Supraregional Relationships and Technology Development. A Spatial Agent-Based Model Study

  • Ben VermeulenEmail author
  • Andreas Pyka
Part of the Economic Complexity and Evolution book series (ECAE)


Over the last couple of decades, firms increasingly acquire locally unavailable inputs in other regions, and are increasingly engaged in research collaboration with firms across the world. In this chapter, we propose and use a spatial agent-based model to study the significance of supraregional relationships on technological progress, in general, and on the emergence of core-periphery structures in particular. We propose a novel ‘artifact-transformation’ model for technology development and have agents (1) construct artifacts using inputs possibly acquired elsewhere and (2) search for transformations to produce these artifacts, possibly in collaboration with other agents. We find that core-periphery structures emerge mostly for certain spatial layouts of regions and if relationships are not completely global while there are many technological cross-links. Moreover, we find that if there are few technological cross-links, supraregional relationships hardly contribute to technological progress and only a weak core-periphery structure emerges at best. We also find that technological progress ultimately levels off in all circumstances.


Technological Progress Research Collaboration Spatial Layout Transformation Blueprint Firm Agent 
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. Arthur W, Polak W (2006) The evolution of technology within a simple computer model. Complexity 11:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asheim B, Boschma R, Cooke P (2011) Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Reg Stud 45(7):893–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basalla G (1988) The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progr Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brülhart M (2001) Evolving geographical concentration of European manufacturing industries. Rev World Econ 137(2):215–243Google Scholar
  6. Chie B-T, Chen S-H (2013) Non-price competition in a modular economy: an agent-based computational model. Economia Politica 3:273–300Google Scholar
  7. Childe VG (2003) Man makes himself. Coronet, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  8. Frenken K, Nuvolari A (2003) The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory. ECIS, Working Paper 03.15Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert N, Pyka A, Ahrweiler P (2001) Innovation networks: a simulation approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 4(3) [online]. Available:
  10. Korhonen J, Kasmire J (2013) Adder: a simplified model for simulating the search for innovations. Working paper presented at DRUIDGoogle Scholar
  11. Krugman P (1991) History and industry location: the case of the manufacturing belt. Am Econ Rev 81(2):80–83Google Scholar
  12. Morone P, Taylor R (2010) Knowledge diffusion and innovation: modelling complex entrepreneurial behaviours. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Padgett J, Lee D, Collier N (2003) Economic production as chemistry. Ind Corp Change 12(4):843–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rallet A, Torre A (1999) Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal 49(4):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Silverberg G, Verspagen B (2005) A percolation model of innovation in complex technology spaces. J Econ Dynam Contr 29(1):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Vermeulen B, Pyka A (2014a) Technological progress and effects of (supra) regional innovation and production collaboration. An agent-based model simulation study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computational intelligence for financial engineering & economics (CIFEr). IEEE, pp 357–364Google Scholar
  17. Vermeulen B, Pyka A (2014b) The effects of supraregional innovation and production collaboration on technology development in a multiregional world: a spatial agent-based model study. In: Wąs J, Sirakoulis G, Bandini S (eds) Cellular automata. Springer, Berlin, pp 698–707Google Scholar
  18. Whitford J, Potter C (2007) Regional economies, open networks and the spatial fragmentation of production. Soc Econ Rev 5(3):497–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of EconomicsUniversität HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations