Abstract
The 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 2007 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 5-year period with up to 40 million Euro each. Our paper presents selected results regarding the influence of government funding on cooperation networks within four of the clusters that were successful in the first wave of the Leading-Edge Cluster Competition. 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 program are between actors located in the cluster region. With respect to the influence of the cluster policy 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The response rate, especially of firms, in one cluster was too low for a meaningful analysis. For reasons of confidentiality, we have to refrain from characterizing the clusters in more detail. Even though the clusters differ with respect to technological specialization, age, and location, we cannot make use of this information in our analysis.
- 2.
We did not ask the research institutes since the motives to cooperate differ between the private and the public sphere.
- 3.
Since we cannot observe the whole network in 2007, one could expect that some past linkages dissolved and the policy effect on the intensity is overestimated. However, being asked about the change in total number of cooperation partners, 80 % of the beneficiaries reported an increase.
- 4.
A Chi-squared test comparing the two distributions shows a significant difference at the 10 %-level.
- 5.
For 53.2 % of the pre-existing partnerships and 38.2 % of the policy-induced partnerships, the use of research infrastructure was mentioned as a strategic asset. A t-test shows that this difference is significant at the 5 % level.
References
Aharonson BS, Baum J, Plunket A (2008) Inventive and uninventive clusters – the case of Canadian biotechnology. Res Policy 37(6–7):1108–1131
Andersson T, Hansson E, Schwaag Serger S, Sörvik J (2004) The cluster policies Whitebook. IKED-International Organisation for Knowledge Economy and Enterprise Development. Malmö
Asheim B, Gertler M (2006) Regional innovation systems and the geographical foundations of innovation. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 291–317
Audretsch DB, Feldman M (1996) R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am Econ Rev 86(3):630–639
Baptista R, Swann P (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more? Res Policy 27:525–540
Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56
Beaudry C, Breschi S (2003) Are firms in clusters really more innovative? Econ Innov New Technol 12(4):325–342
BMBF (2012) http://www.hightech-strategie.de/en/468.php. Accessed 15 May 2012
Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74
Braczyk H-J, Cooke P, Heidenreich M (1998) Regional innovation systems: the role of governances in a globalized world. UCL Press, London
Brenner T, Schlump C (2011) Policy measures and their effects in the different phases of the cluster life cycle. Reg Stud 45(10):1363–1386
Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Ind Corp Change 10(4):975–1005
Breschi S, Lissoni F (2009) Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. J Econ Geogr 9(4):439–468
Cantner U, Meder A, Wolf T (2011) Intermediation, reciprocity and innovation cooperations of firms. Pap Reg Sci 90(2):313–330
Carlsson B, Jacobsson S (1997) Search of useful public policies: key lessons and issues for policy makers. In: Carlsson B (ed) Technological systems and industrial dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Cooke P, Morgan K (1994) The regional innovation system in Baden-Württemberg. Int J Technol Manage 9(3/4):394–429
Cowan R, Jonard N (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. J Econ Dyn Control 28(8):1557–1575
Eickelpasch A, Fritsch M (2005) Contests for cooperation – a new approach in German innovation policy. Res Policy 34(8):1269–1282
Engel D, Mitze T, Patuelli R, Reinkowski J (2012) Does cluster policy trigger R&D activity? Evidence from German biotech contests. Eur Plann Stud (forthcoming) http://ssrn.com/abstract=2007931
Falck O, Heblich S, Kipar S (2010) Industrial innovation: direct evidence from a cluster-oriented policy. Reg Sci Urban Econ 40(6):574–582
Feldman MP (1994) The geography of innovation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
Fornahl D, Broekel T, Boschma R (2011) What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Pap Reg Sci 90(2):395–418
Freeman LC (1979) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239
Giuliani E (2007) The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. J Econ Geogr 7:139–168
Giuliani E, Pietrobelli C (2011) Social network analysis – methodologies for the evaluation of cluster development programs. Technical notes no IDB-TN-317. Inter-American Development Bank
Koschatzky K (2000) The regionalisation of innovation policy in Germany – theoretical foundations and recent experience. Working papers firms and region no R1/2000. Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research
Lecocq C, Leten B, Kusters J, Van Looy B (2009) Do firms benefit from being present in technology clusters? Evidence from a panel of biopharmaceutical firms. Open Access Publications from Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics: an introductory volume. Macmillan, London
Martin R, Sunley P (2003) Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? J Econ Geogr 3(1):5–35
Martin P, Thierry M, Mayneris F (2011) Public support to clusters – a firms level study of French “Local Productive Systems”. Reg Sci Urban Econ 41:108–123
Metcalfe JS (1995) Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Camb J Econ 19(1):25–46
Nishimura J, Okamuro H (2011) R&D productivity and the organization of cluster policy: an empirical evaluation of the industrial cluster project in Japan. J Technol Transf 36(2):117–144
Porter M (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harv Bus Rev November–December:77–90
Schilling M, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag Sci 53(7):1113–1126
Staehler T, Dohse D, Cooke P (2007) Evaluation der Fördermaßnahmen BioRegio und BioProfile. http://www.e-fi.de/fileadmin/Evaluationsstudien/Evaluation_der_Foerdermass-nahmen_BioRegio_und_BioProfile.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2012
Sternberg R (2000) Innovation networks and regional development – evidence from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS): theoretical concepts, methodological approach, empirical basis and introduction to the theme issue. Eur Plan Stud 8(4):389–407
ter Wal ALJ, Boschma R (2009) Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic issues. Ann Reg Sci 43(3):739–756
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Networks of strategically important R&D partners in clusters A to D. Arrows indicate a partnership from the respondent to one of the most important R&D partners. Dotted arrows indicate that the partnership was initiated through participation in the LECC, dashed blue arrows indicate that the partnership was intensified through the policy, and solid arrows indicate partnerships that were not influenced by the policy. Node size is proportional to indegree, i.e. to the frequency of being named as a partner. The colours and the shapes of the nodes indicate the actor’s geographic location and type according to the legend.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cantner, U., Graf, H., Hinzmann, S. (2013). Policy Induced Innovation Networks: The Case of the German “Leading-Edge Cluster Competition”. In: Scherngell, T. (eds) The Geography of Networks and R&D Collaborations. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02699-2_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02699-2_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-02698-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-02699-2
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)