The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 216–234 | Cite as

The place-based nature of technological innovation: the case of Sophia Antipolis

  • Filippo BarberaEmail author
  • Sara Fassero


The article looks at the case of the French technopole known as “Sophia Antipolis”. After a brief description of the history and main dimensions of Sophia Antipolis, we look at the everyday life of social relations in the technopole. We argue that the everyday life of social relations in Sophia Antipolis, such as community life and living choices of the workers, are poorly developed and this may affect negatively the economic life of the technopole. Finally, in the conclusion, we compare Silicon Valley’s model with Sophia Antipolis and we highlight similarities and differences.


Scientific parks Technological innovation Social capital Community and economy 

JEL Classification

l2 l3 031 032 r1 r5 


  1. AA.VV. (2000). Sophia Antipolis, de l’idée de 1960 aux miracles de l’an 2000. Marseille: Editions L’Etoile du Sud.Google Scholar
  2. Alshumaimri, A., Taylor, A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). The University technology transfer revolution in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A., & Cohendet, P. (2003). Architectures of knowledge: Firms, capabilities and communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Araszkiewiez, J. (2003). L’Héritage d’une utopie: Essai sur la communication et l’organisation de Sophia Antipolis. Aix En Provence, Édisud.Google Scholar
  5. Bagnasco, A. (1999). Teoria del capitale sociale e political economy comparata. Stato e Mercato, 57, 351–372.Google Scholar
  6. Becattini, G. (1989). Riflessioni sul distretto industriale marshalliano come concetto socioeconomico. Stato e Mercato, 25, 111–128.Google Scholar
  7. Bellanca, N., & Lombardi, M. (2011). Le traiettorie reticolari dell’innovazione territoriale. Sociologia del Lavoro, 122, 17–31.Google Scholar
  8. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bourdin, S. (2003). La genèse de Sophia Antipolis: 1960–1974. L’efficacité des pratiques discursives. In L’Héritage d’une utopie, essai sur la communication et l’organisation de Sophia-Antipolis. Aix en Provence: SARL EDISUD.Google Scholar
  10. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Capecchi, V. (1990). A history of flexible specialisation and industrial districts in Emilia–Romagna. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial districts and inter-firm cooperation in Italy (pp. 20–35). Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  12. Crouch, C., Le Galès, P., Trigilia, C., & Voelzkow, H. (2001). Local production systems in Europe. Rise or demise?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Curran, W. (2010). In defense of old industrial spaces: Manufacturing, creativity and innovation, in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(4), 871–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—Location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Florida, R. (2005). Cities and the creative class. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granovetter, M. (2000). Social networks in Silicon Valley. In C.-M. Lee, W. F. Miller, M. G. Hancock, & H. S. Rowen (Eds.), The Silicon Valley edge (pp. 218–247). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Granovetter, M. (2002). A theoretical agenda for economic sociology. In M. Guillen, R. Collins, P. England, & M. Meyer (Eds.), The new economic sociology: Developments in an emerging field (pp. 35–59). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grondeau, A. (2006). Technopôle et gouvernance publique: Le cas de Sophia-Antipolis. Norois, 3(200), downloaded from Accessed 21 November 2011.
  21. Hamdouch, A. (2009). Networking, clustering and innovation dynamics in the global economy: General presentation. Journal of Innovations Economics, 2, 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Isaak, R. (2009). From collective learning to Silicon Valley replication: The limits to synergistic entrepreneurship in Sophia Antipolis. Research in International Business and Finance, 23(2), 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jackson, S., & Audretsch, D. B. (2004). The Indiana university advanced research and technology institute: A case study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 119–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kang, B. J. (2004). A study on the establishing development model for research parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., & Thomas, C. (2004). Codification of knowledge inside a cluster: The case of the Telecom Valley in Sophia Antipolis. DRUID SUMMER Conference 2004 Industrial dynamics, Innovation and development. 14–16 June 2004 IDEFI—CNRS, Valbonne. Downloaded from Accessed 21 November 2011.
  27. Lazzeroni, M. (2004). Distretti tecnologici e sviluppo locale: metodologie di identificazione e di analisi. Paper presented at the workshop: “Lo sviluppo locale metodologie e politiche”, Napoli, 20–21 of May.Google Scholar
  28. Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Link, A. N. (1995). A generosity of spirit: The early history of the research triangle park. Research Triangle Park: The Research Triangle Park Foundation of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  30. Link, A. N. (2002). From seed to harvest: The growth of the research triangle park. Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Park Foundation of North Carolina.Google Scholar
  31. Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of U.S. science parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Link, A. N., & Scott, T. J. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Longhi, C. (1999). Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: The case of Sophia Antipolis. Regional Studies, 33(4), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Moreau, F., & Bernasconi, M. (2002). Le développement endogène de Sophia Antipolis. 1995–2000. Les Cahiers du Management Technologique, 13(21), 30–45.Google Scholar
  37. Patton, D., & Kenney, M. (2003). Innovation and social capital in Silicon Valley, BRIE Working Paper 155, Accessed 21 November 2011.
  38. Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.Google Scholar
  41. Powell, W. W., & Groadal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 56–85). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Quéré, M. (2005). Le développement technopolitain en France: Quels enseignements pour l’attractivité des territoires? Revue de l’OFCE, 94, 71–96. Accessed 20 November 2011.
  43. Quéré, M., & Coutures, L. (2002). The evolution of Sophia Antipolis Park: Towards a technopolis-type of economic development? ETE Workshop—JENA Paper. Downloaded from Accessed 21 November 2011.
  44. Rasse, P. (2003). Utopies de la Cité de la Sagesse. In L’Héritage d’une utopie, essai sur la communication et l’organisation de Sophia-Antipolis. Aix en Provence: SARL EDISUD.Google Scholar
  45. Rolfo, S. (2006). Un modello di polo tecnologico in Valtellina. Moncalieri: Ceris-Cnr.Google Scholar
  46. Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional advantage. Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sforzi, F. (2005). Dal distretto industriale allo sviluppo locale. Incontri di Artimino, Keynote speech, downloaded from Accessed 21 November 2011.
  48. Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2007). S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of Greece. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 525–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science Parks’ tenants versus out-of-Park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2008). Cluster emergence and network evolution: A longitudinal analysis of the inventor network in Sophia-Antipolis. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography/Documents de travail de l’OFCE 2008-21, downloaded from
  51. Trigilia, C. (2005). Sviluppo locale. Un progetto per l’Italia. Bari: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar
  52. Trigilia, C. (2007). La costruzione sociale dell’innovazione. Firenze: Firenze University press.Google Scholar
  53. Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social SciencesUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  2. 2.Real Collegio Carlo AlbertoMoncalieriItaly

Personalised recommendations