A geographical analysis of the territorial impact of the University by identifying spatial clusters. The case of the Naples area

Author/s Stefano De Falco
Publishing Year 2020 Issue 2020/1
Language Italian Pages 23 P. 85-107 File size 254 KB
DOI 10.3280/RGI2020-001004
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

Below, you can see the article first page

If you want to buy this article in PDF format, you can do it, following the instructions to buy download credits

Article preview

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

Globalization and the perennial hyper-connection due to the diffusion of communications technologies more and more apparently capable of annihilating geographical proximity, has aimed the recent scientific debate on the topic of network externalities, especially when these concern the relation relative to activities of research between universities and businesses located in the territory of reference. It makes sense, therefore, to critically reflect about the significance of spatial cluster configuration of the subjects who entertain such relationships, investigating their nature and intensity. This contribution, through the synthesis of a research activity developed as part of a multi-year project financed by the Italian Ministry of Economic Development, proposes an inductive approach starting from a concrete case study that has been analyzed. Even with the awareness of the conceptual complexity related to the enormous variety of configurations that the system of university-business and intra-companies relations and the related modeling assume, the proposed inductive methodological approach, based on the determination of thematic clusters and the subsequent analysis of nature of the typology of the exchanged relationships, it is functional to argue a critical answer to the question posed.

Keywords: Clusters, knowledge, spillover, complex network, innovation, Naples.

  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