Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox

Utrecht University, Section of Economic Geography, Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 01/2009;
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The importance of geographical proximity for interaction and knowledge sharing has been discussed extensively in economic geography in recent years. There is increasing consensus that it is just one out of many types of proximities that might be relevant. We argue that proximity may be a crucial driver for agents to connect and exchange knowledge, but too much proximity between these agents on any of the dimensions might harm their innovative performance at the same time. In a study on knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry, we test this so-called proximity paradox empirically. We find evidence that the proximity paradox holds to some degree. Our study clearly shows that cognitive, social and geographical proximity are crucial for explaining the knowledge network of the Dutch aviation industry. But while it takes cognitive, social and geographical proximity to exchange knowledge, we found evidence that proximity lowers firms's innovative performance, but only in the cognitive dimension.

1 Bookmark
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Regional diversification is high on the scientific and political agenda. As many regions are currently facing economic decline due to the economic crisis, there is increasing awareness that there is a need to develop new economic activities, in order to compensate for losses in other parts of their regional economies. Economic geographers have raised the question how to develop new growth paths in regions over and over again, but this question has largely remained unanswered until recently (Scott 1988; Storper and Walker 1989; Martin and Sunley 2006; Simmie and Carpenter 2007). For instance, there is still little understanding of how old industrial regions may overcome structural problems, such as congestion, overspecialization, a bad image, and inflexible institutions, which, according to many, make them unlikely places for new industries to emerge. However, some do quite well, while others do not, but there is still little known what are the reasons behind that (Hassink 2005).
    12/2010: pages 359-368;
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper focuses on the role of inter-organizational networks as facilitators of knowledge flow and innovation. It introduces the concepts of network capital and network space to complement existing notions of social capital and geographic space as explanatory factors underpinning the impact of networks. Empirically, the paper analyses the inter-organizational networks of firms across three different regional settings. As well as finding significant differences across regions, the analysis also finds cross-regional commonalities in terms of the association between the innovation prowess of firms and the nature of their networks. In particular, it is found that the innovation performance of firms is significantly related to network capital investment in dynamically configured inter-organizational knowledge alliances. It is concluded that such findings may provide clues in terms of policy making in areas such as cluster and innovation system development, especially in supporting and orchestrating networks which have a clear strategic and calculative rationale.
    Industry and Innovation 01/2012; 19(3):203-232. · 0.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study is concerned with the regional determinants of intra- and interregional cooperation. The relative regional impact on both kinds of cooperation is addressed within a panel data framework using the GMM estimator. The influence of different measures capturing the cognitive dimension of proximity between potential cooperation partners shall be tested. An inverted U-shaped relationship is assumed with respect to intra-regional cooperation while the opposite relationship is likely to be observed for inter-regional cooperation. It is distinguished between four 3-digit industries, viz. basic chemical, signal transmission/telecommunication, medical equipment and optical instruments. Since the data is not entirely available yet this early draft lacks a results section. JEL codes: O18, R11,

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 17, 2014