Advertisement

Universities and Regional Economic Development: Does Agglomeration Matter?

  • Attila Varga
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Since the early eighties, resulting from major structural changes in modern economies, a new wave of regional economic development policies has begun to emerge both in the US and in Europe (Atkinson, 1991; Isserman 1994; and Osborne, 1994). While traditional approaches (i.e., “smokestack chasing” via providing attractive financial conditions and business climate for relocating companies) were suitable tools for boosting localities in the era of mass production, they are no longer appropriate in the age of technology-led economic growth when economic globalization and the preeminence of knowledge and information in production have given rise to a renewed importance of regions (Acs, 1998; Florida, Gleeson and Smith, 1994: and Scott, 1996). This new set of policies, called “self-improvement” (Isserman, 1994), or “high-performance economic development” (Florida, Gleeson and Smith, 1994) aims at advancing a region’s technology base and human infrastructure through the implementation of specific, technology related programs. In collaboration with the regional industry, governments support technology development, assist in industrial problem solving, provide start-up assistance, and help local firms finance new technologies (Coburn, 1995).

Keywords

Technology Transfer Knowledge Spillover Regional Economic Development Small Business Administration Knowledge Production Function 
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. Acs, Z., (ed.), 1999, Regional Innovation, Knowledge and Global Change, Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  2. Acs, Z. and D. Audretsch, 1990, Innovation and Small Firms, MIT Press Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  3. Acs, Z., D. Audretsch and M. Feldman, 1991, “Real Effects of Academic Research: A Comment”, American Economic Review, Vol. 81, 1:363–367.Google Scholar
  4. Acs, Z., D. Audretsch and M. Feldman, 1994, “R&D Spillovers and Recipient Firm Size”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 76, 2:336–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Acs, Z., L. Herrón, and H. Sapienza, 1992, “Financing Maryland Biotechnology”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 6,4:373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson A., 1981, “Structural Change and Technological Development”, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 11:351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson A., D. Batten and C. Karlsson (eds.), 1989, Knowledge and Industrial Organization, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Anselin, L., 1988, Spatial Econometrics: Methods and Models, Kluwer Academic, Boston.Google Scholar
  9. Anselin, L., 1992, SpaceStat Tutorial, NCGIA, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
  10. Anselin, L. and B. Anil, 1998, “Spatial Dependence in Linear Regression Models with an Introduction to Spatial Econometrics”, in D. Giles and A. Ullas (eds.), Handbook of Economics and Statistics, Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Anselin, L. and R. Florax, (eds.), 1995, New Directions in Spatial Econometrics, Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  12. Anselin, L., A. Varga and Z. Acs, 1997a, “Local Geographic Spillovers Between University Research and High Technology Innovations”, Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 42, 3:422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Anselin, L., A. Varga and Z. Acs, 1997b, “Entrepreneurship, Geographic Spillovers and University Research: A Spatial Econometric Approach”, ESRC Centre for Business Research WP 59, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Anselin, L., A. Varga and Z. Acs, 1998, “Geographic and Sectoral Characteristics of Academic Knowledge Externalities”, Research Paper, Regional Research Institute West Virginia University.Google Scholar
  15. Atkinson R., 1991, “Some States Take the Lead: Explaining the Formation of State Technology Policies”, Economic Development Quarterly, 5:3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bania, N., R. Eberts and M. Fogarty, 1993, “Universities and the Startup of New Companies: Can we Generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley?”, The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 75, 4:761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Belsley, D., E. Kuh and R. Welsch, 1980, Regression Diagnostics, Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity, Willey, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Breusch, T. and A. Pagan, 1979, “A Simple Test for Heteroskedasticity and Random Coefficient Variation”, Econometrica, Vol. 47, 5:1287–1294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bureau of the Census, 1982, County Business Patterns, Data obtained from ICPSR online data Services.Google Scholar
  20. Burridge P, 1980, “On the Cliff-Ord test for Spatial Correlation”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, Vol. 42, 1:107–108.Google Scholar
  21. Casetti, E., 1997, “The Expansion Method, Mathematical Modeling and Spatial Econometrics”, International Regional Science Review, Vol. 20, 1–2:9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coburn, C., (ed.), 1994, Partnership: A Compendium of State and Federal Cooperative Technology Programs, Battelle, Columbus.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen, W., R. Florida and R. Goe, 1994, “University-Industry Research Centers”, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  24. Dorfman, N., 1983, Route 128: The Development of a Regional High Technology Economy, Research Policy, 12:299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dosi, G., 1988, “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 26, 3:1120–1171.Google Scholar
  26. Edwards, K. and T. Gordon, 1984, Characterization of Innovations Introduced on the U.S. Market in 1982, The Futures Group, U.S. Small Business Administration.Google Scholar
  27. Feldman, M., 1994a, The Geography of Innovation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  28. Feldman, M., 1994b, “The University and Economic Development: The Case of Johns Hopkins University and Baltimore”, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Florax, R., 1992, The University: A Regional Booster? Economic Impacts of Academic Knowledge Infrastructure, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  30. Florida, R., R. Gleeson and D.F. Smith Jr., 1994, “Benchmarking Economic Development: Regional Strategy in Silicon Valley, Austin, Seattle, Oregon, and Cleveland”, H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy Management Working Paper Series, 94–30, Carnegie Mellon University. Google Scholar
  31. Griliches, Z., 1979, “Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth”, Bell Journal of Economics Vol 10 1:92–116. Google Scholar
  32. Isserman, A., 1994, “State Economic Development Policy and Practice in the United States: A Survey Article”, International Regional Science Review, 16:49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaques Cattell Press, 1982, Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States, 17th edition, R. R. Bowker, London.Google Scholar
  34. Jaffe, A., 1989, “Real Effects of Academic Research”, American Economic Review, Vol. 79, 5:957–970.Google Scholar
  35. Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg and R. Henderson, 1993, “Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 63, 3:577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Johnson, L. , 1984, The High-Technology Connection. Academic/Industrial Cooperation for Economic Growth, ASHE-Eric Higher Education Research Report, No. 6. Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  37. Link, A. and J. Rees, 1990, “Firm Size, University Based Research, and the Returns to R&D”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 2, 1:25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malecki, E., 1979, “Locational Trends in R&D by Large U.S. Corporations, 1965–1977”, Economic Geography, 55:309–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Malecki, E., 1980a, “Corporate Organizations of R&D and the Location of Technological Activities”, Regional Studies, 14:219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Malecki, E., 1980b, “Dimensions of R&D Location in the United States”, Research Policy, 9:2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mansfield, E. and E. Mansfield, 1993, The Economics of Technical Change, Edward Elgar Publishing Company, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  42. National Science Board, (ed.), 1983, University-Industry Research Relationships, National Science Foundation, Washington D.C. Google Scholar
  43. National Science Board, 1993, Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Foundation, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  44. National Science Board, (ed.), 1983, University-Industry Research Relationships, National Science Foundation, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  45. Osborne, D., 1990, Laboratories of Democracy, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.Google Scholar
  46. Parker, D. and D. Zilberman, 1993, “University Technology Transfers: Impacts on Local and U. S. Economies”, Contemporary Policy Issues, 11:87–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers, E. and J. Larsen, 1984, Silicon Valley Fever, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  48. Saxenian, A., 1994, Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  49. Scott, A., 1996, “Regional Motors of the Global Economy”, Futures, 28:391–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Varga, A., 1997, “Regional Economic Effects of University Research: A Survey”, Research Paper, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.Google Scholar
  51. Varga, A., 1998a, University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
  52. Varga, A., 1998b, “Local Academic Knowledge Spillovers and the Concentration of Economic Activity”, Research Paper, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.Google Scholar
  53. von, Hippel, E. , 1988, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  54. Wicksteed, S., 1985, The Cambridge Phenomenon, The Growth of High Technology Industry in a University Town, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Attila Varga
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Economic Geography, Regional Development and Environmental ManagementUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations