Table 3.

Innovation and geographical proximity

AuthorsArguments
Capello (1999) Innovation activities depend greatly on the cultural proximity with the workforce
Brown and Duguid (2002) The local character is important for innovation due to the development of social networks, highlighting the case of Silicon Valley
De Bruijn (2004) Emphasizes the role of regional factors and geographical proximity, arguing that the latter is a catalyst for innovation
Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015) Proximity allows companies access to services and support to market their products, thus obtaining better performance than companies that work in isolation, regarding innovation issues
Giuliani (2013) Companies that operate with geographical proximity achieve better performance in innovation
Ganesan et al. (2005) Emphasizes the importance of informal and face-to-face communication, and suggests that almost all the benefits (including innovation) of geographic proximity depend on relationships with strong ties
Grillitsch et al. (2015) Brings the concepts of cognitive, technological, organizational, social, cultural and institutional proximity. According to the authors, the geographical proximity allows these other types of proximity and this context leads to innovation
Larty et al. (2017) The geographical agglomeration of firms offers greater opportunity for knowledge exchange, leading to an increase in innovation in the region
Silvestre and Dalcol (2009) At least three elements determine the relationship between geographic proximity and innovation: industry patterns in which the agglomeration is embedded, local dynamics (support institutions and policies), and the role of the firm in the cluster value chain
Source: Authors

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options