The mental maps of Italian, German and Dutch entrepreneurs: a comparative perspective

Abstract

This paper compares and discusses the results of the research on mental maps of entrepreneurs conducted in three countries: Italy, Germany and the Netherlands. The stated locational preferences of Italian, German and Dutch entrepreneurs and their underlying explanatory factors are analysed and compared, using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The analysis points out that the three countries have some common characteristics regarding the patterns and the explanatory factors of the mental maps of their entrepreneurs. Examples are the centre–periphery dichotomy and the relevance of accessibility. One of the differences between the countries is the preference for large agglomerations that appears in the map image for Germany, a pattern that is less clear in the map image for Italy and the Netherlands. In some important respects, the results for Italy are different from those for the other two countries, as the North–South divide and organised crime apparently play an important role in the mental maps of entrepreneurs in this country.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Sources: a Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature, Locational Preferences of Entrepreneurs. Stated Preferences in The Netherlands and Germany, by Wim Meester, Copyright (2004); b Pellenbarg (2012)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Source: Reprinted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer Nature, Locational Preferences of Entrepreneurs. Stated Preferences in The Netherlands and Germany, by Wim Meester, Copyright (2004)

Fig. 6

Source: Meester and Pellenbarg (1986)

Fig. 7

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other surveys using a similar approach have been conducted by others, in Hungary (Kozma 2000) and the Czech Republic (Spilková 2007).

  2. 2.

    The arguments used in this paper are based on Musolino (2015).

  3. 3.

    Bounded rationality has become an important concept in behavioural economics (see e.g. Kahneman 2003).

  4. 4.

    The second and the third type are overlapping, as individuals may be asked to draw their knowledge of ‘objective’ conditions freehand. This problem is solved by the proposition of Székely and Kotosz (2018), who offer a typology of mental maps of existing geographical objects drawn on paper (‘strict mental maps’, ‘Lynch type’, ‘free sketch maps’). The ‘interpretative maps’ (Didelon et al. 2011), where the respondents are asked to draw regions, or rather the limits of these regions, on a map provided by the researcher, might be regarded as an example of the overlap mentioned above.

  5. 5.

    In the Netherlands, surveys at the national scale were conducted in 1983, 1993, 2003 and 2012.

  6. 6.

    ‘very unfavourable’, ‘unfavourable’, ‘neutral’, ‘favourable’, ‘very favourable’.

  7. 7.

    The choice of the spatial elements to be rated, in terms of type and number, is an important methodological step in this type of research. The spatial elements should be homogeneous, representative and recognisable. Their number should not be too small, in order to be able to derive a sufficiently detailed image of the locational preferences, and not too large, because that would decrease the response rate, and the capability of the respondents to evaluate all elements would be under too much pressure. In Italy, the number of regions (NUTS2) is too small (20), and they do not offer a sufficiently disaggregated image of the Italian geography. Provinces offer a highly detailed picture of Italy, but their number is too large (110). Therefore, a method was designed in which, for every single region, the choice between rating only the region or also the provinces within it, was left to the respondents.

  8. 8.

    The same procedure has been followed for the Netherlands, where also four areas are distinguished. The calculation of the average ratings for each of the three areas in Italy (North, Centre, South) is based on regions (NUTS2).

  9. 9.

    For the principal component analysis presented in this section, the results of the survey in 1983 have been chosen for the Netherlands because of their clarity. The results for that survey are based on 388 usable forms.

References

  1. Badri MA, Davis DL, Davis D (1995) Decision support models for the location of firms in industrial sites. Int J Oper Prod Manag 15:50–62. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510077205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Banfield EC (1958) The moral basis of a backward society. Free Press, Glencoe

    Google Scholar 

  3. Becattini G (ed) (1975) Lo sviluppo economico della Toscana: con particolare riguardo all’industrializzazione leggera. IRPET, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  4. Becattini G (1989) Sectors and/or districts: some remarks on the conceptual foundations of industrial economics. In: Goodman E, Bamford J, Saynor P (eds) Small firms and industrial districts in Italy. Routledge, London, pp 123–135

    Google Scholar 

  5. Beria P, Debernardi A, Ferrara E (2017) Measuring the long-distance accessibility of Italian cities. J Transp Geogr 62:66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Colombo E, Michelangeli A, Stanca L (2014) La dolce vita: hedonic estimates of quality of life in Italian cities. Reg Stud 48:1404–1418. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.712206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cooter RD, Schäfer HB (2012) Solomon’s knot: how law can end the poverty of nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  8. Daniele V, Marani U (2011) Organized crime, the quality of local institutions and FDI in Italy: a panel data analysis. Eur J Polit Econ 27:132–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Didelon C, De Ruffray S, Boquet M, Lambert N (2011) A world of interstices: a fuzzy logic approach to the analysis of interpretative maps. Cartogr J 48:100–107. https://doi.org/10.1179/1743277411Y.0000000009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dietvorst AGJ, Van Ginkel JA, Kouwenhoven AO, De Pater BC, Van den Bremen WJ (1984) Algemene sociale geografie: ontwikkelingslijnen en standpunten. Romen, Weesp

    Google Scholar 

  11. Garofoli G (1981) Lo sviluppo delle aree periferiche nell’economia italiana degli anni settanta. L’industria 2:391–404

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 103:650–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gould PR (1966) On mental maps. Michigan Inter-University Community of Mathematical Geographers (Discussion paper 9), Ann Arbor. Reprint In: Downs RM, Stea D (eds) (1973) Image and environment: cognitive mapping and spatial behavior. Aldine, Chicago, pp 182–220

  14. Gould P, White R (1974) Mental maps. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  15. Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91:481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hargreaves-Heap S (1989) Rationality in economics. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Heida H, Gordijn H (1978) Regionale woonvoorkeuren: verslag van een onderzoek naar de regionale woonvoorkeuren van de huishoudens in Nederland, alsmede naar de faktoren die aan deze woonvoorkeuren ten grondslag liggen. Planologisch Studiecentrum TNO, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hidalgo CA, Hausmann R (2009) The building blocks of economic complexity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106:10570–10575. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0900943106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoover EM (1948) The location of economic activity. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. II Sole 24 Ore (2015) Qualità della vita del Sole 24 Ore: Bolzano prima, Milano seconda a sorpresa, Reggio Calabria ultima. http://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2015-12-20/qualita-vita-sole-24-ore-bolzano-prima-milano-seconda-sorpresa-reggio-calabria-ultima-201038.shtml?uuid=ACDibAxB. Accessed 29 July 2016

  21. Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93:1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kozma G (2000) Spatial preferences of enterprises in Hungary. In: Kovács Z (ed) Hungary towards the 21st century: the human geography of transition. Studies in geography in Hungary, vol 31. Geographical Research Institute. Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, pp 189–205

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krugman P (1991a) Geography and trade. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  24. Krugman P (1991b) Increasing returns and economic geography. J Polit Econ 99:483–499. https://doi.org/10.1086/261763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee Y, Schmidt CG (1985) Residential preferences in China: influences and implications. Asian Geogr 4:83–98

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lee Y, Schmidt CG (1988) Residential preference in China: the perception threshold and geographic information. Asian Geogr 7:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lösch A (1940) Die räumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft: eine Untersuchung über Standort, Wirtschaftsgebiete und internationalen Handel. Fischer, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mack RP (1971) Planning on uncertainty: decision making in business and government administration. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Malczewski J (1992) Site selection problem and a quasi-satisficing decision rule. Geogr Anal 24:299–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1992.tb00269.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Manzocchi S, Quintieri B, Santoni G (eds) (2013) Le cento Italie della competitività: la dimensione territoriale della produttività delle imprese. Rubbettino, Soveria Mannelli

    Google Scholar 

  31. Meester WJ (2004) Locational preferences of entrepreneurs: stated preferences in the Netherlands and Germany. Physica, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  32. Meester WJ, Pellenbarg PH (1986) Subjectieve waardering van bedrijfsvestigingsmilieus in Nederland. Sociaal-geografische reeks, vol 39. Geografisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  33. Meester WJ, Pellenbarg PH (2006) The spatial preference map of Dutch entrepreneurs: subjective rating of locations, 1983, 1993 and 2003. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 97:364–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2006.00349.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Monheim H (1972) Zur Attraktivität deutscher Städte: Einflüsse von Ortspräferenzen auf die Standortwahl von Bürobetrieben. WGI-Berichte zur Regionalforschung, vol 8. Wirtschaftsgeographisches Institut der Universität München, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  35. Musolino D (2015) Stated locational preferences of entrepreneurs in Italy: the patterns, the characteristics and the explanatory factors of the Italian entrepreneurs’ mental maps. Dissertation, University of Groningen

  36. Musolino D, Senn L (2013) Regions, places and cities in the mental maps of Italian entrepreneurs: the territorial attractiveness of Italy. In: Van Dijk MP, Van der Meer J, Van der Borg J (eds) From urban systems to sustainable competitive metropolitan regions: essays in honour of Leo van den Berg. Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Rotterdam, pp 144–169

  37. Musolino D (2018) The mental maps of Italian entrepreneurs: a quali-quantitative approach. J Cult Geogr 35:251–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873631.2017.1401836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Nifo A, Vecchione G (2014) Do institutions play a role in skilled migration? The case of Italy. Reg Stud 48:1628–1649. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.835799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Pellenbarg PH (1985) Bedrijfsrelokatie en ruimtelijke kognitie: onderzoekingen naar bedrijfsverplaatsingsprocessen en de subjektieve waardering van vestigingsplaatsen door ondernemers in Nederland. Sociaal-geografische reeks, vol 33. Geografisch Instituut, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pellenbarg PH (2012) De mental map van de Nederlandse ondernemer: 1983–1993–2003–2012. Faculteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  41. Pisano GP, Shih WC (2009) Restoring American competitiveness. Harv Bus Rev 87(7/8):114–125

    Google Scholar 

  42. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. Porter ME (2000) Location, competition, and economic development: local clusters in a global economy. Econ Dev Q 14:15–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124240001400105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Pred A (1967) Behavior and location: foundations for a geographic and dynamic location theory, part I. Lund studies in geography B, vol 27. Department of Geography, University of Lund, Lund

    Google Scholar 

  45. Putnam RD, Leonardi R, Nanetti RY (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pyke F, Becattini G, Sengenberger W (eds) (1990) Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  47. Saarinen TF (1995) Classics in human geography revisited: commentary 2. Prog Hum Geogr 19:107–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Simon HA (1957) Models of man: social and rational: mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  49. Spencer C, Dixon J (1983) Mapping the development of feelings about the city: a longitudinal study of new residents’ affective maps. Trans Inst Br Geogr 8:373–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/622051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Spilková J (2007) Foreign firms and the perception of regions in the Czech Republic: a statistical examination. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 98:260–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9663.2007.00395.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Stern E, Krakover S (1993) The formation of a composite urban image. Geogr Anal 25:130–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1993.tb00285.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Storper M, Salais R (1997) Worlds of production: the action frameworks of the economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  53. Székely A, Kotosz B (2018) From fence to wall? Changes in the mental space of border zones in Eastern Europe. Reg Sci Policy Pract 10:269–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Tuan YF (1975) Images and mental maps. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 65:205–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van den Bosch HJM (1977) Het subjektieve moment in het ruimtelijk gedrag: poging tot inventarisatie en evaluatie van de ‘perceptiebenadering’ binnen de geografie. Geogr Tijdschr 11:77–97

    Google Scholar 

  56. Von Thünen JH (1842) Der isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und Nationalőkonomie, 2nd edn. Leopold, Rostock

    Google Scholar 

  57. Weber A (1909) Über den Standort der Industrien, 1. Teil: reine Theorie des Standorts. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dario Musolino.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Musolino, D., Meester, W. & Pellenbarg, P. The mental maps of Italian, German and Dutch entrepreneurs: a comparative perspective. Ann Reg Sci 64, 595–613 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-019-00912-3

Download citation

JEL Classification

  • R12
  • R30