Skip to main content

Dynamics in ICT cooperation networks in selected German ICT clusters

Abstract

High innovation capability is indispensable for generating economic growth in developed economies. Cooperations in the innovation process are entered into by companies for reasons of risk diversification or costs and often considered to be an efficient strategy to increase a company’s knowledge basis. Regional economic literature very often believes that regional agglomeration of companies, i.e. cluster formation, will also lead to increased local networking, i.e. also to cooperations between companies or between company and research institutes in the innovation process. A social network analysis of the two German ICT regions performed with patent data was able to show that cluster formation coincides with a dynamic increase of cooperations measured by joint patent applications. However, the cooperations are characterized by integration of extra-regional companies and research institutes rather than being intraregional.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Notes

  1. 1.

    Along with Döring and Schnellenbach (2006) this paper understands knowledge as comprising all cognitions and abilities that individuals use to solve problems, make decisions and understand incoming information.

  2. 2.

    A minimum size of 10 actors is required and a corporate share of at least 50 %. In addition, the involvement of a research institution must be ensured. Among the parties involved there should also be service providers, in particular financial services providers and basic and further training facilities. The BMWi also requires that the network focuses on a specific field of innovation and that it has specific unique features setting it apart. The organizational degree of the network is also of great significance. Next to “branding,” this is the focus of the second pillar of sponsoring. The organization unit of the network or the cluster management will receive specific support, for example, for conducting workshops and industrial fairs. Further assistance is provided by the publication of trend reports, network-specific short studies, online newsletters, joint internet presentations, exchange and development of cooperation projects, internationalisation, i.e. the development of strategies for corresponding activities and the organization of group study visits (BMWi 2010b).

  3. 3.

    For the precise implementation process, see Mahmutovic (2011). Together with Oliver Emons, Zafir Mahmutovic implemented the patent database EIIW-Netpat in the scope of the research project EU structural change, regional innovation dynamics and cluster formation options in the knowledge societies for the European Institute for International Economic Relationships (EIIW) at the Bergische University of Wuppertal.

  4. 4.

    Aachen is located in the NUTS-2 region of Cologne.

  5. 5.

    It must be noted that natural persons with a professor’s title very often can be assigned to research institutions. Until 2002, German patent law permitted university professors to register a patent in their name rather than the university’s name.

References

  1. Aghion P, Howitt P (1992) A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica 60:323–351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aghion P, Howitt P (1997) A Schumpeterian perspective on growth and competition. In: Kreps D, Wallis KF (eds) Advances in economics and economietrics: theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 279–317

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Almeida P, Kogut B (1999) Localisation of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Manag Sci 45:905–917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Angel D (2002) Inter-firm collaboration and technology development partnerships with US manufacturing industries. Region Stud 34:333–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Angel D, Engstrom J (1995) Manufacturing systems and technological change: the US personal computer industry. Econ Geogr 71:79–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Arndt O, Sternberg R (2000) Do manufacturing firms profit from intraregional innovation linkages? An empirical answer. Eur Plann Stud 8:465–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Audretsch D (1998) Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 14:18–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baptista R, Swann P (1998) Do firms in clusters innovate more? Res Policy 27:525–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beaudry C, Breschi S (2003) Are firms in clusters really more innovative. Econ Innov New Technol 12:325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Breschi S, Lissoni F (2001) Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Ind Corp Change 10:975–1005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown R (2000) Clusters, supply chains and local embeddedness in Fyrstad. Eur Urban Region Stud 7:291–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) (2010a) http://www.kompetenznetze.de/?set_language=en. Accessed 01 January 2012

  13. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) (2010b) http://www.kompetenznetze.de/initiative/die-geschaftsstelle. Accessed 31 August 2010

  14. Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi) (2010c) Aufnahmenkriterien Initiative Kompetenznetze Deutschland. http://www.kompetenznetze.de/initiative/die-aufnahme/aufnahmekriterien_initiativekompetenznetzedeutschland.pdf. Accessed 31 August 2010

  15. Cantner U, Graf H, Meder A (2009) Urbane innovationssysteme: das innovationsnetzwerk in Jena. doi:10.1007/978-3-531-91349-0_10

  16. Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. administrative science quarterly 35 special issue: technology, organizations, and innovation: 128–152

