Le determinanti della cooperazione nei distretti tecnologici italiani finanziati dal governo

Titolo Rivista STUDI ECONOMICI
Autori/Curatori Otello Ardovino, Luca Pennacchio
Anno di pubblicazione 2013 Fascicolo 2012/108
Lingua Italiano Numero pagine 29 P. 121-149 Dimensione file 946 KB
DOI 10.3280/STE2012-108004
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

This paper aims to identify the factors that result in cooperation in R&D in high-tech industrial sectors. Our research focused on Italian technological districts created under a specific public policy to promote innovation and regional economic development. The most interesting results concern the effect of the structural characteristics of the individual districts upon collaboration choices: the probability of cooperating is higher in districts in which universities and public research centres have a major weight and in districts with governance more geared to market logic. Network effects, captured with key indicators typical of social network analysis, also play an important role in causing the propensity to cooperate. Our findings confirm the importance of factors identified by the traditional’literature and which may be chiefly ascribed to the transfer and absorption of knowledge. However, the latter would appear to have less impact on collaboration strategies than specific district factors and network effects.;

Keywords:R&D cooperation, technological districts, applied econometrics, firm behaviour, innovation policy, knowledge spillovers.

Jel codes:C35, D22, L14, O31, O32

  1. Bönte W., Keilbach M. (2005). Concubinage or marriage? Informal and formal cooperations for innovation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23: 279-302.
  2. Arora A., Gambardella A. (1990). The changing technology of technological change: general and abstract knowledge and the division on innovation labour, Research Policy, 23: 523-532.
  3. Arranz N., Arroyabe L.C.F. (2008). The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms, Technovation, 28: 88-100.
  4. Audretsch D.B., Feldman M.P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation, Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 4: 2713-2739, Elsevier. Autant-Bernard C., Billand P., Franchisse D., Massard N. (2007). Social distance versus spatial distance in R&D cooperation: empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies, Papers in Regional Science, 86, 3: 495-519.
  5. Bala V., Goyal S. (2000). A non-cooperative model of network formation, Econometrica, 68: 1181-1229.
  6. Belderbos R., Carree M., Diederen B., Lokshin B., Veugelers R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8-9): 1237-1263
  7. Barney J., Wright M., Ketchen D.J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991, Journal of Management, 27: 625-641.
  8. Bonaccorsi A., Giuri P. (2001). Network structure and industrial dynamics: the long-term evolution of the aircraft-engine industry, Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12: 201-233.
  9. Bonavero P. (1995). I contesti locali di eccellenza tecnologica: concetti e strumenti per l’analisi dei sistemi innovativi, Geotema, 2: 68-85.
  10. Borgatti S.P. (2005). Centrality and network flow, Social Networks, 27: 55-71.
  11. Bossi G., Bricco P., Scellato G. (2006). I distretti del futuro. Una nuova generazione di cluster industriali fra innovazione e tecnologia. Edizioni Sole 24 Ore, Milano.
  12. Branstetter L., Sakakibara M. (2002). When do research consortia work well and why? Evidence from Japanese panel data, American Economic Association, 92: 143-159.
  13. Branstetter L., Sakakibara M. (1998). Japanese research consortia: a microeconometric analysis of industrial policy, The Journal of Industrial Economics, 2: 207-233.
  14. Breschi S., Lissoni F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10: 975-1005.
  15. Brostrom A., Loof H. (2008). How Does University Collaborations Contribute to Successful R&D Management?. CESIS Working Paper Series, 131.
  16. Burt R.S. (1992). Structural holes, the social structure of competition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
  17. Caloffi A., Rossi F., Russo M. (2013). Does participation in innovation networks improve firms’ relational abilities? Evidence from a regional policy framework, DRUID Working Paper, 13-07.
  18. Cantner U., Meder A. (2007). Technological proximity and the choice of cooperation partner, Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination, 2: 45-65.
  19. Capuano C., Del Monte A. (2010). La politica per la costruzione di reti innovative: aspetti teorici e metodologia empirica. In Zazzaro A., a cura di, Reti d’imprese e territorio. Tra vincoli e nuove opportunità dopo la crisi, Bologna: Il Mulino.
  20. Cassiman B., Veugelers R. (2002). R&D Cooperation and Spillovers: Some Empirical Evidence from Belgium, The American Economic Review, 4: 1169-1184.
  21. Cohen W., Levinthal D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 128-152.
  22. Cooke P., Heidenreich M. and Braczyk H.J. (2004). Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world, London: Routledge, 2nd edn.
  23. d’Aspromont C., Jacquemin A. (1988). Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in duopoly with Spillovers, American Economic Review, 5: 1133-1137.
  24. Defazio D., Lockett A., Wright M. (2008). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: evidence from the EU framework program, Research Policy, 2: 293-305.
  25. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems Policy, 29: 109-123.
  26. Fafchamps M., Gubert F. (2007). The formation of risk sharing network, Journal of Development Economics, 83: 326-350.
  27. Freeman L. (1979). Centrality in Social Networks: Conceptual Clarification, Social Networks, 1, 3: 215-239.
  28. Freeman R.E. (1984). Strategic Management. A Stakeholder Approach, London: Pitman.
  29. Gilsing V. (2005). The dynamics of innovation and interfirm networks, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  30. Golinelli G.M. (2005). L’approccio sistemico al governo dell’impresa, Padova: Cedam, 2nd edn.
  31. Goyal S., Van der Leij M., Moraga J.L. (2006). Economics: An emerging small world?, Journal of Political Economy, 2: 403-438.
  32. Granovetter M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91, 3: 481-510.
  33. Greene W.H. (2011). Econometric Analysis, New York: Prentice Hall, 7th edn.
  34. Griffith R., Redding S., Van Reenen J. (2004). R&D and absorptive capacity: from theory to data, Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 105,1: 99-118.
  35. Katz M.L. (1986). An Analysis of Cooperative Research and Development, RAND Journal of Economics, 17: 527-543.
  36. Jaffe A.B. (1986). Technological Opportunity and Spillovers: Evidence from Firms’ Patents, Profits, and Market Value, American Economic Review, 5: 984-1001.
  37. Lazzeroni M. (2010). High-tech activities, system innovativeness and geographical concentration. Insights into technological districts in Italy, European Urban and Regional Studies, 17, 1: 45-63.
  38. Long J.S., Freese J. (2006). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, Texas: Stata Press.
  39. Maddala G.S. (1983). Limited dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  40. Maggioni M.A., Uberti T.E. (2011). Networks and geography in the economics of knowledge flows, Quality & Quantity, 45, 5: 1031-1051.
  41. Mele R., Parente R., Petrone M. (2008). La governance pubblica dei Distretti Tecnologici, Sinergie, 77: 81-100.
  42. Miceli V. (2010). Technological Districts: Policy Criteria and Regional Industrial Features in Italy, Economia Politica, 1: 147-174.
  43. MIUR (2005). Programma nazionale per la ricerca 2005-2007.
  44. Monni S., Spaventa A. (2009). Cluster e distretti tecnologici: modelli e politiche, Argomenti, 26: 71-98.
  45. Paier M., Scherngell T. (2011). Determinants of Collaboration in European R&D Networks: Empirical Evidence from a Discrete Choice Model, Industry and Innovation, 18: 89-104.
  46. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
  47. Shapiro C., Willig R.D. (1990). On the Antitrust Treatment of Production Joint Ventures, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3: 113-130.
  48. Wincent J., Anokhin S., Ortqvist D. (2012), Supporting innovation in government-sponsored networks: The role of network board composition, International Small Business Journal, 0: 1-24.

  • Knowledge and Networks Laura Prota, Maria Prosperina Vitale, Maria Rosaria D’Esposito, pp.169 (ISBN:978-3-319-45022-3)
  • La collaborazione nel settore dell'artigianato artistico in Campania: il caso dell'oreficeria Alfredo Del Monte, Alessandro De Iudicibus, Sara Moccia, Luca Pennacchio, in STUDI ECONOMICI 117/2016 pp.77
    DOI: 10.3280/STE2015-117005
  • Cooperazione in ricerca e sviluppo e attività innovativa delle imprese: un'analisi empirica della realtà italiana Otello Ardovino, Luca Pennacchio, Giuseppe Piroli, in STUDI ECONOMICI 109/2014 pp.68
    DOI: 10.3280/STE2013-109004

Otello Ardovino, Luca Pennacchio, Le determinanti della cooperazione nei distretti tecnologici italiani finanziati dal governo in "STUDI ECONOMICI " 108/2012, pp 121-149, DOI: 10.3280/STE2012-108004