Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
the geographical dimension, in the sense that to solve technological problems an
●
actor may not i nd an appropriate cooperation partner nearby (regionally inter-
nal partners) but only further away, outside the local system (regionally external
partners).
Obviously, to i nd some explanation for the changing structure of innovation net-
works, we have to take an actor's perspective and use information on the technological
relationships among them. What we have to ignore or can only indirectly infer are the
motivations and further determinants that lead an actor to engage in network coopera-
tion.
3. The case and the data
The above i ve dimensions of a developing innovation system are analysed for the case
of the local innovation network of Jena between 1995 and 2001. Hence, we do not look
at the local innovation system of Jena but at a subset of this system, the network of
innovators. Thus, we leave out political actors, norms and institutions that are consid-
ered as additional core actors and elements of a local innovation system.
2
In order to
track the development of the Jena innovators network, we distinguish two sub-periods,
1995-97 labelled P1 and 1999-2001 labelled P2. We leave out 1998 in order to have the
two sub periods of equal length of three years and to have a clear separation between
them.
We construct the network of innovators by using information from applications at the
German Patent Oi ce, and select those with at least one inventor residing in Jena. For
the period under consideration, we take into account 1114 patent applications, with 334
applicants and 1827 inventors, of which 977 are located outside Jena. We distinguish
between the technological potential to cooperate, the kind of relationships of the coop-
erating actors, and the geographical dimension of the relationships. From the patent
information we have at hand, these relationships or dimensions can be constructed in
the following way. First, there is potential to cooperate between actors if they apply
within the same technology class. Second, if for a specii c patent we i nd more than
one applicant (co-application), then we consider this as cooperation (
co
) between those
applicants. Third, if we i nd patents by distinct applicants on which the same inventor
is stated, we consider the applicants of these patents to be connected via scientist mobil-
ity (
sm
) - seemingly, this inventor worked for all the applicants.
3
Fourth, the regional
dimension is taken into account by looking at the location of the applicants. In the case
of a relationship between applicants located in Jena, the respective knowledge l ows are
internally oriented. An external orientation of a relationship shows up when a local actor
is linked to an actor located outside Jena.
4. Results
Actor development
Table 17.1 gives a i rst view on the development of the network in terms of the actors
involved. The network size increased as the total number of innovators jumped from
139 in the i rst period to 189 in the second period; 32 innovators were members of the
network in both periods, 107 actors exited between P1 and P2, and 157 entered. Within
