Geographical Proximity and Bridging Technological Distances the Example of Firms Diversifying into the Biochip Industry in Germany Max-Peter Menzel University.

Geographical Proximity and Bridging Technological

Distances

the Example of Firms Diversifying into the Biochip Industry in

Germany

Max-Peter Menzel

University of Berne

Institute of GeographyUniversity of Berne

DIME WorkshopReconsidering the Regional Knowledge Economy

Newcastle, 4th-5th September 2008

Firms in Regions and Technological Spaces

Firms in Regions and Technological Spaces

Firms in Regions and Technological Spaces

Heterogeneity of Regional Industries

Heterogeneity of Regional Industries

Development of a Regional Industry

Development of a Regional Industry: Convergence

Development of a Regional Industry: Lock-in

Development of a Regional Industry: Negative Lock-in

Bridging Technological Distances

Bridging Technological Distances

Bridging Technological Distances

Bridging Technological Distances

Bridging of Technological Distances

tech

no

log

ical

dis

tan

ce

geographical distance

HypothesisFirms bridge larger technological distance in geographical proximity than in geographical distance.

Test with diversifying firms

Bridge large technological distances at the beginning

Bridge small technological distances at the end

Method

Biochips

Diagnostic tool for the detection of deseases and genetic properties

Biochip industry

First commercialised biochip by Affymetrix in 1994

Growing market (diagnostics, biotechnology)

Connection of different technological fields

Method

Complete survey of the industry

53 diversifications into biochips (32 interviews)

61 firms with respective competencies at their formation

Qualitative (semi structured interviews)

mapping of the movement into the biochip field

Quantitative

all firms: year of entrance (formation or diversification)

diversifying firms: quantification of the semi-structured interviews

Method

Quantification of the interviews

Bridging technological distance

First learning relation in the new technology

Second learning relation in the new technology

Third/Last learning relation in the new technology

Geographical proximity/distance to knowledge source

global

Europe

national

regional (state)

local (10km)

Method

1. Relation

2. Relation

n Relation

Local regional national Europe global

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

First relation Second Relation Third/last relation

nu

mb

er o

f re

lati

on

s

global

Europe

national

regional

local

Bridging of Technological Distances

Bridging of Technological Distances

1. Learning Relation

It was clear immediately that they didn’t understand us and that we didn´t understand them. When they told us: ´just take a PBS-buffer´; nobody knew what it was. ….. We have been engineers .... We have converted materials from A into B to have a material feature which is actually not natural. We hade made something like that. But we hadn't made any bio chips. What I wanted to say is we weren't stupid, but we were absolutely blockheaded in this area. And they hadn't understood us either.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

First relation Second Relation Third/last relation

nu

mb

er o

f re

lati

on

s

global

Europe

national

regional

local

Bridging of Technological Distances

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

First relation Second Relation Third/last relation

nu

mb

er o

f re

lati

on

s

global

Europe

national

regional

local

Bridging of Technological Distances

Results

Results for the firm level

Firms bridge larger technological distances in geographical proximity than in geographical distance

Firms proceed the movement with more distant partners

Implications for the aggregate level

Too much geographical proximity not only responsible for negative lock-ins, but also for the formation of a lock-in

Hypothesis: the places where firms bridge technological distances to/in new industries in geographical proximity have the potential to form regional cluster.

When does this bridging take place in the same direction?