Innovation policy and performance of Polish enterprises: in search for cluster cooperation additionality

References

• Al-Laham, A., and V. Souitaris. 2008. “Network Embeddedness and New-Venture Internationalization: Analyzing International Linkages in the German Biotech Industry.” Journal of Business Venturing 23 (5): 567–586.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson, S., N. Evers, and C. Griot. 2013. “Local and International Networks in Small Firm Internationalization: Cases from the Rhône-Alpes Medical Technology Regional Cluster.” Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 25 (9/10): 867–888.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arrow, K. J. 1962. “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, edited by R. R. Nelson, 609–625. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Aslesen, H. W., and M. Freel. 2012. “Industrial Knowledge Bases as Drivers of Open Innovation?” Industry and Innovation 19 (7): 563–584.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. B., and M. P. Feldman. 2004. “Knowledge Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation.” In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edited by J. V. Henderson, and J.-F. Thisse, 2713–2739. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Baptista, R., and P. Swann. 1998. “Do Firms in Clusters Innovate More?” Research Policy 27 (5): 525–540.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belderbos, R., M. Carree, and B. Lokshin. 2004. “Cooperative R&D and Firm Performance.” Research Policy 33 (10): 1477–1492.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belderbos, R., M. Carree, B. Lokshin, and J. Fernández Sastre. 2015. “Inter-temporal Patterns of R&D Collaboration and Innovative Performance.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 40 (1): 123–137.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, M., T. Raza-Ullah, and V. Vanyushyn. 2016. “The Coopetition Paradox and Tension: The Moderating Role of Coopetition Capability.” Industrial Marketing Management 53: 19–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bercovitz, J. E. L., and M. P. Feldman. 2007. “Fishing Upstream: Firm Innovation Strategy and University Research Alliances.” Research Policy 36 (7): 930–948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K. A., and R. A. Stine. 1992. “Bootsrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models.” Sociological Methods Research 21 (2): 205–229.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. 2005. “Proximity and Innovation: a Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies 39 (1): 61–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchmann, T., and M. Kaiser. 2019. “The Effects of R&D Subsidies and Network Embeddedness on R&D Output: Evidence from the German Biotech Industry.” Industry and Innovation 26 (3): 269–294. doi:10.1080/13662716.2018.1438247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buisseret, T. J., H. Cameron, and L. Georghiou. 1995. “What Difference Does it Make? Additionality in the Public Support of R&D in Large Firms.” International Journal of Technology Management 10 (4–6): 587–600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cantner, U., Graf, H., and Hinzmann, S. 2015. “The Role of Geographical Proximity for Project Performance–Evidence from the German “Leading-Edge Cluster Competition”.” Jena Economic Research Papers. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9600-1.
   Google Scholar
• Cantwell, J., and S. Iammarino. 2000. “Multinational Corporations and the Location of Technological Innovation in the UK Regions.” Regional Studies 34 (4): 317–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappellin, R., Ch. Bo, M. Chatterji, and H. Chaoyan. 2012. “Knowledge Creation and Innovation in Medium Technology Clusters.” In Cooperation for a Peaceful and Sustainable World Part 1, edited by L. Junsheng, C. Bo, and H. Na, 185–216. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Chandrashekar, D., and B. S. Mungila Hillemane. 2018. “Absorptive Capacity, Cluster Linkages, and Innovation: An Evidence from Bengaluru High-Tech Manufacturing Cluster.” Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29 (1): 121–148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colombo, M. G., and E. Piva. 2019. “Knowledge Misappropriation Risks and Contractual Complexity in Entrepreneurial Ventures’ Non-Equity Alliances.” Small Business Economics 53: 107–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission Recommendation. 2003. “Concerning the Definition of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.” Official Journal L 124 (20/05/2003): 0036–0041. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2003/361/oj.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, P. 1992. “Regional Innovation Systems: Competitive Regulation in the New Europe.” Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences 23 (3): 365–382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, P., M. Heidenreich, and H. J. Braczyk. 2004. Regional Innovation Systems – The Role of Governance in a Globalised World. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cortright, J. 2006. Making Sense of Clusters: Regional Competitiveness and Economic Development. Discussion Paper. Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, P., J. Edler, K. Flanagan, and P. Laredo. 2013a. “Innovation Policy mix and Instrument Interaction: a Review.” NESTA Working Paper 13/20.
