Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: Designing a knowledge architecture for development.

With globalisation and knowledge-based production, firms may cooperate on a global scale, outsource parts of their administrative or productive units and negate location altogether. The extremely low transaction costs of data, information and knowledge seem to invalidate the theory of agglomeration and the spatial clustering of firms, going back to the classical work by Alfred Weber (1868-1958) and Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), who emphasized the microeconomic benefits of industrial collocation. This paper will argue against this view and show why the growth of knowledge societies will rather increase than decrease the relevance of location by creating knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs. A knowledge cluster is a local innovation system organized around universities, research institutions and firms which successfully drive innovations and create new industries. Knowledge hubs are localities with high internal and external networking and knowledge sharing capabilities. Both form a new knowledge architecture within an epistemic landscape of knowledge creation and dissemination, structured by knowledge gaps and areas of low knowledge intensity. The paper will focus on the internal dynamics of knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs and show why clustering takes place despite globalisation and the rapid growth of ICT. The basic argument that firms and their delivery chains attempt to reduce transport (transaction) costs by choosing the same location is still valid for most industrial economies, but knowledge hubs have different dynamics relating to externalities produced from knowledge sharing and research and development outputs. The paper draws on empirical data derived from ongoing research in the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University and in the Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, supported by the German Aeronautics and Space Agency (DLR).

MULTISCALAR CLUSTERS AND NETWORKS AS THE FOUNDATIONS OF INNOVATION DYNAMICS IN THE BIOPHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

Based on the case of the biopharmaceutical industry, the aim of this paper is to challenge the core conviction now widespread within the “spatial clustering theory”, which devotes a key (if not exclusive) role to geographical proximity in explaining clustering dynamics of innovation activities within spe-cific territories. Our argument is threefold. First, mere geographical proximity is not enough; in many cases, cognitive, organizational and strategic forms of proximity are often at least as crucial as the topological closeness among inno-vation actors. Second, our idea is that clusters are fundamentally the territoria-lized outcome of combinations of inter-organizational and social networks among actors pursuing common goals, each of these actors having a specific territorial and social embedding that allows him or her (or not) to operate and interact at different spatial scales. These networks are socially and territorially embedded, but they can operate at various spatial scales. Third, sector-driven dynamics – as is in the case of biopharmaceuticals – may structurally frame the way the actors interact and collaborate in R&D projects and innovation proce-sses. Indeed, the dynamics underlying the emergence, structuring and evolution of biopharmaceutical clusters are both multi-actor and multiscalar. In this perspective, clusters and networks appear to be intertwined phenomena, con-substantial one to each other, and co-evolving organizational modes of biop-harmaceutical innovation.BIOCLUSTERS, FORMS OF PROXIMITY, INNOVATION NETWORKS, SPATIAL SCALES

Knowledge hubs and knowledge clusters: Designing a knowledge architecture for development.

With globalisation and knowledge-based production, firms may cooperate on a global scale, outsource parts of their administrative or productive units and negate location altogether. The extremely low transaction costs of data, information and knowledge seem to invalidate the theory of agglomeration and the spatial clustering of firms, going back to the classical work by Alfred Weber (1868-1958) and Alfred Marshall (1842-1924), who emphasized the microeconomic benefits of industrial collocation. This paper will argue against this view and show why the growth of knowledge societies will rather increase than decrease the relevance of location by creating knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs. A knowledge cluster is a local innovation system organized around universities, research institutions and firms which successfully drive innovations and create new industries. Knowledge hubs are localities with high internal and external networking and knowledge sharing capabilities. Both form a new knowledge architecture within an epistemic landscape of knowledge creation and dissemination, structured by knowledge gaps and areas of low knowledge intensity. The paper will focus on the internal dynamics of knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs and show why clustering takes place despite globalisation and the rapid growth of ICT. The basic argument that firms and their delivery chains attempt to reduce transport (transaction) costs by choosing the same location is still valid for most industrial economies, but knowledge hubs have different dynamics relating to externalities produced from knowledge sharing and research and development outputs. The paper draws on empirical data derived from ongoing research in the Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University and in the Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, supported by the German Aeronautics and Space Agency (DLR).knowledge; knowledge and development; industrial agglomeration; knowledge hub; cluster; space

Anatomy of cluster development in China: The case of health biotech clusters

Focussing on China's health biotech clusters the study explores the anatomy of interaction in as well as between various clusters. While the literature has identified the existence of a dense network of durable interactions among firms and between firms and academia at a particular location as one of the most important prerequisites for well-performing clusters, we show that network ties extending beyond regional boundaries are equally valuable for the innovative capacity of China's biotech firms. Analysing the demographic process of cluster emergence we show that there exist different types of biotech clusters in China, which are closely linked and exchange knowledge and technology amongst each other. It appears as if further analysis of these cross-cluster links may provide important insights of how learning and innovation works in China's health biotech industry. Although China's science parks and industrial bases may on an individual basis appear to be badly structured, the organization of China's health biotech industry turns out to be substantially enhanced once these external linkages are taken into consideration. --China,health biotechnology,cluster,entrepreneurship,localization

A manifesto for the creative economy

The UK\u27s creative economy is one of its great national strengths, historically deeply rooted and accounting for around one-tenth of the whole economy. It provides jobs for 2.5 million people – more than in financial services, advanced manufacturing or construction – and in recent years, this creative workforce has grown four times faster than the workforce as a whole. But behind this success lies much disruption and business uncertainty, associated with digital technologies. Previously profitable business models have been swept away, young companies from outside the UK have dominated new internet markets, and some UK creative businesses have struggled to compete. UK policymakers too have failed to keep pace with developments in North America and parts of Asia. But it is not too late to refresh tired policies. This manifesto sets out our 10-point plan to bolster one of the UK\u27s fastest growing sectors

Physical Planning Strategies of National High-Technology Industrial Development Zones in China

Over the last two decades, High-Technology Industrial Development Zone (HIDZ) has become an important strategy for urban development in China. Modeled on earlier examples in the US and Asia, they have developed in unique ways in China because of the rapid urbanization, large-scale sites, and trend toward high-technology-based new townships or technopoles. While the 84 current national HIDZs widely use planning strategies in their government-guided development and construction, the impact of these planning strategies remains is not well understood. This dissertation explores how and to what extent planning and management strategies impact the outcomes of HIDZs. It examines closely four case examples (Beijing Zhongguancun Science Park, Shanghai Zhangjiang High-Technology Park, Suzhou Industrial Park, and Shenzhen High-Technology Industrial Park). The study reveals the diverse and sometimes competing purposes of national HIDZs, ranging from stimulating innovation and improvement of products, to serving as an economic anchor and a tool for attracting international firms. The research demonstrates the importance of adopting a sustainable strategy for development of HIDZs that it guides place-making, regulates the land development process, improves the quality of the environment, facilitates cooperation among various sectors, and attracts investment. It explores the versatility of planning approaches, identifies a series of key factors that shape planning strategies, and provides suggestions for tailoring the approach to planning to local resources and conditions

Regions in the global knowledge economy

Two bodies of literature converge to explain regions in the global knowledge economy and to identify the factors that lead to competitiveness and innovation of a local economic system. The first section of this statement summarizes the progress in regional studies from a purely locational approach to the focus on clusters and industrial districts. The second part shows how advances in the economics of innovation lead to a renewed and different interest to regions and local systems of innovation. The third section concludes showing how the two trends of the literature just mentioned are instrumental to explain regions in a context where competition becomes global and increasingly based on knowledge goods and services. The focus on the “glocal” exchange of outputs of the knowledge economy is useful to explain the factors behind the rise and fall of new centers of production and growth. In this statement glocalization is defined as the phenomenon that leads to the competition, on a global market, of products and services whose successful development from the conceptualization of an idea to the actual commercial application requires enabling factors (such as institutions, entrepreneurship, knowledge, skills…) that are embedded in a specific local environment. The study of this phenomenon justifies the convergence of regional economics and the economics of innovation. The goal of this statement is to present the literature which might be used in two classes on regional development in the knowledge economy and glocalization of production, that could be taught in a planning, business or public policy department.

Technology, Entrepreneurship and Inequality: an Interpretative Model

This paper purports to explain some recent trends in several advanced economies. Our model shows that the rise of new scientific and technological opportunities, and particularly the opportunities to develop riskier technological projects, is at the basis of the blossoming of small-medium sized high-tech companies in several regions of the world. This phenomenon, which has been widely documented, and has given rise to several remarks about the growth and employment opportunities of "Silicon Valley" models of industrial activities and employment, is contrasted with an economy based on more stable employment conditions in large firms. Our key result is that both an economy based on large firms and one based on high-tech smaller enterprises lead to higher expected incomes. But while the former implies lower inequality in the sense of lower variance of incomes, the latter implies both higher permanent and transitory inequality. This is consistent with some recent empirical findings about the increase in the variance of incomes in the US and the UK.-