Book contents
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Innovation Policy and Innovation Systems
- Part II Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries
- Part III Regional Innovation Systems and Policies
- 10 Innovation Policies and New Regional Growth Paths
- 11 Spinoffs and Clustering
- 12 Examining the Technological Innovation Systems of Smart Cities
- 13 Agglomeration of Invention in the Bay Area
- Part IV Innovation Management and its Links with Policy
- Index
- References
11 - Spinoffs and Clustering
from Part III - Regional Innovation Systems and Policies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 August 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Innovation Policy and Innovation Systems
- Part II Innovation in Developing and Emerging Countries
- Part III Regional Innovation Systems and Policies
- 10 Innovation Policies and New Regional Growth Paths
- 11 Spinoffs and Clustering
- 12 Examining the Technological Innovation Systems of Smart Cities
- 13 Agglomeration of Invention in the Bay Area
- Part IV Innovation Management and its Links with Policy
- Index
- References
Summary
Geographic clustering of people and organizations is a fact of modern economic life. At the aggregate level, around half the world’s population is located in cities. At the industry level, Ellison and Glaeser (1997) and Duranton and Overman (2005) show that in the modal manufacturing industry in the United States and UK, respectively, plants are more clustered geographically than would be expected if they located randomly. These simple facts have been widely interpreted to reflect some sort of advantage of clustering. Wages and prices are higher in cities and in industry clusters such as Silicon Valley (Rosenthal and Strange 2004; Puga 2010). Consequently, businesses in clusters must enjoy some kind of advantages in order to be competitive.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Innovation Systems, Policy and Management , pp. 359 - 393Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Agarwal, R., Echambadi, R., Franco, A., and Sarkar, M. 2004. Knowledge transfer through inheritance: Spinout generation, development, and survival. Academy of Management Journal 47: 501–522.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., Galasso, A., and Oettl, A. 2014. Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs. Journal of Urban Economics 81: 149–165.Google Scholar
Appold, S. 1995. Agglomeration, interorganizational networks, and competitive performance in the U.S. metalworking sector. Economic Geography 71: 27–54.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. 1990. Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American 262: 92–99.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. 2009. The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86: 253–273.Google Scholar
Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. 2004. Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 4, Henderson, J. V. and Thisse, J. F. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Boschma, R. and Frenken, K. 2006. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 273–302.Google Scholar
Boschma, R. and Wenting, R. 2007. The spatial evolution of the British automobile industry: Does location matter? Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 213–238.Google Scholar
Bottazzi, G. and Secchi, A. 2006. Explaining the distribution of firm growth rates. The RAND Journal of Economics 37: 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. 2009. Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography 9: 439–468.Google Scholar
Buendia, F. 2013. Increasing returns economics and generalized polya processes. Complexity 19: 21–37.Google Scholar
Buenstorf, G. and Guenther, C. 2011. No place like home? Relocation, capabilities, and firm survival in the German machine tool industry after World War II. Industrial and Corporate Change 20: 1–28.Google Scholar
Buenstorf, G. and Klepper, S. 2009. Heritage and agglomeration: The Akron tire cluster revisited. Economic Journal 119: 705–733.Google Scholar
Buenstorf, G. and Klepper, S. 2010. Why does entry cluster geographically? Evidence from the U.S. tire industry. Journal of Urban Economics 68: 103–114.Google Scholar
Carias, C. and Klepper, S. 2010. Entrepreneurship, the initial labor force, and the location of new firms. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Cheyre, C., Klepper, S., and Veloso, F. 2015. Spinoffs and the mobility of US merchant semiconductor inventors. Management Science 61: 487–506.Google Scholar
Christensen, C. 1993. The rigid disk drive industry: A history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Review 67: 531–588.Google Scholar
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal 23: 1095–1121.Google Scholar
Dumais, G., Ellison, G., and Glaeser, E. 2002. Geographic concentration as a dynamic process. Review of Economics and Statistics 84: 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranton, G. and Puga, D. 2004. Micro-foundations of urban agglomeration economies, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 4, Henderson, J. V. and Thisse, J. F. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Duranton, G. and Overman, H. 2005. Testing for localization using micro-geographic data. Review of Economic Studies 72: 1077–1116.Google Scholar
Ellison, G. and Glaeser, E. 1997. Geographic concentration in U.S. manufacturing industries: A dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy 105: 889–927.Google Scholar
Ellison, G. and Glaeser, E. 1999. The geographic concentration of industry: Does natural advantage explain agglomeration? American Economic Review 89: 311–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellison, G., Glaeser, E., and Kerr, W. 2010. What causes industry agglomeration? Evidence from coagglomeration patterns. American Economic Review 100: 1195–1213.Google Scholar
Feinstein, J. 2017. The creative development of fields: Learning, creativity, paths, implications. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 8: 23–62.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. 1994. The Geography of Innovation. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Feldman, M. 2001. The entrepreneurial event revisited: Firm formation in a regional context. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 861–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M., Francis, J., and Bercovitz, J. 2005. Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies 39: 129–141.Google Scholar
Figueiredo, O., Guimaraes, P., and Woodward, D. 2002. Home-field advantage: Location decisions of Portuguese entrepreneurs. Journal of Urban Economics 52: 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franco, A. and Filson, D. 2006. Spin-outs: Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility. RAND Journal of Economics 37: 841–860.Google Scholar
Frenken, K. and Boschma, R. 2007. A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. Journal of Economic Geography 7: 635–649.Google Scholar
Frenken, K., Cefis, E., and Stam, E. 2015. Industrial dynamics and clusters: A survey. Regional Studies 49: 10–27.Google Scholar
Fujita, M., Krugman, P., and Venables, A. 1999. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Glaeser, E., Rosenthal, S., and Strange, W. 2010. Urban economics and entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics 67: 1–14.Google Scholar
Greenstone, M., Hornbeck, R., and Moretti, E. 2010. Identifying agglomeration spillovers: Evidence from winners and losers of large plant openings. Journal of Political Economy 118: 536–598.Google Scholar
Heebels, B. and Boschma, R. 2011. Performing in Dutch book publishing 1880–2008. The importance of entrepreneurial experience and the Amsterdam Cluster. Journal of Economic Geography 11: 1007–1029.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, M. and von Burg, U. 1999. Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence: Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Industrial and Corporate Change 8: 67–103.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 2007. Disagreements, spinoffs, and the evolution of Detroit as the capital of the U.S. automobile industry. Management Science 53: 616–631.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 2009a. Silicon Valley – A chip off the old Detroit bloc, in Entrepreneurship, Growth, and Public Policy, Acs, Z., Audretsch, D. and Strom, R. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 2009b. Spinoffs: A review and synthesis. European Management Review 6: 159–171.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. 2010. The origin and growth of industry clusters: The making of Silicon Valley and Detroit. Journal of Urban Economics 67: 15–32.Google Scholar
Klepper, S., Kowalski, J., and Veloso, F. 2011. Technological Spillovers and the Agglomeration of the Semiconductor Industry in Silicon Valley. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. and Sleeper, S. 2005. Entry by spinoffs. Management Science 51: 1291–1306.Google Scholar
Klepper, S. and Thompson, P. 2006. Submarkets and the evolution of market structure. The RAND Journal of Economics 37: 861–886.Google Scholar
Klette, T. J. and Kortum, S. 2004. Innovating firms and aggregate innovation. Journal of Political Economy 112: 986–1018.Google Scholar
Lécuyer, C. 2006. Making Silicon Valley. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Luttmer, E. 2007. Selection, growth, and the size distribution of firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122: 1103–1144.Google Scholar
McKendrick, D., Doner, R., and Haggard, S. 2000. From Silicon Valley to Singapore. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M. 2000. The scope and organization of production: Firm dynamics over the learning curve. RAND Journal of Economics 31: 180–205.Google Scholar
Mitton, D. 1990. Bring on the clones: A longitudinal study of the proliferation, development, and growth of the biotech industry in San Diego, in Frontiers of Entrepreneurship, Churchill, N., Bygrave, W., Hornday, J., Muzyka, D., Vesper, K., and Wetzel, W. Jr. (eds.). Babson Park, MA: Babson College.Google Scholar
Montgomery, C. 1994. Corporate diversification. Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 163–178.Google Scholar
Moore, G. and Davis, K. 2004. Learning the Silicon Valley way, in Building High-Tech Clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond, Bresnahan, T. and Gambardella, A. (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nanda, R. and Sørensen, J. 2010. Workplace peers and entrepreneurship. Management Science 56: 1116–1126.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. and Winter, S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Puga, D. 2010. The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. Journal of Regional Science 50: 203–219.Google Scholar
Romanelli, E. and Feldman, M. 2006. The anatomy of cluster development: The case of U.S. biotherapeutics, 1976–2003. Cluster Genesis 27: 87–113.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, S. and Strange, W. 2004. Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies, in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics 4, Henderson, J. V. and Thisse, J. F. (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1934. Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Sorenson, O. and Audia, P. 2000. The social structure of entrepreneurial activity: Geographic concentration of footwear production in the United States, 1940–1989. American Journal of Sociology 106: 424–462.Google Scholar
Staber, U. 2001. Spatial proximity and firm survival in a declining industrial district: The case of knitwear firms in Baden-Württemberg. Regional Studies 35: 329–341.Google Scholar
Stam, E. 2007. Why butterflies don’t leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography 83: 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuart, T. and Sorenson, O. 2003. The geography of opportunity: Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy 32: 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenting, R. 2008. Spinoff dynamics and the spatial formation of the fashion design industry, 1858–2005. Journal of Economic Geography 8: 593–614.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.