Contrasts in Biotechnology and ICT Clustering: a UK Study Prof. Phil Cooke Centre for Advanced Studies & CESAGen, Cardiff University Economic Geography & Spatial Knowledge (Quasi-) Monopoloy Economic success and failure often related to agglomeration Krugmanesque Agglomerations caused by knowledge asymmetries Akerlofesque Increasing returns to tacit knowledge key to agglomeration Polyaniesque Clusters are knowledge markets M&Mesque Clusters are actually spatial knowledge (quasi-) monopolies the Cookesque hypothesis Increasing Knowledge Returns.from Corporates.to Clusters? From Open Science to Open Innovation Through R&D Outsourcing R&D Outsourcing Now Prolific To Talent/Knowledge Quasi-Monopolies Atlantic-Nordic NW Europe Belt (IBM mapR) South & East China (IBM mapD more than R) South India (d more than R) The Coasts in US (R) Then, Hotspots in Canada, Australia (R or R&D) Regional Knowledge Capabilities: the Heart of the Regional Innovation System Questions Posed What are key motivations for clustering? To what extent is distant networking important? Specifically, what aspects of proximity are key for Biotechs? In what ways do ICT firms differ regarding proximity motivations & practices? Do Biotechs and ICTs perform better in clusters? Biotech & ICT Biotech sample size 156 firms. Response rate 20% (32). ICT sample size 7,600. Response rate 3% (270) Date of EstablishmentFrequencyPercentageBiotechs < Comparative Indicators Comparative Partnership Proximity Comparative Performance Conclusions Biotech & ICT Clustering is Different Biotechs Cluster for Research Knowledge Biotechs Use Distant Networks for Innovation ICTs Use Proximity for Innovation, especially National Supply Chains ICTs do Not Particularly Seek Proximity for Research Both Perform Better If Collaborating