Technological congruence and Smart Specialisation: evidence from European regions

REFERENCES

• Acemoglu, D. (2002). Directed technical change. Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 781–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-937X.00226
   Google Scholar
• Acemoglu, D. K. (2015). Localized and biased technologies: Atkinson and Stiglitz’s new view, induced innovations, and directed technological change. Economic Journal, 125(3), 443–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12227
   Google Scholar
• Aghion, P., Boulanger, J., & Cohen, E. (2011). Rethinking industrial policy. Bruegel Policy Brief, No. 2011/04.
   Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C. (2003). The economics of innovation new technologies and structural change. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C., & Feder, C. (2020). The new direction of technological change in the global economy. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 52, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2019.09.013
   Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C., & Quatraro, F. (2013). Localized technological change and efficiency wages across European regional labour markets. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1686–1700. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.690068
   Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson, A. B. (2009). Factor shares: The principal problem of political economy? Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grp007
   Google Scholar
• Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). Innovative clusters and the industry life cycle. Review of Industrial Organization, 11(2), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00157670
   Google Scholar
• Basu, S., & Weil, D. N. (1998). Appropriate technology and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(4), 1025–1054. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355398555829
   Google Scholar
• Bond-Smith, S. (2021). The unintended consequences of increasing returns to scale in geographical economics. Journal of Economic Geography, 21(5), 653–681. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbab023
   Google Scholar
• Bond-Smith, S., & McCann, P. (2020). A multi-sector model of relatedness, growth and industry clustering. Journal of Economic Geography, 20(5), 1145–1163. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbz031
   Google Scholar
• Bond-Smith, S., McCann, P., & Oxley, L. (2018). A regional model of endogenous growth without scale assumptions. Spatial Economic Analysis, 13(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2018.1392038
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialization: Comparisons of two European policy concepts. Italian Journal of Regional Science, 1(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.3280/SCRE2014-001004
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2011). Technological relatedness, related variety and economic geography. In P. Cooke, B. T. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D. Schwartz, & F. Tödtling (Eds.), Handbook on regional innovation and growth (pp. 187–197). Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Gianelle, C. (2014). Regional branching and smart specialisation policy. S3 Policy Brief Series No. 06/2014.
   Google Scholar
• Breitung, J. (2001). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi, T. B. Fomby, & R. Carter Hill (Ed.), Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels (pp. 161–177). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Caselli, F., & Feyrer, J. (2007). The marginal product of capital. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 535–568. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.122.2.535
   Google Scholar
• Comin, D., & Hobijn, B. (2004). Cross-country technology adoption: Making the theories face the facts. Journal of Monetary Economics, 51(1), 39–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2003.07.003
   Google Scholar
• David, P., Foray, D., & Hall, B. (2009a). Smart specialisation – The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, 9(85), 100.
   Google Scholar
• David, P., Foray, D., & Hall, B. (2009b). Measuring smart specialisation: The concept and the need for indicators. Knowledge for Growth Expert Group, 1–37.
   Google Scholar
• Dettori, B., Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2012). Total factor productivity, intangible assets and spatial dependence in the European regions. Regional Studies, 46(10), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.529288
   Google Scholar
• Di Liberto, A., & Usai, S. (2013). TFP convergence across European regions: A comparative spatial dynamics analysis. In R. Crescenzi & M. Percoco (Eds.), Geography, institutions and regional economic performance (pp. 39–58). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Elhorst, J. P. (2010). Applied spatial econometrics: Raising the bar. Spatial Economic Analysis, 5(1), 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421770903541772
   Google Scholar
• Elhorst, J. P. (2014). Spatial econometrics: From cross-sectional data to spatial panels (Vol. 479). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Evangelista, R., Meliciani, V., & Vezzani, A. (2018). Specialization in key enabling technologies and regional growth in Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1338392
   Google Scholar
• Feder, C. (2018a). A measure of total factor productivity with biased technological change. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 27(3), 243–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1329697
   Google Scholar
• Feder, C. (2018b). Smart specialization strategy and directed technological change. Economics Bulletin, 38(3), 1428–1437.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, M. P. (1994). The geography of innovation (Vol. 2). Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialization strategies and industrial modernization in European regions: Theory and practice. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 42(6), 1505–1520.
   Google Scholar
• Hicks, J. R. (1932). The theory of wages (1st ed.). Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hjalmarsson, L., Kumbhakar, S., & Heshmati, A. (1996). DEA, DFA and SFA: A comparison. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 7(2–3), 303–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00157046
   Google Scholar
• Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7
   Google Scholar
• Krueger, A. (1999). Measuring labor’s share. American Economic Review, 89(2), 45–51. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.89.2.45
   Google Scholar
• Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & Chu, C.-S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
   Google Scholar
• Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013104805703
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, P. C. B., & Perron, P. (1988). Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika, 75(2), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/75.2.335
   Google Scholar
• Rice, P., Venables, A. J., & Patacchini, E. (2006). Spatial determinants of productivity: Analysis for the regions of Great Britain. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36(6), 727–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.006
   Google Scholar
• Ruttan, V. W. (1997). Induced innovation evolutionary theory and path dependence: Sources of technical change. Economic Journal, 107(444), 1520–1529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.1997.tb00063.x
   Google Scholar
• Ruttan, V. W. (2001). Technology growth and development: An induced innovation perspective. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Samuelson, P. A. (1965). A theory of induced innovation along Kennedy–Weisäcker lines. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 47(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/1927763
   Google Scholar
• Santoalha, A. (2019). New indicators of related diversification applied to smart specialization in European regions. Spatial Economic Analysis, 14(4), 404–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/17421772.2019.1584328
   Google Scholar
• Solow, R. M. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39(3), 312–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/1926047
   Google Scholar
• Tavassoli, S., & Karlsson, C. (2018). The role of regional context on innovation persistency of firms. Papers in Regional Science, 97(4), 931–955. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12315
   Google Scholar
• Varga, A. (1998). University research and regional innovation: A spatial econometric analysis of academic technology transfers (Vol. 13). Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Wixe, S. (2018). Neighbourhood related diversity human capital and firm innovation. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), 217–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12255
   Google Scholar