Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment

By J. Christensen. 2008

590 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f07d444373e25420626e903c2df6d18016bdf1a9

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Uwe Cantner
2. Lars Coenen
3. Max Nathan
4. Heiko Bergmann
5. A. Meder
6. J. Bourke
7. A. T. Wal
8. Ron A. Boschma

Citations in the corpus

• Technology Parks versus Science Parks: does the university make the difference? (2013, background): “…engender institutional, organizational, cultural, social and technological proximity, which are believed to be important for the innovation process (Boschma, 2005).2 Finally, TPs provide a supportive environment, enhance entrepreneurs’ networks and facilitate access to credit (Storey and Tether,…”
• How does proximity affect interfirm marketing cooperation? A study of an agribusiness cluster (2015, background): “Too little proximity between firms could be detrimental to interactive learning and network formation whereas too much proximity could create “lock in” problems (Boschma, 2005).”
• Reward-based crowdfunding of entrepreneurial projects: the effect of local altruism and localized social capital on proponents’ success (2017, unknown): “However, the literature has documented that information transferred through face-to-face interaction is richer than information transmitted through the Internet, as it encompasses tacit components that are difficult to transfer without direct interactions (Boschma 2005).”
• Agglomeration, clusters, and industrial policy (2013, background): “For instance, RIS frameworks emphasize the internal benefits of the cluster as a socio-economic system, but also suggest potential disadvantages, such as the ‘lock-in’ that may result from firms’ excessive reliance on local networks and sources of ideas (Boschma, 2005).”
• Innovation, quality management and learning: Short-term and longer-term effects (2017, background): “Numerous scholars have attempted to explain why some firms are more likely to innovate, with firm characteristics, such as size, sector, ownership, and location being identified as influential drivers of innovation output (Audretsch and Feldman, 1996; Boschma, 2005; Gordon and McCann, 2005; Jordan a”
• Advancing regional innovation systems: What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table? (2017, background): “In the context of innovation, it can be thought of as representing a continuum that spans from contractual sourcing of technology in the international marketplace (Hauknes and Knell 2009) (low organizational proximity), alliances and other forms of collaboration (Herstad, Aslesen, and Ebersberger 20”
• Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox (2014, unknown): “ Nevertheless,  this  disadvantage  may   be  compensated  through  some  form  of  organizational  proximity,  that  is,  a  governance  structure  that   reduces   uncertainty   and   favors   coordination   in   the   innovation   process   (Boschma,   2005).”
• Formation and dissolution of inter-firm linkages in lengthy and stable networks in clusters (2015, background): “Hence, social proximity represents strongly embedded social relations between actors at the microlevel involving trust (Boschma, 2005).”
• Innovator networks and regional knowledge base (2008, background): “This behavior is characterized by trail and error (Loasby 1999, Boschma 2005) where firms and economic actors in general develop certain routines to cope with this uncertainty and integrate them into their search and creative activities (Nelson & Winter 1982).”
• What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups (2016, background): “…starting business is a process and takes some time, people who are more advanced in the entrepreneurial process should also be better embedded in their study region and, thus, better know actual or potential customers in that very region (Boschma, 2005), leading to a stronger demand-side effect.”
• Structure and evolution of global cluster networks: evidence from the aerospace industry (2016, background): “They find that peripheral inclusion in the local network hampers a firm’s learning and innovation opportunities.2 Boschma (2005) suggests that, besides geography, four other dimensions of proximity (cognitive, social, organizational and institutional) explain the likelihood that firms create an…”