EconStor >
Universität Hohenheim >
Forschungszentrum Innovation und Dienstleistung (FZID), Universität Hohenheim >
FZID Discussion Papers, Universität Hohenheim >

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10419/59519
  

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorParedes-Frigolett, Harolden_US
dc.contributor.authorPyka, Andreasen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-19en_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-06-28T12:54:21Z-
dc.date.available2012-06-28T12:54:21Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.piurn:nbn:de:bsz:100-opus-7259en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/59519-
dc.description.abstractAlthough the area of innovation economics dates back to the early twentieth century with the seminal contributions of Schumpeter (1911), it is only recently that governments have understood the role of a comprehensive approach towards public sector economics that puts innovation systems in the eye of public policy decision makers. Although well researched in academia in recent years, the role that innovation networks play in driving successful processes of innovation and entrepreneurship has been less understood by policy makers. Indeed, so far public policy makers have been concerned with the macro level of public policy in a way that has been rather disconnected from the meso level of innovation networks. Not surprisingly, overall strategies for innovation network formation have not been on the radar screen of public policy. The academic community, on the other hand, has been devoting more attention to the study of innovation networks in an attempt to understand the role they play as a catalyst of innovation and entrepreneurship. By and large in the research community, the process of innovation network formation has been left rather unattended. Indeed, the question of how these networks are formed and what strategies can be developed to ignite processes of innovation network formation has been largely absent from the academic debate. In this article, we make a contribution in this area and present distal embedding as one of three generic innovation network formation strategies. We also show why distal embedding'' is particularly well suited for emerging regions of innovation and entrepreneurship. Our contributions lie at the macro-meso interface and can shed light on public policy at the macro level aiming to have a direct impact at the meso level of innovation network formation.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherUniv. Hohenheim, Forschungszentrum Innovation und Dienstleistung Stuttgarten_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesFZID Discussion Papers 49-2012en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.keywordentrepreneurshipen_US
dc.subject.keywordinnovation networksen_US
dc.subject.keywordinnovation network strategy formationen_US
dc.subject.stwUnternehmeren_US
dc.subject.stwInnovationen_US
dc.subject.stwUnternehmensnetzwerken_US
dc.subject.stwTheorieen_US
dc.subject.stwIsraelen_US
dc.titleDistal embedding as a technology innovation network formation strategyen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn717875261en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungenen_US
dc.identifier.repecRePEc:zbw:fziddp:492012-
Appears in Collections:FZID Discussion Papers, Universität Hohenheim

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
717875261.pdf533.98 kBAdobe PDF
No. of Downloads: Counter Stats
Show simple item record
Download bibliographical data as: BibTeX

Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.