  17. Cooke P, De Laurentis C, Tödtling F, Trippl M (eds) (2007) Regional knowledge economics: markets, clusters and innovation. Oxford University Press, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  18. Delgado M, Porter M, Stern S (2010) Cluster, convergence, and economic performance. US Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Paper CES-WP-10-34

  19. Döring T, Schnellenbach J (2006) What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth? theory and evidence. Region Stud 40:375–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Emons O (2011) Innovations- and Spezialisierungsdynamik im Automotivesektor: Vergleichsanalyse von europäischen Kooperations- and innovatorennetzwerken. In: Welfens PJJ (ed) Cluster- und innovations dynamik in Europa: neue perspektiven der automobil- und IKT Wirtschaft. Lucius, Stuttgart, pp 323–479

    Google Scholar 

  21. Engelsoft S, Jensen-Butler C, Smith I, Winther L (2006) Industrial clusters in Denmark: theory and empirical evidence. Papers Region Sci 85:73–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Falck O, Heblich S, Kipar S (2010) Industrial innovation: direct evidence from cluster-oriented policy. Region Sci Urban Econ 40:574–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Feser E, Renski H, Goldstein H (2008) Clusters and economic development outcomes: an analysis of the link between clustering and industry growth. Econ Dev Quart 22:324–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fontagné L, Koenig P, Mayernis, F., Poncet, S. (2010) Clustering the winners: the French policy of competitiveness clusters, CEPII Working Paper 2010-18

  25. Freeman L (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gertler M, Wolfe D, Garkut D (2000) No place like home? The embeddedness of innovation in a regional economy. Rev Int Political Econ 7:688–718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Giuliani E (2005) The structure of cluster knowledge networks: uneven and selective, not pervasive and collective. Eur Urban Reg Stud 12:269–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Graf H, Henning T (2009) Public research in regional networks of innovators: a comparative study of four East German regions. Reg Stud 43:1349–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Griliches Z (1979) Issues in assessing the contribution of research and development to productivity growth. Bell J Econ 10:92–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Griliches Z (1992) The search for R&D spillovers. Scand J Econ 94(Supplement):29–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hafner K (2008) Agglomeration economics and clustering - evidence from German firms, cege Discussion Papers 72

  32. He J, Fallah M (2009) Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution? Technol Forecast Soc Change 76:91–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hendry C, Brown J, Defillippi R (2000) Regional clustering of high technology-based firms: opto-electronics in three countries. Reg Stud 34:129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Howitt P, Aghion P (1998) Capital accumulation and innovation as complementary factors in long-run growth. J Econ Growth 3:111–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M, Henderson R (1993) Geographic localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quart J Econ 108:577–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kalasky R, MacPherson A (2003) Input/output ranges and performance: an examination of US machine tool producers. Entrep Reg Dev 15:69–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kearns A, Gorg H (2002) Linkages, agglomerations and knowledge spillovers in the Irish electronics industry: the regional dimension. Int J Technol Manag 24:743–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kim J, Marschke G (2005) Labor mobility of scientists, technological diffusion, and the firm’s patenting decision. RAND J Econ 36:424–428

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lawson C, Lorenz E (1999) Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Reg Stud 33:305–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lawton-Smith H (2003) Local innovation assemblages and institutional capacity in local high-tech economic development: the case of Oxfordshire. Urban Stud 40:1353–1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lucas R (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monet Econ 22:3–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lyons D (2000) Embeddedness, milieu, and innovation among high-technology firms: a Richardson, Texas, case study. Environ Plann A 32:891–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mahmutovic Z (2011) Patentdatenbank – Implementierung and Nutzung. In: Welfens PJJ (ed) Cluster- and Innovationsdynamik in Europa: Neue Perspektiven der Automobil- und IKT Wirtschaft. Lucius, Stuttgart, pp 309–321

    Google Scholar 

  44. Maine E, Shapiro D, Vining A (2010) The role of clustering in the growth of new technology-based firms. Small Bus Econ 34:127–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Malmberg A, Power D (2005) (How) do (firms in) clusters create knowledge? Ind Innov 12:409–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Marshall A (1920) Principles of economics. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  47. McDonald F, Tsagdis D, Huang Q (2006) The development of industrial clusters and public policy. Entrep Reg Dev 18:525–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Mota J, de Castro L (2004) Industrial agglomeration as localized networks: the case of the Portuguese injection mould industry. Environ Plann A 36:263–278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Nelson R (1990) What is public and what is private about technology? CCC Working Paper 90-9. University of California, Center for Research in Management

