Contenu du sommaire : Networks, Innovation and Clusters

Empirical research has repeatedly confirmed that social networks are important for the creation, survival and growth of new companies. In this article, the leading research questions are: 1) how do networks contribute to the creation of software firms and further development of a competitive IT sector; 2) what is the structure and features of those networks; 3) how have they evolved from the companies' founding stage to the current period; 4) what resources (scientific and technological knowledge, skills, and others) do entrepreneurs mobilize through their networks. Based on a survey of 13 companies, those research questions have been tested, using a methodology that combines applied statistical techniques and social network analysis. Our results seem to support our research questions. They also show that some companies and research units play a relevant role as brokers in the access of many companies to technological, informational and other resources. JEL Codes: L26, M13, L86, L96

This paper contributes to the discussion to what extent government organizations facilitate or hinder policy-oriented innovations and policy entrepreneurship. More specifically, we try to understand both the characteristics of entrepreneurial policy makers -who are able to break with the organizational routines and initiate new policies- and explore under what conditions these policy makers can be effective in their learning behavior. For this purpose, we provide an in-depth empirical analysis of policy entrepreneurs at the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs from 1990 until1997. Our conclusion is that two archetypes of policy learning occurred: ‘normal policy learning' and ‘direct policy learning', each associated with specific local institutional conditions and requiring specific attributes of the entrepreneurial policy makers.JEL Codes: L32, L26

Network organization has been described as a difficult concept in organizational science as its practical forms are multiple and disparate; it is therefore important to provide a basis for this assumption. Network organization cannot be meaningful unless it is considered in its related political context; therefore the contours that should be examined are those of the “free-market moment”. This examination will proceed along two lines of argument: i) the reference to the stakeholder theory; ii)the possible connections between “network” and “deliberative democracy”. In this way, network organization can be described as a place for cautious deliberation.JEL Codes: G32, M14

Network is often considered as a support of knowledge creation. We consider that two main forms of networks can be identified in the economy: horizontal and vertical. We propose to compare these networks according to the question of knowledge creation. The aim of this article is then to demonstrate mathematically the hypothesis that a decentralized network is more efficient in terms of knowledge creation. This hypothesis supposes that interactions between firms promote collective learning and collective knowledge and increase performances. We propose to describe, in terms of mathematical metaphors, the two forms of network in order to compare afterwards their dynamical evolution.JEL Codes: D85, L2, O3

This paper focuses on the clustering dynamics based on/supported by R&D offshoring trends as exemplified by the biopharmaceutical sector in China. It suggests two baselines of the institutional arrangements appropriate to initiate innovation-based clusters: (1) emphasis on the linkages and expansion in global innovation networking, and (2) focus on breeding regional innovation networks and enterprise's embeddedness. Above, especially in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, these two-dimension baselines are closely intertwined and develop by means of R&D offshoring and clustering dynamics, as it is demonstrated by the case-study of interaction and co-evolution between Chinese and multinational pharmaceutical companies (MPCs).JEL Codes: F23, L24, L65, O32

This article studies innovation in Canadian nanotechnology clusters and networks using data from the intersection of the Nanobank database for Canadian inventors with that obtained from a search strategy modified from Porter et al. (2006). Using this selection of patents, we identify, analyze and characterize 8 Canadian nanotechnology clusters. We then construct the Canadian nanotechnology innovation network and describe the collaborative behaviour of the inventors. Most collaborative activity takes place inside nanotechnology clusters and Canadian inventors who decide to build cooperation ties outside their clusters most often prefer to do so with collaborators from abroad, mainly from the USA. A distance-based analysis confirms an important role of the geographical proximity when searching for a cooperation partner. Nevertheless, this importance significantly decreases when no partners are found within 600 km. Very distant or overseas collaborations are then preferred while the mid-range distance options are overlooked.JEL Codes: L24, L14, O32, R1

It is well known that knowledge spillovers exist and that they generate externalities for firms undertaking R&D. Nevertheless, it still remains difficult to predict which local industrial structure may best favor the diffusion of knowledge externalities and finally innovation. In order to further investigate these issues, this paper studies vertical R&D spillovers in addition to the usual localization and urbanization externalities. The underlying hypothesis is that a firm should benefit from knowledge externalities if it is located in a geographical area close to R&D intensive users and producers identified by input/output relationships. Since urbanization as vertical economies are generated by inter-industry links, the issue is then to investigate if urbanization and user-supplier externalities are of a same nature, and thus substitutes or of a different nature and thus may play a complementary role in the firms' innovation process.JEL Codes: L1, O3, R1, R3

This article considers innovation, intellectual assets and intellectual property rights (IPRs) since 1990, with particular regard to the high-income countries. It begins with a discussion of the changing nature of innovation and the increasing importance of intellectual assets, then continues with a discussion of IPRs and the incentives for innovation. It describes the strengthening of the international framework for patent rights. In the case of high-income countries, strengthened patent protection is found to have a positive association with the evolution of selected indicators for international economic flows and domestic innovation processes. In these countries, a number of complementary conditions may be present that facilitate the exploitation of IPRs, pointing to an area for further research.JEL Codes: O31, O34, F43