Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters

  • Published:
Journal of International Business Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In today’s knowledge economy, clusters are a key driver of a country’s competitiveness. Yet a cluster’s technological base is now more than ever influenced by constituent firms’ actions to tap into distant knowledge sources. Drawing on a social network perspective, and distinguishing between horizontal versus vertical organization-based linkages, we explore the effects of a cluster’s connectedness to foreign locations on its innovation performance. We show that improvements in horizontal and vertical connectedness both stimulate a cluster’s innovation performance, but that their relative effects vary across cluster types. Innovation in knowledge-intensive clusters disproportionately benefits from enhancements in their constituent firms’ horizontal connectedness to foreign knowledge hotspots. Innovation in labor-intensive clusters mostly gains from stronger vertical connections by their firms to central value chain players abroad. We discuss the implications of our findings for research on global knowledge sourcing and cluster upgrading.

Résumé

Dans l'économie contemporaine fondée sur la connaissance, les grappes industrielles constituent un facteur clé de la compétitivité d'un pays. Pourtant, la base technologique d'une grappe est plus que jamais influencée par les actions de ses firmes pour accéder à des connaissances à l’étranger. En nous appuyant sur la perspective du réseau social, et en distinguant les liens horizontaux et verticaux entre les firmes, nous explorons de quelle façon la performance d'une grappe en terme d’innovation est affectée par sa connectivité aux autres grappes étrangères. Nous montrons que les améliorations dans la connectivité horizontale et verticale d’une grappe industrielle stimulent l'innovation locale, mais que leurs effets relatifs varient selon les types de grappes. L'innovation dans les grappes à forte intensité de connaissances bénéficie de manière disproportionnée des améliorations dans la connectivité horizontale de leurs firmes à des zones étrangères actives en termes de connaissances. L'innovation dans les grappes à forte intensité de travail bénéficie surtout de plus fortes connexions verticales de leurs firmes aux acteurs centraux dans les chaînes de valeur mondiales. Nous discutons les implications de nos résultats pour la recherche sur l’acquisition des connaissances mondiales et la valorisation des grappes industrielles.

Resumen

En la economía de conocimiento actual, los clústeres son un propulsor clave en la competitividad de un país. Sin embargo, la base tecnológica de un clúster está ahora más que nunca influenciada por las acciones de las empresas que lo constituyen para acceder a fuentes de conocimiento distantes. Basándonos en la perspectiva de una red social, y distinguiendo entre vínculos horizontales versus verticales de la organización, exploramos los efectos de la conectividad de un clúster con ubicaciones en extranjero en su desempeño de innovación. Mostramos que las mejorías en la conectividad tanto horizontal como vertical estimulan el desempeño de la innovación del clúster, pero que sus efectos relativos varían según los tipos de clúster. La innovación en clústeres intensivos en conocimiento se beneficia desproporcionadamente de las mejoras en la conexión horizontal de las firmas que lo constituyen con los focos de conocimiento extranjeros. La innovación en clústeres que son intensivos en mano de obra se beneficia principalmente de las conexiones verticales más fuertes de sus empresas con los principales actores de la cadena de valor central en el extranjero. Discutimos las implicaciones de los hallazgos para la investigación sobre las fuentes globales de conocimiento y la actualización de clústeres.

Resumo

Na atual economia do conhecimento, os clusters são um dos principais impulsionadores da competitividade de um país. No entanto, a base tecnológica de um cluster está mais do que nunca influenciada pelas ações de suas empresas constituintes na exploração de distantes fontes de conhecimento. Com base em uma perspectiva de rede social e distinguindo entre vínculos baseados na organização horizontais e verticais, exploramos os efeitos da conexão de um cluster com locais estrangeiros no desempenho de inovação. Mostramos que melhorias nas conexões horizontais e verticais estimulam o desempenho de inovação de um cluster, mas que seus efeitos relativos variam entre diversos tipos de cluster. Inovação em clusters intensivos em conhecimento é desproporcionalmente beneficiada por melhorias na conexão horizontal de suas firmas constituintes a centros de conhecimento estrangeiro. Inovação em clusters intensivos em mão-de-obra é beneficiada principalmente por conexões verticais mais fortes de suas empresas com atores centrais da cadeia de valor no exterior. Discutimos as implicações de nossas descobertas para pesquisa sobre obtenção de conhecimento global e aprimoramento de clusters.

摘要

在当今知识经济时代, 产业集群已成为国家竞争力的关键驱动力, 而集群的科技基础也日渐受到其组成企 业嵌入远程知识源行动的影响。我们透过社会网络视角对组织间横向与纵向关联加以区分, 从而进一步探 索产业集群与他国区位的连通性对集群创新绩效的影响。我们的研究表明, 横向与纵向连通性的改善一方 面能同时促进产业集群创新绩效的提升, 另一方面对不同类型产业集群的相对影响又有所差异。在知识密 集型产业集群的创新活动中, 集群组成企业的与国外知识创新热点地区的横向连通性会带来不均等的收 益。而在劳动密集型产业集群的创新活动中, 集群组成企业则主要得益于其与在价值链中占据中心地位的 他国企业增强的纵向连通性。我们还将进一步探讨该成果对全球知识外包与产业集群升级相关研究的启 示。

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3): 425–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. 2016. Internationalization in the information age: A new era for places, firms, and international business networks? Journal of International Business Studies, 47(5): 499–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcácer, J., & Oxley, J. 2014. Learning by supplying. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2): 204–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfaro, L., & Charlton, A. 2009. Intra-industry foreign direct investment. The American Economic Review, 99(5): 2096–2119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeida, P., & Phene, A. 2004. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25(8–9): 847–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, U., & Forsgren, M. 2000. In search of centre of excellence: Network embeddedness and subsidiary roles in multinational corporations. Management International Review, 40(4): 329–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A., Fosfuri, A., & Gambardella, A. 2001. Markets for technology: The economics of innovation and corporate strategy. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asakawa, K., Park, Y., Song, J., & Kim, S. 2018. Internal embeddedness, geographic distance, and global knowledge sourcing by overseas subsidiaries. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0112-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awate, S., & Mudambi, R. 2017. On the geography of emerging industry technological networks: The breadth and depth of patented innovations. Journal of Economic Geography, 18(2): 391–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1): 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, H. 2014. Global integration and innovation: Multicountry knowledge generation within MNCs. Strategic Management Journal, 35(6): 869–890.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beugelsdijk, S., & Mudambi, R. 2013. MNEs as border-crossing multi-location enterprises: The role of discontinuities in geographic space. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5): 413–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. 1972. Factoring and weighting approaches to clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2: 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R. 2005. Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1): 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., & Ter Wal, A. 2007. Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2): 177–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buciuni, G., & Pisano, G. 2015. Can Marshall’s clusters survive globalization?. Harvard Business School, Mimeo.

  • Burt, R. 1992. Structural hole. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. 2016. Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. 1989. Technological innovation and multinational corporations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. 2009. Location and the multinational enterprise. Journal of International Business Studies, 40(1): 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Janne, O. 1999. Technological globalisation and innovative centres: The role of corporate technological leadership and locational hierarchy. Research Policy, 28(2): 119–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Mudambi, R. 2005. MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates. Strategic Management Journal, 26(12): 1109–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J. A., & Mudambi, R. 2011. Physical attraction and the geography of knowledge sourcing in multinational enterprises. Global Strategy Journal, 1(3–4): 206–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, J., & Santangelo, G. 1999. The frontier of international technology networks: Sourcing abroad the most highly tacit capabilities. Information Economics and Policy, 11(1): 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlino, G., & Kerr, W. 2015. Agglomeration and innovation. In G. Duranton, V. Henderson & W. Strange (Eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics( p. 349). Amstedam: Elsevier.  

