Innovation by firms and industries requires that the individual firm can combine internal and external knowledge resources. This paper studies product innovations as they are reflected by product varieties and destination markets, combined into observations of firms’ destination-specific varieties(variety pairs). The number of varieties (identified in this way) measuresthe extensive margin of exportflows from industries in local economies, reflecting past product and market (destination) innovations made by industries in each local economy. The empirical analysis identifies for each industry and local economy (i) the intra-industry knowledge resources, (ii) the local access to the supply knowledge-intensive producer services, and (iii) the access to the supply of knowledge-intensive producer servicesoutside the local economy. Thepapercontributes to existing knowledgein several ways. First, it introduces a knowledge-supply accessibility measure to model the local innovation milieu. Second, it shows the joint contribution to product innovation from internal and external knowledge sources. The estimation results supports the hypothesis that innovations are generated in the conjunction of internal and external knowledge.

Production theory has remained substantially unchanged since the publication of the theory of production by Frisch (Theory of production, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1928; Nord613 Tidskr Tek Økon 1:12–27, 1935). The theory is based on the idea of a firm deciding on the possible input and output combinations of a single unit of production. His theory was substantially copied in contributions by Carlson (A study on the pure theory of production, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1939) and Schneider (Einführung in die Wirtschaftstheorie. 4 Bände, Mohr, Tübingen, 1947), and later by practically all textbooks in microeconomics. The idea is to model the firm as a “black box” in which a finite number of externally purchased inputs are transformed into a finite number of outputs to be sold in the market(s). Most of the time, the prices are externally determined. Often, the production process is summarized by some simplified production function as, for example, in the form of a CES function. Another and conceptually richer approach is the formulation of an activity analysis model. In the latter case, simple internal interdependencies can be included. In this paper, we indicate how internal interdependencies can also be modeled within a special CES framework. In recent decades, there has been a remarkable growth in the number of production units of firms such as IKEA, Walmart and Apple to name a few such global networking firms. Most of the analysis of these network firms has been modeled by logistics and other operations-research analysts (Simchi-Levi et al. 2008) and to a limited extent by researchers in business administration schools. Very little has been done in economics. We propose a modeling approach consistent with the microeconomic theory. 

This title was first published in 2003. This book focuses on the role of tangible and intangible networks that affect spatial interdependencies in economic and social life. It addresses the question - is the effect of distance disappearing? In examining this question the book considers the types of interaction that bring about globalisation of markets as well as social life in general and the distortion of distance patterns and changes in spatial interdependencies. The contributions elaborate theory and methods by examining hierarchical fields of internal and external influence on regional change sources of productivity growth in a network of industries, endogenous growth and development policies. The book concludes with an assessment of plan evaluation methodologies for a changing and globalizing world characterized by new economic networks and networking arrangements.

This paper explores three under-researched questions in the literature on multinational enterprises (MNEs), clustering, and innovation. First, to what extent does multinationality lead to higher rates of innovation activity and performance? Second, what, if any, is the link between MNE cluster location and innovation inputs and outputs? Third, are there any significant differences between enterprises belonging to domestic and overseas MNEs in these regards? Evidence is based primarily on 11,775 firms derived from the UK Community Innovation Survey 2007. Diversity in the regional economy exerts the most consistent positive influence, followed by the scale of employment in the enterprise’s own industry. Enterprises belonging to domestic MNEs appear to exert higher levels of innovation effort. However, evidence regarding their superiority in innovation outputs was weaker. Contrary to Michael Porter’s work, it appears that enterprises belonging to overseas firms benefit more than domestic firms.

This study addresses an important neglected question: To what extent do geographic clusters promote outward foreign direct investment (ODI)? We find evidence that clusters do promote ODI and so support Porter's argument that advantages gained in clusters can be the foundations of successful internationalisation. Digging deeper, we find that certain cluster incumbents promote more ODI than others, with more experienced firms and firms with stronger resource bases accounting for more ODI. We also find that firms located in clusters within major global nodes/cities engage in more ODI. Finally, we find that both localisation and urbanisation economies promote ODI. However, the former, within-industry effects, are more important. Overall, this study echoes Dunning's call for more focus on the ‘L’ component of the ownership, location, internalisation (OLI) paradigm and particularly on the advantages that reside in clusters that make them not only attractive destinations for foreign direct investment (FDI) but also fertile environments from which FDI can spring.