Advertisement

Knowledge Workers, Communication, and Spatial Diffusion

  • Niles Hansen
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Although local innovations may have little effect on the total production system of a nation, some generic technologies involve spillovers from one innovation to another, and from one sector producing the technology to others using it. Some key innovations may be complementary, giving rise to dynamic increasing returns to scale through clustered interdependencies among innovation, investments, information and knowledge. If the continuous upgrading and diversification of goods and services is extrapolated to the national level, innovation becomes endogenous within each country. As a result, the relative growth of internationally open economies is closely related to the ability to innovate and gain market shares, in contrast to neoclassical models that typically assume closed economies with exogenous technological change. Because newer models recognize that there is a constant flow of innovations coming from the competitive process itself, they are dynamic and sequential, and they indicate that no one unique equilibrium growth path usually exists.

Keywords

Knowledge Worker Industrial District Innovation Diffusion Spatial Diffusion Regional Innovation System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angel, D.P., 1995, Interfirm Collaboration in Technology Development, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Antonelli, C., 1992, “The Economic Theory of Information Networks”, in C. Antonelli’(ed.), The Economics of Information Networks, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Appold S J., 1995, “Agglomeration, Interorganizational Networks, and Competitive’Performance in the U.S. Metalworking Sector”, Economic Geography Vol. 71,1:27–54.Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D.B. and M.P. Feldman, 1996, “R and D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production”, American Economic Review, Vol. 86, 3:630–640.Google Scholar
  5. Best M H, 1990, The New Competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenstein, R., 1997, “GM is Building Plants in Developing Nations to Woo New Markets”, Wall Street Journal, August 7, p. 1.Google Scholar
  7. Camagni, R.P., 1995, “The Concept of Innovative Milieu and its Relevance for Public Policies in European Lagging Regions”, Papers in Regional Science, Vol. 74, 4:317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Capello, R., 1994, Spatial Economic Analysis of Telecommunications Network Externalities, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  9. Carlsson, B. and S. Jacobsson, 1993, “Technological Systems and Economic Performance: The Diffusion of Factory Automation in Sweden”, in D. Foray and C. Freeman (eds.), Technology and the Wealth of Nations, St. Martin’s Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Chapman, G., 1997, “The Internet and Manufacturing”, Texas Business Review, October pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
  11. Coffey W and A. Bailly, 1996, “Economic Restructuring: A Conceptual Framework”, in W. Lever and A. Bailly (eds.), The Spatial Impact of Economic Changes in Europe, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  12. Cornish, S.L., 1997, “Product Innovation and the Spatial Dynamics of Market Intelligence: Does Proximity to Markets Matter?”, Economic Geography, Vol. 73,2:143–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Echeverri-Carroll, E., 1996, “Flexible Production, Electronic Linkages and Large Firms: Evidence from the Automobile Industry”, Annals of Regional Science, 30:135–152.Google Scholar
  14. The Economist, 1998, January 17, 62.Google Scholar
  15. Gaspar J. and E.L. Glaeser, 1996, “Information Technology and the Future ot Cities”, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 5562, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  16. Glaeser, E., H.D. Kallal, J.A. Sheinkman and A. Schleifer, 1992, “Growth in Cities”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 100, 6:1126–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geroski, P.A., 1991, “Innovation and the Sectoral Sources of UK Productivity Growth”, Economic Journal, 101:1438–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, N., 1990, “Do Producer Services Induce Regional Economic Development?”, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 30,4:465–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen N., 1991, “Factories in Danish Fields: How High-Wage, Flexible Production has Succeeded in Peripheral Jutland”, International Regional Science Review, Vol. 14,2:109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen N. and E. Echeverri-Carroll, 1997, “The Nature and Significance of Network Interactions for Business Performance and Exporting to Mexico: An Analysis of High Technology Firms in Texas” Review of Regional Studies, Vol. 27, 1:85–99.Google Scholar
  21. Henderson, V., A Kuncoro and M. Turner, 1995, “Industrial Development in Cities, Journal of Political Economy”, Vol. 103,5–1067–1090.Google Scholar
  22. Howells, J-, 1990, “The Internationalization of R and D and the Development of Global Research Networks”, Regional Studies, Vol. 24 6 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karlsson, C. and L. Westin, 1994, “Patterns of a Network Economy: An Intro- duct”, on in B. Johansson, C. Karlsson and L. Westin, (eds.), Patterns of a Network Economy, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  24. Kaufman, A., R. Girteli, M. Merenda, W. Naumes and C. Wood, 1994 “Porter’s Model for Geographic Competitive Advantage: The Case of New Hampshire” Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1:43–66.Google Scholar
  25. Kolata, G„ 1996, “Regional Incongruity Found in Medical Costs”, New York Times, January 30, p. B9.Google Scholar
  26. Kristensen, P.H., 1994, “Spectator Communities and Entrepreneurial Districts”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 6, 1:177–198.Google Scholar
  27. Krugman, P., 1991, Geography and Trade, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. Lundvall, B 1993, “User-Producer Relationships, National Systems of Innovation and Internationalization”, in D. Foray and C. Freeman (eds.), Technology and the Wealth of Nations, St. Martin’s Press, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Maillat, D„ 1995, “Territorial Dynamic, Innovative Milieus and Regional Policy”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 7 1–157–165.Google Scholar
  30. Maillat, D and B. Lecoq, 1992, “New Technologies and Transformation of Regional Structures in Europe: The Role of the Milieu”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol. 4, 1:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malecki, E.J., 1997, Technology and Economic Development, 2nd edition Longman, Essex.Google Scholar
  32. Marshall A., 1920, Principles of Economics, 8th edition, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  33. Marshall, A. and M.P. Marshall, 1879’ TheEconomics of Industry, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  34. Martin R. and P. Sunley. 1996, “Paul Krugman’s Geographical Economics and its Implications for Regional Development Theory: A Critical Assessment” Economic Geography, Vol. 73, 3:259–292.Google Scholar
  35. Naisbitt, R., 1995. The Global Paradox, Avon Books, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Negroponte, N., 1995, Being Digital, Vintage Books, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Piore MJ. and C.F. Sabel, 1984, The Second Industrial Divide, Basic Books New York.Google Scholar
  38. Porter, M.E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Rigby, D.L. and J. Essletzbichler, 1997, “Evolution, Process Variety, and Regional Trajectories of Technological Change in U.S. Manufacturing” Economic Geography, Vol. 73,2:269–284.Google Scholar
  40. Rodrigues, C., C. Jensen-Butler, E. de Castro and J. Millard, 1997, “Advanced Telecommunication Services in Peripheral Regions”, Paper presented at the European Regional Science Association Summer Course, Meraker, Norway and Are, Sweden, June 1997.Google Scholar
  41. Salomon, I., 1996, “Telecommunications, Cities and Technological Opportunism”, Annals of Regional Science, 30:75–90.Google Scholar
  42. Saxenian, A., 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  43. Scherer, F.M., 1982, “Inter-Industry Flows and Productivity Growth”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 64, 3:627–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schmookler, J., 1966, Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Scott, M., 1989, A New View of Economic Growth, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Shefer, D. and A. Frenkel, 1998, “Local Milieu and Innovations: Some Empirical Results”, Annals of Regional Science, 32:18–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simmie, J., 1997, “The Origins and Characteristics of Innovation in Highly Innovative Areas: The Case of Hertfordshire”, in J. Simmie (ed.), Innovation Networks and Learning Regions?, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.Google Scholar
  48. Suarez-Villa, L. and C. Karlsson, 1996, “The Development of Sweden’s R and D Intensive Electronics Industries: Exports, Outsourcing and Territorial Distribution”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 28, 5:783–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suarez-Villa, L. and W. Walrod. 1997, “Operational Strategy, R and D and Intra- metropolitan Clustering in a Polycentric Structure: The Advanced Electronics Industries of the Los Angeles Basin”, Urban Studies, Vol. 34, 9:1343–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. The Economist. 1996, March 23, p. 67.Google Scholar
  51. The Economist. 1998, January 17, p. 62.Google Scholar
  52. Upton, H., 1995, “Peerless Advice from Small-Business Peers”, Wall Street Journal, May 8, p. A14.Google Scholar
  53. Wiig, H. and M. Wood, 1997, “What Comprises a Regional Innovation System? Theoretical Base and Indicators”, in J. Simmie (ed.), Innovation Networks and Learning Regions?, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niles Hansen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of TexasAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations