Employment Growth of Small Computing Services Firms and the Role of Horizontal Clusters: Evidence from Great Britain 1991–2000

  • Bernard Fingleton
  • Danilo Camargo Igliori
  • Barry Moore
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)


In recent years, two overlapping topics have received particular attention by governments and researchers throughout the world, particularly in Europe. The emergence of local economies based on high-technology clusters and the role of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the generation of employment.


Spatial Dependence Employment Growth Computing Service Geographical Concentration Location Quotient 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anselin L. 1988 Spatial Econometrics : Methods and Models. Kluwer Academic Publications, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L. and Bera A.K. (1998) Spatial Dependence In Linear Regression Models With An Introduction To Spatial Econometrics, in Ulah A. and Giles D.A. (eds) Handbook of Applied Economic Statistics, pp. 237–289. Marcel Dekker, New York .Google Scholar
  3. Anselin L., Bera A.K., Florax R. and Yoon M.J. (1996) Simple Diagnostic Tests for Spatial Dependence, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 26: 77–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonelli C. (1999) The Evolution of the Industrial Organisation of the Production of Knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23: 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baptista R. and Swann G. M. P. (1998) Clustering Dynamics in UK Computer Industries: A comparison with the USA, in Swann G.M.P., Prevezer M. and Stout D. (eds) The Dynamics Of Industrial Clustering: International Comparisons In Computing And Biotechnology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. Begg I. G. and Cameron G. C. (1987) High Technology Location and the Urban Areas of Great Britain. Discussion Paper Series. Department of Land Economy. University of Cambridge, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Begg I. G. and Hodson D. (2001) The Location of Jobs in High-technology Industries in Great Britain in the 1990s mimeo, South Bank University: London.Google Scholar
  8. Burridge P. (1980) On the Cliff-Ord test for spatial autocorrelation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 42: 107–8.Google Scholar
  9. Butchart R. L. (1987) A New UK Definition of the High Technology Industries. Economic Trends 400: 82–8.Google Scholar
  10. Camagni R. (1991) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives. Belhaven Press, London.Google Scholar
  11. Case A.C., Rosen H.S. and Hines J.R. (1993) Budget Spillovers and Fiscal Policy Interdependence: Evidence from the States. Journal of Public Economics 52: 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DTI (1998) Our Competitive Future: building the knowledge driven economy. London.Google Scholar
  13. DTI (2001) Business Clusters in the UK — A First Assessment. London.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission (1996) Commission Recommendation of 3 April 1996 Concerning the Definition of Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Official Journal L 107 30/04/1996 0004 – 0009.Google Scholar
  15. Fingleton B. (1992) The Location of Employment in High-technology Manufacturing in Great Britain. Urban Studies 29: 1265–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fingleton B. (1994) The location of high-technology manufacturing in Great Britain : changes in the late 1980s. Urban Studies 31: 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fingleton B. (1999) Spurious spatial regression: some Monte-Carlo results with a spatial unit root and spatial cointegration. Journal ofRegional Science 39: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fingleton B. (2000) Spatial econometrics, economic geography, dynamics and equilibrium : a third way? Environment & Planning A 32: 1481–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fingleton B. (2001) Theoretical economic geography and spatial econometrics : dynamic perspectives. Journal of Economic Geography 1: 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freeman C. (1995) The ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Econonics 19: 5–24.Google Scholar
  21. Johnston J. (1984) Econometric Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Keeble D., Lawson C., Moore B. and Wilkinson F. (1999) Collective Learning Processes, Networking and Institutional Thickness in the Cambridge Region. Regional Studies 33: 319–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keeble D. (2000) Collective Learning Processes in European High-Technology Milieux, in Keeble D. and Wilkinson F. (eds.) (2000). High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  24. Keeble D. and Wilkinson F. (eds.) (2000) High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot.Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy P. (1992) A Guide to Econometrics. Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Krugman P. R. (1991a) Geography and Trade. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  27. Krugman P. R., (1991 b) Increasing Returns and Economic Geography. Journal of Political Economy 99: 483 – 499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krugman P. R. (1995) Development, Geography, and Economic Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Leser C. (1966) Econometric Techniques and Problems. Griffin, London.Google Scholar
  30. Marshall A. (1920) Principles of Economics. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  31. Pike F. et al (1990) Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva.Google Scholar
  32. Pike F. and Sengenberger W. (1992) Industrial Districts and Local Economic Regeneration. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva.Google Scholar
  33. Porter M. E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage ofNations. Macmillan Press, London.Google Scholar
  34. Porter M. E. (1998) Clusters and the New Economics of Competition Harvard Business Review, November/December 77–90.Google Scholar
  35. Royston J. P. (1983) A simple method for evaluating the Shapiro-Francia W test of nonnormality. The Statistician 32: 297–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapiro S. S., and Francia R. S. (1972) An approximate analysis of variance test for normality. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67: 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Storper M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. Guilford, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Wilkinson F. and Moore B. (2000) Concluding Reflections: Some Policy Implications, in Keeble D. and Wilkinson F. (eds.) (2000) High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe. Ashgate, Aldershot.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard Fingleton
    • 1
  • Danilo Camargo Igliori
    • 1
  • Barry Moore
    • 1
  1. 1.University of CambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations