The Influence of Knowledge Transfer on Outputs of Innovative Process – Case Study of Czech Regions

Authors: J. Stejskal, P. Hajek

Abstract:

The goal of this article is the analysis of knowledge transfer at the regional level of the Czech Republic. We show how goals of enterprises´ innovative activities are related to the rate of cooperation with different actors within regional innovative systems as well as in other world regions. The results show that the most important partners of enterprises are their suppliers and clients in most Czech regions. The cooperation rate of enterprises correlates significantly mainly with enterprises´ efforts to enter new markets and reduce labour costs per unit output. The meaning of this cooperation decreases with the increase of partner’s distance. Regarding the type of a cooperating partner, cooperation within an enterprise had to do with the increase of market share and decrease of labour costs. On the other hand, cooperation with clients had to do with efforts to replace outdated products or processes or enter new markets. We can pay less attention to the cooperation with government authorities and organizations. The reasons for marginalization of this cooperation should be submitted to further detailed investigation.

Keywords: Knowledge, transfer, innovative process, Czech republic, region.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1096907

References:

[1] J. V. Henderson, Urban Development: Theory, Facts and Illusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
[2] P. Krugman, Keynote Lecture, Association of American Geographers´ Annual Conference, Washington D. C., 2010.
[3] M. E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London: Macmillan, 1990.
[4] R. Nelson, “The agenda for growth Theory: a different point of view,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 22, pp. 491–520.
[5] A. Marshall, The Economics of Industry, Macmillan and Co., 1920.
[6] B. A. Lundvall, “Introduction”. In: B. A. Lundvall(ed.),National Systems of Innovation - Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers., 1992, pp. 1–19.
[7] P. Maskell, H. Eskelinen, I. Hannibalsson, A.Malmberg, and E. Vatne, Competitiveness, Localised Learning and Regional Development: Specialisation and Prosperity in Small Open Economies. London: Routledge, 1998.
[8] A. Malmberg, “Industrial geography: location and learning,” Progress in Human Geography, vol. 21, 1997, pp. 573–582.
[9] M. Fujita, and T. Tabuchi, “Regional growth in postwar Japan,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 27, 1997, pp. 643–670.
[10] V. J. Henderson, “Understanding knowledge spillovers,” Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 37, 2007, pp. 497–508.
[11] L. H. Dobkins, “Location, innovation and trade: the role of localisation and nation-based externalities,”Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 26, 1996, pp. 591–612.
[12] M. Frenz, and G. Ietto-Gillies, “The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey,” Research Policy, vol. 38, 2009, pp. 1125–1135.
[13] R. Camagni, “The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policies in European lagging regions,” Papers in Regional Science, vol. 74, 1995, pp. 317–340.
[14] D. Maillat, “Innovative milieux and new generations of regional policies”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, vol. 10, 1998, pp. 1–16.
[15] R. A. Boschma, and R. C. Kloosterman, Learning from Clusters: A Critical Assessment, Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.
[16] R. Cappellin, and R. Wink, International Knowledge and Innovation Networks: Knowledge Creation and Innovation in Medium-technology Clusters, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009.