فعالیت های R & D در رابطه با بومی سازی شرکت های بزرگ

The present article is an attempt to analyse the geographical agglomeration of corporate research and development activities through the use of a desegregated sectorial approach. By focusing on those interfaces that are critical for the organisation of innovation-related activities, as well as on the degree of complexity of the knowledge base which is being mobilised, this study will seek to determine the exact nature, and the intensity, of the need for geographic proximity. The explanatory model will then be tested by an econometric analysis of the localisation and clustering of corporate R&D activities in France

One of the manifestations of the interplay of technological externalities is the strong propensity towards clustering that innovation-related activities often exhibit. Recent advances in the geography of innovation have highlighted those factors that can cause a spatial concentration of innovation-related activities. The principal explanatory factor revolves around the existence of knowledge spillovers; and it hones in on those attributes that typify the various types of knowledge (tacit versus codified) which are involved in the innovation process. Agglomeration is explained by the fact that distance hinders the exchange of tacit knowledge ( Jaffe, 1989 and Feldman, 1994). However, it is extremely difficult to ascertain how knowledge is really transferred, or to what extent it will be codified during this transfer process; and as a result, any conclusions on this subject are often pure conjecture (Krugman, 1991). In fact, spatial concentration of innovation-related activities does not constitute a sufficient a posteriori validation for the existence of tacit knowledge. For this reason, there is a need to improve upon the body of theories that purport to explain the agglomeration of corporate research activities. Moreover, if existing hypotheses are to be validated, further empirical research needs to be systematically carried out. Such is the purpose of the present article. To this end, we will rely on the progress that has been made by proponents of the functional approach to the spatial organisation of R&D (Malecki, 1985 and Howells, 1990); and on recent developments in the field of geography of innovation (Feldman, 1998). The localisation of research activities is partially determined by the specific function which this activity fulfils within a given firm. Moreover, the mechanisms which serve to co-ordinate a given body of knowledge, and the degree of proximity which is necessary for its diffusion, vary directly in function of the specific type of knowledge which is being developed. Nevertheless, our analysis will be focusing on the different modes of co-ordination that are present in those environments in which new knowledge is being created and by so doing, we are transforming the issue of diffusion into one of interactive learning (Lundvall, 1992 and von Hippel, 1994). The need for proximity that characterises the co-ordination of innovation-related activities can vary from one industry to another. This has two significant implications. Firstly, it becomes possible to identify firms that are most likely to derive efficient benefits from the effects of clustering. Secondly, the geographic concentration of R&D activities is not necessarily a given; rather, it is to be considered as a construct that varies from one industry to another. In light of this heterogeneity in different industries’ spatial organisation of their innovation-related activities, we do not postulate a priori any pre-eminence of local-level considerations in the process of innovation (Rallet, 1993). The present paper is organised as follows. In Section 2, we will be constructing a theoretical framework that explains the spatial agglomeration of corporate research and development activities both in terms of the nature of the critical interfaces, and the complexity of the knowledge bases, that are involved in R&D activities. In Section 3, we will be presenting the results of an econometric study of the geographical distribution of corporate R&D activities across France to test our theoretical framework. Section 4 is our conclusion.

Our work has confirmed that R&D geographic spillover effects exist in France. This corroborates studies which have been carried out in other countries (i.e. US, see Adams and Jaffe, 1996 and Audretsch and Feldman, 1996). For a certain number of industries, and at a departmental level, the localisation of R&D activities is related to the localisation of other firms’ R&D activities, and of academic laboratories. This trend towards a proximate localisation can be explained by the complexity of the R&D process, which reflects the need to co-ordinate a set of heterogeneous competencies (combinatory complexity) and the intensity of technological changes (technological complexity). However, the influence exerted by the localisation of other firms’ research activities, and by academic laboratories, is not necessarily relevant for all industries: in some, the low degree of combinatory and technological complexity reduces the need for proximity. This finding is similar to the hypothesis that had been developed by Jaffe (1989) concerning public research. It is also akin to certain trends which have been studied by Breschi and Malerba (1997) concerning the spatial dynamics of certain sectors’ innovation systems. In any event, the localisation of R&D activities is greatly influenced by the location of production. An approach based upon concentration indicators confirms this result. And yet, this indirect method for apprehending the interactions underlying the effects of geographic spillover still has its limitations. The trend towards a geographic concentration of innovation-related activities does not in fact signify that the clustering of such activities can necessarily be explained by the existence of co-ordination mechanisms that directly link the various economic agents involved in the process. Available literature advances this hypothesis, but does not prove it. In essence, the two processes should not be confused: agglomerated activities are not necessarily directly related to one another. The mechanisms of co-ordination that act to shape the way in which R&D activities operate should be observed, and analysed, more closely. Only then can we draw conclusions as to whether both geographic spillover effects and technological constraints really affect the localisation of the economic agents (firms and research institutions) that are involved in research and development activities.