Structural dynamics of innovation networks in German Leading-Edge Clusters

Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

We study the effects of a German national cluster policy on the structure of collaboration networks. The empirical analysis is based on original data that was collected in fall 2011 and late summer 2013 with cluster actors (firms and public research organizations) who received government funding. Our results show that over time the program was effective in initiating new cooperation between cluster actors and in intensifying existing linkages. A substantial share of the newly formed linkages is among actors who did not receive direct funding for a joint R&D project, which indicates a mobilization effect. Furthermore, we observe differential developments regarding clusters’ spatial embeddedness. Some clusters tend to increase their localization, whereas others increase their connectivity to international partners. Changes in centrality are mainly determined by initial positions in the network, but the determinants of these changes differ substantially between clusters.

Keywords

Cluster Innovation policy Evaluation Social network analysis 

JEL Classification

O38 L14 R10 R32 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The study was financially supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for the research project “Begleitende Evaluierung des Spitzencluster-Wettbewerbs”. Stefan Töpfer thankfully acknowledges the German Research Foundation (DFG) for providing a scholarship within the DFG-GRK 1411 “The Economics of Innovative Change”. We wish to thank two anonymous referees, members the research group DFG-GRK 1411, as well as participants at the 15th Conference of the International Schumpeter Society in Jena, the DRUID Conference in Rome, and the Workshop on “Clusterforschung und Evaluierung von Clusterpolitiken” in Berlin for helpful comments and suggestions. All remaining errors are our own.

References

  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barabasi, A., & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286, 509–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms—evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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(7), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710701253441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography 9(4), 439–468. Retrieved from http://joeg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/439.
  8. Cantner, U., Conti, E., & Meder, A. (2010). Networks and innovation: The role of social assets in explaining firms’ innovative capacity. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1937–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2010.515795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantner, U., Graf, H., & Hinzmann, S. (2013). Policy induced innovation networks: the case of the German “Leading-Edge Cluster competition”. In T. Scherngell (Ed.), The geography of networks and R&D collaborations (pp. 335–352). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chatterji, D. (1996). Accessing external sources of technology. Research-Technology Management, 39(2), 48–56.Google Scholar
  11. Coombs, R., Harvey, M., & Tether, B. S. (2003). Analysing distributed processes of provision and innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(6), 1125–1155. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/12.6.1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557–1575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2003.04.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2009). Knowledge portfolios and the organization of innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 34(2), 320–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.36982634.Google Scholar
  14. Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions—The case of the BioRegio contest. Research Policy, 29(9), 1111–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(99)00077-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Doreian, P. (1980). Linear models with spatially distributed data: spatial disturbances or spatial effects? Sociological Methods & Research, 9(1), 29–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418000900102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Duranton, G. (2011). California dreamin’: The feeble case for cluster policies. Review of Economic Analysis 3(1), 3–45. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/a/ren/journl/v3y2011i1p3-45.html.
  17. Eickelpasch, A., & Fritsch, M. (2005). Contests for cooperation—A new approach in German innovation policy. Research Policy, 34(8), 1269–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, D., Mitze, T., Patuelli, R., & Reinkowski, J. (2013). Does cluster policy trigger R&D activity? Evidence from German biotech contests. European Planning Studies, 21(11), 1735–1759. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1988305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fier, A., & Harhoff, D. (2002). Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs-und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, 3(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2516.00092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. I. (2007). Small Worlds and Regional Innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938–954. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. Papers in Regional Science 90(2), 395–418. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00361.x.
  22. Freeman, C. (1991). Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy, 20(5), 499–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90072-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giuliani, E., & Pietrobelli, C. (2014). Social network analysis methodologies for the evaluation of cluster development programs (Papers in Innovation Studies 2014/11). Lund University, CIRCLE—Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/lucirc/2014_011.html.
  24. Gomes-Casseres, B., Hagedoorn, J., & Jaffe, A. B. (2006). Do alliances promote knowledge flows? Journal of Financial Economics, 80(1), 5–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.08.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graf, H., & Kalthaus, M. (2016). International research networks: Determinants of country embeddedness (Jena Economic Research Papers 2016-016). Friedrich Schiller University Jena. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2016-016.html.
  26. Graf, H., & Krüger, J. J. (2011). The performance of gatekeepers in innovator networks. Industry and Innovation, 18(1), 69–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.528932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-442450-0.50025-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hinzmann, S., Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2017). The role of geographical proximity for project performance: Evidence from the German Leading-Edge Cluster Competition. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9600-1.Google Scholar
  29. Kim, J.-Y., & Jo, H.-H. (2010). A signalling explanation for preferential attachment in the evolution of social networks. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-009-0155-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koschatzky, K., & Sternberg, R. (2000). R&D cooperation in innovation systems—Some lessons from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS). European Planning Studies, 8(4), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/713666415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Leenders, R. T. A. J. (2002). Modeling social influence through network autocorrelation: Constructing the weight matrix. Social Networks, 24(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8733(01)00049-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lublinski, A. E. (2003). Does geographic proximity matter? Evidence from clustered and non-clustered aeronautic firms in Germany. Regional Studies, 37(5), 453–467. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000089031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. Martin, P., Mayer, T., & Mayneris, F. (2011). Public support to clusters: A firm level study of French “Local Productive Systems”. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 108–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metcalfe, J. S. (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy: Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change (pp. 409–512). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. (2003). Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom?: An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy, 32(8), 1481–1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ord, K. (1975). Estimation methods for models of spatial interaction. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(349), 120–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/2285387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Owen-Smith, J., Riccaboni, M., Pammolli, F., & Powell, W. W. (2002). A comparison of U.S. and European university-industry relations in the life sciences. Management Science, 48(1), 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988.Google Scholar
  41. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:3<369:aid-smj93>3.0.co;2-m.Google Scholar
  42. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113–1126. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation, 29(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 42(6), 869–889. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400801922814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verspagen, B., & Duysters, G. (2004). The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation, 24, 563–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4972(02)00123-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.08.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolf, T., Cantner, U., Graf, H., & Rothgang, M. (2017). Cluster ambidexterity towards exploration and exploitation: Strategies and cluster management. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9617-5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and ManagementUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark

Personalised recommendations