Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment

Abstract

Boschma R. A. (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment, Regional Studies39, 61-74. A key issue in economic geography is to determine the impact of geographical proximity on interactive learning and innovation. We argue that the importance of geographical proximity cannot be assessed in isolation, but should always be examined in relation to other dimensions of proximity that may provide alternative solutions to the problem of coordination. We claim that geographical proximity per se is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for learning to take place. Nevertheless, it facilitates interactive learning, most likely by strengthening the other dimensions of proximity. However, proximity may also have negative impacts on innovation due to the problem of lock-in. Accordingly, not only too little, but also too much proximity may be detrimental to interactive learning and innovation. This may be the case for all five dimensions of proximity discussed in the paper, i.e. cognitive, organizational, social, institutional and geographical proximity. Finally, the paper presents a number of mechanisms that offer, by their own, or in combination, solutions to the problems of coordination and lock-in. That is, they enhance effective coordination and control (solving the problem of too little proximity), while they prevent actors to become locked-in through ensuring openness and flexibility (solving the problem of too much proximity). Boschma R. A. (2005) La proximité et l'innovation: une évaluation, Regional Studies39, 61-74. Dans la géographie économique, la détermination de l'impact de la proximité géographique sur l'apprentissage interactif et l'innovation est capitale. Cet article affirme que l'on ne peut évaluer l'importance de la proximité géographique isolément. Plutôt, on devrait l'examiner toujours par rapport à d'autres dimensions de la proximité qui pourraient fournir des réponses alternatives à la question de la coordination. On affirme que la proximité géographique en soi ne constitue une condition ni préalable, ni suffisante, pour que l'apprentissage ait lieu. Néanmoins, elle facilite l'apprentissage interactif en renforcant, très vraisemblablement, les autres dimensions de la proximité. Cependant, il se peut que la proximité ait des retombées négatives sur l'innovation, à cause du problème de l'enfermement. Par la suite, non seulement trop peu de proximité, mais aussi trop de proximité pourraient s'avérer nuisibles à l'apprentissage interactif et à l'innovation. Cela vaudrait pour toutes les cinq dimensions de la proximité présentées dans cet article, à savoir la proximité cognitive, organisationnelle, sociale, institutionnelle et géographique. Pour finir, on présente quelques mécanismes qui fournissent, indépendamment ou conjointement, des réponses aux problèmes de la coordination et de l'enfermement. C'est-à-dire, ils font valoir la coordination et le contrôle effectifs (ce qui répond à la possibilité qu'il y ait trop peu de proximité), tout en empêchant l'enfermement des agents en assurant ...

The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field

“…This is a key topic of concern in questions related to the 'upscaling of niche experiments' or the shift from formative towards growth phase in technological innovation systems. Recent contributions in economic geography have engaged with these questions, though not exclusively in the context of eco-innovation, by conceptualising market formation as a multi-local valuation process that involves global circularity in knowledge, goods, services and discourse that anchor in specific places (Crevoisier and Jeannerat 2009) Finally, the distinction between geographical proximity and multiple forms of non-spatial proximity (social, institutional, cognitive and organisational) in the economic geography literature (see Boschma 2005) can be further explored in analysing the importance of inter-organisational relations for transition processes. It has been suggested that one way forward in understanding the importance of geography for inter-organisational relations, is to distinguish between two mechanisms (Hansen 2012(Hansen , 2014b: firstly, the substitution mechanism, where non-spatial forms of proximity (e.g.…”

Modes of Innovation and Differentiated Responses to Globalisation—A Case Study of Innovation Modes in the Agder Region, Norway

“…Epistemic communities consist of persons sharing the same type of knowledge, for example, people working in the same scientific field who exchange mainly codified knowledge. The collaboration between people is based on cognitive and institutional proximity since the actors represent the same knowledge base and share the same norms, values and rules of the game regulating the collaboration [6]. These characteristics make it possible for members of epistemic communities to collaborate over distance.…”

“…The knowledge that is created and shared in communities of practice is often hard to codify. Geographical proximity eases the collaboration within such groups, and it stimulates social proximity [6].…”

Technological innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction dynamics

“…We may therefore consider a transnational company (or any other internationally active actor group) as incorporating a strategic coupling with a potentially high number of territorial context structures. In order to understand conditions for successful regions, geographers have therefore repeated that it is important to study trans-local networks that are constituted by different dimensions of proximity, besides geographical also cultural, organizational or cognitive proximity (Boschma, 2005). In the regional studies literature in general, it is taken for granted that innovative regions do not only dependent on local embedding but equally on the ability of actors to access assets provided by global networks (Asheim and Isaksen, 2002;Bunnell and Coe, 2001;Maskell et al, 2006); Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991).…”