Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors

Abstract

Mattes J. Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors, Regional Studies. Innovations face the challenge of integrating knowledge from heterogeneous sources by establishing an appropriate level of proximity. Proximity is thereby not a purely spatial phenomenon, but also includes organizational, institutional, social and cognitive dimensions. Geographical and social proximity are thereby auxiliary factors, whereas organizational, institutional and cognitive proximity act as critical enablers for learning. These dimensions can be connected to synthetic, analytical and symbolic knowledge bases. They thereby trigger a dynamic trade-off between various forms of proximity, whereby the proximity form varies depending on the underlying knowledge base. Hence, innovation is a complex combination of spatial and non-spatial factors.

Mattes J. 空间毗邻性所涉及的层面及知识基础：基于空间与非空间因素的创新，区域研究。创新试图通过构建特定层面的空间毗邻性来应对整合异质性知识这一挑战。毗邻性因此不仅限于单纯的空间现象，同时还涉及到组织、制度、社会以及认知等多层面要素。在学习过程的形成中，地理以及社会毗邻性成为辅助要素，而组织、制度以及认知毗邻性发挥了关键性作用。上述各层面与综合性、分析性以及象征性的知识基础相关联，引发了基于不同知识基础的多种形式的毗邻性之间多样化的相互权衡过程。因此，创新是一个复杂的空间与非空间要素的综合体。

毗邻性 知识基础 学习 学习区域 地理毗邻性

Mattes J. Les dimensions des bases de proximité et de connaissance: l'innovation entre des facteurs géographiques et non-géographiques, Regional Studies. Les innovations font face au défi de l'intégration de la connaissance provenant des sources hétérogènes en établissant un niveau de proximité approprié. Il s'ensuit, alors, que la proximité n'est pas un phénomène purement géographique mais comprend également des dimensions organisationnelle, institutionnelle, sociale et cognitive. Les proximités géographique et sociale sont, donc, des facteurs auxiliaires, tandis que les proximités organisationnelle, institutionnelle et cognitive constituent des facteurs clés qui favorisent la connaissance. On peut lier ces dimensions à des bases de connaissance synthétique, analytique et symbolique. De cette façon, elles déclenchent un compromis dynamique entre divers types de proximité selon lesquels la proximité varie en fonction de la base de connaissance sous-jacente. Donc, l'innovation s'avère une combinaison complexe de facteurs géographiques et non-géographiques.

Proximité Base de connaissance Apprentissage Régions d'apprentissage Proximité géographique

Mattes J. Dimensionen von Nähe und Wissensbasen. Innovation zwischen räumlichen und nicht-räumlichen Faktoren, Regional Studies. Bei Innovationen ergibt sich das Problem, dass Wissen aus heterogenen Quellen durch Festlegung eines angemessenen Maßes an Nähe integriert werden muss. Nähe ist somit kein rein räumliches Phänomen, sondern umfasst auch organisationelle, institutionelle, soziale und kognitive Dimensionen. Geografische und soziale Nähe sind hierbei Hilfsfaktoren, während die organisationelle, institutionelle und kognitive Nähe als zentrale Faktoren zur Ermöglichung von Lernen wirken. Diese Dimensionen lassen sich mit synthetischen, analytischen und symbolischen Wissensbasen verknüpfen. Auf diese Weise lösen sie einen dynamischen Ausgleich zwischen verschiedenen Formen der Nähe aus, bei dem die Form der Nähe je nach der zugrundeliegenden Wissensbasis unterschiedlich ausfällt. Innovation ist also eine komplexe Kombination aus räumlichen und nicht-räumlichen Faktoren.

Nähe Wissensbasis Lernen Lernregionen Geografische Nähe

Mattes J. Dimensiones de proximidad y de las bases de conocimiento: innovación entre factores espaciales y no espaciales, Regional Studies. En el campo de las innovaciones surge el problema de integrar el conocimiento de fuentes heterogéneas estableciendo un nivel apropiado de proximidad. La proximidad no es, por tanto, un fenómeno puramente espacial sino que también incluye dimensiones organizativas, institucionales, sociales y cognitivas. Por consiguiente, las proximidades geográfica y social son factores auxiliares, mientras que las proximidades organizativa, institucional y cognitiva actúan como activadores fundamentales del aprendizaje. Estas dimensiones pueden conectarse a bases de conocimiento sintético, analítico y simbólico. En este sentido activan un intercambio dinámico entre las diferentes formas de proximidad de modo que la forma de proximidad varía en función de la base de conocimiento subyacente. Por ende, la innovación es una combinación compleja de factores espaciales y no espaciales.

Proximidad Base de conocimiento Aprendizaje Regiones de aprendizaje Proximidad geográfica

Keywords:

• Proximity
• Knowledge base
• Learning
• Learning regions
• Geographic proximity

JEL classifications:

• O
• O3
• O31
• O32
• O33

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the participants of the Utrecht International PhD course on Economic Geography 2008 for their comments regarding the very first draft of this paper. The author particularly thanks Ron Boschma, Bjørn Asheim and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose for their valuable advice regarding earlier versions and their encouragement. Finally, the two anonymous reviewers have provided very constructive feedback which has helped to improve the argument significantly.

Notes

Edquist defined innovations as ‘new creations of economic significance of either a material or an intangible kind. They may be brand new but are more often new combinations of existing elements’ (p. 219).

Even though the strictly correct opposites would be to use the terms ‘homogeneity’ and ‘heterogeneity’ or ‘proximity’ and ‘remoteness’, this article uses the terms ‘heterogeneity’ and ‘proximity’ as counterparts. The underlying reasons are as follows. The term ‘proximity’ acts as a link to the debate opened up by Boschma and others (Boschma, 2005) upon which this article explicitly draws. Additionally, proximity implies commonalities that go beyond similarity, but does not suggest sameness or homogeneity. It hence reflects the argumentation line more appropriately than any of the other available terms. Likewise, the term ‘heterogeneity’ mirrors the requirements in innovation projects better than distance or remoteness would. Variety is here the central idea, not detachedness. In this sense, it is hoped the reader can forgive pairing these two faintly related concepts – the entailed lack of precision in the pair of opposites is, in the present author's eyes, made up by a more precise transmission of the meaning in the terms.

Storper described context as a ‘dark matter’, as there are presently only few and rather simplistic attempts to explain this phenomenon.

Similarly, Grabher (2004, 2006) stressed the importance of context in reference to projects.

Besides the five-fold breakdown of proximity in this article, other authors have suggested approaches with differing foci. Examples include the differentiation between professional, organizational, contextual, technical and further types of distance named by Zeller (2002) and that between geographical, societal and network embeddedness as proposed by Hess (2004).

Boschma (2005) uses the term ‘organizational’ not only for those actors who work in the same company, but also if they work in similar organizations and are therefore familiar with the types of rules and modes of coordination that apply. As companies increasingly adopt an international focus and consist of a multitude of intra-organizational linkages (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1990), but also cooperate externally, organizational proximity is even stronger within organizations. It does then not refer to hierarchical or heterarchical forms of organization, but is, by definition, a means of coordination that embraces all the actors within a single company group. In this article strong organizational proximity thus does not refer to a common organizational culture, etc., but to formally belonging to the same judicial entity.

Although organizational proximity within a single subsidiary is always higher than it can be between several subsidiaries of the same company group, the formal control and property structures within a multinational corporation in both cases guarantee a significantly higher level of organizational proximity in comparison with situations involving external partners.

The importance of institutional frameworks and their impact on organizations have also been discussed in the debates on national innovation systems (Nelson, 1993; Takahashi, 2007; Lundvall et al., 2002; Edquist, 1997) and varieties of capitalism (Johnston, 2005; Whitley, 2000). In this manner, institutional proximity also influences the internal manner of coordination and organization, that is, organizational proximity.

In the same manner, ‘institutional thickness’ (Amin and Thrift, 1995) is not a geographical but clearly an institutional phenomenon.

Communities of practice and epistemic communities are examples for the power of social proximity. Both rely deeply upon social, tacit and personal forms of interaction. At the same time, social proximity remains a means to an end and does not stand alone. Gertler (2001, p. 18) described communities of practice as ‘informally bound together by shared expertise and a common problem’. This definition reflects the importance of cognitive elements (expertise, professional background) in this form of cooperation (cf. also Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006). Furthermore, organizational proximity acts as a pre-selection mechanism which applies before social criteria influence the choice of the actual participants within such a community. Similarly, epistemic communities are deeply knowledge based, whereby the involved experts share at least cognitive and normative beliefs and values (Haas, 1992). In short, neither of these forms of community emerges based exclusively on social criteria.

It must not be forgotten that, just as all the other types of proximity, too much social coherence can be harmful. It results in ‘strategic friendships’, irrational preferences and lock-in into group thinking (Grabher and Ibert, 2006).

Asheim et al. (2007) claimed that buzz is not restricted to face-to-face interaction, although it has widely been interpreted as a spatial concept. The underlying claim is hence not that buzz has to take place in geographic proximity, but, in agreement with Asheim et al., that it does most easily and frequently occur in spatially concentrated settings.

For a discussion of buzz, spillovers and the resulting ‘learning regions’, cf. also Malmberg et al. (1996), Maskell and Malmberg (1999) and Maskell and Kebir (2006).

‘In short, “being there” underpins the joint production, circulation and sharing of knowledge’ (Gertler, 2008).

Morgan (2004) and others have stressed the continuing importance of geographical aspects of learning. The line of argumentation focuses on relational aspects, that is, on how geographical proximity fosters the creation of trust and entails commonalities in cultural and legal aspects. These factors are here regarded as social and institutional proximities. At the same time, they are evidently more common and more easily created in geographical proximity, a fact which again underlines the facilitating character of geographical aspects for the other forms of proximity.

The empirical evidence used in this article to illustrate the theoretical argument stems from research the author conducted during the project ‘Regional Learning in Multinational Companies’. Each cited case involves approximately twenty narrative expert interviews in subsidiary, headquarters and the region in question. The author would like to thank the Volkswagen Foundation for the financial support of this project; and, above all, the interview partners for their time, effort and disposition for allowing the author to have an in-depth insight into their fascinating innovation projects.

In more complex projects, geographical proximity may turn into a more important auxiliary factor. This can result in temporary co-location, taking the form of meetings or conferences (Maskell et al., 2006; Torre, 2008).