Christophe Carrincazeaux

Proximity and localisation of corporate R&D activities

Abstract The present article is an attempt to analyse the geographical agglomeration of corporate research and development activities through the use of a desegregated sectorial approach. By focusing on those interfaces that are critical for the organisation of innovation-related activities, as well as on the degree of complexity of the knowledge base which is being mobilised, this study will seek to determine the exact nature, and the intensity, of the need for geographic proximity. The explanatory model will then be tested by an econometric analysis of the localisation and clustering of corporate R&D activities in France

Clusters, Proximities and Networks

In the Marshallian tradition of industrial districts, alongside theories of regional systems (Cooke, 2001), national innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992), local productive systems (Courlet & Soulage, 1994) or innovative environments (Camagni & Maillat, 2006), the cluster concept is usually treated in its spatial dimension, considering quite correctly that geographic proximity between firms constitutes a real factor in the diffusion of information and knowledge (Porter, 1998). The current international fascination with the concept of clusters, both amongst politicians and economic researchers, is rooted in the hypothesis that proximity displays characteristics that are conducive to the preservation and even reinforcement of relationships, irrespective of the area of activity in question. Policies encouraging the polarization of innovation activities are based on the following reasoning (Torre, 2006): (1) for innovation to occur, knowledge must be produced or appropriated; (2) by its very nature, knowledge cannot be appropriated in its entirety, and this induces effects wherein the knowledge spills over to other companies; (3) inasmuch as distance constitutes an obstacle to the diffusion of tacit knowledge—which can only be transferred via imitation and practice—geographic proximity is conducive to diffusion. A proximity-based approach offers a complementary analysis of the concept of clusters, transcending a geographic proximity approach per se and incorporating a broader notion of coordination. Since agents are present both “here and elsewhere” (Rallet, 1999)— here since they are located in a geographic space within which they entertain relationships with neighbours, elsewhere because actors clearly entertain remote relationships with other agents—a person can be “near” someone from whom s/he is geographically distant. The idea here is that alongside spatial proximity, there is also such a thing as a relational type of non-spatial proximity. Geographic proximity is a representation that individuals have of the distance that separates them in space from objects and/or other individuals (Torre & Rallet, 2005). Since this assessment is made from a distance, it is relative in two different ways:

Proximity Dynamics, Social Networks and Innovation

There is a growing literature dealing with the role of geographical proximity in the innovation process (Storper and Venables, 2004; Moodysson and Jonsson, 2007; Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006; Fitjar ...

Regional Innovation Systems and Economic Performance: Between Regions and Nations

Abstract This article aims at assessing the diversity of regional innovation systems and their economic performance in Europe. We propose to adapt the social systems of innovation and production (SSIP) framework at the regional level by identifying the specific arrangements of each part of the innovation and production system. Three key features of European regions are investigated using this framework: the diversity of regional SSIP, the interplay of regional and national determinants of such systems, and the impact of SSIP on regional performance. We identify a typology of regional configurations resulting from the combination of scientific, technological, educational and industrial indicators, using multivariate data analysis. A variance analysis approach is then developed in order to test the existence of specific regional growth regimes. The results highlight a persistently high level of diversity of regional configurations, notably among knowledge intensive regions, but also show that national institutional settings remain of fundamental importance in shaping a number of regional configurations. A final conclusion relates to the weak correlation observed between the structural characteristics of regions and their performance over the 2003–2007 period: regional performance remains primarily shaped by national trends. Overall, the paper questions the regional dimension of these “systems”.

Why Do Firms Relocate? Lessons from a Regional Analysis

Abstract In recent years, the qualitative evolution of relocations (from low-cost offshoring to more technologically intensive relocations) has become a new concern in political debate. Focusing on these new trends, the aim of this paper is to better understand relocations from the firms’ point of view. The concept of relocation is reformulated by adopting a broad definition considering it as a specific dimension of firms’ mobility options. We consider three analytical dimensions: relocation as a productive problem (“relational space” for coordination), relocation in a territorial dimension (“geographical space”) and relocation as a complex decision-making process (“political space”). On this basis, we combine two strands of literature (economics of proximity and institutional approaches of the firm) for a better understanding of the decision-making process and the resulting diversity of situations. The framework is finally applied to the specific case of the Aquitaine region of southwest France in order to identify the conditions of anchoring and mobility of firms in spatial terms. Our aim is to show that the decision-making process of relocations cannot be reduced to a simple cost calculation, leaving room for local public policies.

The Role of Geographical Proximity in the Organization of Industrial R&D

Many empirical works stress RD Ellison and Glaeser 1997; Maurel and Sedillot 1998). Recent investigations in the field of geography of innovation (Audretsch and Feldman 1996; Adams and Jaffe 1996) emphasize the role of localized knowledge spillovers as an explanation for the clustering of innovation-related activities.

Les configurations spatiales de l'innovation

L’idee que la concentration geographique est essentielle au processus d’innovation est largement admise. Or, ce lien n’est pas clairement etabli et il convient de reinterroger les relations entre communication, localisation et processus d’innovation. Cet article s’attache a le faire en privilegiant une entree par les dynamiques de proximite, c’est-a-dire par la question de la coordination des acteurs. Nous identifions dans un premier temps le role de la proximite entre les differentes parties prenantes du processus d’innovation. Nous proposons ensuite une typologie de la diversite des configurations spatiales de l’innovation en tenant compte du jeu dynamique des proximites.