Abstract
This chapter evaluates the social phenomenon of innovation and the effect of immature social infrastructures have in limiting the benefits of proximity preventing the entrepreneurial process of knowledge spill-overs. Interviews with individuals in technology firms in the Malaysian city of Cyberjaya revealed low levels of interaction among the system communities and weaker relationships with universities than government agencies. The research contributes to the theoretical concept of proximity, where ineffective social infrastructure and low density of informal social networks influences the proximity benefits and limits the opportunity density of entrepreneurs’ knowledge spill-over. This study highlights developing collaborative relationships with universities, reducing dependency on local public authorities and investing in a richer social infrastructure; or utilisings existing mature towns/cities in preference to green-field developments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abdullah, O. Y. (1993). Human resource development: The key towards a developed and industrialized society. In A. S. A. Hamid (Ed.), Malaysia’s vision 2020: Understanding the concept (pp. 315–326). Pelanduk Publications.
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trend, research outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 329–342.
Bessant, J., & Rush, H. (1995). Building bridges for innovation: The role of consultants in technology transfer. Research Policy, 24(1), 97–114.
Bryant, K., Lombardo, L., Healy, M., Bopage, L., & Hartshom, S. (1996). Australian business innovation. A strategic analysis. Measures of Science and Innovation 5, Canberra.
Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research. Sage.
Carlsson, B. (1995). Technological system and economic performance: The case of factory automation. Kluwer.
Carlsson, B., & Stankiewicz, R. (1995). On the nature, function and composition of technological systems. In B. Carlsson (Eds.), Technological system and economic performance: The case of factory automation. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmen, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues. Research Policy, 31, 233–245.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. University of California Press.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Cooke, P. (1996). Networking for competitive advantage. National Economic and Social Council, Dublin.
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.
Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1994). The regional innovation system in Baden-Wurttemberg. International Journal of Technology Management, 9, 394–429.
Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475–491.
Department of Trade and Industry. (2004). Practical guide to cluster development. DTI Publication.
Dodgson, M. (2000). The management of technological innovation. Oxford University Press.
Dubois, A., & Gadde, L. E. (2002). Systematic combining: An abductive approach to case research. Journal of Business Research, 55(7), 553–560.
Economic Planning Unit (EPU). (2010). Web access http://www.epu.gov.my/en/undertasking-research-in-malaysia.
Edquist, C. (1997). System of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter.
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.
Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of innovation and competitiveness: A triple helix case study. Journal of Knowledge Economies, 7, 259–275.
Flora, C. B., & Flora, J. L. (1993). Entrepreneurial social infrastructure: A necessary ingredient. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 529, 48–58.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter Publishers.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P., & Tangchitpiboon, T. (2002). National innovation system in less successful developing countries: The case of Thailand. Research Policy, 31, 1445–1457.
Jarvensivu, T., & Tornroos, J. A. (2010). Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 100–108.
Lundavall, B. A. (1992). National innovation systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter.
Lundberg, H., & Andersen, E. (2012). Cooperation among companies, universities and local government in a Swedish context. Industrial Marketing Management, 41, 4429–4437.
Malaysia. (1992). Vision 2020. Kuala Lumpur, Percetaken Maziza Sdn. Bhd. For National Print Department.
Malaysia. (1996). Seventh malaysia plan, 1996–2000. Kuala Lumpur, National Print. Department.
Malaysia. (2010). Tenth malaysia plan 2011–2015. Putrajaya, Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’s Department.
Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral system of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31, 247–264.
Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral system of innovation: basic concepts. In F. Malerba (Ed.), Sectoral system of innovations: Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation system: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 1–18). Oxford University Press.
O'Connor, H., & Gibson, Nancy. (2003). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data analysis. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health, 1, 63–90.
Oprime, P. C., Tristao, H. M., & Pimenta, M. L. (2011). Relationships, cooperation and development in a Brazilian industrial cluster. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 60(2), 115–131.
Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1994). National innovation system: why they are important and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3, 77–95. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillian Inc., Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Macmillan Inc., Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1998, November–December). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review.
Putnam, D. R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 4(13), 11–18.
Rahman, O. A. (1993). Industrial targets of vision 2020: The science and technology perspective. In A. S. A. Hamid (Ed.), Malaysia’s vision 2020: Understanding the concept (pp. 271–299). Pelanduk Publications.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Harvard University Press.
Saxenian, A. L. (1985). Silicon valley and route 128: Regional prototypes or historic exceptions. High Technology, Space and Society, 28, 81–105.
Smedlund, A. (2005). The role of intermediaries in a regional knowledge system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 204–220.
Staber, U., & Sautter, B. (2011). Who we are, and do we need to change? culture identity and life cycle. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1349–1362.
Storper, M. (1995). Regional technology coalitions an essential dimension of national technology policy. Research Policy, 24(6), 895–911.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Sage.
Vaz, E., Vaz, T. N., Galindo, P. V., & Nijkamp, P. (2014). Modelling innovation support systems for regional development—Analysis of cluster structures in innovation in Portugal. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(1–2), 23–46.
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2017). Qualitative analysis of content. In Wildermuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (2nd Ed.). Libraries Unlimited.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Edgar, G., Yusof, Z.N. (2021). Proximity, Collaborative Relationship and Entrepreneur's Knowledge Spill-Over Opportunity in a Malaysian Regional Innovation System. In: Jones, P., Huxtable-Thomas, L., Hamidon, S., Hannon, P., Mohd Tawil, N. (eds) Entrepreneurial Activity in Malaysia. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77753-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77753-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-77752-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-77753-1
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)