Geographical Proximity and Bridging Technological Distances the Example of Firms Diversifying into...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Geographical Proximity and Bridging Technological Distances the Example of Firms Diversifying into...
Geographical Proximity and Bridging Technological
Distances
the Example of Firms Diversifying into the Biochip Industry in
Germany
Max-Peter Menzel
University of Berne
Institute of GeographyUniversity of Berne
DIME WorkshopReconsidering the Regional Knowledge Economy
Newcastle, 4th-5th September 2008
Bridging of Technological Distances
tech
no
log
ical
dis
tan
ce
geographical distance
HypothesisFirms bridge larger technological distance in geographical proximity than in geographical distance.
Test with diversifying firms
Bridge large technological distances at the beginning
Bridge small technological distances at the end
Method
Biochips
Diagnostic tool for the detection of deseases and genetic properties
Biochip industry
First commercialised biochip by Affymetrix in 1994
Growing market (diagnostics, biotechnology)
Connection of different technological fields
Method
Complete survey of the industry
53 diversifications into biochips (32 interviews)
61 firms with respective competencies at their formation
Qualitative (semi structured interviews)
mapping of the movement into the biochip field
Quantitative
all firms: year of entrance (formation or diversification)
diversifying firms: quantification of the semi-structured interviews
Method
Quantification of the interviews
Bridging technological distance
First learning relation in the new technology
Second learning relation in the new technology
Third/Last learning relation in the new technology
Geographical proximity/distance to knowledge source
global
Europe
national
regional (state)
local (10km)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
First relation Second Relation Third/last relation
nu
mb
er o
f re
lati
on
s
global
Europe
national
regional
local
Bridging of Technological Distances
Bridging of Technological Distances
1. Learning Relation
It was clear immediately that they didn’t understand us and that we didn´t understand them. When they told us: ´just take a PBS-buffer´; nobody knew what it was. ….. We have been engineers .... We have converted materials from A into B to have a material feature which is actually not natural. We hade made something like that. But we hadn't made any bio chips. What I wanted to say is we weren't stupid, but we were absolutely blockheaded in this area. And they hadn't understood us either.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
First relation Second Relation Third/last relation
nu
mb
er o
f re
lati
on
s
global
Europe
national
regional
local
Bridging of Technological Distances
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
First relation Second Relation Third/last relation
nu
mb
er o
f re
lati
on
s
global
Europe
national
regional
local
Bridging of Technological Distances
Results
Results for the firm level
Firms bridge larger technological distances in geographical proximity than in geographical distance
Firms proceed the movement with more distant partners
Implications for the aggregate level
Too much geographical proximity not only responsible for negative lock-ins, but also for the formation of a lock-in
Hypothesis: the places where firms bridge technological distances to/in new industries in geographical proximity have the potential to form regional cluster.
When does this bridging take place in the same direction?