Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45-71.
• Squicciarini M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms' patenting activity. Small Business Economics 32(2), 169-190.
• Sørensen J.B., & Stuart T. (2000). Aging, obsolescence and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(1), 81-112.
• Stuart T. & Sorenson O. (2003). The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 32(2), 229-253.
• Tallman S., Jenkins M., Henry N., & Pinch S. (2004). Knowledge, clusters and competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258-271.
• Teece D.J., Pisano G., & Shuen A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.
• Urgal B., Quintás M.A. & Arévalo-Tomé R. (2011). Conocimiento tecnológico, capacidad de innovación y desempeño innovador: el rol moderador del ambiente interno de la empresa [Technological knowledge, innovation capability and innovative performance: the moderating role of the behavioural environment of the firm]. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa, 14(1), 53-66.
• Vásquez-Urriago A.R., Barge-Gil A., Modrego-Rico A., & Paraskevopoulou E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms' product innovation: empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835-873.
• Vernon R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190-207.
• Veugelers R. (1997). Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy, 26(3), 303-315.
• Westhead P. (1997). R&D "inputs" and "outputs" of technology-based firms located on and off science parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45-62.
• Winter S.G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991-995.
• Yang C.H., Motohashi K., & Chen J.R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative, Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38(1), 77-85.
• Zahra S.A., & George G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185-203.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.5709/ce.1897-9254.211