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, W., & Alcacer, J. 2002. Knowledge seeking and location choice of foreign direct investment in the United States. Management Science, 48(12): 1534–1554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, W., & Yeaple, S. 2008. International knowledge sourcing: Evidence from US firms expanding abroad. Strategic Management Journal, 29(11): 1207–1224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95–S120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo, N., & Fontoura, M. 2007. Determinant factors of FDI spillovers: What do we really know? World Development, 35(3): 410–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, V., & Grandinetti, R. 2014. Industrial districts and the collapse of the Marshallian model: Looking at the Italian experience. Competition & Change, 18(1): 70–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, M., Porter, M., & Stern, S. 2010. Clusters and entrepreneurship. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(4): 495–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delgado, M., Porter, M., & Stern, S. 2014. Clusters, convergence, and economic performance. Research Policy, 43(10): 1785–1799.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 659–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dormann, C., McPherson, M., Araújo, M., Bivand, R., Bolliger, J., Carl, G., & Kühn, I. 2007. Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: A review. Ecography, 30(5): 609–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dussauge, P., & Garrette, B. 1995. Determinants of success in international strategic alliances: Evidence from the global aerospace industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(3): 505–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Singh, H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4): 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D. 2005. Offshoring: Value creation through economic change. Journal of Management Studies, 42(3): 675–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. 1979. Centrality in networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1: 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galunic, D., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 1193–1201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. 2005. The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12(1): 78–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., & Szulanski, G. 1994. Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Management Science, 40(1): 96–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroud, A., & Scott-Kennel, J. 2009. MNE linkages in international business: A framework for analysis. International Business Review, 18(6): 555–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. 2007. The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: Evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2): 139–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1): 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2005. Upgrading in global value chains: Lessons from Latin American clusters. World Development, 33(4): 549–573.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3): 481–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5): 397–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. 2007. Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations, and other relational assets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Westphal, J. 1999. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3): 473–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannigan, T., Cano-Kollmann, M., & Mudambi, R. 2015. Thriving innovation amidst manufacturing decline: The Detroit auto cluster and the resilience of local knowledge production. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(3): 613–634.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. 2002. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters? Regional Studies, 36(9): 1017–1027.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. 1998. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. The Academy of Management Executive, 12(4): 69–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iurkov, V., & Benito, G. 2018. Domestic alliance networks and regional strategies of MNEs: A structural embeddedness perspective. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0089-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 577–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Javorcik, B. 2008. Can survey evidence shed light on spillovers from foreign direct investment? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(2): 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kano, L. 2018. Global value chain governance: A relational perspective. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0086-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D. 2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3): 638–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, P., & Bathelt, H. 2018. Location strategy in cluster networks. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0088-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen, M., & Mudambi, R. 2013. Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: Bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(3): 501–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zajac, E. J. 2011. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32(8): 820–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. 2006. Localized learning revisited. Growth and Change, 37(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. 1999. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2): 167–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. 2005. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11): 1033–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mesquita, L., & Lazzarini, S. 2008. Horizontal and vertical relationships in developing economies: Implications for SMEs’ access to global markets. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2): 359–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, K., Mudambi, R., & Narula, R. 2011. Multinational enterprises and local contexts: The opportunities and challenges of multiple embeddedness. Journal of Management Studies, 48(2): 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R. 2008. Location, control and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(5): 699–725.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi, R., & Santangelo, G. 2016. From shallow resource pools to emerging clusters: The role of multinational enterprise subsidiaries in peripheral areas. Regional Studies, 50(12): 1965–1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J., & Zhegu, M. 2005. Aerospace clusters: local or global knowledge spillovers? Industry & Innovation, 12(1): 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1): 5–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. 2011. Global value chains meet innovation systems: Are there learning opportunities for developing countries? World Development, 39(7): 1261–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G., & Shih, W. 2009. Restoring American competitiveness. Harvard Business Review, 87(7/8): 114–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107(1): 33–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. 1998. On competition. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1): 116–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roijakkers, N., & Hagedoorn, J. 2006. Inter-firm R&D partnering in pharmaceutical biotechnology since 1975: Trends, patterns, and networks. Research Policy, 35(3): 431–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rugman, A., & Verbeke, A. 2003. Multinational enterprises and clusters: An organizing framework. Management International Review, 43: 151–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scalera, V. G., Perri, A., & Hannigan, T. J. 2018. Knowledge connectedness within and across home country borders: Spatial heterogeneity and the technological scope of firm innovations. Journal of International Business Studies. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0109-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shipilov, A. 2012. Strategic multiplexity. Strategic Organization, 10(3): 215–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. 2005. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5): 756–770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soh, P., Mahmood, I., & Mitchell, W. 2004. Dynamic inducements in R&D investment: Market signals and network locations. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6): 907–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. 2004. Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4): 351–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2): 315–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon, T. 2003. What really goes on in Silicon Valley? Spatial clustering and dispersal in modular production networks. Journal of Economic Geography, 3(2): 199–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon, T., Van Biesebroeck, J., & Gereffi, G. 2008. Value chains, networks and clusters: Reframing the global automotive industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 8(3): 297–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkina, E., Van Assche, A., & Kali, R. 2016. Structure and evolution of global cluster networks: Evidence from the aerospace industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(6): 1211–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Assche, A. 2017. Global value chains and innovation. In H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn & L. Simon (Eds.), The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation: A multi-disciplinary approach (p. 739). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Assche, A., & Van Biesebroeck, J. 2018. Functional upgrading in China’s export processing sector. China Economic Review, 47(1): 245–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications, Vol. 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, D., & Gertler, M. 2004. Clusters from the inside and out: Local dynamics and global linkages. Urban Studies, 41(5–6): 1071–1093.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R., & Milanov, H. 2010. It’s the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1): 62–77.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Both authors contributed equally to this study. We would like to thank Ram Mudambi (Editor), Alain Verbeke (Editor-in-chief), Harald Bathelt, John Cantwell, and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We acknowledge the financial support from Canada’s Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, HEC Montréal, Montreal, H3T2A7, Canada

