Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
patterns of innovation are likely to be represented by the SMI type of
technological regime. This is consistent with the findings of Winter (1984),
whose
entrepreneurial
regime
is characterized by intense R&D activity,
much of which is externally undertaken, and often in the public as well as
the private sector, thereby contributing to a broad knowledge base. Here,
innovation is typically undertaken mostly outside of established firm rou-
tines, and is therefore very favourable to the entry of new and often small
firms. In contrast, at later stages of industry maturity, when scale econo-
mies, entry barriers and capital accumulation become highly relevant, a
routinized
regime
(SMII type) is likely to prevail, in which the knowledge
base is narrow, targeted and cumulatively built through the learning proc-
esses within the firm. In other words, innovation takes place typically
inside its established routines of the firm (Winter 1984).
Other research which investigates firms' innovative activities and secto-
ral technological trajectories typically makes reference to Pavitt's (1984)
classic taxonomy, which is widely used to explain the firm and sectoral
patterns of technical change and innovation among innovative manufac-
turing sectors. The Pavitt taxonomy originally splits firms and sectors into
three broad categories, namely supplier dominated, production intensive
(distinguished in terms of specialized suppliers and scale economies),
and science based firms and industries. The logic of these categories is
related to the sources of knowledge, the production and use of innova-
tions, and the characteristics of innovative firms. Subsequent work based
on Pavitt's seminal contribution (e.g., Pavitt et al. 1989; Archibugi et al.
1991; Veugelers and Cassiman 1999; Evangelista 1999, 2000; Archibugi
2001; Marsili 2001; Miozzo and Soete 2001; Castellacci 2008a; Capasso
et al. 2011a) have adapted the framework to take into account structural
changes such as, for example, the emergence of information-intensive and
life science-based firms, the increasingly blurred boundary between manu-
facturing and services activities, and even the shifting patterns of these
Pavitt classification sectors over time.
10
The Pavitt-related literature has
emphasized the crucial role played by vertical linkages and interactions
among innovative firms both within and across sectors. The intensity and
effectiveness of such networks rely on firms' dynamic capabilities, as well
as on the social and institutional conditions (Perez 1983; Freeman and
Perez 1988). The perception that techno-economic and socio-institutional
factors together explain economic change and growth thereby opens up
the perspective of thinking of innovation in terms of innovation systems,
which can be considered across multiple dimensions.
A complementary line of research has focussed on the sector specific
features of innovative activities and industrial dynamics, proposing cat-
egories that group sectors on the basis of the properties of the processes
