Advertisement

Paradigm Changes in Technological Knowledge Connections in Urban Innovation Systems

  • Salma ZamanEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The late twentieth century marked the advent of a new information based and internationally networked paradigm, much different from its old science-based predecessor. As we enter the diffusion stage of this paradigm, we expect to see changes in the way organizations and locations interact with one another. We envision that cities and clusters will not rely exclusively on local knowledge sources but will need to combine local with complementary geographically distant (trans-local) knowledge sources. This chapter contributes to the literature on the changing geographic composition of knowledge connections in the new paradigm. Using social network analysis techniques, we construct a unidirectional network of 62 selected cities, since backward citations point in just one direction to prior knowledge sources. We observe how the spatial distribution of our technological network changes during our time period, both in the aggregate and at the level of five selected sectors. The nodes in our network represent cities while the edges represent citations from one city to another. We calculate network statistics such as degree strength and eigenvector centrality to determine which cities have gained influence over time and which cities have become relatively less important. Overall, we observe that the technological knowledge network between our cities is getting denser and more dispersed over our time period. We see that many developing cities are gradually increasing in their centrality to our constructed network and that this increase in centrality is more pronounced in certain sectors, characteristic of the new paradigm, such as the ICT sector. We also observe that while developing cities have become important sources of technological knowledge, they still lag in terms of the knowledge they receive from external sources.

References

  1. Archibugi, D. (1992). Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: A review. Science and public policy, 19(6), 357–368.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.Google Scholar
  3. Awate, S., & Mudambi, R. (2017). On the geography of emerging industry technological networks: The breadth and depth of patented innovations. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2), 391–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bathelt, H. (2007). Buzz-and-Pipeline dynamics: Towards a knowledge-based multiplier model of clusters. Geography Compass, 1(6), 1282–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bathelt, H., & Glückler, J. (2011). The relational economy: Geographies of knowing and learning. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bathelt, H. (2001). Regional competence and economic recovery: Divergent growth paths in Boston’s high technology economy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(4), 287–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bramanti, A., & Ratti, R. (1997). The multi-faced dimensions of local development. In R. Ratti, A. Bramanti, & R. Gordon (Eds.), The dynamics of innovative regions: The GREMI approach (pp. 3–45). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., & Saxenian, A. (2001). ‘Old economy’ inputs for ‘new economy’ outcomes: Cluster formation in the New Silicon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 835–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
  11. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cantwell, J. A., & Kosmopoulou, E. (2002). What Determines the Internationalisation of Corporate Technology? In M. Forsgren, H. Hakanson, & V. Havila (Eds.), Critical perspectives on internationalisation, (pp. 305–334). Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. Cantwell, J. A., & Iammarino, S. (2005). Multinational corporations and European regional systems of innovation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cantwell, J. A., & Santangelo, G. (2002). The new geography of corporate research in information and communications technology (ICT). Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1), 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantwell, J. A., & Vertova, G. (2004). Historical Evolution of Technological Diversification. Research Policy, 33(3), 511–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cantwell, J. A., & Zaman, S. (2018). Connecting global and technological knowledge sourcing. Competitiveness Review, 28(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
  17. Cantwell, J. A. (1991). Historical trends in international patterns of technological innovation. In J. Foreman-Peck (Ed.), New perspectives on the late victorian economy: Essays in quantitative economic history, 1860–1914 (pp. 37–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cantwell, J. A. (2006). The economics of patents. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.Google Scholar
  20. Florida, R. (2005). The world is spiky globalization has changed the economic playing field, but hasn’t leveled it. Atlantic Monthly, 296(3), 48.Google Scholar
  21. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. and how it’s Transforming Work, Leisure and Everyday Life.Google Scholar
  22. Forstall, R. L., & Fitzsimmons, J. D. (1993). Metropolitan growth and expansion in the 1980s. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.Google Scholar
  23. Foss, N., & Pedersen, T. (2004). Organizing knowledge processes in the multinational corporation: An introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frey, W. H., & Alden Jr, S. (1988). Regional and metropolitan growth and decline in the US. Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Friedmann, J. (1995). Where we stand: A decade of world city research. World cities in a world system: 21–47.Google Scholar
  27. Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gertler, M. S. (2001). Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence. Journal of Economic Geography, 1(1), 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Goerzen, A., Asmussen, C., & Nielson, B. (2013). Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategy. Journal of International Business Studies, 44, 427–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: Temporary collaboration in social context. Regional Studies, 36(3), 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hall, P. (2001). Global city-regions in the twenty-first century. In A. Scott (Ed.), Global city—regions: Trends. Theory, policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hotz-Hart, B. (2000). Innovation networks, regions and globalization. In The Oxford handbook of economic geography (PP. 432–450). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  34. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 577–598.Google Scholar
  35. Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review, 957–970.Google Scholar
  36. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1–2), 105–136.Google Scholar
  37. Kern, H. (1996). Vertrauensverlust Und Blindes Vertrauen: Integrationsprobleme Im Ökonomischen Handeln Handeln (Loss of Trust and Blind Confidence in Economic Action). SOFI Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut Göttingen, 24, 7–14.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, J., & Lee, S. (2015). Patent databases for innovation studies: A comparative analysis of USPTO, EPO, JPO and KIPO. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 332–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leamer, E. E., & Storper, M. (2001). The economic geography of the internet age. Journal of International Business Studies, 32(4), 641–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lorenz, E. (1999). Trust, contract and economic cooperation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(3), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lucas, R. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Maillat, D. (1998). Interactions between urban systems and localized productive systems: An approach to endogenous regional development in terms of innovative milieu. European Planning Studies, 6(2), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Malecki, E. J. (2000). Knowledge and regional competitiveness (Wissen Und Regionale Wettbewerbsfähigkeit). Erdkunde, 334–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Malecki, E. J., & Oinas, P. (1999). Making connections: Technological learning and regional economic change. Ashgate Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  45. Malmgren, H. B. (1961). Information, expectations and the theory of the firm. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(3), 399–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics, 8th Edn (1920). London: Mcmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. (2000). A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oinas, P. (1999). Activity-specificity in organizational learning: Implications for analysing the role of proximity. GeoJournal, 49(4), 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pavitt, K. (1987). The objectives of technology policy. Science and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  51. Pavitt, K. (1988). Uses and abuses of patent statistics. In Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (PP. 509–536). Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. Robertson, P., & Langlois, R. (1995). Innovation, networks, and vertical integration. Research Policy, 24(4), 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sassen, S. (1991). The global city: New York, London and Tokyo. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sassen, S. (1994). The urban complex in a world economy. International Social Science Journal, 46, 43–62.Google Scholar
  55. Sassen, S. (2012). Cities: A window into larger and smaller worlds. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional networks: Industrial adaptation in silicon valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Scott, A. (1998). Regions and the world economy: The coming shape of global production, competition, and political order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, A. J. (2001). Industrial revitalization in the ABC municipalities, Sao Paulo: Diagnostic analysis and strategic recommendations for a new economy and a new regionalism. Regional Development Studies, 7(2001), 1–32.Google Scholar
  59. Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2003). Regions, globalization, development. Regional Studies, 37(6–7), 579–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh, J. (2004). Multinational firms and knowledge diffusion: Evidence using patent citation data, 2004(1), 1543–8643.Google Scholar
  61. Storper, M. (2013). Keys to the city: How economics, institutions, social interaction, and politics shape development. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Storper, M., & Manville, M. (2006). Behaviour, preferences and cities: Urban theory and urban resurgence. Urban Studies, 43(8), 1247–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Summers, A. A., Cheshire, P. C., & Senn, L. (1993). Urban change in the United States and Western Europe: Comparative analysis and policy. The Urban Insitute.Google Scholar
  65. Turkina, E., & Van Assche, A. (2018). Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters. Journal of International Business Studies, 1–23.Google Scholar
  66. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vatne, E. (2001). Local versus extra-local relations: The importance of ties to information and the institutional and territorial structure of technological systems.Google Scholar
  69. Veltz, P. (1996). Mondialisation, Villes Et Territoires. In L’économie d’archipel. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  70. Wall, R. S., & Van der Knaap, G. (2011). Sectoral differentiation and network structure within contemporary worldwide corporate networks. Economic Geography, 87(3), 267–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)LahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations