Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Theoretical Background

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Networks in the German Laser Industry

Part of the book series: Economic Complexity and Evolution ((ECAE))

  • 736 Accesses

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is threefold: firstly, we seek to integrate this study into a broader context of historical and contemporary economic reasoning. Secondly, we introduce the theoretical pillars which this research project is built upon. Due to the interdisciplinary nature of alliance and network research, we refer to concepts from economics and related scientific disciplines. Finally, we discuss the initially raised research questions against the backdrop of our preceding theoretical considerations. Chapter 2 is structured as follows. In Sect. 2.1 we start with a brief introduction of classical and neoclassical economics and outline the contributions but also the limitations of these schools of thought. In Sect. 2.2 we turn our attention to evolutionary approaches in economics and related disciplines. In Sect. 2.3 we introduce the neo-Schumpeterian approach to evolutionary economics. Here, we start by clarifying some basic terminology and concepts. Next we discuss the theoretical cornerstones of the approach. Finally, we address three selected concepts: proximity, innovation systems and innovation networks. In Sect. 2.4 we draw upon the knowledge-based theory of the firm to establish the theoretical linkage between knowledge, competitive advantage and firm performance. In Sect. 2.5 we look at key concepts from interdisciplinary alliance and network research. Finally, in Sect. 2.6 we uncover links to previous research and discuss our own contribution in light of the previously outlined theoretical concepts.

A theory of essentially complex phenomena must refer to a large number of particular facts; and to derive a prediction from it, or to test it, we have to ascertain all these particular facts.

(Friedrich August von Hayek 1974)

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Even if one is critical of Marx’s doctrine, one should define science by its objects of analysis and not by its methods or assumptions (Hodgson 2006, p. 1). In a comprehensive bibliometric analysis, Hodgson (2006, p. 4) demonstrates that Karl Marx was one of the most frequently cited authors in leading mainstream economic journals between 1890 and 1990.

  2. 2.

    For more details on the discourse between the two schools of thought, see Von Mises (1969).

  3. 3.

    For an introduction to the Austrian school of economics, see Rutherford (2007, p. 9).

  4. 4.

    Both variety and selection processes are essential elements in Marshall’s notion of competition in a sense that heterogeneous firms (in terms of size, location and efficiency) face each other in the product marketplace and are sorted out by the competitive process (Antonelli 2009, p. 622).

  5. 5.

    For a comparison of the “Harrod-Domar” model and the neoclassical growth model, see Sato (1964). The first rate is also called the “natural rate of growth” (this rate equals the sum of population growth and technical progress) and the second rate reflects the capital accumulation process (this rate is equal to the ratio of the proportion of income saved to the capital income ratio) (Rutherford 2007, p. 60).

  6. 6.

    For an overview and in-depth discussion, see Nelson and Winter (1974) and Silverberg and Verspagen (2005).

  7. 7.

    For a clarification of the concept and critical reflections from an Austrian view, see Alter (1982).

  8. 8.

    For an overview of evolutionary approaches in economics, see Dopfer (2005), Hanusch and Pyka (2007c) and Witt (2008a, b).

  9. 9.

    For an overview and discussion, see Witt (2003).

  10. 10.

    It is important to note that these perspectives are not mutually exclusive. According to Bruderer and Singh (1996, p. 1322), substantial research efforts have been undertaken to reconcile these two perspectives since the early 1990s.

  11. 11.

    According to Aldrich and Ruef (2006, p. 47) at least two strands of research can be identified within the organizational learning literature: the “knowledge development approach”, pioneered by Weick (1979) and the “adaptive learning approach” pioneered by Cyert and March (1963). In this brief review we focus on the latter strand of literature.

  12. 12.

    For a review and discussion of these concepts, see Dodgson (1993) and Bierly et al. (2000).

  13. 13.

    Organizational sociologists have adapted general evolutionary principles of variation, selection and retention proposed by Campbell (1969) in an organizational context. A strict Darwinian interpretation of organizational evolution implies that traits are inherited through intergenerational processes, whereas the Lamarckian concept of organizational evolution regards traits as being acquired within a generation through learning and imitation (VanDeVen and Poole 1995, p. 519).

  14. 14.

    An excellent overview of organizational ecology research is provided by Amburgey and Rao (1996) and for some promising future research perspectives, see Van Witteloostuijn (2000). For an overview of population ecology model applications, see Betton and Dess (1985).

  15. 15.

    Schumpeter’s concept of methodological individualism is mainly focused on the relationship between prices and the behavior of individuals (Heertje 2004, p. 1453). See also Arrow (1994).

  16. 16.

    For a review of Schumpeter’s contributions to economic theory, see Fagerberg (2003) and Hanusch and Pyka (2007b).

  17. 17.

    Marx originally used this phrase to describe his vision of capitalism’s destructive potential (Elliott 1978).

  18. 18.

    Not only neo-Schumpeterian scholars but also other approaches in economics, such as agency theory, have questioned this problematic assumption (Ackerlof 1970; Spence 1976; Spence 2002).

  19. 19.

    Knowledge generation is closely related to organizational learning models. According to Bierly et al. (2000) learning can be defined in an organizational context as the process of linking, expanding, and improving data, information, knowledge and wisdom. For an overview of conceptual organizational learning models, see Bierly et al. (2000). For the intellectual roots of the adaptive learning approach in organization theory, see Sect. 2.2.

  20. 20.

    Several other concepts have been proposed in subsequent years to understand how firms generate knowledge. These are, most notably, the concept of higher level routines, such as organizational capabilities (cf. Winter 2003) and the concept of dynamic capabilities (cf. Zollo and Winter 2002). For an overview, see Becker (2004) and Easterby-Smith et al. (2009).

  21. 21.

    For further details on the classification of innovations, see the “Oslo Manual” (OECD 2005).

  22. 22.

    From Schumpeter’s perspective, the entrepreneur is primarily an innovator (Swann 2009, p. 131). In his “Theory of Economic Development”, Schumpeter identified the following main types of entrepreneurial behavior (cf. Schumpeter 1934 cited according to: (Swedberg 2000; Goss 2005, p. 206): (I) the introduction of new goods; (II) the introduction of new production methods; (III) the struggle into new markets; (IV) finding new sources of raw materials; and (V) reorganizing an industry in a new way.

  23. 23.

    According to Rothwell (1994) there are five generations of innovation models: (a) the technology push model, (b) the market push model, (c) feedback loop or coupling models, (d) parallel-line models (d) systemic or network models.

  24. 24.

    A review of the development stages of innovation models is not the subject of this investigation. For an overview and discussion, see Tidd et al. (2005) and Tidd (2006).

  25. 25.

    This concept and further developments are subject to discussion in Sect. 2.3.

  26. 26.

    For the most influential contributions, see Schumpeter (1912, 1939, 1942).

  27. 27.

    For an overview of the field of evolutionary economics, see Witt (2003, 2008a, b).

  28. 28.

    For an excellent overview of contemporary research in the field of complexity economics, see Antonelli (2011). For groundbreaking work on complexity economics, see Kirman (1989, 1993), Foster (2005) and Arthur (2007).

  29. 29.

    For an overview of evolutionary thinking in economics and related disciplines, see Sect. 2.2.

  30. 30.

    Systemic research has its roots in general system theory (Bertalanffy 1951, 1968; Boulding 1956). For an overview of innovation system approaches, see Sect. 2.3.3.

  31. 31.

    This discussion is guided by Dosi and Nelson (1994) and Hanusch and Pyka (2007a, c).

  32. 32.

    Both inventors and entrepreneurs receive due attention in neo-Schumpeterian economics.

  33. 33.

    For a discussion on the intersections between evolutionary economics and approaches in economic geography, see Boschma and Frenken (2006).

  34. 34.

    The underlying theoretical arguments used in this context draw upon governance and transaction cost issues in market, hybrid and hierarchical organizational forms (cf. Sect. 2.5.2).

  35. 35.

    To substantiate this line of argument, Boschma (2005b) points to the fact that too much institutional proximity can cause structural inertia.

  36. 36.

    For an in-depth discussion, see (cf. Sect. 12.2).

  37. 37.

    The social proximity concept is strongly influenced by the social capital and embeddedness literature (cf. Sect. 2.5.4).

  38. 38.

    The overembeddedness concept was originally introduced by Uzzi (1996). The structural network inertia concept (cf. Kim et al. 2006) is strongly influenced by organizational ecology research (cf. Sect. 2.2).

  39. 39.

    The regional innovation system approach (RIS) is strongly influenced by the idea that innovation is the outcome of spatially or territorially determined learning processes between the actors in the system (Cooke 2001).

  40. 40.

    The sectoral innovation system’s approach (SIS) emphasizes the cognitive dimension by arguing that interactive learning processes and subsequent innovation outcomes are fostered by the technological and contextual relatedness of the actors in the system (Malerba 2002).

  41. 41.

    The technological innovation system approach (TIS) focuses on generic technologies with general applications over many industries (Carlsson et al. 2002).

  42. 42.

    Carlsson et al (2002, pp. 234–235) define components, relationships and attributes as follows: Firstly, components are the basic elements or operating parts of a system. They can be individuals, organizations, businesses, banks, universities, research institutes and public policy agencies (or parts or groups of each). Secondly, relationships involve all kinds of market and non-market links between the components of the system. Finally, attributes are considered to be the properties of the components and the relationships between them and they specify the very nature or type of system.

  43. 43.

    Note that these types of networks are not mutually exclusive. They can be defined within firms (“intra-organizational network”, cf. Rank et al. 2010), between firms (“interfirm networks”, cf. Schilling and Phelps 2007), or between various types of organizations (“interorganizational networks”, cf. Broekel and Hartog 2013).

  44. 44.

    The static nature of the structural dimension within this framework has been particularly criticized. For instance, Schumpeter claimed that a static view of competition (i.e. price competition over existing products) fails to see that creating or adapting innovations is a much more effective way to compete because it makes the rivals’ positions obsolete (Schumpeter 1950, p. 84: cited by Conner 1991, p. 127). For a discussion on further limitations of the SCP paradigm, see Porter (1981, pp. 11–14).

  45. 45.

    For excellent overviews of the traditional SCP paradigm and its refinements, see Schmalensee (1988) and Conner (1991).

  46. 46.

    It is important to note that the emergence of the RBV can be seen as a critical response to the black box view of the firm in the SCP paradigm (Foss and Ishikawa 2007, p. 750). The RBV highlighted asymmetric information in factor markets and heterogeneous economic actors to explain differential rents (ibid). However, the RBV supplements rather than replaces the SCP paradigm (Kraaijenbrink et al. 2010, p. 350).

  47. 47.

    The so-called originally proposed VRIN criterion has been expanded into the VRIN/O criterion by Barney (2002). Accordingly, firms must acquire and control valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources and capabilities, plus have the organization (O) in place that can absorb and apply them (Kraaijenbrink et al. 2010, p. 350).

  48. 48.

    For an overview and discussion see Priem and Buttler (2001), Foss and Ishikawa (2007) and Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010). See Barney (2001) for a response to Priem and Butter’s critique.

  49. 49.

    This critique is centered around two lines of argument (cf. (Kraaijenbrink et al. 2010, pp. 355–356). On the one hand, it has been argued that uncertainty and immobility are the true basic conditions for achieving a sustainable competitive advantage whereas other conditions are simply additional to these. On the other hand, it has been argued that the RBV does not sufficiently recognize the role of the individual actors (i.e. entrepreneurs or managers). Thus, to generate a sustainable competitive advantage a firm needs: (a) a bundle of resources rather than only a single resource, and (b) the managerial capabilities to recognize and exploit the opportunities that are inherent to these resource bundles.

  50. 50.

    It is important to note that the KBV is not a closed theoretical paradigm but rather a set of theoretical ideas and concepts that are strongly influenced by related disciplines such as psychology and cognitive science (e.g. models of individual learning), organizational science (e.g. models of single-loop learning and double-loop learning) and evolutionary economics (e.g. routines, capabilities or dynamic capabilities). See Dodgson (1993) for information on organizational learning approaches and Winter (2003) for further insights on dynamic capabilities.

  51. 51.

    The term “hybrid organizational form” has been used by organizational scholars (Powell 1987; Williamson 1991) to subsume all kinds of mainly formal cooperative arrangements in an interorganizational context, such as alliances and networks.

  52. 52.

    This term comprises all kinds of strategic alliances or other types of collaborative partnerships.

  53. 53.

    The term “multi-partner alliance” is widely used, especially in management science, to address this type of hybrid organizational form. It is important to note that a multi-partner alliance is not a collection of independent dyadic alliances, nor can it be considered a network of partners that maintain direct ties to a single focal firm; it is rather a cooperation setting that entails multilateral interaction among the partners involved (Lavie et al. 2007, p. 578).

  54. 54.

    The dichotomy of markets and hierarchies can be ascribed to the seminal work of Coase (1937) on the nature of the firm. He was the first to use transaction cost arguments to explain why economic transactions are processed most efficiently by means of hierarchical organizational forms. These ideas were applied and developed further, in particular by Williamson (1975, 1985).

  55. 55.

    For an in-depth discussion, see Sect. 2.5.4.

  56. 56.

    There are at least two perspectives on the very nature of evolutionary change processes: the adaptation perspective and the selection perspective. This assumption is advocated by proponents of the latter perspective. For a discussion, see Sect. 2.2.

  57. 57.

    If not otherwise stated, this line of argument is guided by Kudic and Banaszak (2009) and Faulkner (2006).

  58. 58.

    We do not discuss the basic assumption of the simple prisoner dilemma here. For an excellent introduction to game theory, see Dixit and Skeath (2004) or Saloner (1991).

  59. 59.

    A single-shot game simply means that the game ends after one round.

  60. 60.

    For an in-depth analysis of reputation effects on firm cooperation activities in an iterated prisoner dilemma game with exit option, see Arend (2009).

  61. 61.

    There is copious literature on different types of governance mechanism in an interorganizational context (White 2005; Oxley and Sampson 2004; Provan and Kenis 2007). Sanctions can make an appearance in the form of formal contracts, safeguards consisting of mutual hostages such as bilateral idiosyncratic tangible and intangible investments, quasi integration, joint decision-making or loss of reputation (for an overview and discussion, see Kudic and Banaszak 2009).

  62. 62.

    Reputation concept is most easily explained by a simple example (cf. Weigel and Camerer 1988 p. 444): “[…] if a colleague always fulfills her promises, then you say she has a reputation for reliability” […] “based on her past actions you infer that reliability is one of her attributes and she is a 'reliable person'.”

  63. 63.

    Gulati and colleagues (2000, p. 209) argue that networks can create strong disincentives for opportunistic behavior because building up a reputation is a long and difficult process, while destroying it quick.

  64. 64.

    These two categories subsume all kinds of knowledge-related cooperation motives that are directly linked to a firm’s innovation process such as interorganizational learning, capturing tacit knowledge, technology transfer, technological leapfrogging etc. (cf. Hagedoorn 1993).

  65. 65.

    This distinction refers to the underlying processes of knowledge generation (or “exploration”) and knowledge application (or “exploitation”) among partners in interorganizational relationships such as strategic alliances (Grant and Baden-Fuller 2004, p. 61).

  66. 66.

    For an introduction and overview of concepts in social capital theory, see Lin (2002).

  67. 67.

    For instance, a controversial discussion in social capital literature addressed the question of whether it was weak ties (Granovetter 1973; Levin and Cross 2004) or strong ties (Uzzi 1996; Krackhardt 1992) which affect the network actors’ behavior and outcomes in social and economic networks. Originally, the “strength of ties” and a closely related concept i.e. “density of ties” were conflated, while later it was recognized that these two tie features have to be clearly distinguished and treated separately (Nooteboom 2008, p. 619).

  68. 68.

    According to Gulati (1998, p. 296) one has to distinguish between at least two types of network embeddedness. On the one hand, relational embeddedness highlights the importance of direct cohesive ties. On the other hand, structural network embeddedness goes beyond direct ties and emphasizes the structural position of the actors.

  69. 69.

    For an overview, see Ozman (2009, pp. 48–50) or Nooteboom (2008, pp. 618–620).

References

  • Ackerlof GA (1970) The market for “lemons”. Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Agyris C, Schön DA (1978) Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja G (2000) Collaboration networks, structural hole, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm Sci Q 45(3):425–455

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich HE, Ruef M (2006) Organizations evolving, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Alic JA (1990) Cooperation in R&D. Technovation 10(5):319–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Al-Laham A, Kudic M (2008) Strategische Allianzen. In: Corsten H, Goessinger R (eds) Lexikon der Betriebswirtschaftslehre, 5th edn. Oldenbourg Verlag, München, pp 39–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Alter M (1982) Carl Menger and homo oeconomicus: some thoughts on Austrian theory and methodology. J Econ Issue XVI(1):149–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey TL, Rao H (1996) Organizational ecology: past, present, and future directions. Acad Manag J 39(5):1265–1286

    Google Scholar 

  • Amburgey TL, Al-Laham A, Tzabbar D, Aharonson BS (2008) The structural evolution of multiplex organizational networks: research and commerce in biotechnology. In: Baum JA, Rowley TJ (eds) Advances in strategic management – network strategy, vol 25. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, pp 171–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli C (2009) The economics of innovation: from the classical legacies to the economics of complexity. Econ Innov New Technol 18(7):611–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli C (2011) Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Araujo L, Harrison D (2002) Path dependence, agency and technological evolution. Tech Anal Strat Manag 14(1):5–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Arend RJ (2009) Reputation for cooperation: contingent benefits in alliance activity. Strateg Manag J 30(4):371–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1994) Methodological individualism and social knowledge. Am Econ Rev 84(2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur BW (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur BW (2007) Complexity and the economy. In: Hanusch H, Pyka A (eds) Elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1102–1110

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain JS (1950) Workable competition in oligopoly: theoretical consideration and some empirical economics. Am Econ Rev 40(2):35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Bain JS (1951) Relation of profit rate to industry concentration: American manufacturing, 1936–1940. Q J Econ 65:293–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17(1):99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (2001) Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Yes. Acad Manag Rev 26(1):41–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney JB (2002) Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum JA, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startup’s performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strateg Manag J 21(3):267–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker MC (2004) Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Ind Corp Chang 13(4):643–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin BA, Podolny JM (1999) Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Adm Sci Q 44(3):563–589

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergenholtz C, Waldstrom C (2011) Inter-organizational network studies – a literature review. Ind Innov 18(6):539–562

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertalanffy LV (1951) Problems of general system theory. Hum Biol 23(4):302–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertalanffy LV (1968) General system theory: foundations, development, applications. George Braziller, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessant J, Alexander A, Tsekouras G, Rush H, Lamming R (2012) Developing innovation capability through learning networks. J Econ Geogr 12(5):1087–1112

    Google Scholar 

  • Betton J, Dess GG (1985) The application of population ecology models to the study of organizations. Acad Manag Rev 10(4):750–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierly PE, Kessler EH, Christensen EW (2000) Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom. J Organ Chang Manag 13(6):595–618

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29(6):991–1013

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) On network theory. Organ Sci 22(5):1168–1182

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Johnson JC (2013) Analyzing social networks. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Borys B, Jemison DB (1989) Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Acad Manag Rev 14(2):234–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R (2005a) Role of proximity in interaction and performance: conceptual and empirical challenges. Reg Stud 39(1):41–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R (2005b) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma RA, Frenken K (2006) Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. J Econ Geogr 6(3):273–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma R, Frenken K (2010) The spatial evolution of innovation networks: a proximity perspective. In: Boschma R, Martin R (eds) The handbook of evolutionary economic geography. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 120–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding KE (1956) General system theory – the skeleton of science. Manag Sci 2(3):197–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding KE (1966) The economics of knowledge and the knowledge of economics. Am Econ Rev 56(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital. In: Richardson J (ed) Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. Greenwood, New York, pp 241–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Brass DJ, Galaskiewicz J, Greve HR, Tsai W (2004) Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad Manag J 47(6):795–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner T, Cantner U, Graf H (2011) Innovation networks: measurement, performance and regional dimensions. Ind Innov 18(1):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer A (2010) The making of the classical theory of economic growth. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Broekel T, Hartog M (2013) Explaining the structure of inter-organizational networks using Exponential Random Graph models. Ind Innov 20(3):277–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruderer E, Singh JV (1996) Organizational evolution, learning, and selection: a genetic-algorithm-based model. Acad Manag J 39(5):1322–1349

    Google Scholar 

  • Brüderl J, Preisendörfer P (1998) Network support and the success of newly founded businesses. Small Bus Econ 10(3):213–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley PJ, Glaister KW, Klijn E, Tan H (2009) Knowledge accession and knowledge acquisition in strategic alliances: the impact of supplementary and complementary dimensions. Br J Manag 20(4):598–609

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1992) Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. In: Staw BM, Sutton RI (eds) Research in organizational behavior, vol 22. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp 345–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (2005) Brokerage & closure – an introduction to social capital. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier – a report to the President on a program for postwar scientific research. US Government, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Camagni R (1993) Inter-firm industrial networks: the costs and benefits of cooperative behaviour. J Ind Stud 1(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1969) Variation and selective retention in sociocultural evolution. Gen Syst 14:69–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantner U, Graf H (2011) Innovation networks: formation, performance and dynamics. In: Antonelli C (ed) Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 366–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson B, Jacobsson S, Holmen M, Rickne A (2002) Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues. Res Policy 31(2):233–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (2005) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll GR (1984) Organizational ecology. Annu Rev Sociol 10:71–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica (New Series) 4(16):386–405

    Google Scholar 

  • Coenen L, Moodysson J, Asheim BT (2004) Nodes, networks and proximities: on the knowledge dynamics of the Medicon Valley Biotech Cluster. Eur Plan Stud 12(7):1003–1018

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. Econ J 99(397):569–596

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(3):128–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94:95–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner KR (1991) A historical comparison of resource-based theory and five schools of thought within industrial organization economics: do we have a new theory of the firm? J Manag 17(1):121–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Contractor FJ, Lorange P (2002) The growth of alliances in the knowledge-base economy. Int Bus Rev 11(4):485–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Ind Corp Chang 10(4):945–974

    Google Scholar 

  • Corolleur F, Courlet C (2003) The Marshallian Industrial District, an organizational and institutional answer to uncertainty. Entrepren Reg Dev 15:299–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan R, David PA, Foray D (2000) The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Ind Corp Chang 9(2):211–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper S, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring PS (2008) Introducing inter-organizational relations. In: Cropper S, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring PS (eds) Interorganizational relations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 3–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert R, March JG (1963) Behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Das TK, Teng B-S (2002) Alliance constellations: a social exchange perspective. Acad Manag J 27(3):445–456

    Google Scholar 

  • David PA (1985) Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am Econ Rev 75(2):332–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Decarolis DM, Deeds DL (1999) The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strateg Manag J 20(10):953–968

    Google Scholar 

  • Dierickx I, Cool K (1989) Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Manag Sci 35(12):1504–1511

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixit A, Skeath S (2004) Games of strategy, 2nd edn. W. W. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson M (1993) Organizational learning – a review of some literature. Organ Stud 14(3):375–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Domar ED (1948) The problem of capital accumulation. Am Econ Rev 38:777–794

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer K (2005) The evolutionary foundation of economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dopfer K (2011) Economics in a cultural key: complexity and evolution revisited. In: Davis JB, Hand WD (eds) The Elgar companion to recent economic methodology. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 319–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Res Policy 11(3):147–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1988) Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. J Econ Lit 26(3):1120–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G, Nelson RR (1994) An introduction to evolutionary theories in economics. J Evol Econ 4(3):153–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz Y, Hamel G (1997) The use of alliances in implementing technology strategies. In: Tushman MT, Anderson P (eds) Managing strategic innovation and change. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 556–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters G, Lemmens C (2004) Alliance group formation – enabling and constraining effects of embeddedness and social capital in strategic technology alliance networks. Int Stud Manag Org 33(2):49–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters G, De Man A-P, Wildeman L (1999) A network approach to alliance management. Eur Manag J 17(2):182–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA, Peteraf MA (2009) Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future directions. Br J Manag 20:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott JE (1978) Marx’s “Grundrisse”: vision of capitalism’s creative destruction. J Post Keynes Econ 1(2):148–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg J (2003) Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature. J Evol Econ 13(2):125–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg J (2005) Innovation: a guide to the literature. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner D (2006) Cooperative strategy – strategic alliances and networks. In: Campbell A, Faulkner DO (eds) The Oxford handbook of strategy – a strategic overview and competitive strategy. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 610–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Fombrun CJ, Shanley M (1990) What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Acad Manag J 33(2):233–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss NJ, Ishikawa I (2007) Towards a dynamic resource-based view: insights from Austrian capital and entrepreneurship theory. Organ Stud 28(5):749–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster J (1987) Evolutionary macroeconomics. Unwin Hyman, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster J (2005) From simplistic to complex adaptive systems in economics. Camb J Econ 29(6):873–892

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1974) The economics of industrial innovation. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1988) Japan: a new national system of innovation. In: Dosi G, Nelson RR, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 330–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1991) Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. Res Policy 20(5):499–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Goerzen A (2005) Managing alliance networks: emerging practices of multinational corporations. Acad Manag Exec 19(2):94–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Goss D (2005) Schumpeter’s legacy? Interaction and emotions in the sociology of entrepreneurship. Enterp Theory Pract 29(2):205–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78(6):1360–1380

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter MS (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am J Sociol 91(3):481–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (1996) Towards a knowledge based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17(2):109–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM, Baden-Fuller C (2004) A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J Manag Stud 41(1):61–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R (1998) Alliances and networks. Strateg Manag J 19(4):293–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Singh H (1998) The architecture of cooperation: managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Adm Sci Q 43(4):781–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A (2000) Strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 21(3):203–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J (1993) Understanding the rational of strategic technology partnering – organizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strateg Manag J 14(5):371–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J (2002) Inter-firm R&D partnership: an overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Res Policy 31(4):477–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn J, Schakenraad J (1994) The effects of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strateg Manag J 15(4):291–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamel G (1991) Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strateg Manag J 12(1):83–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Am J Sociol 82(5):929–964

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan MT, Freeman J (1984) Structural inertia and organizational change. Am Sociol Rev 49(2):149–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanusch H, Pyka A (2007a) Principles of neo-Schumpeterian economics. Camb J Econ 31(2):275–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanusch H, Pyka A (2007b) Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1883–1950). In: Hanusch H, Pyka A (eds) Elgar companion on neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanusch H, Pyka A (2007c) Elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrigan KR (1988) Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strateg Manag J 9(2):141–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrod RF (1948) Towards a dynamic economics. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heertje A (2004) Schumpeter and methodological individualism. J Evol Econ 14(2):153–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Hite JM, Hesterly WS (2001) The evolution of firm networks: from emergence to early growth of the firm. Strateg Manag J 22(3):275–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson GM (2006) Economics in the shadows of Darwin and Marx – essays on institutional and evolutionary economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann WH (2007) Strategies for managing alliance portfolios. Strateg Manag J 28(8):827–856

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen A (2009) Strategic alliances. In: Rugman A (ed) The Oxford handbook of international business. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 389–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarillo CJ (1988) On strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 9(1):31–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Jevons WS (1871) The theory of political economy (1888, 3rd edn. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johanson J, Mattson L-G (1988) Internationalization in industrial systems – a network approach. In: Hood N, Vahlen J-E (eds) Strategies in global competition. Croom Helm, New York, pp 287–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones GR, Hill CW (1988) Transaction cost analysis of strategy-structure choice. Strateg Manag J 9(2):159–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Kale P, Singh H, Perlmutter H (2000) Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: building relational capital. Strateg Manag J 21(3):217–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna T, Gulati R, Nohria N (1998) The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strateg Manag J 19(3):193–210

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim T-Y, Oh H, Swaminathan A (2006) Framing interorganizational network change: a network inertia perspective. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):704–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirman A (1989) The intrinsic limits of modern economic theory: the emperor has no clothes. Econ J 99(395):126–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirman A (1993) Ants, rationality, and recruitment. Q J Econ 108(1):137–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein B, Crawford RG, Alchian AA (1978) Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process. J Law Econ 21(2):297–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Klepper S, Malerba F (2010) Demand, innovation and industrial dynamics: an introduction. Ind Corp Chang 19(5):1515–1520

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline SJ (1985) Innovation is not a linear process. Res Manag 28(4):36–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy: harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp 275–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoben J, Oerlemans LA (2006) Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: a literature review. Int J Manag Rev 8(2):71–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ Sci 3(3):383–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Koka BR, Presscott JE (2008) Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strateg Manag J 29:639–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraaijenbrink J, Spender JC, Groen AJ (2010) The resource-based view: a review and assessment of its critiques. J Manag 36(1):349–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D (1992) The strength of strong ties – the importance of philos in organizations. In: Nohria N, Eccles RG (eds) Networks and organizations – structure, form, and action. Harvard Business Press, Boston, pp 216–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Kudic M, Banaszak M (2009) The economic optimality of sanction mechanisms in interorganizational ego networks – a game theoretical analysis. In: 35th European International Business Academy conference, Valencia, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D (2007) Alliance portfolios and firm performance: a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strateg Manag J 28(12):1187–1212

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Rosenkopf L (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad Manag J 49(4):497–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D, Lechner C, Singh H (2007) The performance implications of timing of entry and involvement in multipartner alliances. Acad Manag J 50(3):578–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee V (1992) Organizational dynamics of market transition: hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Adm Sci Q 37(1):1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Leven P, Holmström J, Mathiassen L (2014) Managing research and innovation networks: evidence from a government sponsored cross-industry program. Res Policy 43(1):156–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin DZ, Cross R (2004) The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Manag Sci 50(11):1477–1490

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA (1991) Organizational adaptation and environmental selection-interrelated processes of change. Organ Sci 2(1):140–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt B, March JG (1988) Organizational learning. Annu Rev Sociol 14:319–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin N (2002) Social capital: a theory of social structure and action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman S, Rumelt R (1982) Uncertain imitability: an analysis of interfirm differences in efficiency and competition. Bell J Econ 13:418–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomi A, Negro G, Fonti F (2008) Evolutionary perspectives on inter-organizational relations. In: Cropper S, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring SP (eds) The Oxford handbook of interorganizational relations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 313–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-A (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson RR, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 349–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall B-A (1992) National systems of innovation – towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F (1992) Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Econ J 102(413):845–859

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F (2002) Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res Policy 31(2):247–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba F (2007) Innovation and the evolution of industries. In: Cantner U, Malerba F (eds) Innovation, industrial dynamics and structural transformation. Springer, Heidelberg/New York, pp 7–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Malthus RT (1798) An essay on the principle of population. Johnson, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Malthus RT (1820) Principles of political economy. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Marschall A (1890) Principles of economics – an introductory (1920, 8th edn. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx K (1857) Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (The Grundrisse – introduction to the critique of political economy,1973). Vintage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx K (1867) Capital: a critical analysis of capitalist production, vol 1 (1974). Lawrence & Wishart, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason E (1939) Price and production policies of large scale enterprise. Am Econ Rev 29:61–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason E (1957) Economic concentration and the monopoly problem. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Menger C (1871) Grundsätze der Volkswirthschaftslehre – Allgemeiner Teil (Principles of economics). Wilhelm Braumüller, Wien

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe SJ (2010) The open, evolving economy: Alfred Marshall on knowledge, management and innovation. In: Gaffard J-L, Salies E (eds) Innovation, economic growth and the firm – theory and evidence of industrial dynamics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1848) Principles of political economy. Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mill JS (1859) On liberty. Watts, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Morroni M (2006) Knowledge, scale and transactions in the theory of the firm. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strateg Manag J 17(2):77–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (1992) National innovation systems: a retrospective on a study. Ind Corp Chang 1(2):347–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR (2007) Understanding economic growth as the central task of economic analysis. In: Hanusch H, Pyka A (eds) Elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 840–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1974) Neoclassical vs. evolutionary theories of economic growth: critique and prospectus. Econ J 84(336):886–905

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Toyama R, Nagata A (2000) A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Ind Corp Chang 9(1):1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B (2008) Learning and innovation in inter-organizational relationships. In: Cropper S, Ebers M, Huxham C, Ring PS (eds) The Oxford handbook of interorganizational relations. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 607–634

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005) Oslo manual: guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data, 3rd edn. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oerlemans LA, Meeus MT (2005) Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Reg Stud 39(1):89–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Oerlemans LA, Meeus MT, Boekema FW (2001) Firm clustering and innovation: determinants and effects. Pap Reg Sci 80(3):337–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver C (1990) Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future directions. Acad Manag Rev 15(2):241–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn RN, Hagedoorn J (1997) The institutionalization and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Acad Manag J 40(2):261–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi WG (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Adm Sci Q 25(1):129–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2004) Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organ Sci 15(1):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley JE, Sampson RC (2004) The scope and governance of international R&D alliances. Strateg Manag J 25(8):723–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozman M (2009) Inter-firm networks and innovation: a survey of literature. Econ Innov New Technol 18(1):39–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozman M (2013) Networks, irreversibility, and knowledge creation. J Evol Econ 23(2):431–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Page SE (2006) Path dependence. Q J Polit Sci 1(1):87–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe A (1993) Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Acad Manag J 36(4):794–829

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe A, Wasserman S, Ralston DA (2006) New frontiers in network theory development. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):560–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt K (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy 13(6):343–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt K (1998) Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm: what Adam Smit tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn’t. Ind Corp Chang 7(3):433–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter HV, Heenan DA (1986) Cooperate to compete globally. Harv Bus Rev 64(2):136–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Peteraf MA (1993) The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strateg Manag J 14(3):179–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps C (2010) A longitudinal study of alliance network structure and composition firm exploratory innovation. Acad Manag J 53(4):890–913

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM (1993) A status-based model of market competition. Am J Sociol 98(4):829–872

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Adm Sci Q 39(3):458–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny JM, Page KL (1998) Network forms of organization. Annu Rev Sociol 24(1):57–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1958) Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1981) The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Strateg Manag J 6(4):609–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW (1987) Hybrid organizational arrangements: new form of transitional development? Calif Manag Rev 30(1):67–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell WW (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: networks forms of organization. Res Organ Behav 12(1):295–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Priem RL, Buttler JE (2001) Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Acad Manag Rev 26(1):22–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan KG, Kenis P (2007) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Econ Innov New Technol 18(2):229–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyka A (1997) Informal networking. Technovation 17(4):207–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyka A (2002) Innovation networks in economics: from the incentive-based to the knowledge based approaches. Eur J Innov Manag 5(3):152–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyka A (2007) Innovation networks. In: Hanusch H, Pyka A (eds) Elgar companion to neo-Schumpeterian economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 360–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyka A, Scharnhorst A (2009) Network perspectives on innovations: innovative networks – network innovation. In: Pyka A, Scharnhorst A (eds) Innovation networks. Springer, Heidelberg/New York, pp 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Rank ON, Robins GL, Pattison PE (2010) Structural logic of intraorganizational networks. Organ Sci 21(3):745–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricardo D (1817) On the principles of political economy and taxation. Dent & Sons, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson DT, Stuart TE (2007) Network effects in the governance of strategic alliances. J Law Econ Org 23(1):242–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1973) Innovative responses to materials shortages. Am Econ Rev 63(2):111–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (1974) Science, invention and economic growth. Econ J 84(333):90–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg N (2011) Was Schumpeter a Marxist? Ind Corp Chang 20(4):1215–1222

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT (2001) Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strateg Manag J 22(6):687–699

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25(3):201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell R (1994) Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. Int Mark Rev 11(1):7–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley TJ, Behrens D, Krackhardt D (2000) Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strateg Manag J 21(3):369–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford D (2007) Economics – the key concepts. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saloner G (1991) Modelling, game theory and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 12(2):119–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato R (1964) The Harrod-Domar model vs the Neo-Classical Growth model. Econ J 74(294):380–387

    Google Scholar 

  • Saviotti PP (2011) Knowledge, complexity and networks. In: Antonelli C (ed) Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 120–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MA, Phelps CC (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: the impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Manag Sci 53(7):1113–1126

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee R (1988) Industrial economics: an overview. Econ J 98:643–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenmakers W, Duysters G (2006) Learning in strategic technology alliances. Tech Anal Strat Manag 18(2):245–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1908) Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie. Dunker & Humblot, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1912) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung (The theory of economic developmnt 1934). Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1939) Business cycles – a theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalism process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter JA (1942) Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie (Capitalism, socialism and democracy, 1950). Harper & Bros, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverberg G, Verspagen B (2005) Evolutionary theorizing on economic growth. In: Dopfer K (ed) The evolutionary foundation of economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 506–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1991) Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organ Sci 2(1):125–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivadas E, Dwyer RF (2000) An examination of organizational factors influencing new product success in internal and alliance-based processes. J Mark 64(1):31–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith A (1776) An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations [1904, Edwin Cannan ed.]. Methuen, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow RM (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Rev Econ Stat 39(3):312–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence M (1976) Informational aspects of market structure: an introduction. Q J Econ 90(4):591–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Spence M (2002) Signaling in retrospect and the informational structure of markets. Am Econ Rev 92(3):434–459

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender JC, Grant RM (1996) Knowledge and the firm: overview. Strateg Manag J 17(2):5–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Staber U (1998) Inter-firm co-operation and competition in industrial districts. Organ Stud 19(4):701–724

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE (2000) Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: a study of growth and innovational rates in a high-technology industry. Strateg Manag J 21(8):791–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart TE, Hoang H, Hybles RC (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm Sci Q 44(2):315–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan T (1956) Economic growth and capital accumulation. Econ Record 32(63):334–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Swann PG (2009) The economics of innovation – an introduction. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Swedberg R (2000) Entrepreurship. In: Swedberg R (ed) The social science view of entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 7–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece DJ (2007) Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manag J 28(13):1319–1350

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorelli HB (1986) Networks: between markets and hierarchies. Strateg Manag J 7(1):37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd J (2006) A review of innovation models. Imperial College discussion paper series, 06/1, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd J, Bessant J, Pavitt K (2005) Managing innovation: integrating technological, market and organizational change, 3rd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Torre A, Rallet A (2005) Proximity and localization. Reg Stud 39(1):47–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Nelson RR (1990) Introduction: technology, organizations, and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect. Am Sociol Rev 61(4):674–698

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks : the paradox of embeddedness. Adm Sci Q 42(1):35–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi B, Amaral LA, Reed-Tsochas F (2007) Small-world networks and management science research: a review. Eur Manag Rev 4(2):77–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Van De Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad Manag Rev 20(3):510–540

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Witteloostuijn A (2000) Organizational ecology has a bright future. Organ Stud 21(2):X–XIV

    Google Scholar 

  • Veblen T (1898) Why is economics not an evolutionary science? Q J Econ 12(3):373–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser E-J (2009) The complementary dynamic effects of clusters and networks. Ind Innov 16(2):167–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E (1986) Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Manag Sci 32(7):791–805

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel E (1988) The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mises L (1969) The historical setting of the Austrian school of economics. Arlington House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Walras L (1874) Elements of pure economics (1954). George Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Acad Manag J 57:484–514

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wassmer U (2010) Alliance portfolios: a review and research agenda. J Manag 36(1):141–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1979) The social psychology of organization. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigel K, Camerer C (1988) Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of recent theory and applications. Strateg Manag J 9(5):443–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180

    Google Scholar 

  • White S (2005) Cooperation costs, governance choice and alliance evolution. J Manag Stud 42(7):1383–1413

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittington KB, Owen-Smith J, Powell WW (2009) Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Adm Sci Q 54(1):90–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1973) Organizational forms and internal efficiency – markets and hierarchies: some elementary considerations. Am Econ Rev 63(2):316–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1975) Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1985) The economic institutions of capitalism. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson OE (1991) Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Adm Sci Q 36(2):269–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (2003) Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg Manag J 24(10):991–995

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter SG (2006) Toward a neo-Schumpeterian theory of the firm. Ind Corp Chang 15(1):125–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U (2003) Evolutionary economics and the extension of evolution to the economy. In: Witt U (ed) The evolving economy. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 3–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U (2008a) What is specific about evolutionary economics? J Evol Econ 18(5):547–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U (2008b) Recent developments in evolutionary economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Witt U, Broekel T, Brenner T (2012) Knowledge and its economic characteristics: a conceptual clarification. In: Arena R, Festre A, Lazaric N (eds) Handbook of economics and knowledge. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamakawa Y, Yang H, Lin Z (2011) Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Res Policy 40(2):287–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Zollo M, Winter SG (2002) Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organ Sci 13(3):339–351

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stifterverband, Essen, Germany

    Muhamed Kudic

  2. Halle Institute for Economic Research, Halle (Saale), Germany

    Muhamed Kudic

Authors
  1. Muhamed Kudic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kudic, M. (2015). Theoretical Background. In: Innovation Networks in the German Laser Industry. Economic Complexity and Evolution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07935-6_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation