Lock-In or Lock-Out?: How Structural Properties of Knowledge Networks Affect Regional Resilience

Abstract

The paper develops an evolutionary framework of regional resilience with a primary focus on the structural properties of local knowledge networks. After a presentation of the network-based rationales of growth and structuring of clusters, we analyze under which structural conditions a regional cluster can mix short run competitiveness without compromising long run resilience capabilities. We show that degree distribution (the level of hierarchy) and degree correlation (the level of structural homophily) of regional knowledge networks are suited properties for studying how clusters succeed in combining technological lock-in and regional lock-out. We propose a simple model of cluster structuring in order to highlight these properties, and discuss the results on a policy-oriented analysis. We conclude showing that policies for regional resilience fit better with ex ante regional diagnosis and targeted interventions on particular missing links, rather than ex post myopic applications of policies based on an unconditional increase of network relational density.

Towards an Evolutionary Perspective on Regional Resilience

“…The predominance of a closely tied core in the local network and a high degree of proximity between network partners (like cognitive and social proximity) favour control and efficiency, as they enhance information transmission and coordination, and lower the risk of opportunistic behaviour. However, the downside of this type of local network is a low score on adaptability: it suffers from a lack of recombination possibilities, it prevents lock-out, and it is vulnerable to shocks (CRESPO et al, 2013). This typical network state in which adaptation undermines adaptability has been especially found in specialized regions where the local connectedness (as embodied in interlocking corporate boards and strong social networks) may become so excessive that fundamental renewal is not on the mindset and is even heavily contested by local network players (GRABHER, 1993;BOSCHMA and FRENKEN, 2010).…”

“…Likewise, BALLAND et al (2013) have described a core/periphery network structure in which a cohesive structure of knowledge interactions (for the sake of coordination and circulation of knowledge) is mixed with a periphery of loosely connected organizations that are poorly tied with the core of the network (to promote new and fresh ideas). CRESPO et al (2013) have explored how to solve potential conflicts between efficiency and resilience in knowledge networks in terms of the relative importance of closure and bridging network strategies. When closure strategies prevail, the structure of the network will exhibit tightly couplings in a core-component and a loosely connected periphery of nodes.…”

Innovations and innovators in a resilient city: The case of chemical innovations after the 1966 flood in Florence

“…Their relevance to regional resilience has been recently highlighted (Boschma, 2014), with some scholars of the network approach analysing the structural properties of local knowledge networks to understand the conditions of regional resilience (Crespo et al, 2013).…”

“…1 The innovative capacity usually increases with a greater variety and connectivity, as proven by the rate of innovation attained in cultural clusters and networks favoured by a Marshallian creative atmosphere. A greater resilience is then associated with a higher level of connectivity that sustains the relationship capabilities of local actors, as well as the networking process, to solve problems and diffuse and share knowledge (Crespo, Suire, & Vicente, 2013).…”

Why can collective action fail in Local Agri-food Systems? A social network analysis of cheese producers in Aculco, Mexico

“…Structural properties of networks are nowadays key-fundamentals for understanding group performances in organizational and business studies (Ahuja et al, 2012;Crespo et al, 2014), or the connectedness dimension of social capital in development studies (Pretty and Ward, 2001). The debate between closure and bridging (Coleman, 1988;Burt, 1994;Lin, 1999) is important for that purpose.…”