Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
throughout the subsequent expansion of the network. This i nding leads Walker et al.
(1997) to argue for path dependence in the network trajectory.
Geographical proximity
Interestingly, a lot of the economic evidence on path dependence and lock-in has actually
been produced and exemplii ed in the context of geographic clusters (Martin and Sunley,
2006). Geographical propinquity seems to be an important constraint on network for-
mation. Sometimes this ef ect is abbreviated in unfortunate terms of 'spatial causation'.
Space, however, is not a necessary cause of economic interaction. Instead, its role is
mediated through at least two underlying social technologies: communication technol-
ogy (Storper and Venables, 2004) and transport technology (Marquis, 2003). Breschi et
al. (Chapter 16, this topic) demonstrate nicely that the ef ect of geographical proximity
on innovation is often mediated through inert mobility of inventors. They tend to stay
in a region over long periods of time but move between companies in the same region to
produce a pattern of locally interrelated innovation networks. Only with respect to the
actors' communication preferences and mobility opportunities may the contingent rela-
tion between physical space and economic interaction be established (Glückler, 2007).
In other words: the constraints of proximity only rule if face-to-face is the only mode
of communication and if travel is prohibitive. In any other case, especially in a world
of high mobility of people, commodities and information, proximity is contingent on
the underlying social technologies. Owen-Smith and Powell (2004) distinguish two such
communication technologies to explain why knowledge-intensive businesses such as bio-
technology tend to favour co-located patterns of inter-i rms alliances: one is the
conduit
as the distribution of private information from a sender to a number of limited receivers,
and the other is the
channel
as the potential spill-over of information into the entire set
of connected actors in a network under conditions of spatial proximity (Owen-Smith
and Powell, 2004). In fact, the more complex the knowledge in a particular industry,
the more do industries agglomerate. This is mainly because the distribution of complex
knowledge entails more problems of accurate transmission and interpretation such that
spatial proximity eases transfer and locks out remote actors from the knowledge l ow
(Fleming and Sorenson, 2001; Sorenson, 2005). Furthermore, Powell et al. (2005) found
unequivocal evidence for a strong geographical bias on strategic alliances in the organi-
zational i eld of biotechnology. New ties as well as repeat ties were more likely when two
i rms were co-located. These studies univocally suggest the importance of geography to
the organization and dynamics of networks.
Geographical proximity is not only mediated through communication technologies at
a given moment in time but may also be a result of its historical legacy. Marquis's (2003)
work illustrates just how geographical proximity may continue to af ect the formation
of network relations even though communication and travel technologies have changed
dramatically. He demonstrates that those networks of interlocking directorships in US
cities that had been established prior to the advent of air travel technology continued to
be signii cantly more locally bound than networks in younger cities. Despite the avail-
ability of modern travel technologies in all cities today, even new corporate board posi-
tions were i lled with local directors. This persistence of geographical network structure
in older communities supports imprinting theory (Stinchcombe, 1965): organizations
adopt organizational characteristics in response to the environmental conditions during
