Geographical proximity and the diffusion of knowledge

The case of SME’s in biotechnology
  • Delphine Gallaud
  • André Torre
Part of the Economics of Science, Technology and Innovation book series (ESTI, volume 30)


Geographical Information System American Economic Review Tacit Knowledge Absorptive Capacity Knowledge Spillover 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anselin, L., Varga, A., Acs, Z., Local geographic spillovers between University research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics 1997; 42:422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonelli, C., Technological Districts and Regional Innovation Capacity. Revue d’Economie Régionale and Urbaine 1986; 5:695–705.Google Scholar
  3. Arora, A., Gambardella, A., Evaluating technological information and utilizing it. Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization 1994; 24:91–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D., Stephan, P., Company scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review 1996; 86:641–651.Google Scholar
  5. Audretsch, D., Feldman, M., R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 1996; 86:630–640.Google Scholar
  6. Autant-Bernard, C., Massard, N., Econométrie des externalités technologiques locales et géographie de l’innovation: une analyse critique. Economie Appliquée 1999; 52:35–68.Google Scholar
  7. Catherine, D., Corolleur, F., Coronini, R., Les fondateurs des nouvelles entreprises de biotechnologies et leurs modèles d’entreprise. Une approche par les compètences and les ressources illustrée sur le cas français. Revue Internationale des PME 2002; 15:63–92.Google Scholar
  8. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R., Asorptive capacity, coauthorship behaviour and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics 1998; 46:157–182.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, W., Levinthal, W., Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 1989; 99:569–596.Google Scholar
  10. Crevoisier, O., L’approche par les milieux innovateurs: état des lieux et perspectives. Revue d’Economie Régionale and Urbaine 2001; 1:153–165.Google Scholar
  11. Depret, M., Hamdouch, A., Pharmacie et biotech l’ère des réseaux. Biofutur 2000; 203:44–48.Google Scholar
  12. Ducos, C., Joly, P.B., Les biotechnologies, Paris: La Découverte, Repères, 1988.Google Scholar
  13. Feldman, M., The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 1999; 8:5–25.Google Scholar
  14. Gaudin, J.H., Guide pratique de l’ingénierie des licences et des coopérations industrielles. Paris: LITEC, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Gilly, J.P., Torre, A., Dynamiques de proximité, Paris: L’harmattan, 2000.Google Scholar
  16. Grossetti, G., Nguyen, D., La structure spatiale des relations science-industrie en France: l’exemple des contrats entre les entreprises and le laboratoires du CNRS. Revue d’Economie Régionale and Urbaine 2001; 2:311–326.Google Scholar
  17. Guilhon, B. et al., Technology and markets for knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. Huffman, W.E., Evenson, R., Science for Agriculture: a long term perspective, Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  19. Joly, P.B., Lemarié, S., Cinquante ans d’innovation en Agriculture. Economie Rurale 2000; 86–97.Google Scholar
  20. Jaffé, A., Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms patents, profits and market value. The American Economic Review 1986; 76:984–1001.Google Scholar
  21. Jaffé, A., Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review 1989; 79:957–970.Google Scholar
  22. Jaffé, A., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patents citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 1993; 108:577–598.Google Scholar
  23. Lemarie, S., Mangematin, V., Torre A., Is the Creation and Development of Biotech SMEs Localized? Conclusions drawn from the French Case. Small Business Economics 2001; 17:61–76.Google Scholar
  24. Léveque, F., Bonazzi, C., Quental, C., “Dynamics of cooperation and industrial R&D: first insights into the black box 2.” In Technological cooperation, Coombs R., ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar
  25. Lhuillery, S., Panorama des entreprises françaises de biotech, séminaire REPERES, MENRT, 2002.Google Scholar
  26. Longhi, Ch., Networks, collective learning and technology development in innovative high technology regions: the case of Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies 1999; 33:333–342.Google Scholar
  27. Lundvall, B.A. “Relations entre utilisateurs et producteurs, systèmes nationaux d’innovation et internationalisation.” In Technologie et Richesse des Nations, Foray, D. and Freeman, Ch. eds. Paris: Economica, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. Lung, Y. et al., Organisation spatiale et coordination des activités d’innovation des entreprises. Rapport pour le Commissariat au Plan. 1997.Google Scholar
  29. Lung, Y., Rallet, A., Torre, A., Connaissances et Proximité Géographique dans les processus d’innovation. Géographie, Economie, Société 1999; 1:281–306.Google Scholar
  30. Mangematin, V., Nesta, L., What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management 1999; 18:149–172.Google Scholar
  31. Maskell, P., Malmberg, A., Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1999; 23:167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Monck, C.S., Porter, S.P., Quintas, P., Storey, D.J., Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London: Croom Helm, 1988.Google Scholar
  33. Nonaka, I., A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 1994; 5:14–37.Google Scholar
  34. Orlando, M., On the importance of geographic and technological proximity for R&D spillovers: an empirical investigation. Kansas City: WP Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas, 2000.Google Scholar
  35. Pavitt, K., Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 1984; 13:343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porter, M., The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan, 1990.Google Scholar
  37. Porter, M., “Locations, clusters and company strategy” In The Oxford handbook of economic geography, Clark and al. eds., Oxford: Oxford U. Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. Rallet, A., Torre, A., Is Geographical Proximity necessary in the Innovation Networks in the Era of Global Economy? GeoJournal 2000; 373–380.Google Scholar
  39. Ratti, R., Bramanti, A., Gordon, R., The Dynamics of Innovative Regions. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, 1997.Google Scholar
  40. Wallsten, S., An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data. Regional Science and Urban Economics 2001; 31:571–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Armstrong, J., Intellectual capital and the firm: the technology of geographically localised knowledge spillovers, WP NBER 4946, 1994.Google Scholar
  42. Zucker, L., Darby, M., Brewer, M., Intellectual human capital and the birth of US biotechnology enterprises. The American Economic Review 1998; 88:290–305.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delphine Gallaud
  • André Torre

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations