Network Positioning, Co-Location or Both?
Previous research indicates that firm innovativeness can either be determined by a firm’s position within the network dimension or by its position within the geographical dimension. Integrative studies addressing both distinct and combined proximity effects remains rare (cf. Whittington et al. 2009). Thus, we address in this Chapter the following research question: Are firm-level innovation outcomes positively or negatively related to network positioning effects, geographical co-location effects or combined proximity effects; and if the latter case is true, are the combined effects substitutional or complementary in nature? Panel data count models with fixed and random effects were used to analyze a firm’s innovative performance as measured by patent application counts. This last empirical analysis is organized as follows: We start with a short introduction in Sect. 12.1. Next, we provide a brief discussion of theoretical background in Sect. 12.2. In Sect. 12.3 we introduce our conceptual framework and derive our hypotheses. In Sect. 12.4 we introduce the data and methods used. Next, we outline the estimation strategy and report our empirical results in Sect. 12.5. Finally, we discuss our findings and conclude with a number of critical remarks in Sect. 12.6.
