Un’analisi geografica delle ricadute territorialidell’Università mediante l’ individuazione di cluster spaziali. Il caso dell’area di Napoli

Titolo Rivista RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA
Autori/Curatori Stefano De Falco
Anno di pubblicazione 2020 Fascicolo 2020/1
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 23 P. 85-107 Dimensione file 254 KB
DOI 10.3280/RGI2020-001004
Il DOI è il codice a barre della proprietà intellettuale: per saperne di più clicca qui

Qui sotto puoi vedere in anteprima la prima pagina di questo articolo.

Se questo articolo ti interessa, lo puoi acquistare (e scaricare in formato pdf) seguendo le facili indicazioni per acquistare il download credit. Acquista Download Credits per scaricare questo Articolo in formato PDF

Anteprima articolo

FrancoAngeli è membro della Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA)associazione indipendente e non profit per facilitare (attraverso i servizi tecnologici implementati da CrossRef.org) l’accesso degli studiosi ai contenuti digitali nelle pubblicazioni professionali e scientifiche

La globalizzazione e l’iper-connessione perenne ad opera della diffusione di tecnologie per le comunicazioni, apparentemente sempre piu in grado di annichilire la prossimita geografica, hanno riacceso il recente dibattito scientifico sul tema delle esternalita di rete, soprattutto quando queste riguardano il nesso relativo ad attivita di ricerca tra universita ed imprese localizzate nel territorio di afferenza. Ha senso, pertanto, interrogarsi circa la valenza di configurazione di cluster spaziali dei soggetti che intrattengono tali relazioni, investigandone la loro natura e intensita. Tale contributo, attraverso la sintesi di una attivita di ricerca sviluppata nell’ambito di un progetto pluriennale finanziato dal Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico italiano, propone un approccio induttivo a partire da un caso studio concreto che e stato oggetto di analisi. L’approccio metodologico induttivo proposto, basato sulla determinazione di cluster tematici e sulla successiva analisi della natura e della tipologia delle relazioni scambiate, pur nella consapevolezza della complessita concettuale relativa alla enorme varieta di configurazioni che il sistema di relazioni universita-impresa ed intra-imprese e le relative modellazioni assumono, si rivela funzionale ad argomentare una risposta critica all’interrogativo posto.;

Keywords:Clusters, knowledge spillovers, reti complesse, innovazione, Napoli.

