Advertisement

Evaluating the role of the territorial dimension in the propensity to inter-enterprise relations: evidence from Italy

  • Alessandra Righi
  • Alessandra Nuccitelli
  • Giovanni Alfredo Barbieri
Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

This paper is aimed at studying the inter-enterprise relations in Italy focusing on territorial differences. A multinomial logistic model is proposed to estimate the effects of a set of relevant business characteristics on the propensity to relations, using official data sources. The results show which are the most relevant factors associated with the relational behavior (i.e. sector of economic activity, introduction of innovations, level of revenues from sales), proving that the impact of the territorial dimension turns out to be significant, albeit rather limited. The business characterization arising from the model may be useful to policy formulation.

Keywords

Competitiveness Multinomial logistic model Territorial development disparities 

JEL Classification

D22 L14 L2 

References

  1. Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C., & Schiuma, G. (1998). Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relationships in industrial districts: The role of the leader firm. Technovation, 19–1, 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asso, P. F., & Pavolini, E. (Eds.). (2014). Collaborare per crescere, La cooperazione tra imprese al Nord e al Sud. Rapporto di ricerca 2013 della Fondazione Res. Roma: Donzelli Editore.Google Scholar
  3. Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  4. Becattini, G. (1979). Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull’unità d’indagine nell’economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale, 1, 7–21.Google Scholar
  5. Becchetti, L. (2003). Forme forti e deboli di cooperazione tra le imprese: l’appartenenza a gruppi e la partecipazione a consorzi. In Unioncamere—Tagliacarne, Rapporto 2003. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  6. Cafaggi, F. (Ed.). (2004). Reti di impresa tra regolazione e norme sociali. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  7. Cai, J., & Szeidl, A. (2016). Interfirm relationships and business performance, NBER Working Paper No. 22951. http://www.nber.org/papers/w22951. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  8. Camagni, R. (Ed.). (1991). Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives. London: Belhaven Press.Google Scholar
  9. Carnazza, P. (2008). Gruppi di imprese e sistema di relazioni in rete, Quaderno n. 150. Roma: Dptea, Luiss Guido Carli.Google Scholar
  10. Cartocci, R. (2007). Mappe del Tesoro: Atlante del Capitale Sociale in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  11. Daniele, V., & Malanima, P. (2014). Falling disparities and persisting dualism: Regional development and industrialisation in Italy, 1891–2001. Investigaciones de Historia Económica (IHE) Journal of the Spanish Economic History Association, 10(3), 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Blasio, G., & Nuzzo, G. (2009). Historical traditions of civicness and local economic development. Journal of Regional Science, 50–4, 833–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Field, J. (2003). Social capital. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Foresti, G., Guelpa, F., & Trenti, S. (2009). ‘Effetto distretto’: Esiste ancora?, Collana Ricerche, Servizio Studi e Ricerche Intesa San Paolo. http://group.intesasanpaolo.com/portalIsir0/isInvestor/PDF_studi/R2009_01.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  15. Guelpa, F., & Micelli, S. (Eds.). (2007). I distretti industriali del terzo millennio. Dalle economie di agglomerazione alle strategie d’impresa. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  16. Guiso, L., & Schivardi, F. (2007). Spillovers in industrial districts. The Economic Journal, 117–516, 68–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Istat. (2000). Rapporto annuale sulla situazione del Paese 1999. Roma: Istituto nazionale di Statistica.Google Scholar
  19. Istat. (2013). Assetti strutturali e fattori di competitività delle imprese italiane. Relazioni e strategie delle imprese italiane. Nota Istat 18/11/2013. http://www.istat.it/it/files/2013/11/Report_CIS_18novembre2.pdf. Accessed 10 May 2018.
  20. Micucci, G., & Nuzzo, G. (2005). La misurazione del capitale sociale: un’analisi sulle regioni italiane. In L. F. Signorini & M. Omiccioli (Eds.), Economie locali, modelli di agglomerazione e apertura internazionale. Nuove ricerche della Banca d’Italia sullo sviluppo territoriale. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  21. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pyke, F., Becattini, G., & Sengenberger, W. (Eds.). (1995). Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Righi, A. (2013). Measuring social capital: Official statistics initiatives in Italy. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 72, 4–22.Google Scholar
  24. Righi, A., Nuccitelli, A., Barbieri, G. A., & Pavolini, E. (2016). Le relazioni delle imprese. In S. Istat (Ed.), Statistiche per le politiche di sviluppo a supporto dei decisori pubblici. Roma: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica.Google Scholar
  25. SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS/STAT 14.1 user’s guide: High performance procedures. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  26. Unioncamere-Istituto Guglielmo Tagliacarne. (2007). Le piccole e medie imprese nell’economia Italiana Rapporto 2007. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Nazionale di StatisticaRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations