IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/fisifr/r31999.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

There is no territorial fatality! (or how innovation interactions between KIBS and SMEs may modify the development patterns of peripheral regions)

Author

Listed:
  • Muller, Emmanuel

Abstract

Observing regions, for instance in Europe, one may easily notice inequalities in the resources they devote to innovation activities and in the results they reach in terms of economic success. In this respect, it may be assumed at first glance that a hierarchy of regional environment could be established. Nevertheless, it is advocated in the paper that this does not obligatorily imply a "territorial fatality". More precisely, the analysis constitutes an attempt to highlight the role of actors who have been insufficiently taken into account by comparison to the ones traditionally examined: large companies, universities and other higher education institutions, technology transfer organisations, regional administrations and other public bodies. The actors on which the paper focuses are: (i) small and medium-sized manufacturing firms (SMEs); and (ii) knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS). In particular the case of SMEs is of interest since SMEs represent the largest proportion of manufacturing firms located in peripheral regions (and in certain peripheral regions, the whole population of manufacturing firms). For similar reasons, it seems relevant to examine also KIBS. The expansion of KIBS reflects the growing importance of their economic activity. Moreover, they are locally available even in regions with no or only little traditional innovation infrastructure. Additionally, the hypothesis is made that potentially the virtuous circle linking the innovation activities of SMEs and KIBS may compensate the impact of less favourable regional environments. The paper contains two main sections. The first section establishes the theoretical framework of the analysis. At first, the nature of the innovation phenomenon is examined, stressing its interactive character. Then, since some regional environments seem to be more favourable to innovation than others, the question of territorial fatality is addressed. In this respect, the concept of a regional hierarchy featuring the inequality between environments in terms of innovation support is introduced. Finally, two models sketching interactions implying KIBS are discussed: the first arguing that the development of KIBS reinforces the domination of core regions, the second showing a possibility for peripheral regions to escape from territorial fatality thanks to the virtuous circle of innovation linking potentially KIBS and SMEs. The second section examines empirical results. With the help of three distinct statistical treatments, the regional innovation hierarchy is contested. In fact, the empirical evidence establishes that the influence of the type of regional environment is negligible compared to other determinants. Considering that SMEs and KIBS mutually benefit from the virtuous circle associating them, the consequences regarding regional evolution patterns are discussed in the concluding section.

Suggested Citation

  • Muller, Emmanuel, 1999. "There is no territorial fatality! (or how innovation interactions between KIBS and SMEs may modify the development patterns of peripheral regions)," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R3/1999, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:fisifr:r31999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/29294/1/320012816.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Soete, Luc & Verspagen, Bart & ter Weel, Bas, 2010. "Systems of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1159-1180, Elsevier.
    3. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1975. "Growth Theory from an Evolutionary Perspective: The Differential Productivity Puzzle," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 338-344, May.
    4. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    5. Nelson, Richard R. & Winter, Sidney G., 1993. "In search of useful theory of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 108-108, April.
    6. Faïz Gallouj, 1994. "Economie de l'innovation dans les services," Post-Print hal-01111989, HAL.
    7. Antoine d'Autume, 1988. "La dynamique du chômage mixte," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00452481, HAL.
    8. Pavitt, Keith, 1984. "Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(6), pages 343-373, December.
    9. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1974. "Neoclassical vs. Evolutionary Theories of Economic Growth: Critique and Prospectus," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 84(336), pages 886-905, December.
    10. Peter Wood, 1998. "The rise of consultancy and the prospect for regions," ERSA conference papers ersa98p397, European Regional Science Association.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Koschatzky, Knut, 2000. "The regionalisation of innovation policy in Germany: theoretical foundations and recent experience," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R1/2000, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    2. Bross, Ulrike & Koschatzky, Knut & Stanovnik, Peter, 1999. "Development and innovation potential in the Slovene manufacturing industry: first analysis of an industrial innovation survey," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R1/1999, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    3. Koschatzky, Knut & Zenker, Andrea, 1999. "The regional embeddedness of small manufacturing and service firms: regional networking as knowledge source for innovation?," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R2/1999, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Muller, Emmanuel & Zenker, Andrea, 2001. "Business services as actors of knowledge transformation and diffusion: some empirical findings on the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R2/2001, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    2. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    3. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Martin Meyer, 2003. "The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 58(2), pages 191-203, October.
    5. Caccomo Jean-Louis, 2000. "National innovation Systems and Evolutionary Theory: a panorama of the Literature," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, December.
    6. Muller, Emmanuel & Zenker, Andrea, 2001. "Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: the role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1501-1516, December.
    7. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    8. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    9. Chang, Yuan-Chieh & Chen, Min-Nan, 2016. "Service regime and innovation clusters: An empirical study from service firms in Taiwan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1845-1857.
    10. Sandra Silva & Aurora Teixeira, 2009. "On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: a comprehensive bibliometric account," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 605-642, October.
    11. Alessandri, Enrico, 2023. "Identifying technological trajectories in the mining sector using patent citation networks," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. repec:got:cegedp:102 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Inchae Park & Yujin Jeong & Byungun Yoon, 2017. "Analyzing the value of technology based on the differences of patent citations between applicants and examiners," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(2), pages 665-691, May.
    14. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 978-994, July.
    15. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    16. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    17. Fulvio Castellacci, 2007. "Technological regimes and sectoral differences in productivity growth ," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(6), pages 1105-1145, December.
    18. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Marsili, Orietta, 2006. "The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 213-229, March.
    19. Ester G. Silva & Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2011. "Does structure influence growth? A panel data econometric assessment of "relatively less developed" countries, 1979--2003," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 20(2), pages 457-510, April.
    20. Estolatan, Eric & Geuna, Aldo, 2019. "Looking forward via the Past: An Investigation of the Evolution of the Knowledge Base of Robotics Firms," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201904, University of Turin.
    21. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Vas, Zsófia, 2012. "Az innovációs rendszerek 25 éve. Szakirodalmi áttekintés evolúciós közgazdaságtani megközelítésben [25 years of innovation systems. A literature review from the angle of evolutionary economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1233-1256.

    More about this item

    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:zbw:fisifr:r31999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isfhgde.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.