The Geography of Innovativeness - New product announcements in The Netherlands

In contrast to findings in other countries, and surprisingly in view of the literature, innovation in the Netherlands is not spread geographically according either to relevant labour market characteristics or to localized agglomeration economies. Instead, statistical analysis shows that the Netherlands is an urban field, and that the regional knowledge infrastructure ? universities of technology in particular - is the only variable that can offer an explanation of innovative activity throughout the country. By analysing similar relationships for younger firms, we are able to make a quite strong case about causation. We estimate these regional spillovers using the Literature Based Innovation Output indicator by screening two successive volumes of 43 specialist trade journals for product announcements. Output indicators for innovativeness ? except for patents, which have well-known disadvantages as an indicator ? are not often used in the relevant literature, partly because they are not readily available. Our analysis offers the possibility to assess how consistent the use of input versus output indicators of innovativeness is in the analysis of the geographical spread of innovative activity.

On the Marshall - Jacobs Controversy It takes two to tango

The literature is inconclusive as to whether Marshallian specialization or Jacobian diversification externalities favour regional innovativeness. The specialization argument poses that regional specialization towards a particular industry improves innovativeness in that industry. Regional specialization allows for knowledge to spill over among similar firms. By contrast, the diversification thesis asserts that knowledge spills over between firms in different industries, causing diversified production structures to be more innovative. Building on an original database, we address this controversy for the Netherlands. We thereby advance on the literature by providing a two-level approach, at the region’s and the firm’s level. At the regional level, we compare specialized with diversified regions on numbers of accommodated innovators. At the firm level, we establish causalities between externalities and degree of innovativeness. The results suggest Marshallian externalities: specialized regions accommodate increased numbers of innovating firms and, consistently, incumbent firms’ innovativeness increase with regional specialization. Once the product has been launched, innovators in diversified Jacobian regions prove more successful in commercial terms than innovators in specialized Marshallian regions.Industrial clusters; innovation; knowledge externalities

Measuring the Knowledge Base of an Economy in terms of Triple-Helix Relations among 'Technology, Organization, and Territory'

Can the knowledge base of an economy be measured? In this study, we combine the perspective of regional economics on the interrelationships among technology, organization, and territory with the triple-helix model, and offer the mutual information in three dimensions as an indicator of the configuration. When this probabilistic entropy is negative, the configuration reduces the uncertainty that prevails at the systems level. Data about more than a million Dutch companies are used for testing the indicator. The data contain postal codes (geography), sector codes (proxy for technology), and firm sizes in terms of number of employees (proxy for organization). The configurations are mapped at three levels: national (NUTS-1), provincial (NUTS-2), and regional (NUTS-3). The levels are cross-tabled with the knowledge-intensive sectors and services. The results suggest that medium-tech sectors contribute to the knowledge base of an economy more than high-tech ones. Knowledge-intensive services have an uncoupling effect, but less so at the high-tech end of these services

Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements

The creation of new knowledge is a haphazard process: not every sector in an economy is equally involved. The effect of industry structure on innovativeness has been a focus of attention for a long time by both academics and policymakers. in a much quoted article, using unique data - new-product announcements - Acs and Audretsch [Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78(4), 678-690] identified several characteristics of industry structure and their effects on innovativeness. By analyzing a new and more consciously compiled database, we re-examine their original claims. Our results largely support their findings: industry concentration and degree of unionization for instance hamper innovation; skilled labor promotes it. Our findings diverge in one significant respect from theirs: we suggest that the large firms do not contribute more to an industry's innovativeness than small firms. At the industry level, we find strong support for the Schumpeter Mark I perspective of creative destruction by small firms rather than creative accumulation by large firms. In addition, we show that less dedicated innovators prove more susceptible to firm-external industry factors than more committed innovators. An unfavorable competitive environment decreases the likelihood that less successful innovators will announce new products. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

The odd role of proximity in knowledge relations: high-tech in the Netherlands

In contrast to findings in other countries, and surprisingly in view of the literature, high-tech economic activity in the Netherlands is not spread geographically according to either relevant labour market characteristics or to localised agglomeration economies. Instead, statistical analysis shows that the Netherlands is an urban field, and that the knowledge infrastructure is the only variable that can offer an explanation of the high-tech presence throughout the country. By analysing similar relationships for younger firms, we are able to make quite a strong case about causation. Copyright (c) 2003 by the Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG.

Currents and sub-currents in innovation flows: Explaining innovativeness using new-product announcements

The creation of new knowledge is a haphazard process: not every sector in an economy is equally involved. The effect of industry structure on innovativeness has been a focus of attention for a long time by both academics and policymakers. In a much quoted article, using unique data - new-product announcements - Acs and Audretsch [Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78(4), 678-690] identified several characteristics of industry structure and their effects on innovativeness. By analyzing a new and more consciously compiled database, we re-examine their original claims. Our results largely support their findings: industry concentration and degree of unionization for instance hamper innovation; skilled labor promotes it. Our findings diverge in one significant respect from theirs: we suggest that the large firms do not contribute more to an industry's innovativeness than small firms. At the industry level, we find strong support for the Schumpeter Mark I perspective of creative destruction by small firms rather than creative accumulation by large firms. In addition, we show that less dedicated innovators prove more susceptible to firm-external industry factors than more committed innovators. An unfavorable competitive environment decreases the likelihood that less successful innovators will announce new products.Innovation New-product announcements Innovation sub-currents Schumpeter Mark I