Studia i Prace WNEiZ US

Previously: Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Studia i Prace WNEiZ


ISSN: 2450-7733     eISSN: 2300-4096    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/sip.2018.52/2-20
CC BY-SA   Open Access 

Issue archive / nr 52/2 2018
Przestrzeń i relacje a innowacje w przemyśle Wielkopolski w latach 2014–2016
(Spatial or relations proximity and innovation activity in the Wielkopolskie industry in years 2014–2016)

Authors: Arkadiusz Świadek
Uniwersytet Zielonogórski
Keywords: innovation spatial proximity social proximity region manufacture sector
Data publikacji całości:2018
Page range:13 (267-279)
Klasyfikacja JEL: C25 L14 O25 O33
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:

Abstract

There are two opposite concepts of the proximity strongly discussing in the literature. First one, the spatial proximity, and the second the relation (social) proximity. Authors argue in terms of significant each of them to show what is more important. Poland is much lower developed country then their western neighbors. This means, that those phenomenon can be different for our regions and the country. The main aim of the paper was to confront those two phenomenon in Poland’s economy. It was picked up one large regional industrial system – Wielkopolska Voivodship. The research was based on questionnaire and was calculated for 819 manufacturing enterprises. Author showed multiindependent logit models describing impact of the distance and the relations between suppliers, consumers and rivals in years 2014–2016. Main conclusion of the research was, that the geography got much more often impact on innovation activity in the region, and the relation proximity got it deeper (much stronger), but rare. There is a need to search for more sophisticated interaction between those phenomenon in the future.
Download file

Article file

Bibliography

1.Amin, A., Thrift, N. (1995). Globalization, Institutional Thickness and the Local Economy. W: P. Healy, S. Cameron, A. Davoudi (red.), Managing Cities: The New Urban Context (s. 91–108). Chichester, Sussex: JohnWiley.
2.Asheim, B., Coenen, L., Vang, J. (2007). Face-to-face, Buzz, and Knowledge Bases: Sociospatial Implications for Learning, Innovation, and Innovation Policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, 655–670.
3.Asheim, B., Gertler, M. (2005). The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems, W: J. Fagberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (red.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation (s. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.Audretsch, D.B. (1998). Agglomeration and the Location of Innovative Activities. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 14 (2), 18–29.
5.Balland, P.A. (2012). Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry. Regional Studies, 46 (6), 741–756.
6.Balland, P.A., Boschma, R., Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49 (6), 907–920.
7.Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28 (1), 31–56.
8.Boschma, R.A. (2005). Proximity and Innovation. A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39 (1), 61–74.
9.Boschma, R.A., Frenken, K. (2015). Evolutionary Economic Geography. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography # 15.18. Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development Utrecht University.
10.Capello, R., Faggian, A. (2005). Collective Learning and Relational Capital in Local Innovation Processes. Regional Studies, 39 (1), 75–87.
11.Doloreux, D., Dionne, S. (2008). Is Regional Innovation System Development Possible in Peripheral Regions? Some Evidence from the Case of La Pocatiere, Canada. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20, 259–283.
12.Fitjar, R.D., Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2011). When Local Interaction Does Not Suffice: Sources of Firm Innovation in Urban Norway. Environment and Planning A, 43, 1248–1267.
13.Gebreeyesus, M., Mohnen, P. (2011). Innovation Performance and Embeddedness in Networks: Evidence from the Ethiopian Footwear Cluster. Oxford University Conference on „Economic Development in Africa”. March 20–22.
14.Isaksen, A. (2009). Innovation Dynamics of Global Competitive Regional Clusters: The Case of the Norwegian Centres of Enterprise. Regional Studies, 43, 1155–1166.
15.OECD (2001). Cities and Regions in the Learning Economy. Published by the Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI) (This report was drafted by Ch. Edquist, G. Rees, M. Lorenz, S. Vincent-Lancrin).
16.Onsager, K., Isaksen, A., Fraas, M., Johnstad, T. (2007). Technology Cities in Norway: Innovating in Global Networks. European Planning Studies, 15, 549–566.
17.Rodriguez-Pose, A., Crescenzi, R. (2008). Research and Development, Spillovers, Innovation Systems, and the Genesis of Regional Growth in Europe. Regional Studies, 42, 51–67.
18.Stanisz, A. (2007). Przystępny kurs statystki. T. 2. Kraków: Statsoft.
19.Świadek, A. (2017). Bliskość geograficzna i relacyjna w sektorze a aktywność innowacyjna w mazowieckim przemyśle w latach 2012–2014. Mimeo.
20.Ter Wal, A.L.J. (2014). The Dynamics of the Inventor Network in German Biotechnology: Geographic Proximity versus Triadic Closure. Journal of Economic Geography, 14, 589–620.
21.Wolfe, D.A., Gertler, M.S. (2004). Clusters from the Inside and Out: Local Dynamics and Global Linkages. Urban Studies, 41, 1071–1093.
22.Zeller, C. (2002). Project Teams as Means of Restructuring Research and Development in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Regional Studies, 34, 275–289.