    Ekaterina Turkina & Ari Van Assche

Authors
  1. Ekaterina Turkina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ari Van Assche
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ari Van Assche.

Additional information

Accepted by Ram Mudambi, Area Editor, 8 March 2018. This paper has been with the authors for four revisions.

Appendix: Random Effects Approach to Panel Data for Reverse Causality Test with Centrality as Dependent Variable

Appendix: Random Effects Approach to Panel Data for Reverse Causality Test with Centrality as Dependent Variable

 

Ln(horizontal eigenvector centrality)

Labor-intensive (T = 1) vs. knowledge-intensive (T = 0)

Emerging (T = 1) vs. developed (T = 0)

International

Trans-local

Regional

International

Trans-local

Regional

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Number of patents

0.0006

0.0004

0.0002

0.0005*

0.0002

0.0001

(0.0008)

(0.0005)

(0.0004)

(0.0005)

(0.0004)

(0.0002)

Number of patents × T

−0.009

−0.008

−0.006

−0.005

−0.004

−0.002

(0.010)

(0.009)

(0.008)

(0.007)

(0.005)

(0.003)

N

446

446

446

446

446

446

R2 within

0.16

0.15

0.12

0.15

0.13

0.11

R2 between

0.23

0.20

0.17

0.20

0.18

0.15

R2 overall

0.20

0.18

0.14

0.17

0.15

0.13

Prob > χ2

0.0001

0.0003

0.0004

0.0003

0.0005

0.0007

 

Ln(vertical eigenvector Centrality)

 

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Number of patents

0.0001

0.00009

0.00007

0.00008

0.00005

0.00004

 

(0.0002)

(0.0001)

(0.00008)

(0.0001)

(0.00007)

(0.00006)

Number of patents × T

0.009

0.005

0.002

0.007

0.006

0.001

(0.01)

(0.006)

(0.004)

(0.008)

(0.007)

(0.003)

N

446

446

446

446

446

446

R2 within

0.11

0.09

0.08

0.08

0.06

0.05

R2 between

0.15

0.14

0.12

0.13

0.11

0.09

R2 overall

0.13

0.11

0.10

0.11

0.09

0.07

Prob > χ2

0.0006

0.0008

0.0009

0.001

0.001

0.002

  1. Notes: ***, **, and * denote significance at the 1, 5, and 10% levels, respectively. For brevity, we present only the coefficients of the two key independent variables. The coefficients on the location dummies, industry dummies, constant and control variables are not reported. We categorized labor-intensive clusters as those with a horizontal eigenvector centrality smaller than 0.35, and knowledge-intensive clusters as those with a horizontal eigenvector centrality larger than 0.35.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turkina, E., Van Assche, A. Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters. J Int Bus Stud 49, 706–728 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0153-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-018-0153-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation