The transmission of knowledge, emerging networks, and the role of universities: An evolutionary approach

Research organizations within enterprises and universities are part of a (regional) innovation system (RIS). An important question concerns the nature of the relation between an RIS and regional economic growth. To be more specific: how to organize the transfer of information and knowledge? How is this related to embeddedness? Networks are organizational configurations that perform two functions: co-ordination and transmission. Both are important for the generation and transfer of knowledge. Networks consist of 'nodes', 'connections' and 'intensities of transfer'. Firms can be conceived of as 'nodes' consisting of 'bundles' of functions, forms of organizations, and technologies. Different parts of firms can participate differently in different networks. The transfer of knowledge is only one aspect of the functioning of firms and networks. Relations between firms are not static; 'embedded relational dynamics' would be a better description. The changing 'selection environment' requires the continuous adjustment of 'nodes', which in turn influence the connections and the intensities. Networks develop as 'emergent and embedded structures' with new varieties of innovation. Planning is an exception. Competition, the heterogeneous distribution of knowledge, and the diffusion of innovation are the prime movers of relations, resulting in economic growth. The structure of a network and its dynamics influence the diffusion of innovation. The precise nature of the transfer of information and knowledge also depends on the technology trajectory, the stage of a particular technological development path, and the nature of embeddedness. Universities can be important 'nodes' in the emerging innovation networks, in particular as 'producers' of human capital.

[1]  John D Wolpert,et al.  Breaking out of the innovation box. , 2002, Harvard business review.

[2]  R&D spillovers and innovative activity , 1994 .

[3]  Gerhard Rosegger,et al.  The economics of production and innovation , 1980 .

[4]  K. Morgan,et al.  Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth , 2000 .

[5]  E. Andersen,et al.  Understanding product innovation using Complex Systems Theory. , 2001 .

[6]  Charles P. Kindleberger,et al.  Technological diffusion: European experience to 1850 , 1995 .

[7]  R. Boschma,et al.  Evolutionary economics and economic geography , 1999 .

[8]  W. Diebold,et al.  The Second Industrial Divide , 1985 .

[9]  Noel Jones Knowledge On-The-Move , 2006 .

[10]  Thorstein Veblen,et al.  Why Economics is not an Evolutionary Science , 1898 .

[11]  Alan MacPherson The contribution of academic-industry interaction to product innovation: The case of New York State's medical devices sector , 2002 .

[12]  Jason Potts,et al.  The New Evolutionary Microeconomics , 2000 .

[13]  Claire Nauwelaers,et al.  Regional innovation strategies: the challenge for less favoured regions , 2003 .

[14]  F. Hayek Economics and knowledge , 1937 .

[15]  Zoltan J. Acs,et al.  Innovation and the Growth of Cities , 2002 .

[16]  M. Porter The Competitive Advantage Of Nations , 1990 .

[17]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Evolutionary economics and regional policy , 2001 .

[18]  Veronique Schutjens,et al.  Embeddedness and Innovation , 2002 .

[19]  H. Simon,et al.  Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioural Science , 1966 .

[20]  B. Nooteboom Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[21]  R. Boschma,et al.  The prospects of an adjustment policy based on collective learning in old industrial regions , 1999 .

[22]  A. Jaffe Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[23]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity: Hierarchic Systems , 2019, The Sciences of the Artificial.