IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Standard-Setting and Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Clusters



Extensive research has been conducted on how firms and regions take advantage of spatially concentrated assets, and also why history matters to regional specialisation patterns. In brief, it seems that innovation clusters as a distinctive regional entity in international business and the geography of innovation are of increasing importance in STI policy, innovation systems and competitiveness studies. Recently, more and more research has contributed to an evolutionary perspective on collaboration in clusters. Nonetheless, the field of cluster or regional innovation systems remains a multidisciplinary field where the state of the art is determined by the individual perspective (key concepts could, for example, be industrial districts, innovative clusters with reference to OECD, regional knowledge production, milieus & sticky knowledge, regional lock-ins & path dependencies, learning regions or sectoral innovation systems). According to our analysis, the research gap lies in both quantitative, comparative surveys and in-depth concepts of knowledge dynamics and cluster evolution. Therefore this paper emphasises the unchallenged in-depth characteristics of knowledge utilisation within a cluster's collaborative innovation activities. More precisely, it deals with knowledge dynamics in terms of matching different agents´ knowledge stocks via knowledge flows, common technology specification (standard-setting), and knowledge spillovers. The means of open innovation and system boundaries for spatially concentrated agents in terms of knowledge opportunities and the capabilities of each agent await clarification. Therefore, our study conceptualises the interplay between firm- and cluster-level activities and externalities for knowledge accumulation but also for the specification of technology. It remains particularly unclear how, why and by whom knowledge is aligned and ascribed to a specific sectoral innovation system. Empirically, this study contributes with several descriptive calculations of indices, e.g. knowledge stocks, GINI coefficients, Herfindahl indices, and Revealed Patent Advantage (RPA), which clearly underline a high spatial concentration of both mechanical engineering and biotechnology within a European NUTS2 sample for the last two decades. Conceptually, our paper matches the geography of innovation literature, innovation system theory, and new ideas related to the economics of standards. Therefore, it sheds light on the interplay between knowledge flows and externalities of cluster-specific populations and the agents' use of such knowledge, which is concentrated in space. We find that knowledge creation and standard-setting are cross-fertilising each other: although the spatial concentration of assets and high-skilled labour provides new opportunities to the firm, each firm's knowledge stocks need to be contextualised. The context in terms of 'use case' and 'knowledge biography' makes technologies (as represented in knowledge stocks) available for collaboration, but also clarifies relevance and ownership, in particular intellectual property concerns. Owing to this approach we propose a conceptualisation which contains both areas with inter- and intra-cluster focus. This proposal additionally concludes that spatial and technological proximity benefits standard-setting in high-tech and low-tech industries in very different ways. More precisely, the versatile tension between knowledge stocks, their evolution, and technical specification & implementation requires the conceptualisation and analysis of a non-linear process of standard-setting. Particularly, the use case of technologies is essential. Related to this approach, clusters strongly support the establishment of technology use cases in embryonic high-tech industries. Low-tech industries in contrast rather depend on approved knowledge stocks, whose dynamics provide better and fast accessible knowledge inputs within low-tech clusters.

Suggested Citation

  • Julian P. Christ & André P. Slowak, 2008. "Standard-Setting and Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Clusters," Diskussionspapiere aus dem Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre der Universität Hohenheim 303, Department of Economics, University of Hohenheim, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:hoh:hohdip:303

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Foster, James & Greer, Joel & Thorbecke, Erik, 1984. "A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(3), pages 761-766, May.
    2. Kraus, Margit & Hölsch, Katja, 2002. "European schemes of social assistance: an empirical analysis of set-ups and distributive impacts," ZEW Discussion Papers 02-51, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    3. Michael F. Förster, 1994. "Measurement of Low Incomes and Poverty in A Perspective of International Comparisons," OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 14, OECD Publishing.
    4. David E. Wildasin, 1994. "Income Redistribution and Migration," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 27(3), pages 637-656, August.
    5. Wildasin, David E, 1991. "Income Redistribution in a Common Labor Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(4), pages 757-774, September.
    6. Michael F. Förster, 2000. "Trends and Driving Factors in Income Distribution and Poverty in the OECD Area," OECD Labour Market and Social Policy Occasional Papers 42, OECD Publishing.
    7. Robert Schwager, 1997. "Redistribution and Administrative Federalism," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 30(4), pages 1161-1183, November.
    8. Wallace E. Oates, 1968. "The Theory of Public Finance in a Federal System," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 1(1), pages 37-54, February.
    9. Sen, Amartya K, 1976. "Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 219-231, March.
    10. Pauly, Mark V., 1973. "Income redistribution as a local public good," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 35-58, February.
    11. Beckerman, W, 1979. "The Impact of Income Maintenance Payments on Poverty in Britain, 1975," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(354), pages 261-279, June.
    12. Morris, Nick & Preston, Ian, 1986. "Inequality, Poverty and the Redistribution of Income," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 275-344, November.
    13. Buhmann, Brigitte, et al, 1988. "Equivalence Scales, Well-Being, Inequality, and Poverty: Sensitivity Estimates across Ten Countries Using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) Database," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 34(2), pages 115-142, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Slowak, André P., 2009. "Market fields structure & dynamics in industrial automation," FZID Discussion Papers 02-2009, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).

    More about this item


    innovation clusters; standard-setting; knowledge externalities and flows; knowledge alignment; mechanical engineering; biotechnology;

    JEL classification:

    • D89 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Other
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • M20 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Economics - - - General
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hoh:hohdip:303. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ulrike Berberich). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.