Proximity and collaboration in European nanotechnology

Papers in Regional Science

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 723-742

  Cunningham, Scott W ^a   Werker, Claudia ^a,b  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b RWTH AACHEN UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaborations; EFTA; European Union; Nanotechnology; Proximity

Indexed keywords

EUROPEAN UNION; FREE TRADE AREA; MANAGEMENT; NANOTECHNOLOGY; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EUROPE;

EID: 84867952909     PISSN: 10568190     EISSN: 14355957     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00416.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Autant-Bernard C, Billand P, Frachisse D, Massard N (2007) Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies. Papers in Regional Science 86: 495-520
2. Brenner T, Cantner U, Fornahl D, Fromhold-Eisebith M, Werker C (2011) Regional innovation systems, clusters, and knowledge networking. Papers in Regional Science 90: 243-249
3. Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39: 61-74
4. Bozeman B, Laredo P, Mangematin V (2007) Understanding the emergence and deployment of 'nano' S&T: Introduction. Research Policy 36: 807
5. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2009a) Preparing for our future: Developing a common strategy for key enabling technologies in the EU. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 30.09.2009, COM(2009) 512, mimeo. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/files/communication_key_enabling_technologies_sec1257_en.pdf
6. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2009b) Nanosciences and nanotechnologies: An action plan for Europe 2005-2009. Second implementation report 2007-2009. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, Brussels, 29.10.2009, COM(2009) 607, mimeo. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0607:FIN:EN:PDF
7. Colombo MG (2003) Alliance form: A test of the contractual and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal 24: 1209-1229
8. Cooke P, Uranga MG, Etxebarria G (1997) Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organizational dimensions. Regional Policy 26: 475-491
9. Cordis (2011) Cordis partners service. URL: http://cordis.europa.eu/partners-service/home_en.html
10. Corsatea TC (2010) Regional innovation systems, clusters, and knowledge networking. Papers in Regional Science 29: 373-388
11. Cunningham SW, Porter AL (2011) Bibliometric discovery of innovation and commercialization pathways in nanotechnology. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology: 31 July-4 August, Portland, Oregon
12. Dewick P, Green G, Fleetwood T, Miozzo M (2006) Modelling creative destruction: Technological diffusion and industrial structure change to 2050. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 73: 1084-1106
13. Edquist C (2011) Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change 20: 1725-1753
14. European Commission (2011) European research area: Understanding ERA. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/research/era/understanding/what/what_is_era_en.htm
15. EFTA (2011) Agreement on European Economic Area. URL: http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement.aspx
16. Eurostat (2011) NUTS - Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics: Introduction. URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/nuts_nomenclature/introduction
17. Forfas (2010) Ireland's nanotechnology commercialisation framework 2010-2014. URL: http://www.forfas.ie/media/forfas310810-nanotech_commercialisation_framework_2010-2014.pdf
18. Frenken K, Ponds R, Van Oort FG (2010) The citation impact of research collaboration in science-based industries: A spatial-institutional analysis. Papers in Regional Science 89: 351-271
19. Google Earth (2011) Google Earth 6. URL: http://www.google.com/earth/index.html
20. Grabher G (1993) The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional developments in the Ruhr-area. In: Grabher G (ed) The embedded firm: On socio-economics of industrial networks. Routledge, London
21. Greene W (2008) Functional forms for the negative binomial model for count data. Economics Letters 99: 585-590
22. Huang C, Notten A, Rasters N (2008) Nanotechnology publications and patents: A review of social science studies and search strategies. UNU-MERIT Working Papers. URL: http://www.merit.unu.edu/publications/wppdf/2008/wp2008-058.pdf
23. Islam N, Miyazaki K (2009) Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectories. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 128-140
24. Katz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration. Research Policy 26: 1-18
25. KIT (2011) About KIT. URL: http://www.kit.edu/kit/english/index.php
26. Klein-Woolthuis R, Lankhuizen M, Gilsing V (2005) A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation 25: 609-619
27. Knoben J, Oerlemans LAG (2006) Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews 8: 71-89
28. Lotka AJ (1926) The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 16: 317-323
29. MacKay DJC (2003) Information theory, inference and learning algorithms. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge
30. Maggioni MA, Nosvelli M, Uberti TE (2007) Space versus networks in the geography of innovation: A European analysis. Papers in Regional Science 86: 471-493
31. Maggioni M, Uberti TE (2009) Knowledge networks across Europe: Which distance matters? The Annals of Regional Science 43: 691-720
32. McCloskey DN, Ziliak ST (1996) The standard error of regressions. Journal of Economic Literature 35: 94-114
33. Meister C, Werker C (2004) Physical and organizational proximity in territorial innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Economic Geography 4: 1-2
34. Metcalfe JS (2005) Systems failure and the case for innovation policy. In: Llerena P, Matt M (eds) Innovation policy in a knowledge based economy. Springer, Berlin
35. Meyer M (2007) What do we know about innovation in nanotechnology? Some propositions about an emerging field between hype and path-dependency. Scientometrics 70: 779-810
36. Nelson AJ (2009) Measuring knowledge spillovers: What patents, licenses and publications reveal about innovation diffusion. Research Policy 38: 994-1005
37. Newman MEJ (2001) The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 98: 404-409
38. Nooteboom B (2000) Learning and innovation in organizations and economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford
39. Petruzelli AM (2008) Proximity and knowledge gatekeepers: The case of the Polytechnic University of Turin. Journal of Knowledge Management 12: 34-51
40. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck DJ (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoppaper Research 10: 715-728
41. Salerno M, Landoni P, Verganti R (2008) Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75: 1202-1223
42. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Systems Technology Journal 27: 379-423, 623-656
43. Shapira P, Youtie J (2008) Emergence of nanodistricts in the United States: Path dependency or new opportunities? Economic Development Quarterly 22: 187-199
44. Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (2010) Bi-lateral agreement Switzerland EU: Research. URL: http://www.europa.admin.ch/themen/00500/00506/00522/index.html?lang=en
45. Thomson Reuters (2011) Web of Science. URL: http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/az/web_of_science/
46. Werker C, Athreye SS (2004) Marshall's disciples: Knowledge and innovation driving regional economic development and growth. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14: 505-523