The effects of spatial mobility on the performance of firms

Economic Geography

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 157-183

  Knoben, Joris ^a   Oerlemans, Leon A G ^a,b   Rutten, Roel P J H ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Embeddedness; Innovativeness; Performance; Relocation

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; INNOVATION; MOBILITY; RELOCATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; THEORETICAL STUDY;

BENELUX; EURASIA; EUROPE; NETHERLANDS; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 45249111772     PISSN: 00130095     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.tb00402.x     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45:425-57.
2. Alcacer, J. 2006. Location choices across the value chain: How activity and capability influence collocation. Management Science 52:1457-71.
3. Amin, A., and Cohendet, P. 2005. Geographies of knowledge formation in firms. Industry and Innovation 12:465-86.
4. Arthur, W. B. 1994. Industry location patterns and the importance of history. In Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy, ed. W. B. Arthur, 49-68. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Arthur, W. B.; Ermolieve, U.; and Kaniovsky, Y. 1987. Path dependent processes and the emergence of macro structure. European Journal of Operations Research 30:294-303.
6. Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17:99-120.
7. Barney, J. B., and Hesterly, W. S. 1999. Organizational economics: Understanding the relationship between organizations and economic analysis. In Studying organization, ed. S. R. Clegg and C. Hardy, 109-41. London: Sage.
8. Baruch, Y. 1999. Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations 52:421-38.
9. Beaudry, C., and Breschi, S. 2003. Are firms in clusters really more innovative? Economics of Innovation and New Technology 12:325-42.
10. Beugelsdijk, S. 2007. The regional environment and a firm's innovative performance: A plea for a multilevel interactionist approach. Economic Geography 83:181-99.
11. Boschma, R. A. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39:61-74.
12. Boschma, R. A., and Weterings, A. B. R. 2005. The effect of regional differences on the performance of software firms in the Netherlands. Journal of Economic Geography 5:567-88.
13. Breschi, S., and Lissoni, F. 2001. Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: Knowledge "tacitness" reconsidered. Papers in Regional Science 80:255-73.
14. Brouwer, E., and Kleinknecht, A. H. 1996. Determinants of innovation: A microeconometric analysis of three alternative innovative output indicators. In Determinants of innovation: The message from new indicators, ed. A. H. Kleinknecht, 99-124. Basingstoke, U.K.: Macmillan Press.
15. Carter, S. 1999. Relocation or dislocation? Key issues in the specialist management of group moves. Management Research News 22:22-36.
16. Combs, J. G., and Ketchen, D. J. 1999. Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic Management Journal 20:867-88.
17. Damanpour, F., and Evan, W. M. 1984. Organizational innovation and performance: The problem of "organizational lag." Administrative Science Quarterly 29:392-409. Dyer, J. H. 1996. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal 17:271-91.
18. Dyer, J. H., and Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23:660-79.
19. Feldman, M. P. 1999. The new economics of innovation spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8:5-26.
20. Flyer, F., and Shaver, J. M. 2003. Location choices under agglomeration externalities and strategic interaction. In Advances in strategic management: Geography and strategy, ed. J. A. C. Baum and O. Sorenson, Vol. 20, 93-214. Amsterdam: Elsevier JAI.
21. Gallaud, D., and Torre, A. 2004. Geographical proximity and circulation of knowledge through inter-firm cooperation. In Academia-business links: European policy strategies and lessons learnt, ed. R. Wink, 137-58. Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.
22. Gallaud, D. and Torre, A. 2005. Geographical proximity and the diffusion of knowledge: The case of SMEs in biotechnology. In Rethinking regional innovation, ed. G. Fuchs, P. Shapira, and A. Koch, 127-46. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
23. Gertler, M. S. 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography 3:75-99.
24. Gilsing, V., and Nooteboom, B. 2005. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: An analysis of multimedia and biotechnology. European Management Review 2:179-97.
25. Grabher, G. 1993. Rediscovering the social in the economics of interfirm relations. In The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks, ed. G. Grabher, 1-32. London: Routledge.
26. Granovetter, M. S. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91:481-510.
27. Hagedoorn, J., and Cloodt, M. 2003. Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy 32:1365-79.
28. Hess, M. 2004. "Spatial" relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography 28:165-86.
29. Isabella, L. A. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal 33:7-41.
30. Klassen, R. D., and Jacobs, J. 2001. Experimental comparison of web, electronic and mail survey technologies in operations management. Journal of Operations Management 19:713-28.
31. Knoben, J., and Oerlemans, L. A. G. 2006. Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration:A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 8:71-89.
32. Knoben, J., and Oerlemans, L. A. G. Forthcoming. Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. Regional Studies.
33. Knoben, J.; Oerlemans, L. A. G.; and Rutten, R. P. J. H. 2006. Radical changes in inter-organizational network structure: The longitudinal gap? Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73:390-404.
34. Krackhardt, D. 1992. The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations. In Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action, ed. N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles, 216-39. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
35. Lavie, D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review 31:638-58.
36. Lev, B., and Radhakrishnan, S. 2005. The valuation of organization capital. In Measuring capital in a new economy, ed. C. Corrado, J. Haltiwanger, and D. Sichel, 73-99. Chicago: National Bureau of Economic Research and University of Chicago Press.
37. Love, J. H., and Roper, S. 2001. Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy 30:643-61.
38. Maskell, P. 2001. The firm in economic geography. Economic Geography 77:329-44.
39. McClave, J. T.; Benson, P. G.; and Sincich, T. 1998. Statistics for business and economics. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
40. Oerlemans, L. A. G., and Meeus, M. T. H. 2005. Do organisational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies 39:89-104.
41. Oerlemans, L. A. G.; Meeus, M. T. H.; and Boekema, F. W. M. 1998. Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analysing innovation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 89:298-309.
42. Oinas, P. 2000. Distance and learning: Does proximity matter? In Knowledge, innovation and economic growth: The theory and practice of learning regions, ed. F. W. M. Boekema, K. Morgan, S. Bakkers, and R. P. J. H. Rutten, 57-69. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar. Owen-Smith, J., and Powell, W.W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science 15:5-21.
43. Pettigrew, A. M., and Massini, S. 2003. Innovative forms of organizing: Trends in Europe, Japan, and the USA in the 1990s. In Innovative forms of organizing, ed. A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F.A. J. van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, and T. Numagami, 1-32. London: Sage.
44. Powell, W. W.; White, D. R.; Koput, K. W.; and Owen-Smith, J. 2005. Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of inter-organizational collaboration in the life sciences. American Journal of Sociology 110:1132-205.
45. Romo, F. P., and Schwartz, M. 1995. The structural embeddedness of business decisions: The migration of manufacturing plants in New York State, 1960 to 1985. American Sociological Review 60:874-907.
46. Rooks, G.; Oerlemans, L.; Buys, A.; and Pretorius, T. 2005. Industrial innovation in South Africa: A comparative study. South African Journal of Science 101(3-4):149-150.
47. Sohn, J. 2004. Do birds of a feather flock together? Economic linkage and geographic proximity. Annals of Regional Science 38:47-73.
48. Stam, E. 2007. Why butterflies don't leave: Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography 83:27-50.
49. Sternberg, R., and Arndt, O. 2001. The firm or the region: What determines the innovation behavior of European firms? Economic Geography 77:364-82.
50. Taylor, M., and Asheim, B. 2001. The concept of the firm in economic geography. Economic Geography 77:315-28.
51. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review 61:674-98.
52. van Dijk, J., and Pellenbarg, P. H. 2000. Firm relocation decisions in the Netherlands: An ordered logit approach. Papers in Regional Science 79:91-219.
53. van Oort, F. 2002. Agglomeration, economic growth and innovation: Spatial analysis of growth- and R&D externalities in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Tinbergen Institute.
54. Wiewel, W., and Hunter, A. 1985. The interorganizational network as a resource: A comparative case study on organizational genesis. Administrative Science Quarterly 30:482-96.
55. Wuyts, S.; Colombo, M. G.; Dutta, S.; and Nooteboom, B. 2005. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 58:277-302.