Regional Specialization and Knowledge Output: An Agent-Based Simulation of the Vienna Life Sciences

  • Martina DünserEmail author
  • Manuela Korber
Part of the Economic Complexity and Evolution book series (ECAE)


This study aims at identifying the effects of agents’ specialization in research fields on their research performance by means of an agent-based model of the Vienna life sciences, which builds upon the SKIN model. Specialization of agents, e.g. research organizations, firms or universities, is found to play a crucial role in the innovative performance of an industry or a research area. Also in the policy arena, specialization of regions and sectors attained renascent importance through the concept of smart specialization. In order to contribute to the crucial discussion whether specialization or rather diversification is more likely to promote innovative activities, we run simulation scenarios with varying degrees of specialization. Findings provide evidence for both aspects; whereas a higher degree of specialization is found to be favourable for the creation of patent applications and high-tech jobs, diversification is found to be favourable for the creation of scientific publications.


Research Field Patent Application Core Competency Innovative Activity Expertise Level 
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.


  1. Ahrweiler P, Pyka A, Gilbert N (2004) Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks. In: Leombruni R, Richiardi M (eds) Industry and labor dynamics: the agent-based computational economics approach. World Scientific, Singapore, pp 284–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 609–626Google Scholar
  3. Austrian Life Science Directory (2012) Austrian Life Science Directory. URL: Accessed 10 Jan 2012
  4. Beaudry C, Schiffauerova A (2009) Who’s right, Marshall or Jacobs? The localization versus urbanization debate. Res Pol 38:318–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biocom AG (2011) Life sciences in Österreich 2012. Biocom AG, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Edquist C (1997) Systems of innovation approaches—their emergence and characteristics. In: Edquist C (ed) Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter, London, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  7. European Commission (2002) Life sciences and biotechnology—a strategy for Europe. COM (2002) 27, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2013) Smart specialization platform. URL: Accessed 16 Sept 2013
  9. Farhauer O, Kröll A (2013) Indizes räumlicher Konzentration und regionaler Spezialisierung. In: Farhauer O, Kröll A (eds) Stadorttheorien. Regional- und Standortökonomik in Theorie und Praxis. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp 299–369Google Scholar
  10. Feldman MP, Audretsch DB (1999) Innovation in cities: science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. Eur Econ Rev 43(2):409–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fischer MM, Fröhlich J (2001) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems: prologue. In: Fischer MM, Fröhlich J (eds) Knowledge, complexity and innovation systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fritsch M, Slavtchev V (2008) How does industry specialization affect the efficiency of regional innovation systems? Jena Economic Research Papers # 2008-058Google Scholar
  13. Gilbert N (1997) A simulation of the structure of academic science. Sociol Res Online 2(2). URL: Accessed 12 Aug 2013
  14. Gilbert N, Pyka A, Ahrweiler P (2001) Innovation networks—a simulation approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 4(3). URL: Accessed 12 Aug 2013
  15. Glaeser EL, Kallal HD, Scheinkman JA, Shleifer A (1992) Growth in cities. J Polit Econ 100(6):1126–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greunz L (2004) Industrial structure and innovation—evidence from European regions. J Evol Econ 14(5):563–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heller-Schuh B, Paier M (2009) Regional—National—Europäisch: Wiener F&E-Netzwerke aus der Mehr-Ebenen-Perspektive. In: Leitner K-H, Weber M, Fröhlich J (eds) Innovationsforschung und Technologiepolitik in Österreich: Neue Perspektiven und Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten. Studienverlag, Innsbruck, pp 154–179Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Korber M (2012) Agent-based modeling of complexity in life sciences—with a special emphasis on the impact of public funding on research activities [=Doctoral work]. Book series of the Innovation Economics Vienna—Knowledge and Talent Development Programme PhD- & Master-Theses 16, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology and Vienna University of Economics and BusinessGoogle Scholar
  20. Korber M, Paier M (2011) Exploring the effects of public research funding on biotech innovation: an agent-based simulation approach. In: Sayama H, Minai AA, Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (eds) Proceedings of the 8th international conference on complex systems “unifying themes in complex systems”, vol 8, New England Complex Systems Institute Series on Complexity, 26 June–1 July 2011. NECSI Knowledge Press, Boston, MA, pp 599–613Google Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff L (2008) On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data: Salton’s cosine versus the Jaccard index. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 59(1):77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LISAvienna (2011) Vienna life science report: sector survey: facts and directory 2011/2012. Life Science Austria, Biocom AG, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. Macal CM, North MJ (2010) Tutorial on agent-based modeling and simulation. J Simulat 4(3):151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall A (1890) Principles of economics. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. OECD (2005) A framework for biotechnology statistics. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2009) Biotechnology statistics 2009. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  27. Paci R, Usai S (1999) Externalities, knowledge spillovers and the spatial distribution of innovation. GeoJournal 49(4):381–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paci R, Usai S (2000) The role of specialization and diversity externalities in the agglomeration of innovative activities. Rivista Italiana degli Economisti 2:237–268Google Scholar
  29. Parunak HV, Savit R, Riolo R (1998) Agent-based modeling vs. equation-based modeling: a case study and users’ guide. In: Sichman JS, Conte R, Gilbert N (eds) Multi-agent systems and agent-based simulation (MABS ‘98). Springer, Berlin, pp 10–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pyka A, Grebel T (2006) Agent-based modelling—a methodology for the analysis of qualitative development processes. In: Billari FC, Fent T, Prskawetz A, Scheffran J (eds) Agent-based computational modelling—applications in demography, social, economic and environmental sciences. Physica, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  31. Pyka A, Gilbert N, Ahrweiler P (2002) Simulating innovation networks. In: Pyka A, Küppers G (eds) Innovation networks: theory and practice. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 169–196Google Scholar
  32. Romer P (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94:1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Panne G (2004) Agglomeration externalities: Marshall versus Jacobs. J Evol Econ 14(5):593–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovation Systems DepartmentAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations