Innovation of ICT Manufacturing and Agglomeration Economies: Evolution over the Life Cycle

  • In Kwon ParkEmail author
  • Gyuhwan Kim
Part of the New Frontiers in Regional Science: Asian Perspectives book series (NFRSASIPER, volume 25)


Innovation is one of the most important driving forces of ICT industries, the leading industry of the Korean economy, and agglomeration economies are known to have positive impacts on innovation. The evolutionary agglomeration theory, however, suggests that the effects of agglomeration economies may vary depending on the life cycle of an industry. This study investigates how agglomeration economies have affected the innovation of the ICT manufacturing sector over its life cycle in the Seoul Capital Area (SCA), South Korea. A panel data set for patent applications during the period 2001–2013, which falls into the birth stage (2001–2003), the growth I (2003–2006) and II (2006–2009) stages, and the maturity stage (2009–2013), is used to model innovation in terms of various types of agglomeration economies. The results show that the types of agglomeration economies that have significant impacts on innovation vary over the life cycle of the industry: while local industrialization has a positive impact only in the birth stage, diversity has positive impacts in all the stages except the growth II stage. While large firms’ leading has a positive impact only in the growth II stage, competition among small firms has a positive impact only in the birth stage. This implies that different strategies for agglomeration are needed over the life cycle in order to sustain innovation in ICT manufacturing.


ICT manufacturing Innovation Industry life cycle Patents Agglomeration economies Evolutionary agglomeration theory 


  1. Acs, Z.J., and A. Varga. 2002. Geography, endogenous growth, and innovation. International Regional Science Review 25(1): 132–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acs, Z.J., L. Anselin, and A. Varga. 2002. Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy 31(7): 1069–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anselin, L., A. Varga, and Z. Acs. 1997. Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics 42(3): 422–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anselin, L., A. Varga, and Z.J. Acs. 2000. Geographic and sectoral characteristics of academic knowledge externalities. Papers in Regional Science 79(4): 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch, B. 1998. Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 14(2): 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch, D.B., and M.P. Feldman. 1996. Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization 11(2): 253–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boschma, R., P.A. Balland, and D.F. Kogler. 2015. Relatedness and technological change in cities: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in U.S. metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change 24(1): 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, W.M., & D.L. Rigby. 2013. Urban productivity: Who benefits from agglomeration economies? Statistics Canada, Economic Analysis Division.Google Scholar
  9. Crépon, B., E. Duguet, and J. Mairesse. 1998. Research and development, innovation and productivity: An econometric analysis at the firm level. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 7(2): 115–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feldman, M.P. 1994. The geography of innovation, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  11. Feldman, M.P., and D.B. Audretsch. 1999. Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review 43: 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujita, M., and P. Krugman. 2004. The new economic geography: Past, present, and the future. Papers in Regional Science 83: 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaeser, E.L., H.D. Kallal, J.A. Scheinkman, and A. Shleifer. 1992. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy 100(6): 1126–1152.Google Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey (No. w3301). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  15. Henderson, J.V. 2007. Understanding knowledge spillovers. Regional Science and Urban Economics 37(4): 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobs, J. 1969. The economy of cities. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  17. Jaffe, A.B. 1989. Real effects of academic research. The American Economic Review 75(5): 957–970.Google Scholar
  18. Jaffe, A.B., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quartely Journal of Economics 108(3): 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansson, B. 2005. Parsing the menagerie of agglomeration and network externalities. In Industrial clusters and inter-firm networks, ed. C. Karlsson, B. Johansson and R.R. Stough, 107–147. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Kim, G.H., and I.K. Park. 2015. Agglomeration economies in knowledge production over the industry life cycle: Evidence from the ICT industry in the Seoul capital area, south Korea. International Journal of Urban Sciences 19(3): 400–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klepper, S. 1996. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. American Economic Review 86: 562–583.Google Scholar
  22. Klepper, S. 1997. Industry life cycles. Industrial and Corporate Change 6: 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). 2015a. The intellectual property statistics for 2014, Retrieved October 21, 2015, from
  24. Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO). 2015b. The table for matching up KSIC with IPC, Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
  25. Lim, U. 2004. Knowledge spillovers, agglomeration economies, and the geography of innovative activity: A spatial econometric analysis. The Review of Regional Studies 34(1): 11–36.Google Scholar
  26. Mairesse, J., and P. Mohnen. 2002. Accounting for innovation and measuring innovativeness: An illustrative framework and an application. The American Economic Review 92(2): 226–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mairesse, J., P. Mohnen, E. Kremp, and E. Kremp. 2005. The importance of R&D and innovation for productivity: A reexamination in light of the French innovation survey. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 79/80: 487–527.Google Scholar
  28. Mansfield, E. 1995. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics 77(1): 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markusen, A. 1996. Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography 72(3): 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCann, P. 2007. Sketching out a model of innovation, face-to-face interaction and economic geography. Spatial Economic Analysis 2(2): 117–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL). 2015. The labor demand survey. Retrieved October 22, 2015, from
  32. Nesta, L., and V. Mangematin. 2002. Industry life cycle, knowledge generation and technological networks. In Networks, alliances and partnerships in the innovation process, ed. F. Gault and J. de La Mothe, 199–220. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. OECD.stat. 2015. Business enterprise R-D expenditure by industry (ISIC 4). Retrieved October 19, 2015 from
  34. Park, I.K., and B. Von Rabenau. 2011. Disentangling agglomeration economies: Agents, sources, and spatial dependence. Journal of Regional Science 51(5): 897–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Polenske, K.R. 2001. Competitive advantage of regional internal and external supply chains. In Regional science perspective in economic analysis, ed. M.L. Lahr and R. E. Miller, 259–284. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, M.P. 1990. The comparative advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Porter, M.E., and S. Stern. 1999. New challenge to America’s prosperity: findings from the innovation index. Washington DC: Council on competitiveness.Google Scholar
  38. Potter, A., and H.D. Watts. 2011. Evolutionary agglomeration theory: Increasing returns, diminishing returns, and the industry life cycle. Journal of Economic Geography 11(3): 417–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solow, R. 1956. A contribution to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 70(1): 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sonn, J.W., and I.K. Park. 2011. The increasing importance of agglomeration economies hidden behind convergence: Geography of knowledge production. Urban Studies 48(10): 2180–2194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Statistics Korea (KOSTAT). 2008. The table for matching up KSIC Rev. 9 with KSIC Rev. 8, Retrieved July 3, 2015, from
  42. Statistics Korea (KOSTAT). 2015a. The Gross Regional Domestic Product (GRDP) by region, Retrieved October 19, 2015, from
  43. Statistics Korea (KOSTAT). 2015b. The mining and manufacturing survey, Retrieved September 2, 2015, from DT_1F01010&conn_path=I3.
  44. Storper, M., and A.J. Venables. 2004. Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography 4: 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vernon, R. 1966. International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics 80(2): 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban AdministrationUniversity of SeoulSeoulKorea

Personalised recommendations