Metropolitan Innovation Systems: A Comparison between Barcelona, Stockholm, and Vienna

By J. R. Diez. 2002

129 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This article uses data from the European Regional Innovation Survey to provide insights into the innovative activity and innovation networking of the most important innovation actors, namely manufacturing firms, producer service firms, and research institutes. The innovation capacities of the metropolitan innovation systems differ markedly. In respect to cooperation partners, vertical relationships predominate. Only in Stockholm do research institutes play a significant role in assisting innovation processes in manufacturing firms. Spatial proximity of cooperation partners is very important, confirming the concept of territorially based systems of innovation. At the same time, the actors surveyed cooperate intensively with cooperation partners outside the region.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca1f7d9a3211d500e6168c821b7da203f3ab3a3d

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

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

(How) Do (Firms in) Clusters Create Knowledge? (2005, background): “This may of course be particular to the German case as Diez (2002) found evidence from the cities of Barcelona, Stockholm and Vienna that spatial proximity to such local partners is actually important.”
Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters (2005, background): “…areas have shown that spatial proximity is more important in horizontal linkages between manufacturing firms, research institutes or competitors, whereas vertical co-operation is not so reliant on spatial proximity and can be sustained and operationalized over longer distances (Revilla-Diez 2002).”
Regional networks of small and medium sized enterprises: evidence from the Metropolitan Area of Ottawa in Canada (2004, result): “…one 15 28.3 None 38 71.7 Total 53 100.0 The results presented in Figure 2 correspond to the results of other studies (Kaufmann & Tödtling, 2001; Diez, 2002; Cooke et al., 2000; Koschatzky et al., 2001; Malecki & Poehling, 1999) which revealed that customers and suppliers are the two most…”
Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues (2005, background): “Such studies can identify the main factors responsible for the emergence and sustenance of a regional innovation system, the social and institutional dynamics supporting innovation activity at a regional scale, and the mapping of various kinds of interactions among different actors and factors insid”
Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge (2002, background): “The advantage of the KPF analysis over survey based studies of regional innovation systems (e.g., Cook 2002, Diez 2002) is that it can provide an account of innovation-related interactions based on a large number of geographical areas with the fraction of costs given the use of secondary data.”