Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
solutions for technological and economic problems. Hence, those networks are built up
by actors collectively engaged in the creation of new ideas they can economize on. There
are various aspects characterizing the structure of those networks such as the number
and type of actors involved, the number and types of relationships among them, the type
of knowledge created, and network measures such as size, density, centralization, or
small world properties. An extension of this static view of a network's structure towards
a dynamic analysis clearly needs an understanding of actors' decisions to form and cut
relations to explain how such systems evolve.
Heterogeneity and the decision to exchange knowledge
Why do actors look for partners to exchange knowledge, expertise and ideas? Why do
actors often engage in collective processes of invention and innovation instead of doing
it alone? In a rather general way, one line of argument just refers to reducing risk and
sharing R&D costs (Baum et al., 2000; Deeds and Hill, 1996). Another line claims that
the reason is they are combining complementary assets in order to enhance the propensity
of a successful development project (Nooteboom, 1999; Teece, 1986). A third reasoning
highlights the internalization of knowledge spillovers (Griliches, 1992). Obviously and
rather generally, all three motives overlap and apply simultaneously.
To understand innovator systems, however, the second and the third line of argumen-
tation stand out. Both imply that for generating new ideas dif erent pieces of knowledge
have to be combined and those pieces are by no means under the control of a single indi-
vidual actor. Actors are rather dif erent in their command of technological knowledge
and expertise. This just leads us to the basic argument of the resource-based (Barney,
1991; Penrose, 1959) and the dynamic capabilities view (Teece, 1986) of the i rm, which
we here simply extend beyond the very notion of a i rm also to other actors such as
research institutions.
The resource-based view of the i rm applied to our context suggests an actor should be
considered as an ensemble of specii c resources that are unique, valuable and dii cult to
imitate (Barney, 1991). Technological knowledge and technological capabilities are con-
sidered to be of that type since they are accumulated over time, show path-dependency
and by that are unique to the actor (Teece, 1986). This provides an actor with a certain
technology-based competitive advantage that may allow him or her to reap higher ben-
ei ts or proi ts. However, they also may constrain an actor in pursuing further progress
because for that, additional or dif erent knowledge and competences are required.
The constraining property of knowledge resources in the above sense may force
problem solving actors to extend their knowledge base and their repertoire of capabilities.
One way to achieve that would be investment in their own learning and R&D. However,
as such activities seem to be characterized by cumulativeness and path dependency, they
may i nally lead to a technological lock-in. In such a situation, an actor's accumulated
knowledge and competences may not be suitable anymore to solve current problems.
Hence, it may be in the interest of that actor to gain access to knowledge and compe-
tences provided by other actors, may that be i rms or public institutions. Besides this,
cost considerations may play a role in the sense that it may be less costly to acquire
external knowledge, rather than building it up by themselves. For that to work, formal-
ized R&D cooperative arrangements are one way, another way is the informal exchange
of knowledge. In both, the exchange of knowledge and competences is ruled either by a
