《区域经济发展战略.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《区域经济发展战略.doc（20页珍藏版）》请在taowenge.com淘文阁网|工程机械CAD图纸|机械工程制图|CAD装配图下载|SolidWorks_CaTia_CAD_UG_PROE_设计图分享下载上搜索。
1、【精品文档】如有侵权，请联系网站删除，仅供学习与交流区域经济发展战略.精品文档.区域经济发展战略课程作业 专 业 区域经济学 班 级 经管院研1022 学 号 1002021085 姓 名 尚天祥 2010 年 秋季 学期Evolutionary economic geography and its implications for regional innovation policy Ron BoschmaAbstractRelated variety is important to regional growth because it induces knowledge transfer
2、between complementary sectors at the regional level. This is accomplished through three mechanisms: spinoff dynamics, labor mobility and network formation. They transfer knowledge across related sectors, which contributes to industrial renewal and economic branching in regions. Since these mechanism
3、s of knowledge transfer are basically taking place at the regional level, and because they make regions move into new growth paths while building on their existing assets, regional innovation policy should encourage spinoff activity, labor mobility and network formation. Doing so, policy builds on r
4、egion-specific assets that provides opportunities but also sets limits to what can be achieved by policy. Public intervention should neither apply one-size-fits-all approaches nor adopt picking-the-winner strategies, but should aim to connect complementary sectors and exploit related variety as a so
5、urce of regional diversification. Key words: related variety, evolutionary economic geography, regional innovation systems,regional growth.1. IntroductionWhy do some regions grow more than others? Till the late 1980s, neo-classical theory argued that technology is a key determinant of regional growt
6、h. However, technology was treated as an exogenous factor and, therefore, the geography of innovation was left unexplained (Alcouffe and Kuhn, 2004). Inspired by Schumpeters work, economic geographers played a prominent role in criticizing this neo-classical framework. From the early 1980s onwards,
7、they focus attention on the explanation of the geography of innovation. Some regions are more innovative than others, and region-specific characteristics like institutions may be underlying forces. This even led to the claim that regions are drivers of innovation and economic growth. Concepts like i
8、ndustrial districts (Becattini, 1987), clusters (Porter, 1990), innovative milieux (Camagni, 1991), technology districts (Storper, 1992), regional innovation systems (Cooke, 2001) and learning regions (Asheim, 1996) have been launched in the last decades to incorporate this view. Many of these regio
9、nal concepts have drawn inspiration from evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi et al., 1988). This chapter aims to outline the drivers of regional growth, as proposed by evolutionary economic geographers (Boschma and Lambooy, 1999; Boschma and Martin, 2007). We claim that regional gr
10、owth is based primarily on exploiting intangible assets such as tacit knowledge and institutions, rather than static cost advantages. More in particular, we will argue that related variety may be a key source of economic diversification of regions. The objective of this chapter is to set out how the
11、se insights taken from evolutionary economic geography may be incorporated in regional innovation policy. This is anything but easy. Wegner and Pelikan (2003) state that evolutionary economics consists of two distinctive strands of thought, that is, the neo-Schumpeterian (Nelson and Winter) and the
12、Austrian approach (Hayek), which hold quite diverging views on policy. While the former advocates active government intervention, the latter does not. Another problem is that the empirical literature on regional policy tends to be rather fragmented and inconclusive (see e.g. Brons, et al., 2000; Nij
13、kamp and Stough, 2000). An obvious reason is that we do not know what would have happened if policy had not been installed. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we come up with some policy recommendations that incorporate recent thinking in evolutionary economic geography.2. Variety, related variety
14、and regional developmentOur starting point is a fundamental departure from how conventional neo-classical economics treats knowledge. Knowledge is not a public good that is characterized by diminishing returns to scale. On the contrary, knowledge evolves: it is not reduced when it is used, but it ac
15、cumulates through processes of learning-by-doing (Arrow, 1962). This cumulative and irreversible nature of knowledge development is embodied in individuals (skills) and in firms (routines): they develop different cognitive capacities over time (Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi et al., 1988).Knowledge a
16、lso tends to accumulate in space, leading to inter-regional variety of knowledge. There are many examples of regions and countries that specialize in a particular knowledge field, and which continue to do so for a long time. Many industries tend to concentrate in space, like the film industry in Hol
17、lywood, the financial sector in the city of London, and the American car industry in Detroit. There are also huge differences between countries and regions as far as investments in R&D and human capital are concerned, leading to persistent income differentials between countries over time (Grossman a
18、nd Helpman, 1991). Research and Development is extremely spatially concentrated, favoring only a small number of regions, and empirical studies show this pattern is quite stable over time (Feldman and Audretsch, 1999). Many studies have found strong relationships between regional stocks of knowledge
19、 (as embodied in university research and private R&D) and economic performance (e.g. Anselin, Varga and Acs, 2000).6. ConclusionsWe have built on insights drawn from evolutionary economic geography to present some recommendations for effective regional innovation policy. Since knowledge tends to acc
20、umulate mainly at the firm level, variety is the rule, and the more diversified a regional economy is, the higher regional growth. However, knowledge may also diffuse between firms, having an additional impact on regional development. If knowledge externalities are geographically bounded, knowledge
21、will also accumulate at the regional level. In addition, knowledge will spill over more intensively when regions are endowed with related industries that share a common knowledge base. Related variety favors economic branching in regions through spinoff dynamics, labor mobility and networks. Because
22、 these mechanisms transfer knowledge across related sectors mainly at the regional level, they contribute to a successful process of regional diversification, which is crucial for long-term regional development.However, knowledge creation and knowledge spillovers alone will not lead to innovation. R
23、egions require a critical mass of organizations that provide necessary inputs to the innovation process, such as knowledge, skills and capital. Besides a critical mass, these organizations need to connect and interact, to enable flows of knowledge, capital and labor. In addition, organizations and i
24、nstitutions need to be flexible and responsive to implement change. In reality, almost by nature, organizations and institutions are not, because they suffer from lock-in, due to routines, sunk costs and path dependency.We have used these insights as key inputs and underpinnings for effective region
25、al innovation policy. Following system failure arguments, public policy has the task to establish key organizations of innovation systems in regions where these are found missing, or public policy has to ensure that these missing inputs to the innovation process will flow into the region. Once avail
26、able, public intervention should encourage key organizations to connect, for example, firms need to be linked with research institutes and capital suppliers. In addition, public policy can make organizations more flexible and innovative, for instance, by upgrading their routines through the supply o
27、f new knowledge and skills. Finally, regional innovation policy can stimulate the effective transfer of knowledge at the regional level by means of spinoff activity, labor mobility and networks. Since these mechanisms of knowledgetransfer are basically taking place at the regional level, and because
28、 they make regions move into new growth paths while building on existing assets, these policy actions put in practice the idea that related variety may contribute to long-term regional development.To increase the probability of policy success, regional innovation policy needs to account for the regi
29、on-specific context that provides opportunities but also sets limits to what can be achieved by policy. Doing so, public intervention should neither apply one-size-fits-all frameworks nor adopt picking-the-winner policies. This is the main message that transcends this OECD report (Cooke, 2009; Iamma
30、rino and McCann, 2009). Instead of copying best practice models or selecting winners, policy should take the history of each region as a starting point, and identify regional potentials and bottlenecks accordingly. To avoid regional lock-in, it is crucial that policy is open to newcomers and policy
31、experiments. 演化经济地理学及其在区域创新政策中的应用摘要：相关品种对于区域增长是很重要的,因为它导致互补部门之间在区域水平方面的知识转化。这是依靠三种机制完成的:分离动力学、劳动力流动和网络的形成。他们会将知识转化成有助于工业更新和经济在地区的分支的相关板块。由于这些知识转移的机制基本上发生在地方,也因为他们使地区进入新的增长阶段。因此，为了不断扩大他们现有的资产，区域创新政策应该鼓励分离活动,劳动力流动和网络的形成。这么做,政策建立在特殊的地区资产上，既能提供机会,也能专门设置限制政策。公共干预不能用千篇一律申请的方法，也不能用挑选成功案例的策略,而应该将目标放在连接互补部门和
32、利用相关的转化作为区域多样化的一个来源。关键词：相关品种 演化经济地理学 区域创新系统 经济增长1 .引言为什么有些地区发展较快？一直到19世纪80年代，eo-classical理论认为技术是地区发展的主要决定因素。但是技术被看作是外源性因素并且区域的创新是难以解释的，受到Schumpeter的启发，经济地理学家们在批评新古典的框架上起到了突出的作用, 从20世纪80年代早期开始,他们开始把注意力集中在地理创新理论的解释工作上。一些地区的创新已经超过了其他地区,并且特殊地区类似机构具有潜在力量。这甚至导致有人声称地区是创新和经济增长的导向。相关文章比如工业园区(Becattini,1987年)
33、、创新milieux(Camagni,1991)、技术地区(Storper,1992)、区域创新系统(库克,2001)和区域性研究(Asheim,1996)已经在过去的几十年将这一观点开始执行。许多这些区域获取灵感观念来自于演化经济学(纳尔逊和维特,1982;Dosi ,1988)。这一章旨在概述地区协调发展方向,就像经济地理学家所倡导的(Boschma进化和Lambooy学杂志,2003;Boschma和Martin,2007)。我们提出区域增长主要依据利用隐性知识等无形资产、制度等因素的影响,而不是静态的成本优势。更具体而言,我们认为相关的变化可能是地区经济来源多样化的关键。本章主要是从这
34、些观点出发，阐述如何把演化经济地理学结合在区域到地区创新政策中。这一点也不容易。Wegner和Pelikan(2003)声明演化经济学包含两个不同的思想,那就是,neo-Schumpeterian(纳尔逊和维特)和奥地利的方法(哈耶克), 在政策上蕴藏着完全不同分歧意见。前者主张积极的政府干预后者则没有。另一个问题是,经验文献在区域政策趋向上是相当分散而不确定的(见例句。Brons,2000;NijkampStough,2000年)。一个显著的原因是我们不知道会发生什么样的事情如果政策没有被确定。尽管有这些困难,我们想出了一些政策建议,融入了近期的进化经济地理学思想。2 .品种、相关品种和地区
35、发展我们的出发点是一种从传统新古典经济学如何看待知识中分离出来的。知识不是公共利益,他是以“收益递减”的影响比例来界定的。相反,知识进化:当它被使用的时候没有被减少,但它通过边学边做来完成积累的过程。这种对知识发展的累计和不可逆转的本质存在于个人(技能)和公司(程序)之中:他们在不同时间段发展不同的认知能力（纳尔逊和维特,1982年,Dosi等,1988)。知识的积累,也倾向于在空间中,导致多种知识跨区域。有很多例子比如地区和国家的专长用于特定的知识领域,并持续了很长时间。许多行业常常在空间上聚集，就像电影产业在好莱坞聚集,金融业在伦敦聚集,美国的汽车工业在底特律聚集一样。就国家和地区投资研发
36、和人力资本而言也存在巨大的差异,导致国与国之间持续的收入的差异。许多研究已经发现区域股票知识(体现在大学的研究和私人研发)和经济性能之间存在很强的关联(例如：Anselin,Varga和Acs,2000年)。在知识经济下,地区经济取决于他们是否有能力吸收、开发、应用新知识。因为知识倾向于积累,新知识不会在各企业之间、地区之间广泛扩散。它需要吸收能力和制度来使代理人在一起。无形资产都提供激励和约束条件来使创新过程在此地区中发生。知识将被更强烈的拓展当地区被赋予相关行业拥有的知识面。6.总结我们已经建立了从演化经济地理的见解，提出一些行之有效的区域创新政策建议。由于知识往往积累在企业层面为主，各种
37、规则且更多元化的一个区域经济有较高的地区增长。然而，知识之间可能也弥漫企业，有一个区域发展的额外影响。如果知识的外部性地理界，也积累的知识将在区域一级。此外，知识将波及更密集的地区时，与相关产业得天独厚地共享一个共同的知识基础。相关的各种有利于经济的地区分支通过剥离力度，劳动力流动和网络。由于这些转移机制在相关行业知识，主要是在区域一级，它们有助于成为多元化进程中的区域，这对于长期区域发展的关键。然而，知识创造和知识溢出本身并不会导致创新。地区需要的组织机构提供必要的投入创新过程中，如知识，技能和资本。除了一个临界质量，这些组织需要连接和互动，使知识，资本和劳动力的流动。在此外，组织和机构必须
38、实行灵活应变改变。在现实中，按性质，组织和机构几乎都没有，由于程序化，他们被锁定，成本亏损和路径的断层依赖。我们使用的明智的投入和有效的基础区域的创新政策。根据以下系统故障参数，公共政策的任务是建立重点组织在这些地区，这些区域发现缺少的创新体系，或公共政策，以确保这些缺少的投入到创新的过程中将流入这些区域。一旦可用，公共干预应鼓励主要组织进行创新活动，例如，企业需要与科研院所和资本的供应商联系。此外，公共政策可以使组织更加灵活和创新，例如，通过升级通过采用新的知识和技能提供他们的程序。最后，区域创新政策可以激活在区域干预的手段有效地进行知识转移，劳动力流动和网络组织。由于这些机制的知识转移基本
39、上都是以在区域一级的地方，因为他们使地区进入了新政策创新的增长路径，而现有资产的建设，这些政策在实践中付诸行动的想法可能会为相关区域长期的发展做出贡献。为了提高政策的成功概率，区域创新政策需要考虑该地区在特定情况下提供机会，但也限制了取得成功的一些政策。这样做，既不应适用于公共干预“一个尺寸适合所有”的框架，也不能 “获取别人成功的经验”。这个主要的消超越这个经合组织的报告OECD report (Cooke, 2009; Iammarino and McCann, 2009) 而不要照搬最佳实践模式，或选择成功的方式，政策应该以此为出发点，每个地区必须结合当地的历史，并确定相应区域的发展路径
40、和规划。为了避免区域的模式化，政策是否开放和政策实施的方式至关重要。On tax competition, public goods provisionand jurisdictions sizePatrice Pieretti and Skerdilajda ZanajJanuary 2009AbstractIn this paper, we analyse competition among jurisdictions to attract firms through low taxes on capital and/or high level of public goods, which
41、 enhance rms productivity. We assume that the competing jurisdictions are different in (population) size and that the mobility of capital is costly. We find that for moderate mobility costs,small economies can attract foreign capital if they supply higher levels of public goods than larger jurisdict
42、ions, without being tax havens. If mobility costs are high, we recover the classical result that small jurisdictions are attractive to foreign capital if they engage in tax dumping. Finally, we show that there exists a subset of mobility costs for which the differentiation in public goods across jur
43、isdictions is not able to relax tax competition.Keywords: Tax competition; Public goods competition; Spatial competition; Foreign direct investments; Country size.JEL Classification: H25; H73; F13; F15; F221. IntroductionIn this paper, we analyze competition among countries to attract entrepreneurst
44、hrough low taxes on capital and/or high level of public goods, which enhance firms productivity. We assume that the competing jurisdictions are differentin (population) size and that the mobility of capital is costly. Our main interest is to investigate which type of country (small or large) is attr
45、active to foreign investments and which instrument (taxes or public goods) is chosen by the successful jurisdiction. Tax competition among countries to attract entrepreneurs or mobile shoppers has generated a large body of literature. Two topics have attracted particular attention. Firstly, the focu
46、s has been on the inefficiencies originated by capital mobility, which constitute the normative approach to tax competition (see for instance Zodrow and Mieszkowski (1986), Wilson (1995),Mintz and Tulkens (1986), Wildasin (1988ab), Bucovetsky (1991), Bucovetsky and Wilson (1991), Matsutmoto (1998),
47、Bucovetsky, Marchand andPestieau (1998). A second topic of interest has been the study of the characteristics that a country should possess to be the destination of investors and foreign consumers (Wilson, 1991, Kanbur and Keen (1993), Barros andCabral (2000), Bjorvatn and Eckel (2005), Hauer and Wo
48、oton (1999). In this paper we adopt a similar positive approach rather than a normative one by focusing on the role of the size asymmetry of countries in attracting foreign investments.A result which generally appears in the tax competition literature is that small jurisdictions benefit from low tax
49、es. This comes from the fact that small countries face more elastic tax bases than larger countries, if tax rates were uniform (Hindriks and Myles (2006), Wilson (1991), Kanbur and Keen(1993). Another argument that supports this feature is the homogeneity of population in small countries. Namely, wealthy individuals migrate to small jurisdictions in which they