Neo-Marshallian Nodes, Institutional Thickness, and Britain's ‘Motor Sport Valley’: Thick or Thin?

By Nick Henry, S. Pinch. 2001

116 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Finance, Political Science and International Relations, Urban Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c53c9b752cdc745583e388fed26b890ca7b7ae01

How researchers see this paper

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

In Finance

1. G. Macleod
2. Rolf Sternberg
3. Yehua Dennis Wei
4. Knut Koschatzky
5. James T. Murphy
6. Michaela Trippl
7. E. Malecki
8. Richard T. Harrison

In Political Science and International Relations

1. Michaela Trippl
2. Paul Cheshire
3. Chunbing Wang
4. Wangming Li
5. Elena Zukauskaite
6. E. Malecki
7. Rolf Sternberg
8. G. Macleod

In Urban Studies

1. Paul Cheshire
2. G. Macleod
3. Rolf Sternberg
4. Yehua Dennis Wei
5. Knut Koschatzky
6. James T. Murphy
7. Michaela Trippl
8. E. Malecki

Citations in the corpus

• Beyond Soft Institutionalism: Accumulation, Regulation, and Their Geographical Fixes (2001, background): “So too might it be short sighted to describe England's South East as `institutionally thin' (Henry and Pinch, 2001) on account of its relative lightness of public sector support structures.”
• Building Trust in Economic Space (2006, background): “…Storper and Salais, 1997; Amin, 1999; Malecki and Oinas, 1999; Maskell and Malmberg, 1999; Malecki, 2000; Yeung, 2000; Dicken and Malmberg, 2001; Henry and Pinch, 2001; Bathelt and Taylor, 2002; Mackinnon et al., 2002; Oinas, 2002; Murphy, 2002; Scott, 2002; Nijkamp, 2003; Scott and Storper,…”
• R&D Cooperation in Innovation Systems—Some Lessons from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS) (2000, result): “This assumption is supported by results of some recent qualitative research like Amin and Thrift’s (1995) ‘institutional thickness ’ argument [however called into question by Henry and Pinch (1999)] or Cooke and Morgan’s (1998) picture of an ‘associational economy’.”
• Towards a process theory of entrepreneurial ecosystems (2018, background): “Second, knowledge and capabilities that build up in a cluster through knowledge spillovers from other firms and universities help new ventures access cutting-edge technologies and non-public market information (Henry and Pinch, 2001).”
• The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (2017, background): “First, shared cultural understandings and institutional environments that ease inter-firm cooperation and normalize practices such as knowledge sharing and firm mobility (Henry and Pinch, 2001; Gertler, 2003), or act as barriers to this kind of activity (Saxenian, 1994; Staber, 2007).”
• Restructuring Industrial Districts, Scaling Up Regional Development: A Study of the Wenzhou Model, China (2007, background): “Moreover, a strong local institution may insulate firms from competitive pressures and turn obstacles into innovation (Hassink and Shin 2005), and a crucial issue is the precise nature of the institutions and their relationships with economic growth (Henry and Pinch 2001).”
• Growth, development, and innovation: A look backward and forward (2003, background): “Where local institutions are “thin”, the crucial basis for an industry may be the regional labour market, local communities of technical workers, and the network of firms ( Henry and Pinch 2001; Keeble et al. 1999; Lissoni 2001; May et al. 2001).”
• Institutional Thickness Revisited (2017, background): “2000; Henry and Pinch 2001; MacLeod 2001; Hess 2004; Beer and Lester 2015) (see also “Toward a Revised Definition of Institutional Thickness”).”