  1. Acs Z., Audretsch D.B., Braunerhjelm P. e Carlsson B. (2010). The missing link: The knowledge filter and entrepreneurship in endogenous growth. Small Business Economic, 34(2): 104-124.
  2. Addie J.-P.D. (2016). From the urban university to universities in urban society. Regional Studies, 41(7): 1089-1099. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2016.122433
  3. Allum P.A. (1973). Politics and society in postwar Naples. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Andersson M. e Larsson J.P. (2016). Local entrepreneurship clusters in cities. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(1): 39-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu049
  5. Audretsch D.B., Stephan P. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: the case of biotechnology. American Economic Review, 83: 641-642.
  6. Id. e Feldman M.P. (1996). R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. Am. Econ. Rev, 86: 630-640.
  7. Avermaete T., Viaene J., Morgan E.J., Pitts E., Crawford N. e Mahon D. (2004). Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturing firms. Trends in food science and technology, 4(10): 474-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2004.04.005
  8. Basile A. (2011). Networking system and innovation outputs: the role of science and technology parks. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(5): 1-12. doi : 10.5539/ijbm.v6n5p3
  9. Basile R., Capello R. e Caragliu A. (2012). Technological interdependence and regional growth in Europe: Proximity and synergy in knowledge spillovers. Regional Science, 91(4): 697-722. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00438.x
  10. Boschma R. (2004). Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Regional Studies, 38: 1001-1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340042000292601
  11. Id. (2014). Toward an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience, Regional Studies, 49: 733-741. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.959481
  12. Id. e Iammarino S. (2007). Related variety and regional growth in Italy. Science and Technology Policy Research, 62: 1-24.
  13. Breschi S. e Lissoni F. (2001a). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 974-1004. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/10.4.975
  14. Id. e Id. (2001b). Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: knowledge ‘tacitness’ reconsidered”. Regional Science, 80: 244-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5597.2001.tb01799.x
  15. Caniels M. (2000). Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth. Edward Elgar.
  16. Conti S. (2014). Nuove economie, nuove geografie. Sulla centralita del procedere geografico. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 122: 491-600.
  17. Cooper A.C. e Smith C.G. (1992). How Established Firms Respond to Threatening Technologies. The Executive, 6(2): 44-70.
  18. De Jong P.J. e Vermeulen P.A.M. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small firms: a comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal, 24(6): 487-609. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0266242606069268
  19. Doring T. e Schnellenbach, J. (2006). What do we know about geographical knowledge spillovers and regional growth? A survey of the literature. Regional Studies, 40: 375-395. DOI: 10.1080/0034340060063273
  20. Dumais G., Ellison G. e Glaeser E. (1997). Geographic concentration as a dynamic process, NBER Working Paper 6270 Ž.
  21. Duranton G. e Overman H.G. (2004). The Review of Economic Studies. Testing for Localization Using Micro-Geographic Data, 72, (4): 1077-1106. DOI: 10.1111/0034-6427.0036
  22. Ellison G. e Glaeser E.L. (1997). Geographic concentration in U.S. manufacturing industries: a dartboard approach. Journal of Political Economy, 104: 889-927. https://doi.org/10.1086/262098
  23. Id., Id. e Kerr W. (2010). What causes industry agglomeration? evidence from coagglomeration patterns. American Economic Review, 100: 1194-1213.
  24. Evangelista V. (2014). Il capitale sociale e la valorizzazione dei prodotti e del territorio nel distretto vitivinicolo di Villamagna (Abruzzo). Rivista Geografica Italiana, 121: 147-177.
  25. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.75
  26. Giuliani E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7: 139-168. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl014
  27. Goldstein G. e Gronberg T. (1984). Economies of scope and economies of agglomeration.Journal of Urban Economics, 16(9): 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(84)90052-4
  28. Hall P. (1997). Modelling the post-industrial city. Futures, 29(4-4): 311-322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(97)00013-X
  29. Helsley R.W. e Strange W.C. (1990). Agglomeration economies and matching in a system of cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 20: 189-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(90)90004-M
  30. Huber F. (2012). Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in Information Technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography, 12: 107-126.
  31. Jaffe A., Trajtenberg M. e Henderson R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 477-498. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401
  32. Keeble D. (2000). Collective learning processes in European high-technology milieux. In Keeble D. e Wilkinson F., eds., High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 199-229.
  33. Latorre M.P., Hermoso R. e Rubio M.A. (2017). A novel network-based analysis to measure efficiency in science and technology parks: the ISA framework approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42:1244-1274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9585-9
  34. Lawson C. (2003). Technical consultancies and regional competences. In: Dannreuther C. e Dolfsma W., eds., Globalisation, Social Capital and Inequality: Contested Concepts, Contested Experiences. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 75-92.
  35. Lazzeroni M. (2010). High-tech activities, system innovativeness and geographical concentration: Insights into technological districts in Italy. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(1): 44-63. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0969776409350795
  36. Lundvall B. (2010). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.
  37. Martin R. e Sunley P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3: 5-35. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.5
  38. Mascitelli R. (2000). From experience: harnessing tacit knowledge to achieve breakthrough innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3): 179-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(00)00038-2
  39. Moodysson J. (2008). Principles and practices of knowledge creation: on the organization of ‘buzz’ and ‘pipelines’ in life science communities. Economic Geography, 84: 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.00004.x
  40. Moretti E. (2013). La nuova geografia del lavoro. Milano: Mondadori. Moulaert F. e Sekia F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: a critical survey. Regional Studies, 37: 289-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000065442
  41. Pittaway L., Robertson M., Munir K., Denyer D. e Neely A. (2004). Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4-6: 137-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00101.x
  42. Polanyi M. (1996). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  43. Porter M.E. (1991). Il vantaggio competitivo delle nazioni. Milano: Mondadori.
  44. Randelli F. (2013). Gli studi evoluzionisti in geografia tra teoria e risultati empirici. Rivista Geografica Italiana, 120(1): 14-30.
  45. Rosenthal S. e Strange W.C. (2001). The determinants of agglomeration. Journal of Urban Economics, 40: 191-229. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2230
  46. Saxenian A.L. (1996). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  47. Shan P., Song M. e Ju X. (2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and performance: is innovation speed a missing link? Journal of Business Research, 69(2): 683-690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.08.032
  48. Uyarra E. (2010). Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18: 1227-1246.
  49. Varga A. (1999). Time-space patterns of US innovation: Stability or change? A detailed analysis based on patent data. In: Fischer M., Suarez-Villa L. e Steiner M., eds., Innovation, Networks and Localities. Berlin: Sprimger.
  50. Zikopoulos P.C., Eaton C., deRoos D., Deutsch T. e Lapis G. (2012). Understanding big data. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stefano De Falco, Un’analisi geografica delle ricadute territorialidell’Università mediante l’ individuazione di cluster spaziali. Il caso dell’area di Napoli in "RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA" 1/2020, pp 85-107, DOI: 10.3280/RGI2020-001004