   Google Scholar
• Czapiński, J., and T. Panek. 2015. Social Diagnosis 2015. The Objective and Subjective Quality of Life in Poland. Report. Warsaw: The Council for Social Monitoring.
   Google Scholar
• Di Minin, A., M. Rossi, and S. Schepers Gretschmann. 2016. “Open Innovation and Clusters: Why Geographical Proximity Matters.” In Revolutionising EU Innovation Policy. Pioneering the Future, edited by K. Gretschmann and S. Schepers, 79–95. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
   Google Scholar
• Efron, B. 1979. “Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife.” The Annals of Statistics 7 (1): 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1995. “The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Relations: a Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development.” EASST Review 14: 14–19.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. 2010. Communication from the Commission. Europe 2020. A Strategy for Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth (Brussels: European Commission) COM(2010) 2020 final.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-business-statistics/small-and-medium-sized-enterprises.
   Google Scholar
• Fernhaber, S. S., B. A. Gilbert, and P. P. McDougall. 2008. “International Entrepreneurship and Geographical Location: an Empirical Examination of new Venture Internationalization.” Journal of International Business Studies 39 (2): 267–290.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitjar, R. D., F. Huber, and A. Rodríguez-Pose. 2016. “Not Too Close, not Too far: Testing the Goldilocks Principle of ‘Optimal’distance in Innovation Networks.” Industry and Innovation 23 (6): 465–487. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1184562.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitjar, R. D., and A. Rodríguez-Pose. 2013. “Firm Collaboration and Modes of Innovation in Norway.” Research Policy 42 (1): 128–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, L. 2001. “Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search.” Management Science 47 (1): 117–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, C. 1991. “Networks of Innovators: a Synthesis.” Research Policy 20 (5): 499–514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedman, T. L. 2005. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
   Google Scholar
• Fujita, M., P. Krugman, and A. Venables. 2000. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gammelgaard, J., F. McDonald, A. Stephan, H. Tüsselmann, and Ch Dörrenbächer. 2012. “The Impact of Increases in Subsidiary Autonomy and Network Relationships on Performance.” International Business Review 21 (6): 1158–1172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gammoh, B. S., and K. E. Voss. 2013. “Alliance Competence: The Moderating Role of Valence of Alliance Experience.” European Journal of Marketing 47 (5/6): 964–986.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gancarczyk, M., and J. Gancarczyk. 2018. “Proactive International Strategies of Cluster SMEs.” European Management Journal 36: 59–70. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2017.03.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia, A., and P. Mohnen. 2010. Impact of government support on R&D and innovation, Unu-Merit Working Paper, 2010-034.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. 1990. The Consequences of Modernity. London: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giraldi, L., S. Ceccacci, M. Bevilacqua, and M. Mengoni. 2018. “Quality Assessment of Business-to-Business (B2B) Relationships Between SMEs: A Qualitative Approach Based on the Relational Capability Conception.” Journal of Industrial Integration and Management 03 (02): 1850008.
   Google Scholar
• Giuliani, E. 2005. “Cluster Absorptive Capacity: Why Do Some Clusters Forge Ahead and Others Lag Behind.” European Urban and Regional Studies 12 (3): 269–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giuliani, E., and M. Bell. 2005. “The Micro-Determinants of Meso-Level Learning and Innovation: Evidence from a Chilean Wine Cluster.” Research Policy 34 (1): 47–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gnyawali, D. R., and M. K. Srivastava. 2013. “Complementary Effects of Clusters and Networks on firm Innovation: A Conceptual Model.” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 30 (1): 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabher, G. 1993. “The Weakness of Strong Ties; the Lock-in of Regional Development in the Ruhr Area.” In The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks, edited by G. Grabher, 255–277. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski, W., T. Pamukcu, K. Szczygielski, and S. Tandogan. 2013. “Does Government Support for Private Innovation Matter? Firm-Level Evidence from Turkey and Poland.” CASE Network Studies & Analysis, No. 458/2013.
   Google Scholar
• Grabowski, W., and A. Staszewska-Bystrova. 2020. “The Role of Public Support for Innovativeness in SMEs Across European Countries and Sectors of Economic Activity.” Sustainability 12 (10): 4143. https://doiorg/103390/su12104143.
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harhoff, D. 2000. “R&D Spillovers, Technological Proximity, and Productivity Growth – Evidence from German Panel Data.” Schmalenbach Business Review 52 (3): 238–260.
   Google Scholar
• Heimeriks, K. H., and G. Duysters. 2007. “Alliance Capability as a Mediator Between Experience and Alliance Performance: An Empirical Investigation Into the Alliance Capability Development Process.” Journal of Management Studies 44 (1): 25–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henseler, J. 2012. “Why Generalized Structured Component Analysis is not Universally Preferable to Structural Equation Modelling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40 (3): 402–413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hervás-Oliver, J.-L., and J. Albors-Garrigos. 2008. “The Role of the Firm’s Internal and Relational Capabilities in Clusters: When Distance and Embeddedness are not Enough to Explain Innovation.” Journal of Economic Geography 9 (2): 263–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hervás-Oliver, J.-L., F. Sempere-Ripoll, A. R. Rojas, and S. Estelles-Miguel. 2018. “Agglomerations and Firm Performance: who Benefits and how Much?” Regional Studies 52 (3): 338–349. doi:10.1080/00343404.2017.1297895.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang, H., and F. T. Rothaermel. 2005. “The Effect of General and Partner-Specific Alliance Experience on Joint R&D Project Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 48 (2): 332–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, F. 2011. “Do Clusters Really Matter for Innovation Practices in Information Technology?” Questioning the Significance of Technological Knowledge Spillovers. Journal of Economic Geography 12 (1): 107–126.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, M. B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, and B. Å. Lundvall. 2007. “Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation.” Research Policy 36 (5): 680–693.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kale, P., and H. Singh. 2009. “Managing Strategic Alliances: What do we Know now, and Where do we go from Here?” Academy of Management Perspectives 23 (3): 45–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang, K.-N., and H. Park. 2012. “Influence of Government R&D Support and Inter-firm Collaborations on Innovation in Korean Biotechnology SMEs.” Technovation 32 (1): 68–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kesidou, E., and C. Snijders. 2012. “External Knowledge and Innovation Performance in Clusters: Empirical Evidence from the Uruguay Software Cluster.” Industry and Innovation 19 (5): 437–457.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. 2011. Prinicples and Practice of Structural Exation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knoben, J., and L. A. G. Oerlemans. 2006. “Proximity and Inter-Organization: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Management Reviews 8 (2): 71–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konarski, R. 2010. Modele Równań Strukturalnych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
   Google Scholar
• Kowalski, A. M. 2016. “Territorial Location of ICT Cluster Initiatives and ICT-Related Sectors in Poland.” In Clusters as a Driving Power of the European Economy, edited by H. Drewello, M. Bouzar, and M. Helfer, 49–66. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Kowalski, A. M. 2017. “The Internationalization of Polish Business Clusters.” In Poland: Competitiveness Report 2017. Internationalization and Poland’s Competitive Position, edited by M. A. Weresa, 245–258. Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics – Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Kowalski, A. M. 2020. “Towards an Asian Model of Clusters and Cluster Policy: The Super Cluster Strategy.” Journal of Competitiveness 12 (4): 74–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowalski, A. M., and M. Mackiewicz. 2021. “Commonalities and Differences of Cluster Policy of Asian Countries; Discussion on Cluster Open Innovation.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 7 (1): 21: 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Lambe, C. J., R. E. Spekman, and S. D. Hunt. 2002. “Alliances Competence, Resources, and Alliance Success: Conceptualization, Measurement, and Initial Test.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30 (2): 141–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lecocq, C., B. Leten, J. Kusters, and B. van Looy. 2012. “Do Firms Benefit from Being Present in Multiple Technology Clusters? An Assessment of the Technological Performance of Biopharmaceutical Firms.” Regional Studies 46 (9): 1107–1119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leiponen, A. 2012. “The Benefits of R&D and Breadth in Innovation Strategies: a Comparison of Finnish Service and Manufacturing Firms.” Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (5): 1255–1281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leszczyńska, D., and N. Khachlouf. 2018. “How Proximity Matters in Interactive Learning and Innovation: a Study of the Venetian Glass Industry.” Industry and Innovation 25 (9): 874–896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Libaers, D., and M. Meyer. 2011. “Highly Innovative Small Technology Firms, Industrial Clusters and Firm Internationalization.” Research Policy 40 (10): 1426–1437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundvall, B-Å. 1992. National Systems of Innovations: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
   Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, T. 2000. “Additionality in EU Framework Programmes.” Research Policy 29 (6): 711–724.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luukkonen, T., and P. Niskanen. 1998. Learning Through Collaboration. Finnish Participation in EU Framework Programmes. Espoo: VTT, Group for Technology Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Malmberg, A., and P. Maskell. 2006. “Localised Learning Revisited.” Growth and Change 37 (1): 1–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McPhillips, M. 2020. “Trouble in Paradise? Barriers to Open Innovation in Regional Clusters in the Era of the 4th Industrial Revolution.” Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 6: 84.
   Google Scholar
• Miotti, L., and F. Sachwald. 2003. “Co-operative R&D: why and with Whom? An Integrated Framework of Analysis.” Research Policy 32 (8): 1481–1499.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohnen, P., and C. Hoareau. 2003. “What Type of Enterprise Forges Close Links with Universities and Government Labs? Evidence from CIS 2.” Managerial and Decision Economics 24 (2/3): 133–145.
   Google Scholar
• Mohnen, P., J. Mairesse, and M. Dagenais. 2006. “Innovativity: A comparison across seven European countries.” Unu Merit Working Paper 2006–2027.
   Google Scholar
• Mothe, C., and T. Uyen Nguyen-Thi. 2010. “The Link Between non-Technological Innovations and Technological Innovation.” European Journal of Innovation Management 13 (3): 313–332.
   Google Scholar
• Mudambi, R., R. Narula, and G. D. Santangelo. 2018. “Location, Collocation and Innovation by Multinational Enterprises: a Research Agenda.” Industry and Innovation 25 (3): 229–241.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R. R. 1959. “The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research.” Journal of Political Economy 67: 297–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N’Ghauran, K. A., and C. Autant-Bernard. 2020. “Effects of cluster policies on regional innovation networks: Evidence from France”, HAL Archives, HAL Id: halshs-02482565.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, K., S. B. Jørgensen, and M. D. Nielsen. 2016. “Towards New Cluster Internationalisation Models–Lessons Learned from the Danish Clusters.” In Clusters as a Driving Power of the European Economy, edited by H. Drewello, M. Bouzar, and M. Helfer, 176–197. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, C., and M. Klofsten. 2010. “Financing new Ventures: Attitudes Towards Public Innovation Support.” New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium 8 (8): 89–110.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2006. Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour: Measuring Behavioural Additionality, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Oslo Manual. 2005. Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data. Joint Publication by OECD and Eurostat, 3^rd ed. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Oslo Manual. 2018. Oslo Manual. Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation. Joint Publication by OECD and Eurostat, 4th ed. Paris: OECD Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Ozer, M., and W. Zhang. 2015. “The Effects of Geographic and Network Ties on Exploitative and Exploratory Product Innovation.” Strategic Management Journal 36 (7): 1105–1114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peneder, M. 2008. “The Problem of Private Under-Investment in Innovation: a Policy Mind map.” Technovation 28 (8): 518–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, M. E. 2008. On Compettition. Updated and Expanded Edition. Boston: A Harvard Business Review Book.
   Google Scholar
• Rodríguez, A., M. J. Nieto, and L. Santamaría. 2018. “International Collaboration and Innovation in Professional and Technological Knowledge-Intensive Services.” Industry and Innovation 25 (4): 408–431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelandt, T. J. A., P. den Hertog, T. J. A. Roelandt, and P. den Hertog. 1999. “Cluster Analysis and Cluster-Based Policy Making: The State of the Art.” In Cluster Analysis and Cluster-Based Policy: New Perspectives and Rationale in Innovation Policy, edited by Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 413–427. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Rondè, P., and C. Hussler. 2005. “Innovation in Regions: What Does Really Matter?” Research Policy 34 (8): 1150–1172.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roper, S., and N. Hewitt-Dundas. 2012. “Does Additionality Persist? A Panel Data Investigation of the Legacy Effects”, Paper to be presented at the DRUID 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Schumacker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 2004. A Beginners’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Şengün, A. E. 2010. “Which Type of Trust for Inter-Firm Learning?” Industry and Innovation 17 (2): 193–213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şengün, A. E., and Ç Önder. 2011. “The Conditional Impact of Competence Trust on Inter-Firm Learning in a Collectivist SME Context.” Industry and Innovation 18 (8): 791–812.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, D. S., P. Westhead, and M. Wright. 2003. “Assessing the Impact of University Science Parks on Research Productivity: Exploratory Firm-Level Evidence from the United Kingdom.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 21 (9): 1357–1369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, H., S. R. Chatterjee, and L. Wang. 2010. “The Impact of Trust and Learning on Firm Innovativeness in Clusters: The Moderating Role of Environmental Competitiveness.” Global Journal of Management and Business Research 10 (3): 18–29.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Poland. 2011. Innovation Activities of Enterprises in the Years 2008–2010. Warsaw, Szczecin: Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Szczecin.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Poland. 2020. Innovation Activities of Enterprises in the Years 2017–2019. Warsaw, Szczecin: Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Szczecin.
   Google Scholar
• Stojcic, N., I. Hashi, and S. Telhaj. 2011. Innovation Activities and Competitiveness: Empirical Evidence on Behaviour of Firms in New EU Member States and Candidate Countries. CASE Network Studies and Analyses, No. 424, Warsaw.
   Google Scholar
• Szczygielski, K., W. Grabowski, and M. T. Pamukcu. 2017. “Does Government Support for Private Innovation Matter? Firm-Level Evidence from Two Catching-Up Countries.” Research Policy 46 (1): 219–237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tahmooresnejad, L., and C. Beaudry. 2018. “The Importance of Collaborative Networks in Canadian Scientific Research.” Industry and Innovation 25 (10): 990–1029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terstriep, J., and C. Lüthje. 2018. “Innovation, Knowledge and Relations – on the Role of Clusters for Firms’ Innovativeness.” European Planning Studies 26 (11): 2167–2199. doi:10.1080/09654313.2018.1530152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veugelers, R., and B. Cassiman. 2004. “Foreign Subsidiaries as a Channel of International Technology Diffusion: Some Direct Firm Level Evidence from Belgium.” European Economic Review 48 (2): 455–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wanzebock, I., T. Scherngell, and M. M. Fischer. 2013. “How do Firm Characteristics Affect Behavioural Additionalities of Public R&D Subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian Transport Sector.” Technovation 33 (2-3): 66–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, B., and S. Heidenreich. 2018. “When and with Whom to Cooperate? Investigating Effects of Cooperation Stage and Type on Innovation Capabilities and Success.” Long Range Planning 51 (2): 334–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weresa, M. A., and M. S. Lewandowska 2014. “Innovation System Restructuring in Poland in the Context of EU Membership.” In Poland Competitiveness Report 2014: A Decade in the European Union, edited by M. A. Weresa, 171–191. Warsaw: Warsaw School of Economics – Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Weresa, M. A., M. Poel, P. Cunningham, and P. den Hertog. 2018. “Mutual Learning Exercise on Evaluation of Business R&D Grant Schemes: Behavioural Change Mixed-Method Approaches and Big Data.” European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. doi:10.2777/79197.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Y., W. Zhou, and S. Huesig. 2010. “Innovation as Clusters in Knowledge Intensive Business Services: Taking ICT Services in Shanghai and Bavaria as an Example.” International Journal of Innovation Management 14 (1): 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Zucchella, A. 2006. “Local Cluster Dynamics: Trajectories of Mature Industrial Districts Between Decline and Multiple Embeddedness.” Journal of Institutional Economics 2 (1): 21–44.
   Google Scholar