Abstract
Over the last couple of decades, firms increasingly acquire locally unavailable inputs in other regions, and are increasingly engaged in research collaboration with firms across the world. In this chapter, we propose and use a spatial agent-based model to study the significance of supraregional relationships on technological progress, in general, and on the emergence of core-periphery structures in particular. We propose a novel ‘artifact-transformation’ model for technology development and have agents (1) construct artifacts using inputs possibly acquired elsewhere and (2) search for transformations to produce these artifacts, possibly in collaboration with other agents. We find that core-periphery structures emerge mostly for certain spatial layouts of regions and if relationships are not completely global while there are many technological cross-links. Moreover, we find that if there are few technological cross-links, supraregional relationships hardly contribute to technological progress and only a weak core-periphery structure emerges at best. We also find that technological progress ultimately levels off in all circumstances.
A shorter, early version of this chapter appeared as Vermeulen and Pyka (2014b). The models in Vermeulen and Pyka (2014b) and this chapter are based on the model presented in Vermeulen and Pyka (2014a).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
With ‘technology’, we mean both production capabilities and the products produced with these production capabilities. With ‘production’, we mean the construction of products out of input products or resources using production capabilities. With ‘technology development’, we mean the activities in discovering new production options and thus allowing producing more advanced and more complex products. There is technological progress if production options and manufactured products become more advanced and/or more complex. A product is a hierarchical tree of input products, where each input is itself produced by a transformation of lower level inputs or raw resources.
- 2.
We use the terms ‘artifacts’ and ‘transformations’ in the operational model as the operationally defined counterparts of ‘products’ and ‘production capabilities’.
- 3.
A phylogenetic network evolves due to phylesis (extension), speciation (splitting) and reticulation (merging) of species.
References
Arthur W, Polak W (2006) The evolution of technology within a simple computer model. Complexity 11:23–31
Asheim B, Boschma R, Cooke P (2011) Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Reg Stud 45(7):893–904
Basalla G (1988) The evolution of technology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progr Hum Geogr 28(1):31–56
Brülhart M (2001) Evolving geographical concentration of European manufacturing industries. Rev World Econ 137(2):215–243
Chie B-T, Chen S-H (2013) Non-price competition in a modular economy: an agent-based computational model. Economia Politica 3:273–300
Childe VG (2003) Man makes himself. Coronet, Philadelphia
Frenken K, Nuvolari A (2003) The early development of the steam engine: an evolutionary interpretation using complexity theory. ECIS, Working Paper 03.15
Gilbert N, Pyka A, Ahrweiler P (2001) Innovation networks: a simulation approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simulat 4(3) [online]. Available: http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/JASSS/4/3/8.html
Korhonen J, Kasmire J (2013) Adder: a simplified model for simulating the search for innovations. Working paper presented at DRUID
Krugman P (1991) History and industry location: the case of the manufacturing belt. Am Econ Rev 81(2):80–83
Morone P, Taylor R (2010) Knowledge diffusion and innovation: modelling complex entrepreneurial behaviours. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Padgett J, Lee D, Collier N (2003) Economic production as chemistry. Ind Corp Change 12(4):843–877
Rallet A, Torre A (1999) Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal 49(4):373–380
Silverberg G, Verspagen B (2005) A percolation model of innovation in complex technology spaces. J Econ Dynam Contr 29(1):225–244
Vermeulen B, Pyka A (2014a) Technological progress and effects of (supra) regional innovation and production collaboration. An agent-based model simulation study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computational intelligence for financial engineering & economics (CIFEr). IEEE, pp 357–364
Vermeulen B, Pyka A (2014b) The effects of supraregional innovation and production collaboration on technology development in a multiregional world: a spatial agent-based model study. In: Wąs J, Sirakoulis G, Bandini S (eds) Cellular automata. Springer, Berlin, pp 698–707
Whitford J, Potter C (2007) Regional economies, open networks and the spatial fragmentation of production. Soc Econ Rev 5(3):497–526
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vermeulen, B., Pyka, A. (2017). Supraregional Relationships and Technology Development. A Spatial Agent-Based Model Study. In: Vermeulen, B., Paier, M. (eds) Innovation Networks for Regional Development. Economic Complexity and Evolution. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43940-2_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43940-2_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43939-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43940-2
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)