  50. Peretto P (1998) Technological change, market rivalry, and the evolution of the capitalist engine of growth. J Econ Growth 3:53–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Peretto P (1999a) Firm size, rivalry and the extent of the market in endogenous technological change. Eur Econ Rev 43:1747–1773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Peretto P (1999b) Industrial development, technological change, and long-run growth. J Dev Econ 59:389–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Porter M (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rodríguez-Pose A, Refolo M (2003) The link between local production systems and public and university research in Italy. Environ Plann A 35:1477–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Romer P (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Political Econ 94:1002–1037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sakakibara M (2003) Knowledge sharing in cooperative research and development. Manag Decis Econ 24:117–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schmitz J (1989) Imitation, entrepreneurship, and long-run growth. J Political Econ 97:721–739

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schmitz H (1999) Collective efficiency and increasing returns. Camb J Econ 23:465–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Schumpeter A (1911) The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  60. Simmie J (2002) Knowledge spillovers and reasons for the concentration of innovative SMEs. Urban Stud 39:885–902

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tomokazu A, Fujita M, Kameyama Y (2006) Effects of regional cooperation among small and medium-sized firms on their growth in Japanese industrial clusters. Rev Urban Reg Dev Stud (RURDS) 18:209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  63. Waters R, Lawton-Smith H (2006) Social networks in high-technology local economies: the case of Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire. Eur Urban Reg Stud 15:21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Welfens PJJ (2011) IKT expansion, strukturwandel and clusterdynamik in der EU, in: cluster- and innovationsdynamik in europa. In: Welfens PJJ (ed) Neue perspektiven der automobil- and IKT wirtschaft. Lucius, Stuttgart, pp 1–136

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Schröder.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 7
figure7

Cologne (NUTS-2) with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) headquartered outside of the region for the period of 1984–1993 (t0)

Fig. 8
figure8

Cologne (NUTS-2) with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) Headquartered outside of the Region for the period of 1994–2003 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Fig. 9
figure9

Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) headquartered outside of the region for the period of 1988–1997 (t0)

Fig. 10
figure10

Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) headquartered outside of the Region for the period of 1998–2007 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Fig. 11
figure11

All applicants outside of cologne (NUTS-2) for the period of 1984–1993 (t0)

Fig. 12
figure12

All applicants outside of cologne (NUTS-2) for the period of 1994–2003 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Fig. 13
figure13

All applicants outside of Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) for the period of 1988–1997 (t0)

Fig. 14
figure14

All applicants outside of Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) for the Period of 1998–2007 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Fig. 15
figure15

All applicants within cologne (NUTS-2) for the period of 1984–1993 (t0)

Fig. 16
figure16

All applicants within cologne (NUTS-2) for the period of 1994–2003 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Fig. 17
figure17

All applicants within Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) for the period of 1988–1997 (t0)

Fig. 18
figure18

All applicants within Karlsruhe (NUTS-2) for the Period of 1998–2007 (t1) Source: Own illustration

Table 3 Classification of (OECD) ICT sector
Table 4 Cooperation networks with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) headquartered outside of the region under consideration
Table 5 Cooperation networks with at least one cooperation partner (Applicant) Headquartered outside of the region under consideration
Table 6 Cooperation networks in which all cooperation partners (Applicants) are Headquartered outside of the region under consideration
Table 7 Cooperation networks in which all cooperation partners (Applicants) are headquartered outside of the region under consideration
Table 8 Cooperation networks in which all cooperation partners (Applicants) are headquartered inside the region under consideration
Table 9 Cooperation Networks in which all cooperation partners (applicants) are headquartered inside the region under consideration

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schröder, C. Dynamics in ICT cooperation networks in selected German ICT clusters. Int Econ Econ Policy 11, 197–230 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10368-013-0253-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Regional science
  • Cluster
  • ICT
  • Knowledge spillover
  • Social network analysis
  • Innovation networks

JEL classification

  • R10
  • O18
  • L63
  • L86