Advertisement

Innovationspolitik und Netzwerke

  • Tom BrökelEmail author
  • Holger Graf
Living reference work entry

Zusammenfassung

Kooperationen werden allgemeinhin als vorteilhaft für Forschungs- und Entwicklungsaktivitäten und damit als positiv für den langfristigen Erfolg von Unternehmen angesehen. Entsprechend ist die Unterstützung von Kooperations- und Netzwerkaktivitäten zu einem populären Instrument der Innovationspolitik geworden.

Der vorliegende Beitrag diskutiert dieses Instrument aus Sicht des Proximity-Ansatzes. Es wird dabei kritisch hinterfragt, wann eine solche Förderung gerechtfertigt ist und in welchen Situationen sie wahrscheinlich den größten Nutzen stiftet. Hierauf aufbauend werden beispielhaft die traditionelle Clusterpolitik und die EU-Forschungsrahmenprogrammme aus theoretischer Sicht bewertet und praktische Implikationen für die Innovationspolitik abgeleitet.

Schlüsselwörter

Kooperationen Förderung Proximity Netzwerke Cluster Innovationspolitik 

Literatur

  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.Google Scholar
  2. Autant-Bernard, C., Billand, P., Frachisse, D., & Massard, N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 495–519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00132.x.Google Scholar
  3. Balland, P.-A. (2011). Proximity and the evolution of collaborative networks: Evidence from R&D projects within the GNSS industry. Regional Studies, 46(6), 741–756.Google Scholar
  4. Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2014). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598.Google Scholar
  5. Barajas, A., & Huergo, E. (2010). International R&D cooperation within the EU framework programme: Empirical evidence for Spanish firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(1), 87–111.Google Scholar
  6. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132504ph469oa.Google Scholar
  7. BMBF. (2014). Bundesbericht Forschung und Innovation 2014. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF).Google Scholar
  8. Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.Google Scholar
  9. Brakman, S., & Van Marrewijk, C. (2013). Reflections on cluster policies. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(2), 217–231.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rst001.Google Scholar
  10. Brenner, T., & Schlump, C. (2011). Policy measures and their effects in the different phases of the cluster life-cycle. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1363–1386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030601135936.Google Scholar
  11. Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks under EU framework programmes. International Journal of Technology Management, 27(8), 747–772.Google Scholar
  12. Breschi, S., & Lenzi, C. (2015). The role of external linkages and gatekeepers for the renewal and expansion of US cities’ knowledge base, 1990–2004. Regional Studies, 49(5), 782–797.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.954534.Google Scholar
  13. Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2009). Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: An anatomy of localized knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 439–468.Google Scholar
  14. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(January 2001), 69–87.Google Scholar
  15. Broekel, T. (2012). Collaboration intensity and regional innovation efficiency in Germany – A conditional efficiency approach. Industry and Innovation, 19(2), 155–179. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13662716.2012.650884.Google Scholar
  16. Broekel, T. (2013). Do cooperative Research and Development (R&D) subsidies stimulate regional innovation efficiency? Evidence from Germany. Regional Studies, (September), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.812781.Google Scholar
  17. Broekel, T. (2015). The co-evolution of proximities – A network level study. Regional Studies, 49(6), 921–935.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.1001732.Google Scholar
  18. Broekel, T. (2016). Wissens- und Innovationsgeographie in der Wirtschaftsförderung – Grundlagen für die Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.Google Scholar
  19. Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409–433.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbr010.Google Scholar
  20. Broekel, T., & Graf, H. (2012). Public research intensity and the structure of German R&D networks : A comparison of 10 technologies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 21(4), 345–372.Google Scholar
  21. Broekel, T., Fornahl, D., & Morrison, A. (2015). Another cluster premium: Innovation subsidies and R&D collaboration networks. Research Policy, 44(8), 1431–1444.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.05.002.Google Scholar
  22. Buisseret, T. J., Cameron, H. M., & Georghiou, L. (1995). What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 10, 587–600.Google Scholar
  23. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2006). The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis. Research Policy, 35(4), 463–480.Google Scholar
  25. Cantner, U., & Meder, A. (2007). Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partners. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 2(1), 45–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11403-007-0018-y.Google Scholar
  26. Cassi, L., & Plunket, A. (2013). Research collaboration in co-inventor networks: Combining closure, bridging and proximities. Regional Studies, (October 2014), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.816412.Google Scholar
  27. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). {R&D} cooperation and spillovers: Some evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.Google Scholar
  28. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.Google Scholar
  29. Colombo, M. G. (1995). Firm size and cooperation: The determinants of cooperative agreemetns in information technology industries. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 2(1), 3–30.  https://doi.org/10.1080/758521094.Google Scholar
  30. Crespo, J., Suire, R., & Vicente, J. (2016). Network structural properties for cluster long-run dynamics: Evidence from collaborative R&D networks in the European mobile phone industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(2), 261–282.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtv032.Google Scholar
  31. Czarnitzki, D., Doherr, T., Fier, A., Licht, G., Rammer, C., & Niggemann, H. (2002). Öffentliche Förderung der Forschungs- und Innovationsaktivitäten von Unternehmen in Deutschland. (November).Google Scholar
  32. David, P. A., Hall, B. H., & Toole, A. A. (2000). Is public R&D a complement or a substitute for private R&D? A review of econometric evidence. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 497–529.Google Scholar
  33. Dohse, D. (2000). Technology policy and the regions – The case of the BioRegio contest. Research Policy, 29(9), 1111–1133.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00077-3.Google Scholar
  34. Duranton, G. (2011). California dreamin’: The feeble case for cluster policies. Review of Economic Analysis, 3, 3–45.Google Scholar
  35. Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Shapira, P. (2016). Handbook of innovation policy impact (Eu-SPRI forum on science, technology and innovation policy series). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  36. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136–150.Google Scholar
  37. Ejermo, O., & Karlsson, C. (2006). Interregional inventor networks as studied by patent coinventorships. Research Policy, 35, 412–430.Google Scholar
  38. Engel, D., Eckl, V., & Rothgang, M. (2017). R&D funding and private R&D: Empirical evidence on the impact of the leading-edge cluster competition. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9609-5.
  39. Expertenkomission Forschung und Innovation (EFI). (2017). Gutachten 2017 zu Forschung, Innovation und technologischer Leistungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. Efi.Google Scholar
  40. Feldman, M. P., & Florida, R. (1994). The geographic sources of innovation: Technological infrastructure and product innovation in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 84(2), 210–229.Google Scholar
  41. Feldman, M. P., & Kogler, D. F. (2010). Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. Handbook of the economics of innovation (Bd. 1). Amsterdam/Boston/Heidelberg: Elsevier B.V.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01008-7.Google Scholar
  42. Fier, A., & Harhoff, D. (2002). Die Evolution der bundesdeutschen Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik: Rückblick und Bestandsaufnahme. Perspektiven Der Wirtschaftspolitik, 3(3).  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2516.00092.
  43. Fisher, R., Polt, W., & Vonortas, N. (2009). The impact of publicly funded research on innovation. CE.  https://doi.org/10.2769/14877.
  44. Fontagné, L., Koenig, P., Mayneris, F., & Poncet, S. (2013). Cluster policies and firm selection: Evidence from france. Journal of Regional Science, 53(5), 897–922.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12050.Google Scholar
  45. Foray, D. (2004). The economics of knowledge. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Fornahl, D., Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2011). What drives patent performance of German biotech firms? The impact of R&D subsidies, knowledge networks and their location. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2), 395–418.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00361.x.Google Scholar
  47. Frenken, K., van Oort, F. G., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697.Google Scholar
  48. Fritsch, M., & Graf, H. (2011). How sub-national conditions affect regional innovation systems: The case of the two Germanys. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2).  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00364.x.Google Scholar
  49. Giuliani, E. (2011). Role of technological gatekeepers in the growth of industrial clusters : Evidence from chile role of technological gatekeepers in the growth of industrial clusters: Evidence from chile, (March 2012), 37–41.Google Scholar
  50. Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v34y2005i1p47-68.html.Google Scholar
  51. Grabher, G. (Hrsg.). (1993). The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In The embedded firm – On the socioeconomics of industrial networks (S. 255–277). Routledge, London/New York, Reprinted in 1994.Google Scholar
  52. Graf, H. (2011). Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 35(1), 173–198.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beq001.Google Scholar
  53. Graf, H., & Krüger, J. J. (2011). The performance of gatekeepers in innovator networks. Industry and Innovation, 18(1).  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.528932.Google Scholar
  54. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31(4), 477–492.Google Scholar
  55. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N., & Vonortas, N. S. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29(4–5), 567–586.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00090-6.Google Scholar
  56. Heidenreich, M. (1997). Zwischen Innovation und Institutionalisierung. Die soziale Strukturierung technischen Wissens. In B. Blättel-Mink & O. Renn (Hrsg.), Zwischen Akteur und System. Die Organisierung von Innovation (S. 177–206). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  57. Hinzmann, S., Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2017). The role of geographical proximity for project performance: Evidence from the German leading-edge cluster competition. Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9600-1.
  58. Hippel, E. von (1987). Cooperation between Rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16(6), 291–302.Google Scholar
  59. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.Google Scholar
  60. Kesteloot, K., & Veugelers, R. (1995). Stable R&D cooperation with spillover. Journal of Economics and Management, 4, 651–672.Google Scholar
  61. Kogler, D. F., Rigby, D. L., & Tucker, I. (2013). Mapping knowledge space and technological relatedness in US cities. European Planning Studies, 21(9), 1374–1391.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.755832.Google Scholar
  62. Luukkonen, T. (2000). Additionality of EU framework programmes. Research Policy, 29(6), 711–724.Google Scholar
  63. Maggioni, M. A., Nosvelli, M., & Uberti, T. E. (2007). Space versus networks in the geography of innovation: A European analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 471–493.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00130.x.Google Scholar
  64. Marín, P. L., & Siotis, G. (2008). Public policies towards research joint venture: Institutional design and participants’ characteristics. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1057–1065.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.007.Google Scholar
  65. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 5–35.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.5.Google Scholar
  66. Martin, P., Mayer, T., & Mayneris, F. (2011). Public support to clusters: A firm level study of French „Local Productive Systems“. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41(2), 108–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2010.09.001.Google Scholar
  67. Moodysson, J., & Zukauskaite, E. (2014). Institutional conditions and innovation systems : On sectors institutional conditions and innovation systems: On the impact of regional policy on firms in different sectors, (February), 37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.649004.Google Scholar
  68. Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts : Who they are, How they interact, (789545737).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701654178.Google Scholar
  69. Mukherjee, S., Romero, D. M., Jones, B., & Uzzi, B. (2017). The nearly universal link between the age of past knowledge and tomorrow’s breakthroughs in science and technology: The hotspot. Science Advances, 3(4), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601315.Google Scholar
  70. Neffke, F., & Henning, M. (2013). Skill relatedenss and firm diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34, 297–316.Google Scholar
  71. Nishimura, J., & Okamuro, H. (2011). Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy. Research Policy, 40(5), 714–727.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.011.Google Scholar
  72. Njøs, R., & Jakobsen, S. E. (2016). Cluster policy and regional development: Scale, scope and renewal. Regional Studies, Regional Science.  https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1138094.Google Scholar
  73. Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation and inter-firm linkages: New implications for policy. Research Policy, 28, 793–805.Google Scholar
  74. Nooteboom, B. (2000a). Learning and innovation in organizations and economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Nooteboom, B. (2000b). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 69–92.Google Scholar
  76. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.Google Scholar
  77. Paier, M., & Scherngell, T. (2010). Determinants of collaboration in European R & D networks : Empirical evidence from a discrete choice model determinants of collaboration in European R & D networks: Empirical evidence from a discrete choice model, (September 2011), 37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2010.528935.Google Scholar
  78. Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423–443.Google Scholar
  79. Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review.  https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20111451.Google Scholar
  80. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
  81. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 71–102.Google Scholar
  82. Rothgang, M., Cantner, U., Dehio, J., Engel, D., Fertig, M., Graf, H., Töpfer, S., et al. (2017a). Cluster policy : Insights from the German leading edge cluster competition, 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-017-0064-1.
  83. Rothgang, M., Dehio, J., & Lageman, B. (2017b). Analysing the effects of cluster policy: What can we learn from the German leading-edge cluster competition? The Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9616-6.
  84. Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2009). Spatial interaction modeling of cross-region R&D collaboration. Empirical evidence from the 5th EU framework programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88(3), 531–546.Google Scholar
  85. Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. J. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. Annals of Regional Science, 46(2), 247–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3.Google Scholar
  86. Singh, J. (2005). Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5), 756–770.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040.0349.Google Scholar
  87. Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2013). The dynamics of the inventor network in german biotechnology: Geographic proximity versus triadic closure. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 589–620.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs063.Google Scholar
  88. Töpfer, S., Cantner, U., & Graf, H. (2017). Structural dynamics of innovation networks in German Leading-Edge Clusters. Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9642-4.
  89. Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–59.Google Scholar
  90. Uyarra, E., & Ramlogan, R. (2016). The impact of cluster policy on innovation. In J. Edler, P. Cunningham, A. Gök & P. Shapira (Hrsg.), Handbook of innovation policy impact (S. 196–225). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  91. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674–698.Google Scholar
  92. Witt, U., Broekel, T., & Brenner, T. (2012). Knowledge and its economic characteristics: A conceptual clarification. Handbook of knowledge and economics. Cheltenham/Northampton.  https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781001028.00024.
  93. Woolthuis, R. K., Hillebrand, B., Nooteboom, B., & Klein, R. (2005). Organization studies trust, contract and relationship development.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840605054594.Google Scholar
  94. Zúñiga-Vicente, J. A., Alonso Borrego, C., Forcadell, F. J., & Galàn, J. I. (2012). Assessing the effect of public subsidies on firm R&D investment: A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2012.00738.x.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human Geography and Spatial PlanningUtrecht UniversityUtrechtNiederlande
  2. 2.Institut für Wirtschafts- und KulturgeographieGottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität HannoverHannoverDeutschland
  3. 3.Lehrstuhl für MikroökonomikFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaJenaDeutschland

Personalised recommendations