The institutional embeddedness of local inter-firm networks: a leverage for business creation

By Johannison Bengt, Ramírez-Pasillas Marcela, Karlsson Gösta. 2002

392 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0c018680d8a07a087fc9e888b6f19c038d291524

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Entrepreneurship, innovation and regional growth: a network theory (2015, background): “Existing evidence suggests that during the emergence phase, entrepreneurs build networks where ties combine calculative and social aspects (Johannisson et al. 2002; Schutjens and Stam 2003; Anderson et al. 2007, 2010).”
Entrepreneurship: The Role of Clusters Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence from Germany (2005, background): “Given the public good nature of institutional networks, they are closely related to the concepts of social capital (Coleman, 1990), institutional embeddedness (Van de Ven, 1993) and second and third order networking (Johannisson et al., 2002).”
Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters (2005, background): “These relations both include business-to-business relations as well as relations between firms and social and economic institutions as suggested by Johannisson (2002).”
Challenges for spatially oriented entrepreneurship research (2011, neutral): “Ram 1994 ; Johannisson, Karlsson, and Ramirez-Pasillas 2002 ; Schutjens et al.”
Toward a Theory of Community-Based Enterprise (2006, positive): “Research and theory in entrepreneurship have drawn attention to the way in which those individuals with extended social networks are advantaged in the quest for entrepreneurial success (Anderson & Jack, 2002; Ardichvili et al., 2003; Johannisson et al., 2002; Larson & Starr, 1993).”
Redefining Industrial Symbiosis (2012, positive): “…use of “network” evolves the collective/collaborative aspect in the earlier definition to capture the mutual learning and information sharing among members (Aarts et al. 2007; Boons and Berends 2001; Cohen-Rosenthal 2000; Johannisson et al. 2002) without invoking a motivation beyond self-interest.”
Social Capital and Entrepreneurship (2007, background): “…experience, which not only determines the range of contacts, but may also infl uence perceptions of opportunities and courses of action (Aldrich and Zimmer, 1986; Birley, 1985; Chell and Baines, 2000; Dubini and Aldrich, 1991; Johannison, 1998; Johannison et al., 2002; Lechner and Dowling, 2003).”
Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size (2010, background): “Also, small firm networks are considered to be generally localized in their organizational and spatial context (Huggins 2000 ; Lissoni 2001 ; Johannisson, Ramirez-Pasillas, and Karlsson 2002 ).”
Do clusters capabilities matter? An empirical application of the resource-based view in clusters (2007, background): “( 2002 ) established the framework for that purpose, which categorized the variety of links within a cluster as first-order embeddedness (firm-to-firm relations), second-order embeddedness (firm relations to social and economic institutions) and third-order embeddedness (firms indirectly being”