Skip to main content

Abstract

The chapter examines the ways firms benefit from knowledge spillovers in industrial clusters. Clustered firms are eight times more innovative when located in clusters with strong specialization in their own technology. While the literature on organization agglomeration has highlighted a potential trade-off between the benefit and cost of co-location in terms of knowledge spillovers, our findings are that agglomerations are important to new innovative-driven ventures. However, our research also indicates that although on average new ventures benefit from agglomeration, more work is needed to explore the mechanisms by which some organizations benefit from co-location and knowledge spillovers while others may not.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aharonson, B. S., Baum, J. A. C, and Feldman, M. P. (2007), ‘Desperately seeking spillovers? increasing returns, social cohesion and the location of new entrants in geographic and technological space’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 16: 89–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aharonson, B. S., Baum, J. A. C, and Plunket, A. (2008) ‘Inventive and uninventive clusters: The case of Canadian biotechnology’, Research Policy, 37: 1108–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alcacer, J. and Chung, W. (2007), ‘Location strategies and knowledge spillovers’, Management Science, 53: 760–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P. and Rosenkopf, L. (2003), ‘Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility’, Management Science, 49: 751–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey T. L., Dacin, T, and Singh, J. (1996), ‘Learning races, patent races, and capital races: Strategic interaction and embeddedness within organizational fields’, in J. A. C. Baum and J. E. Dutton (Eds), Advances in strategic management, 13: 303–322, Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angel, D. P. (1991), ‘High-technology agglomerations and the labor market: The case of silicon valley’, Environment and Planning, 23: 1501–1516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyres, N. and Liebeskind, J. (1998), ‘Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology’, Journal of Economic Behavior ana Organization, 35: 427–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. J. (1962), ‘The economic implications of learning by doing’, Review of Economic Studies, 29: 155–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. and Feldman, M. (1996), ‘R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production’, The American Economic Review, 86(3): 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., Breschi, S., and lissom, R (2004), ‘Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data’, Research Policy, 33(1): 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R. (1998), ‘Clusters, innovation and growth: A survey of the literature’, in G. M. P. Swann, M. Prevezer and D. Stout (Eds), The dynamics of industrial clusters: International comparisons in computing and biotechnology, 13–51, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R. and Swann, P. (1998), ‘Do firms in clusters innovate more?’ Research Policy, 27(4): 525–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baptista, R. and Swann, P. (1999),” The dynamics of firm growth and entry in industrial cluster: A comparison of the US and UK computer industries’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9: 373–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A. C, Calabrese, T., and Silverman, B. S. (2000), ‘Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology’, Strategic Management Journal, 21(Special Issue): 267–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C. (2001), ‘Entry, growth and patenting in industrial clusters: A study of the aerospace industry in the UK’, International Journal of the Economics of Business, 8: 405–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C. and Breschi, S. (2003), ‘Are firms in clusters really more innovative?’ Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 12: 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaudry, C. and Swann, P. (2001), ‘Growth in industrial clusters: A bird’s eye view of the United Kingdom’, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper, 00–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1981), Longitudinal data analysis, New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1974), ‘The TEA set: Tacit knowledge in scientific networks’, Science Studies, 4: 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (1994), The geography of innovation, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M. P. (2000), ‘Location and innovation: The new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration’, in G. Clark, M. Feldman and M. Gertler (Eds), Oxford handbook of economic geography, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontes, M. (2005), ‘Distant networking: The knowledge acquisition strategies of” Out-cluster” biotechnology firms’, European Planning Journal, 13(6): 899–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Scheinkman, J., and Shleifer, A. (1995), ‘Economic growth in a crosssection of cities,’ Journal of Monetary Economics, 36: 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1979), ‘Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth’, Bell Journal of Economics, 10: 92–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., and Griliches, Z. (1984), ‘Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship’, Econometrica, 52: 909–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J.J. (1979), ‘Sample selection bias as a specification enor’, Econometrica, 47: 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929), ‘Stability in competition’, Economic Journal, 39: 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. (1989), ‘Real effects of academic research’, American Economic Review, 79: 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. (1993), ‘Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108: 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. (1992), A guide to econometric methods, 3rd edition, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kmenta, J. (1971), Elements of econometrics, New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B., Shan, W. J., and Walker, G. (1992), ‘The make-or-cooperate decision in context of an industry network’, in N. Nohria and R. Eccles (eds) Networks and Organizations, 348–365, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman, P. (1991), Geography and trade, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. F. (1983), ‘Generalized econometric models with selectivity’, Econometrica, 51: 507–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1995), ‘Patenting in the shadow of competitors’, journal of Law and Economics 38: 463–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1920), Principles of economics, London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery D. C. (1983), ‘The relationship between intrafirm and contractual forms of industrial research in American manufacturing, 1900–1940’, Explorations in Economic History, 20: 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale, P. (1998), ‘A cognitive model of innovation’, Research Policy, 27: 689–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, E., Wilkins, R., and Perras, A. (1993), ‘How far is it to the nearest hospital? Calculating distances using the statistics Canada postal code conversion file’, Health reports (Statistics Canada, Catalogue 82–003), 5(2): 179–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W. W. (2004), ‘Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community’, Organization Science, 15(1): 5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J., Stuart, T. E., and Hannan, M. T. (1996), ‘Networks, knowledge, and niches’, American journal of Sociology, 102: 659–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1990), The competitive advantage of nations, London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., and Smith-Doen, L. (1996), ‘Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1986), ‘Increasing returns and long-run growth’, journal of Political Economy, 94: 1002–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. (1990), ‘Endogenous technological change’, journal of Political Economy, 98: S71-S102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1984), ‘Using linked patent and R&D data to measure inter-industry technology flows’, in Griliches, Z. (Ed), R&D, patents and productivity, Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B. S. and Baum, J. A. C. (2002), ‘Alliance-based competitive dynamics in the Canadian biotechnology industry’, with Brian S. Silverman, Academy of Management journal, 45: 791–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O. and Stuart, T. E. (2001), ‘Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital financing’, American journal of Sociology, 106: 1546–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. and Sorenson, O. (2003), ‘The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms’, Research Policy, 32: 229–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., Hoang, H., and Hybels, R. C. (1999), ‘Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44:315-349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. and Podolny, J. M. (1996), ‘Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities’, Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Special Issue): 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann, P. and Prevezer, M. (1996), ‘A comparison of the dynamics of industrial clustering in computing and biotechnology’, Research Policy, 25: 1139–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallsten, S. J. (2001), ‘An empirical test of geographic knowledge spillovers using geographic information systems and firm-level data’, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 31: 571–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2014 Barak S. Aharonson, Joel A. C. Baum and Maryann P. Feldman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aharonson, B.S., Baum, J.A.C., Feldman, M.P. (2014). Industrial Clustering and Innovative Output. In: Rowe, F., Te’eni, D. (eds) Innovation and IT in an International Context. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137336132_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics