Innovation and Input Sharing

By Robert W. Helsley, W. Strange. 2002

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6baa0cb7295804c82798817459b732ab80b91c82

How researchers see this paper

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

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Gilles Duranton
2. W. Strange
3. Edward L. Glaeser
4. Stuart S. Rosenthal
5. Diego Puga
6. William R. Kerr
7. Pierre-Philippe Combes
8. M. Storper

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Gilles Duranton
2. W. Strange
3. Stuart S. Rosenthal
4. Diego Puga
5. Edward L. Glaeser
6. Marigee Bacolod
7. Bernardo S. Blum
8. Anthony J. Venables

Citations in the corpus

• Skills in the city (2009, methodology): “See Henderson (1974) for a model with a black box production function and Helsley and Strange (1990) for a strategic model with an explicit matching microfoundation. Finally, and most importantly, we build on research that directly address the roles of flexibility and adaptation in the generation of”
• Agglomeration and Innovation (2014, unknown): “Helsley and Strange (2002) develop an interesting dynamic model of innovation in which a dense network of input suppliers facilitates innovation by lowering the costs needed to bring new ideas to realization.”
• Micro-Foundations of Urban Agglomeration Economies (2003, methodology): “In Helsley and Strange (2002), urban matching is explicitly adapted to an innovation context.”
• Why are some regions more innovative than others? The role of small firms in the presence of large labs (2014, unknown): “Helsley and Strange (2002) provide a micro-foundation for this idea, developing a model where a large number of small labs generate a dense network of input suppliers that facilitates spin-out formation.”
• Urban Networks: Connecting Markets, People, and Ideas (2016, background): “However, in our model trade in goods is costless; agglomeration and growth reflect instead innovation spillovers (Eaton and Eckstein 1997; Helsley and Strange 2002).”
• The role of clustering in the growth of new technology-based firms (2010, background): “Building on Jacobs (1969), a number of scholars have investigated the benefits of ‘‘heterogeneity’’ or ‘‘metropolitan industrial diversity’’ (Rosenthal and Strange 2005).”
• Evidence on the nature and sources of agglomeration economies (2004, background): “13 See Rauch (1993b) or Helsley and Strange (2001) for models of this kind of dynamic growth. on growth of the local environment at some point in the past.”