Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Activity-specificity in organizational learning: implications for analysing the role of proximity

  • Published:
GeoJournal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

By the late 1990s, learning became a key notion in explaining successful regional economic development outcomes. One of the key (implicit or explicit) assumptions in these explanations tends to be that regional – i.e., proximate – relations are most conducive for collective interactive learning. In consequence, accounting for the significance of spatial proximity appears to be at the heart of explaining learning and the creation of competitiveness at the level of regions as well as the firms that they host. A general claim about the role of proximity in learning seems too vague, however. This paper suggests that the significance of proximate relations for learning needs to be unveiled in the case of the various activities carried out in firms. Firms are depicted as utilising activity-specific resources in carrying out their various functions. While other factors obviously also influence processes of learning – such as sector, product and market strategies, type of organization, etc. – this paper puts its main focus on elaborating on the significance of understanding various organizational activities. It aims at pointing out that learning is likely to take place in all of them, regardless of whether proximate or more distant relations are involved. This is believed to provide one step further in an attempt to understand the difference that space makes in organizational learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alderman N., 1999: Local product development trajectories: A comparison of engineering establishments in three contrasting regions. In: Malecki E. J. and Oinas P. (eds), Making connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 79-107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amendola M. and Bruno, S., 1990: The behaviour of the innovative firm: relations to the environment. Research Policy 19: 419-433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A. and Thrift N., 1993: Globalization, institutional thickness and local prospects. Revue d'Economie Regionale et Urbaine 3: 405-427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A. and Thrift N., 1994: Living in the global. In: Amin A. and Thrift N. (eds.), Globalization, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A. and Thrift N., 1995a: Territoriality in the global political economy. Nordisk Samhällsgeografisk Tidskrift 20: 3-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A. & Thrift N., 1995b: Globalisation, institutional ‘thickness’ and the local economy. In: Healey P., Cameron S., Davoudi S., Graham S. and Madani-Pour A. (eds), Managing Cities: The New Urban Context. John Wiley & Sons, London, 91-108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris C. and Schön D. A., 1978: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim B., 1997: 'Learning regions’ in a globalised world economy: towards a new competitive advantage of industrial districts? In: Conti S. and Taylor M. (eds), Interdependent and Uneven Development: Global-Local Perspectives. Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 143-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim B. and Cooke P., 1999: Local learning and interactive innovation networks in a global economy. In: Malecki E.J. and Oinas P. (eds), Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 145-178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney J., 1997: Gaining and Sustaining Competitive Advantage. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R., 1995: Global network and local milieu: towards a theory of economic space. In: Conti S., Malecki E.J. and Oinas P. (eds), The Industrial Enterprise and its Environment: Spatial Perspectives. Avebury, Aldershot, pp. 195-214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell J., 1995: The globalisation of technology: What remains of the product cycle model? Cambridge Journal of Economics 19: 155-174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell J. and Janne O., 1999: Technological globalisation and innovative centres: the role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy 28: 119-144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe N. M. and Townsend R.A., 1998: Debunking the myth of localized agglomeration: The development of a regionalized service economy in South-East England. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers 23: 385-404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicken P., 1998: Global Shift. 3rd edn. Paul Chapman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx I. and Cool K. 1989: Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science 35: 1504-1511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G. and Malerba F., 1996: Organizational learning and institutional embeddedness. An introduction to the diverse evolutionary paths of modern corporations. In: Dosi G. and Malerba F. (eds), Organization and Strategy in the Evolution of the Enterprise. Macmillan, London, pp. 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida R., 1995: Toward the learning region. Futures 27: 527-536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss N. (ed.), 1997: Resources, Firms, and Strategies. A Reader in the Resource-Based Perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabher G. & Stark D., 1997: Organizing diversity: evolutionary theory, network analysis and post-socialism. In: Grabher G. and Stark D. (eds), Restructuring Networks: Legacies, Linkages, and Localities in Postsocialism. Oxford University Press, London. pp. 1-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter M., 1985: Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481-510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grotz R. and Braun B., 1997: Territorial or trans-territorial networking: Spatial aspects of technology-oriented co-operation within the German mechanical engineering industry. Regional Studies 31: 545-558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison B., 1992: Industrial districts: Old wine in new bottles? Regional Studies 26, 469-483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison B., Kelley M. and Gant J., 1996: Innovative firm behavior and local milieu: Exploring the intersection of agglomeration, firm effects, and technological change. Economic Geography 72: 233-258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson R., 1999: 'The learning economy, the learning firm and the learning region': A sympathetic critique of the limits to learning. European Urban and Regional Studies 6: 59-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirat T. and Lung Y., 1999: Innovation and proximity. Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies 6: 27-38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagendijk A., 1999: Regional anchoring and modernisation strategies in non-core regions: evidence from the UK and Germany. European Planning Studies 7: 775-792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam A., 1997: Embedded firms, embedded knowledge: Problems of collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies 18: 973-996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsson S. and Malmberg A., 1999: Innovations, competitiveness and local embeddedness: A case study of the Swedish machinery industry. Geografiska Annaler 81B: 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson C., 1999: Towards a competence theory of the region. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23: 151-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson C. and Lorenz E., 1999: Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies 33: 305-317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-Å. (ed.), 1992: National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney J.T. and Pandian R., 1992: The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 13: 363-380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malecki E. J. and Oinas P., 1999: Making connections: Introduction. In: Malecki E. J. and Oinas P. (eds), Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 1-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg A. and Maskell P., 1997a: Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industry agglomeration. In: Eskelinen H. (ed.), Regional Specialization and Local Environment — Learning and Competitiveness. NordREFO, 1997, 1, pp. 14-39.

  • Malmberg A. and Maskell P., 1997b: Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industry agglomeration. European Planning Studies, 5: 25-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskell P., 1999: Globalisation and industrial competitiveness: The process and consequences of ubiquitification. In: Malecki E. J. & Oinas P. (eds), Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 35-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskell P. & Malmberg, A., 1999a: The competitiveness of firms and regions. ‘Ubiquitification’ and the importance of localized learning. European Urban and Regional Studies 6: 9-25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskell P. and Malmberg A., 1999b: Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23, 167-186.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee D., 1992: An organizational learning approach to product innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 9: 232-245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan K., 1997: The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 31: 491-503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niosi J., 1999: The internationalization of industrial R&D. From technology transfer to the learning organization. Research Policy 28: 107-117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odgaard M., 1998: The ‘misplacement’ of learning into economic geography? Roskilde University, Department of Geography, Working paper no. 132.

  • Oinas P., 1997: On the socio-spatial embeddedness of business firms. Erdkunde 51: 23-32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oinas P., 2000: Distance and Learning: Does Proximity Matter? In: Rutten R., Bakkers S., Morgan K. and Boekema F., Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth: Theory and Practice of the Learning Region. Aldershot: Edward Elgar (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Oinas P. and Malecki E.J., 1999: Spatial innovation systems. In: Malecki E. J. & Oinas P. (eds), Making Connections: Technological Learning and Regional Economic Change. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 7-33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oinas P. and van Gils H., forthcoming: Identifying contexts of learning. In: Felsenstein, D. and Taylor M. (eds), Promoting Local Growth: Process, Practice and Policy. Ashgate, Aldershot.

  • Oinas P. and Virkkala S., 1997: Learning, competitiveness and development. Reflections on the contemporary discourse on ‘learning regions’. In Eskelinen H. (ed.), Regional Specialization and Local Environment — Learning and Competitiveness. NordREFO, 1997, 1, pp. 263-277.

  • Penrose E., 1959: The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piore M. and Sabel C., 1984: The Second Industrial Divide. Basic Books, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M., 1990: The Competitive Avantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter M., 1994: Toward a dynamic theory of strategy. In: Rumelt R.P., Schendel D.E. and Teece D.J. (eds), Fundamental Issues in Strategy. A Research Agenda. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 423-461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad C.K. and Hamel G., 1990: The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review 3: 79-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reddy P. and Sigurdson J., 1997: Strategic location of R&D and emerging patterns of globalization: The case of Astra Research Centre India. Int. Journal of Technology Management 14: 344-361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxenian A., 1994: Regional Advantage, Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmie J. (ed.), 1997: Innovation, Networks and Learning Regions. Jessica Kingsley, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stam E. and Wever E., 1999: Clusters of high technology SMEs: The Dutch case. Regional Studies 33: 391-400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg R., 1999: Innovative linkages and proximity: Empirical results from recent surveys of small and medium sized firms in German regions. Regional Studies 33: 529-540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M., 1992: The limits to globalization: technology districts and international trade. Economic Geography 68: 60-93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M., 1993: Regional ‘worlds’ of production: learning and innovation in the technology districts of France, Italy and the USA. Regional Studies 27: 433-455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M., 1997: The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford, New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M. and Salais R., 1992: The four ‘worlds’ of contemporary industry. Cambridge Journal of Economics 16: 169-193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M. & Salais R., 1997: Worlds of Production. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suarez-Villa L. and Walrod W., 1997: Operational strategy, R&D and intra-metropolitan clustering in a polycentric structure: The advanced electronics industries of the Los Angeles Basin. Urban Studies 34: 1343-1380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece D.J., Rumelt R., Dosi G. and Winter S., 1994: Understanding corporate coherence. Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 23: 1-30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece D. J. and Pisano G., 1994: The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change 3: 537-556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teulings, A.W.M., 1987: Managerial labor processes in organized capitalism; the power of corporate management and the powerlessness of the manager. Administrative Studies 6: 173-184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrift N., 1998: The rise of soft capitalism. In: Herod A., Tuathail G.O. & Roberts S.M. (eds), An Unruly World? Globalization, Governance and Geography. Routledge, London, pp. 25-71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B., 1984: A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal: 5: 171-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander I., 1998: The evolution of technological capabiliteis in the multinational corporation — dispersion, duplication and potential advantages from multinationality. Research Policy 27: 17-35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economic Geography/General Economics, Erasmus University Rotterdam, PO Box 1738, 3000, DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Päivi Oinas & Päivi Oinas

Authors
  1. Päivi Oinas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oinas, P. Activity-specificity in organizational learning: implications for analysing the role of proximity. GeoJournal 49, 363–372 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007184012189

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007184012189

Search

Navigation