Attempt at Summarising Past Studies on Geographic Proximity

• Authors: Grzegorz Micek
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article is a review aiming to present the current research on the concept of geographic proximity and attempts to conceptualise it. The implementation of such a task required the identification of different ways of approaching the analysed issue, which was served by a systematic review of the literature, not performed on such a scale since the study of J. Knoben and L. Oerlemans (2006) (Micek, 2017). Proximity was captured in it using three types of logic: belonging, neighbourhood or similarity. Studies of proximity perceived as a value and trying to capture its intensity are rare. On the other hand, studies based on the proximity thresholds (most often expressed regarding physical distance) or affiliation to an administrative unit dominate. Meanwhile, proximity should be measured similarly as it is perceived and therefore using the logic of similarity. Therefore, there is a contradiction between the existing methods of measuring proximity and the essence of the concept itself. There is a need to capture proximity on a continuum that illustrates its intensity. The assessment of proximity, however, requires joint consideration of both objective and subjective measures, as well as the rejection of the thesis on the binary nature of the concept of proximity (Torre, Rallet, 2005).

Keywords

EN

conceptualisation; distance; geographic proximity; neighbourhood; operationalisation; perception

• Publisher: Instytut Geografii Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego im. Komisji Edukacji Narodowej w Krakowie
• Journal: Prace Komisji Geografii Przemysłu Polskiego Towarzystwa Geograficznego
• Year: 2018
• Volume: Volume 32, Issue 4
• Pages: 227-239

Contributors

author

Grzegorz Micek

• Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Regional Development Department

References

• Abramovsky, L., Simpson, H. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm-university innovation linkages: evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(6), 949–977.
• Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I., McHale, J. (2006). Gone but not forgotten: knowledge flows, labour mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(5), 571–591.
• Aguiléra, A., Lethiais, V., Rallet, A. (2012). Spatial and Non-spatial Proximities in Inter-firm Relations: An Empirical Analysis. Industry and Innovation, 19(3), 187–202.
• Aguiléra, A., Lethias, V., Rallet, A. (2015). Spatial Proximity and Intercompany Communication: Myths and Realities. European Planning Studies, 23(4), 798–810.
• Aslesen, H.W., Jakobsen, S.-E. (2007). The role of proximity and knowledge interaction between head offices and KIBS. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 98(2), 188–201.
• Balland, P.-A. (2012). Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry. Regional Studies, 46(6), 741–756.
• Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R.A., Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907–920.
• Balland, P.-A., Vaan, M. de, Boschma, R.A. (2013). The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle: The case of the global video game industry, 1987–2007. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(5), 741–765.
• Bathelt, H., Glückler, J. (2003). Wirtschaftsgeographie. Okonomische Beziehungen in raumlicher Perspektive [Economic geography. Economic relations in a spatial perspective]. Stuttgart: UTB – Ulmer.
• Bélis-Bergouignan, M.-C., Carrincazeaux, C., Grossetti, M. (2004). Recherche et territoire. [Research and territory]. In: B. Pecqueu, J.-B. Zimmermann (ed.). Economie de proximities [Economy of proximities]. Paris: Lavoisier, 133–154.
• Bellet, M., Colletis, G., Lung, Y. (ed.) (1993). Economie de proximites [Economy of proximities]. Revue d’Economie Régionale et Urbaine, 3.
• Beugelsdijk, S., Cornet, M. (2002). ‘A Far Friend is Worth More than a Good Neighbour’: Proximity and Innovation in a Small Country. Journal of Management and Governance, 6(2), 169–188.
• Blažek, J., Žižalova, P., Rumpel, P., Skokan, K. (2011). Where Does the Knowledge for Knowledgeintensive Industries Come From? The Case of Biotech in Prague and ICT in Ostrava. European Planning Studies, 19(7), 1277–1303.
• Borgatti, S.P., Cross, R. (2003). A Relational View on Information Seeking and Learning in Social Networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
• Boschma, R.A. (2005). Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
• Boschma, R.A., Wal, A.L.J. ter (2007). Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177–199.
• Bouba-Olga, O., Carrincazeaux, Ch., Coris, M., Ferru, M. (2015). Proximity Dynamics, Social Networks and Innovation. Regional Studies, 49(6), 901–906.
• Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. (2009). The mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: anatomy of localised knowledge flows. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(4), 439–468.
• Broekel, T., Boschma, R.A. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409–433.
• Cairncross, F. (2001). The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Is Changing our Lives. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Capello, R. (1999). SME clustering and factor productivity: A milieu production function model. European Planning Studies, 7(6), 719–735.
• Capello, R. (2009). Indivisibilities, synergy and proximity: The need for an integrated approach to agglomeration economies. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100(2), 145–159.
• Carrincazeaux, Ch., Lung, Y., Vicente, J. (2008). The Scientific Trajectory of the French School of Proximity: Interactionand Institution-based Approaches to Regional Innovation Systems. European Planning Studies, 16(5), 617–628.
• Cassi, L., Plunket, A., 2015, Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6), 936–954.
• Chojnicki, Z. (1966), Zastosowanie modeli grawitacji i potencjału w badaniach przestrzenno-ekonomicznych [Application of the gravity and potential model in spatial and economic research]. Studia Komitetu Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 14.
• Crescenzi, R., Nathan, M., Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do Inventors Talk to Strangers? On Proximity and Collaborative Knowledge Creation. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) Discussion Paper, 7797.
• Ellwanger, N., Boschma, R.A. (2015). Who acquires whom? The role of geographical proximity and industrial relatedness in Dutch domestic M&As between 2002 and 2008. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 106(5), 608–624.
• Eriksson, R.H. (2011). Localized Spillovers and Knowledge Flows: How does proximity influence the performance of plants? Economic Geography, 87(2), 127–152.
• Fritsch, M., Schilder, D. (2008). Does venture capital investment really require spatial proximity? An empirical investigation. Environment and Planning A, 40(9), 2114–2131.
• Gaczek, W.M. (2015). Bliskość geograficzna jako czynnik wzrostu gospodarczego w podregionach wielkich miast polskich [Geographic proximity as a factor of economic growth in subregions of large Polish cities]. Studia Oeconomica Posnaniensia, 3(8), 7–29.
• Gatrell, A. (1983). Distance and space. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Giuliani, E. (2007). The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(2), 139–168.
• Giuliani, E., Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68.
• Godart, F.C. (2015). Trend Networks: Multidimensional Proximity and the Formation of Aesthetic Choices in the Creative Economy. Regional Studies, 49(6), 973–984.
• Grossetti, M. (2008). Proximities and Embedding Effects. European Planning Studies, 16(5), 613– 616.
• Haugen, K. (2012). The accessibility paradox. Everyday geographies of proximity, distance and mobility. Umea: Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography and Economic History, Umea University, Sweden.
• Healy, A., Morgan, K. (2012). Spaces of Innovation: Learning, Proximity and the Ecological Turn. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1041–1053.
• Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 93–115.
• Huang, Y., Shen, C., Contractor, N.S. (2013). Distance matters: Exploring proximity and homophily in virtual world networks. Decision Support Systems, 55(4), 969–977.
• Huber, F., (2012). On the Role and Interrelationship of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity: Personal Knowledge Relationships of R&D Workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169–1182.
• Kirat, T., Lung, Y. (1999). Innovation and proximity – Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27–38.
• Klimas, P. (2012). Operacjonalizacja bliskości organizacyjnej [Operationalisation of organisational proximity]. Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 260, 195–205. Knoben, J. (2011). The Geographic Distance of Relocation Search: An Extended Resource-Based Perspective. Economic Geography, 87(4), 371–392.
• Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L.A.G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71–89.
• Komornicki, T., Śleszyński, P., Rosik, P., Pomianowski, W. (2009). Dostępność przestrzenna jako przesłanka kształtowania polskiej polityki transportowej [Spatial accessibility as an indication of shaping the Polish transport policy]. Biuletyn Komitetu Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 241.
• Lagendijk, A., Lorentzen, A. (2007). Proximity, Knowledge and Innovation in Peripheral Regions. On the Intersection between Geographic and Organizational Proximity. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 457–466.
• Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the Effect of Geographic Proximity and University Quality on University-Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.
• Levy, R., Talbot, D. (2015). Control by proximity: Evidence from the ‘Aerospace Valley’ Competitiveness Cluster. Regional Studies, 49(6), 955–972.
• Mason, C., Harrison, R.T. (2002). The barriers to investment in the informal venture capital sector. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 14, 271–287.
• Micek, G. (2017). Bliskość geograficzna przedsiębiorstw zaawansowanego przemysłu i usług a przepływy wiedzy [Inter-firm geographical proximity in advanced manufacturing and business services versus knowledge flows]. Kraków: Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Miller, H.J., Wentz, E.A. (2003). Representation and Spatial Analysis in Geographic Information System. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(3), 574–594.
• Moodysson, J., Jonsson, O. (2007). Knowledge collaboration and proximity: the spatial organisation of biotech innovation projects. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(2), 115–131.
• Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: who they are, how they interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817–835.
• Rallet, A. (2003). L’economie de proximite. Propos d’etapes [The economy of proximity. About steps]. Etudes et Recherche Sur Les Systémes Agraires et Le Développement INRA, 33, 11–23.
• Rallet, A., Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? Geojournal, 49(4), 373–380.
• Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011). Economists as geographers and geographers as something else: on the changing conception of distance in geography and economics. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(2), 347–356.
• Quatraro, F., Usai, S. (2017). Are knowledge flows all alike? Evidence from European regions. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1246–1258.
• Schiller, D., Revilla-Diez, J. (2012). The Impact of Academic Mobility on the Creation of Localized Intangible Assets. Regional Studies, 46(10), 1319–1332.
• Schmitt, A., Biesbroeck, J. van (2013). Proximity strategies in outsourcing relations: the role of geographic, cultural and relational proximity in the European automotive industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(5), 475–503.
• Shearmur, R. (2011). Innovation, Regions and Proximity: From Neo-Regionalism to Spatial Analysis. Regional Studies, 45(9), 1225–1243.
• Sokołowicz, M.E. (2013). Zagadnienie bliskości w badaniach nad rozwojem terytorialnym. Podejście instytucjonalne [The issue of proximity in the research on territorial development. Institutional approach]. In: A. Nowakowska (ed.). Zrozumieć terytorium. Idea i praktyka [Understanding territory. Idea and practice]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 59–92.
• Sokołowicz, M.E. (2015). Rozwój terytorialny w świetle dorobku ekonomii instytucjonalnej. Przestrzeń – bliskość – instytucje [Territorial development in the light of the achievements of institutional economics. Space – proximity – institutions]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
• Stam, E. (2003). Why Butterflies do not Leave. Locational Evolution of Evolving Enterprises. Utrecht: PhD dissertation, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht Universiteit, The Netherlands.
• Śleszyński, P. (2014). Dostępność czasowa i jej zastosowania [Temporal accessibility and its usage]. Przegląd Geograficzny, 86(2), 171–215.
• Taylor, Z. (1999). Przestrzenna dostępność miejsc zatrudnienia, kształcenia i usług a codzienna ruchliwość ludności wiejskiej [Spatial availability of employment, education and services, and the daily mobility of the rural population]. Prace Geograficzne Instytut Geografii i Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 171.
• Tobler, W.R. (2004). On the First Law of Geography: a Reply. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2), 304–310.
• Tobolska, A. (2017). Strategie przedsiębiorstw międzynarodowych oraz ich oddziaływania w przestrzeni lokalnej i regionalnej (na przykładzie wybranych koncernów przemysłowych w zachodniej Polsce) [Strategies of international enterprises and their impact in local and regional space (on the example of selected industrial concerns in western Poland)]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.
• Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographic proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 42(6), 869–889.
• Torre, A., Gilly, J.-P. (2000). On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34(2), 169–180.
• Torre, A., Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localisation. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47–60.
• Wal, A.L.J. ter (2013). Cluster emergence and network evolution: a longitudinal analysis of the inventor network in Sophia-Antipolis. Regional Studies, 47(5), 651–668.
• Wal, A.L.J. ter (2014). The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure. Journal of Economic Geography, 14(3), 589–620.
• Weterings, A., Boschma, R.A. (2009). Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance? Evidence from the Dutch software sector. Research Policy, 38(5), 746–755.
• Zeller, C. (2004). North Atlantic innovative relations of Swiss pharmaceuticals and the proximities with regional biotech arenas. Economic Geography, 80(1), 83–111.