Spatial and Sectoral Characteristics of Relational Capital in Innovation Activity

The paper presents prima facie evidence of the role of relational capital in innovation activities, and underlines the spatial and sectoral difference of the effects of relational capital on innovation processes. Relational cpaital is defined in this paper as the intensity of information and knowledge exchange measured through the intensity of cooperation among local actors. The paper is structured in two parts. In the first part, a review on the literature is presented, and the similarities and differences between the concept of relational capital and the more common knowledge spillovers is underlined. In the second part, the empirical results of the analysis is presented; the empirical analysis is based on a database built at the firm level, located both in urban and non-urban areas. The database consists of 89 observations, developed in three urban areas (La Spezia, Genova and Savona) and three specialised areas in Liguria, an Italian region. With a quantitative approach, the paper replies to the following key questions: - is relational capital a determinant for innovation activities? - If it is so, does it have the same role in urban and non urban areas? - Does it have a different role in specialised and despecialised areas? The empirical results to these questions help in understanding whether it is true that competitive city regions in the global economy are the major locations for relatively exclusive knowledge and learning resources. Our impression is that it is difficult to support this argument in general: if relational capital plays a role in innovation activities, it may very well be that its role strongly depends on the sectoral as well as the spatial characteristics in which the innovation process takes place. Non-urban areas characterised by strong local synergies and highly specialised activities may even be more facilitated in their inovation activity.

Collective learning in a milieu approach: Conceptual elements and empirical evidence from Italy

The aim of the paper is twofold: a) it stresses the concept of collective learning from a theoretical point of view, and provides new insights into its definition; b) it provides a measurement of the presence of collective learning in three Italian milieux. An analysis of the definitions provided so far in the litterature on collective learning shows in fact an ambiguity between these two concepts. A parallel analysis of the two concepts is run, and similarities and differences underlined. One of the main distinguishing features of collective learning is embedded in the element of "club externality", while the elements of "continuity" and "dynamic synergies" represent the elements of similarities with the concept of learning. The paper explains these concepts in depth, and once the "public" nature of collective learning is emphasised, it moves into the problem of whether the public nature guarantees its exploitation. To reply to this question, the paper moves into the problem of which local spatial preconditions have to be present in a territorial setting to exploit collective learning. In this respect, the paper provides a logic framework of preconditions for a territorial system to move from specialised areas, through to "local districts", "milieux" and "milieux innovateurs", and provides a distinction between the concept of "milieu" and that of a "milieu innovateur", which is so far remained ambigous. The logic framework allows in fact to distinguish in a clearcut way among all these concepts. These reflections lead to some interesting empirical questions which are investigated in the empirical part of the paper. In particular, the empirical analysis replies to the following questions: ? is it true that collective learning is not the result of a cooperative behaviour, but of a collective process; ? if it is true that collective learning is the way of achieving new creative resources for SMEs in local areas. The empirical analysis is based on three Italian high-tech milieux. Descriptive and interpretative statistical instruments are used in this part of the paper.

Territorial Patterns of Innovation in Europe

This paper investigates over the way in which regions innovate. The conceptual framework departs from the simple idea that scientific activities equates knowledge, assuming that the presence of local knowledge produced by research centers, universities and firms was a necessary and sufficient condition for increasing the innovative capacities in local firms, fed by local spillovers. In particular, the paradigmatic jump in interpreting regional innovation processes lies in a conceptual framework interpreting not a single phase of the innovation process, but the different modes of performing the different phases of the innovation process, highlighting the context conditions (internal and external to the region) that accompany each innovation pattern. The paper conceptually identifies different territorial patterns of innovation, and empirically test their existence in Europe. Interesting results emerge from the European territory, witnessing the existence of large differences in the territorial patterns of innovation. These results strongly support normative suggestions towards thematically/regionally focused innovation policies.

Knowledge, innovation and collective learning: theory and evidence from three different productive areas in Italy

Innovative capacity of firms has traditionally been explained through intra-firm characteristics, being firms size the most important. A wave of empirical studies identifies small firms as the engines of technological change and innovative activity, at least in certain industries. This statement and these empirical findings constrast the well known observation that, since R&D expenditure is concentrated in large firms, and that innovative output strongly depends on R&D inputs, large firms are expected to drive the technological process. These contrasting results have pushed industrial economists to look for other explanatory variables. In the recent literature much emphasis has been put to determinats which are external to the firm; these external factors are called knowledge spillovers, and refer to the positive externalities that firms receive in terms of knowledge from the environment in which it operates. Both industrial and regional economists underline the importance of knowledge spillovers. As this paper underlines, the main difference between the two groups is that regional economists identify in a clear way the channels through which knowledge spills over a local area. The concept of relational capital is fundamental in this respect. Relation capital is in fact defined as the set of all relationships - market relationships, power relationships, co-operation - established between firms, institutions and people, which stem from a strong sense of belonging and a highly developed capacity of cooperation typical of culturally similar people and institutions. The existence of high relational capital in an area generates stable cooperation between firms and their local suppliers and customers, an efficient local labour market with a high internal mobility of employees and spin-offs from local firms, which are considered as the main channels through which knowledge spreads over a local area. Thus regional economists provide a new insight in the way knowledge develops over space; from the empirical point of view, some qualitative case studies exist which stress collective learning mechanisms, but a real need exists for solid quantitative empirical analyses. The main aims of the present paper are twofold. The first aim is o underline the main differences between industrial and regional economists. The second aim is to provide a quantitative empirical approach using econometric techniques to verify the existence and importance of relational capital on the innovation activity of firms. Proxies are found to represent the channels of collective knowledge and therefore indirectly of relational capital. The different regional, sectoral and firms' characteristics will also be analysed, in order to understand whether they influence the role relational capital has on firms' innovation. It is, indeed, reasonable to expect that relational capital will play a different role in different regional, sectoral and firm's contexts.

The theoretical and methodological toolbox of urban economics: from and towards where?

After more than five decades since the recognition of the importance of a branch in Economics called Regional and Urban Economics, there is for sure sufficient scientific material for an ex-post evaluation of what has been achieved so far, where is the scientific frontier in this field, and what are the main open conceptual questions. The present contribution aims at providing such a "picture", by underlining, in a critical way, the results achieved and the challenges that still remain to be faced. It is not at all a first attempt in this direction: especially in the last decade, some doubts on the scientific achievements in the fields of Regional and Urban Economics, and more widely of Regional Science, were stressed, especially in the American academic world. These sciences were interpreted as going through a deep "scientific crisis", interpreted as a sort of downward slope in their "life cycle". Some scientific in-depth analyses have already been provided by regional scientists, rightly claiming that still much can be said and be produced in terms of both theoretical and empirical (modelling) elements. Our paper will start from those considerations, and provide a step further in the interpretation of the problems encountered by Regional and Urban Economics in the actual scientific world, and will strongly suggest that there are important signs of a reaffirmation of the discipline, given the recently strong renewed interest around the conept of territory, developed: - within other branches of the Economic theory. A clear example of this is the emergence of the "New Economic Geography" theory, widely anchored to some well known regional economic concepts. The same can be said for the recent concept of knowledge spillover of the Industrial Economists, in which the innovative diffusion process is largely dependent on geographical distance among innovative actors; - with traditionally related scientific fields, such as Urban Planning and Geography, for the development of a unified framework of analysis for territorial economic processes; - with sociologists, on the concept of "social capital", related to the interaction between social and economic elements for the explanation of the processes of knowledge creation at the local level. In all these cases, there is still place for a more in-depth cooperation among scientists, with the aim to achieve a more in-depth knowledge of theoretical concepts; moreover, in all these cases, there is still place for regional economists to strengthen their role within the international interdisciplinary arena. The paper will highlight these cases, and strengthen the reasons for this statement.