IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/jrp/jrpwrp/2015-025.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of geographical proximity for project performance - Evidence from the German "Leading-Edge Cluster Competition"

Author

Listed:
  • Uwe Cantner

    () (School of Economics and Business Administration, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)

  • Holger Graf

    () (School of Economics and Business Administration, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)

  • Susanne Hinzmann

    () (School of Economics and Business Administration, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena)

Abstract

The role of geographical proximity in fostering connections and knowledge flows between innovative actors ranks among the most controversial themes in the research of innovation systems, regional networks and new economic geography. While there is ample empirical evidence on the constituent force of co-location for the formation of research alliances, little attention has been paid to the actual consequences of geographical concentration of alliance partners for the subsequent performance of these linkages. In this paper we address this underexplored issue and aim to complement the rare examples of studies on the relevance of geographical proximity for research outputs. We utilize original and unique survey data from collaborative R&D projects that were funded within the "Leading-Edge Cluster Competition" - the main national cluster funding program in Germany in recent years. We find that the perception of the necessity of spatial proximity for project success is rather heterogeneous among the respondents of the funded projects. Moreover, the relationship between geographical distance and project success is by no means univocal and is mediated by various technological, organizational and institutional aspects. Our findings strongly support the assumption that the nature of knowledge involved determines the degree to which collaborators are reliant on being closely located to each other. The relevance of spatial proximity increases in exploration contexts when knowledge is novel and the innovation endeavor is more radical while this effect is less pronounced for projects with a stronger focus on basic research. Moreover, geographical proximity and project satisfaction foster cross- fertilization effects of LECC projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf & Susanne Hinzmann, 2015. "The role of geographical proximity for project performance - Evidence from the German "Leading-Edge Cluster Competition"," Jena Economic Research Papers 2015-025, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
  • Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2015-025
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://pubdb.wiwi.uni-jena.de/pdf/wp_2015_025.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Frank van Oort & Stefan de Geus & Teodora Dogaru, 2015. "Related Variety and Regional Economic Growth in a Cross-Section of European Urban Regions," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(6), pages 1110-1127, June.
    2. Catherine Beaudry & Stefano Breschi, 2003. "Are firms in clusters really more innovative?," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(4), pages 325-342.
    3. Danielle Galliano & Marie-Benoît Magrini & Pierre Triboulet, 2015. "Marshall's versus Jacobs' Externalities in Firm Innovation Performance: The Case of French Industry," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(11), pages 1840-1858, November.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg & Rebecca Henderson, 1993. "Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 577-598.
    5. Eickelpasch, Alexander & Fritsch, Michael, 2005. "Contests for cooperation--A new approach in German innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1269-1282, October.
    6. Cooke, Philip & Gomez Uranga, Mikel & Etxebarria, Goio, 1997. "Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 475-491, December.
    7. Breschi, Stefano & Lissoni, Francesco, 2001. "Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 975-1005, December.
    8. Cassi, Lorenzo & Plunket, Anne, 2010. "The determinants of co-inventor tie formation: proximity and network dynamics," MPRA Paper 27303, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Mathijs De Vaan & Ron Boschma, 2013. "The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle: The case of the global video game industry, 1987--2007," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 741-765, September.
    10. Lorenzo Cassi & Andrea Morrison & Roberta Rabellotti, 2015. "Proximity and Scientific Collaboration: Evidence from the Global Wine Industry," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 106(2), pages 205-219, April.
    11. Lorenzo Cassi & Anne Plunket, 2015. "Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(6), pages 936-954, June.
    12. Elisa Giuliani, 2007. "The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 139-168, March.
    13. Baptista, Rui & Swann, Peter, 1998. "Do firms in clusters innovate more?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 525-540, September.
    14. Nooteboom, Bart & Van Haverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & Gilsing, Victor & van den Oord, Ad, 2007. "Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 1016-1034, September.
    15. Uwe Cantner & Andreas Meder, 2007. "Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partner," Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, Springer;Society for Economic Science with Heterogeneous Interacting Agents, vol. 2(1), pages 45-65, June.
    16. Cooke, Philip, 2001. "Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 945-974, December.
    17. Aharonson, Barak S. & Baum, Joel A.C. & Plunket, Anne, 2008. "Inventive and uninventive clusters: The case of Canadian biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1108-1131, July.
    18. Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf, 2011. "Innovation Networks: Formation, Performance and Dynamics," Chapters,in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 15 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Mowery, David C. & Oxley, Joanne E. & Silverman, Brian S., 1998. "Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 507-523, September.
    20. Koen Frenken & Frank Van Oort & Thijs Verburg, 2007. "Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Regional Economic Growth," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(5), pages 685-697.
    21. Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2012. "Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(2), pages 409-433, March.
    22. Lhuillery, Stéphane & Pfister, Etienne, 2009. "R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects: Empirical evidence from French CIS data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 45-57, February.
    23. Leon Oerlemans & Marius Meeus, 2005. "Do Organizational and Spatial Proximity Impact on Firm Performance?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 89-104.
    24. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    25. Agrawal, Ajay & Kapur, Devesh & McHale, John, 2008. "How do spatial and social proximity influence knowledge flows? Evidence from patent data," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 258-269, September.
    26. Stefano Breschi & Francesco Lissoni, 2009. "Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge flows," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 439-468, July.
    27. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    28. Anne Ter Wal & Ron Boschma, 2009. "Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic issues," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 43(3), pages 739-756, September.
    29. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    30. Mora-Valentin, Eva M. & Montoro-Sanchez, Angeles & Guerras-Martin, Luis A., 2004. "Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 17-40, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    geographical proximity; collaboration; performance; innovation policy;

    JEL classification:

    • O3 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • R1 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    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:jrp:jrpwrp:2015-025. 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: (Markus Pasche). General contact details of provider: http://www.jenecon.de .

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.