不确定环境下集群创新网络合作度、开放度与集群增长绩效的关系研究
|
摘要
企业相互聚集并形成产业集群在区域经济发展和企业技术创新中起着重要作用。从网络的角度出发,产业集群具有典型的网络形态特征,集群企业在技术研发与知识共享方面形成网络关系。集群创新网络是一种区域性创新网络,是本地企业、学研机构、政府、中介机构等行为主体在交互作用和协同创新的过程中,建立起的各种促进集群内部创新的、相对稳定的正式或非正式关系的总和。
集群创新网络成员之间的合作关系有利于技术、信息、诀窍和新思想在群落内企业之间的传播和应用,创新网络内部成员之间合作关系的频度、强度、稳定度、和信任度等对于集群绩效产生积极作用,这些因素可以归纳为创新网络合作度。然而,创新网络范式可能存在风险和缺陷。集群网络内部成员之间的高程度合作不一定带来高增长绩效。网络的内聚性、边界性和关系依赖性导致网络范式在集群形成阶段是创新的助力,但由于环境的快速变化而网络特征不变,集群中的企业对外界动荡的反应能力变得迟缓,从而让集群网络失去弹性,成为创新的阻力,导致集群锁定现象。
另一方面,一些研究强调创新的开放模式与探索性学习的重要性,认为要打破网络界限,强调网络的开放性和动态性,如网络成员的多样性、成员关系的可脱离性,以及跨网络关系等。集群创新网络需要在建立新的关系和探索新的知识方面增强自身的能力,通过加强网络开放度来进一步延续创新网络的作用。
更重要的是,集群创新网络合作度、开放度对集群绩效的作用是动态变化的,这种相对作用大小的变化取决于创新网络面临的不同技术与市场环境状态。集群企业可以通过安排或者改变组织间的关系来对外界环境变动做出反应,环境的变化影响企业间网络改变的类型。也就是说,创新网络合作度、开放度必须随着技术与市场环境的变化而变化。因此有必要引入外部环境变量和开放度变量,将集群创新网络内外部影响因素放到一个框架中进行研究。在本文中,使用环境不确定性变晕来衡量技术与市场环境状态。
本文聚焦的关键问题是：产业集群创新在保持网络创新范式的前提下如何动态发展?研究内容包括：(1)网络合作度与集群增长绩效之间的关系以及环境不确定性对这种关系的影响及作用机理；(2)网络开放度与集群增长绩效之间的关系以及环境不确定性对这种关系的影响及作用机理；(3)网络合作度与开放度之间的相互影响关系及其形成机理。(4)集群创新网络演化过程中,其网络合作度、开放度与环境的阶段性特征对集群核心企业创新行为和绩效的影响的案例研究。最后提出管理和政策建议。
本文通过对4个集群分别进行大样本问卷调查,获得了以下研究发现：
(1)面对变化的技术与市场环境,必须引入新的要素来衡量集群创新网络特征及其对集群绩效的影响。构建集群创新网络作用机制的主要元素不仅包括那些组成了创新网络的成员与成员之间的联接关系以及衡量这种关系性质与程度的变量,更包括网络的开放性,指网络成员多样性、接受新成员的意愿度、跨网络关系程度、以及网络柔性。两个方面的因素在不同环境下发挥不同作用。
(2)外部环境因素对集群创新网络及集群增长发挥着显著的作用,然而,技术环境变量与市场环境变量对于集群创新网络特征与集群绩效增长之间关系的作用各不相同。当外部技术环境不确定度比较高时,网络的开放性结构,特别是这种结构要有利于跨集群网络知识获取以及新成员加入显得较为重要；
当外部环境不确定性总体较稳定时,通常集群形成时间较长,其网络合作度对集群绩效的影响较为显著,同时其网络内部合作关系在知识获取方而的质量并不高。这是进入成熟期的集群面临的普遍问题,一方面依赖于网络内部合作关系,另一方面这种合作关系的作用下降,这就导致功能和认知锁定。
当市场竞争度较高并且.技术环境相对稳定时,网络合作度十分重要,这表明并非任何一种环境不确定性较高时,创新网络就不能发挥作用。区域聚集的企业集群在面临其它企业高度竞争挑战时,其协同性和承压性更好,更容易降低成本、获取信息、以及保持商业网络的有效性。
(3)集群创新网络合作度与开放度之间的负相关性没有得到证实,表明集群网络的开放式变化可以为集群创新提供新的信息和知识,而不受现存网络结构与关系制约;同时现有网络合作关系也可以发挥作用,而不用担心开放性异致的网络关系解体和作用丧失。
(4)产业集群面临的外部环境是动态变化的,当环境不确定性总体高,其中技术不确定性相对较高时,要强调网络开放性;当环境不确定性偏高,其中竞争性相对较高时,要注重网络合作性以及新成员加入;当环境较为稳定时,既要发挥网络内部关系作用,也要建立跨网络关系,和增强网络柔性。
基于演化视角对集群核心企业进行案例研究,以下构成对上述结论的解析和补充：
(1)在集群网络成长期,网络合作关系在案例企业建立商业联系、获取市场和产品信息,指引创新方向,形成社会资本,进而开展技术合作等方面发挥重要作用。这个解释了网络合作度在集群成长期发生作用的方式和路径。
(2)随着集群进入成熟阶段,其知识网络的功能老化和弱化,本土化商业网络局限性也日益明显。有的企业适应了变化,开发跨网络商业与知识关系,同时利用本土网络降低成本和形成规模经济,逐渐发展成为核心企业,其它企业维持现状或衰落。这一点解释了网络合作度在成熟期为什么会在创新上逐渐失去显著作用。在产业集群形成20年后,集群网络结构发生较大变化,网络成为几个龙头企业的附属品,存在解体风险。一些企业可以破网而出,可能形成新的网络。
(3)在高技术产业集群中,集群企业从集群开始发生时就比较注重建立跨区域的产业技术合作关系,强调网络开放度。本地网络关系主要用来建立与本土公共机构、政府部门的合作,以获取资金、政策以及产品采购机会。随着集群进入成长中期,开始建立一些区域内产学研合作关系,获取人力资源。由于外部环境不确定性始终较高,较弱的本土嵌入性有利于集群企业应对变化。
(4)发生时间较长的产业集群创新网络在演化过程中存在以下问题：主业不明确带来的产品生产类型经常改变使得用于创新的网络内合作关系出现中断和失去知识积累,并导致网络成员加入和退出过于频繁。其次,进入成熟期后,同质化生产导致集体模仿剽窃,失去创新动力,网络内部关系缺乏信任和稳定度。
(5)集群创新网络的阶段性特征对于不同企业的影响和作用是不同的。在那每个发展阶段,核心企业善于调整内部合作关系,强调学习创新或集成创新,通过跨区域关系获取和整合知识资源,所以,对于现阶段的我国产业集群,其创新网络开放度比合作度更重要。只有我国集群企业在原始创新和集成创新能力上得到很大提高,网络合作度的作用才会大大增强,,只有网络合作度的作用大大增强,区域产业集群的生命力和竞争力才会大大的延长和真正体现出来。
The firms gather together in a region and form an industry cluster which has played an important role in regional development and industrial innovation. The cluster firms establish network relationships for technology co-operation and knowledge transfer. The cluster innovation network consists of relationships among local firms, research agents, public agents, universities, and other organizations, and has become the important organizational pattern of innovation activities.
The network co-operation relationship among network members is benefited for transfer and use of technology, knowledge, information and new ideas among the network firms and other members. Therefore the degree and quality of relationships among network members have positive effects on innovation and cluster performance. However, the network pattern of cluster innovation has gradually occurred some risks and problems. In fact, the high degree of network co-operation in innovation does not essentially result in high degree of performance in some regional industry clusters. The network proximity and relationship dependence are the cause of formation of an industry cluster, but also the reason for rigid and lock-in of the cluster firms in innovation. This is because the network characteristics make the network being unable to adapt to fast changing technology and market environment, and also respond to technology changes slowly. As a result, the cluster firms have been locked into a trap.
On the other hand some studies emphasize the importance of open innovation model and knowledge exploring. It asks to break up the border of the cluster network, pay attention to network openness and dynamics, such as diversity of network members, new members affiliating, and cross-network relationships. They argued that the cluster innovation network has to enhance its ability to set up new relationships and to explore new knowledge, so that the network can extend its life cycle and play a role in technology innovation.
More importantly, The effects of cluster innovation network co-operation and network openness have been changing according to the change of external technology and market environment that the network are embedded in. The cluster firms respond to the external environment change by re-arrange the relationships between them and other actors. In other words, the cluster innovation network must change along with the technology and market environment change. Therefore, it must introduce the environment variables and network openness variables into the research framework to understand how the cluster innovation network works. In the thesis, it uses environment uncertainty to measure the external environment conditions.
The thesis focuses on resolving such a question:How the industry cluster develops actively when maintaining the innovation network model? The research contents include (1) the relationship between network cooperation and the cluster performance, and the effects of environment variation on the relationship.(2) the relationship between network cooperation and the cluster performance, and the effects of environment variation on the relationship,(3) the relationship between network cooperation and openness,(4) In the evolution of the cluster innovation networks, the relative effects of the network co-operation, openness on the core cluster firm's innovation activities and performance at different stages of evolution. At last, it looks at management and policy implications.
In the thesis, it acquires some research findings by quantitative and statistical analysis as the following.
(1)When facing external changing technology and market environment, it must introduce new variables to measure the effects of cluster innovation network on the cluster performance. For making the innovation network work well, it not only depends on those characteristics inside the network, but also depends on characteristics outside the network but is closely related to the network. The characteristics from the two sides play different roles.
(2)The external characteristics make effects on the cluster network and performance. However, the external technology variables and market variables play different roles. When the external technology uncertainty is higher, the effects of network openness on the cluster performance are stronger. The network openness means the strong cross-network relationship and new member joining-in.
When the external technology and market uncertainty is relatively stable, which suggests that the cluster has formed for quite a time, the effects of network co-operation is significant on the performance. However, since the quality of the network co-operation is low in knowledge transfer, the dependence on such a co-operation relationship may lock firms into function and knowledge rigidity.
When the external market competition degree is higher, the network co-operation makes significant effects on the performance. It suggests that it is not true to see the useless of the network co-operation when the degree of any external characteristics is high. When the cluster firms face strong market competition from firms in other regions, the co-ordination among local firms, the easy cut of costs by firms working together, and easy access to market information play an important role.
(3) The negative relationship between the network co-operation degree and network openness has not been proved. It suggests that the change of the network openness can provide the cluster firms with new knowledge and information, but not to worry about the constraint of the network co-operation relationship. The current network co-operation can play the role in innovation, but not to worry about the disintegration of the network caused by network openness
(4) The industry cluster faces fast changing external environment. When the degree of both technology and market uncertainty are high, particularly the technology uncertainty is much higher, it must take advantage of the network openness. When the market competition degree is higher, it must take advantage of the network co-operation. When both are stable, it must improve the quality of the network co-operation and keep the network to be open.
On the other hand, the results from case studies support and explain the above research findings in details.
1) In the growth stage of the development of the cluster network, the network co-operation plays an important role in helping firms establishing business relationships, acquiring market and product information, leading to the correct innovation direction, forming social capital for innovation, and conducting technology co-operation activities. It explains the way and method of network co-operation to be used in innovation.
(2) In the mature stage of the development of the cluster network, the function of the network in knowledge transfer has weakened, and the limit of the network function on business relationship set-up becomes obvious. Some firms adapt to the changes by developing new cross-border relationship for knowledge and innovation, and meanwhile keeping old relationships with some network members for cost reduction and mass production. Then the firm has developed to become so called the core firm, but others declined or maintain the production difficultly. This explains why the network co-operation relationship has lost its effects in some clusters. When about the cluster has developed for20years, the cluster network structure has changed largely; the core firm has controlled the network. Not all firms declined while the cluster network declined, some firms may break up the network and lead to new network.
(3) In the high-tech industry cluster, the cluster firms pay much attention to the external relationship with other innovation actors across the region, which suggests they take advantage of the network openness. The local network is used to set up the relationship with local public agent, government agents, etc, for acquiring financial and policy resources for innovation along with the cluster developed into the mature stage, the firms began to set up local relationships with R&D institutes and acquire human resources. In the high degree of the technology uncertainty, the weak local embedness of firms can help firms to avoid the risks for fast changing environment.
(4) From the firm's view, the developments of the industry clusters has shown some weaknesses. The uncertainty of production and fast change of product types have interrupted the network co-operation relationships and declined the knowledge accumulations. It also leads to the frequent network member change. When the network develops into the mature stage, homogenization of production leads to collective imitation and plagiarism, losing power of innovation. The internal relationships of network members lack of trust and stability.
(5)The characteristics of cluster innovation network are different in different stage of the development of the network. Whatever the stage is, the core firm is able to adjust the relationship inside the network, and pay attention to innovation by learning and integration. The core firm acquires knowledge and information through cross border relationships. Therefore, for the current Chinese industry clusters, it is more important to take advantage of network openness than the network co-operation. Only clusters of firms in our country have been greatly improved in the original innovation and integrated innovation ability, the effects of network co-operation on performance can be greatly enhanced, then the vitality and the competitive power of regional industrial clusters can greatly prolong and truly realize.
集群创新网络成员之间的合作关系有利于技术、信息、诀窍和新思想在群落内企业之间的传播和应用,创新网络内部成员之间合作关系的频度、强度、稳定度、和信任度等对于集群绩效产生积极作用,这些因素可以归纳为创新网络合作度。然而,创新网络范式可能存在风险和缺陷。集群网络内部成员之间的高程度合作不一定带来高增长绩效。网络的内聚性、边界性和关系依赖性导致网络范式在集群形成阶段是创新的助力,但由于环境的快速变化而网络特征不变,集群中的企业对外界动荡的反应能力变得迟缓,从而让集群网络失去弹性,成为创新的阻力,导致集群锁定现象。
另一方面,一些研究强调创新的开放模式与探索性学习的重要性,认为要打破网络界限,强调网络的开放性和动态性,如网络成员的多样性、成员关系的可脱离性,以及跨网络关系等。集群创新网络需要在建立新的关系和探索新的知识方面增强自身的能力,通过加强网络开放度来进一步延续创新网络的作用。
更重要的是,集群创新网络合作度、开放度对集群绩效的作用是动态变化的,这种相对作用大小的变化取决于创新网络面临的不同技术与市场环境状态。集群企业可以通过安排或者改变组织间的关系来对外界环境变动做出反应,环境的变化影响企业间网络改变的类型。也就是说,创新网络合作度、开放度必须随着技术与市场环境的变化而变化。因此有必要引入外部环境变量和开放度变量,将集群创新网络内外部影响因素放到一个框架中进行研究。在本文中,使用环境不确定性变晕来衡量技术与市场环境状态。
本文聚焦的关键问题是：产业集群创新在保持网络创新范式的前提下如何动态发展?研究内容包括：(1)网络合作度与集群增长绩效之间的关系以及环境不确定性对这种关系的影响及作用机理；(2)网络开放度与集群增长绩效之间的关系以及环境不确定性对这种关系的影响及作用机理；(3)网络合作度与开放度之间的相互影响关系及其形成机理。(4)集群创新网络演化过程中,其网络合作度、开放度与环境的阶段性特征对集群核心企业创新行为和绩效的影响的案例研究。最后提出管理和政策建议。
本文通过对4个集群分别进行大样本问卷调查,获得了以下研究发现：
(1)面对变化的技术与市场环境,必须引入新的要素来衡量集群创新网络特征及其对集群绩效的影响。构建集群创新网络作用机制的主要元素不仅包括那些组成了创新网络的成员与成员之间的联接关系以及衡量这种关系性质与程度的变量,更包括网络的开放性,指网络成员多样性、接受新成员的意愿度、跨网络关系程度、以及网络柔性。两个方面的因素在不同环境下发挥不同作用。
(2)外部环境因素对集群创新网络及集群增长发挥着显著的作用,然而,技术环境变量与市场环境变量对于集群创新网络特征与集群绩效增长之间关系的作用各不相同。当外部技术环境不确定度比较高时,网络的开放性结构,特别是这种结构要有利于跨集群网络知识获取以及新成员加入显得较为重要；
当外部环境不确定性总体较稳定时,通常集群形成时间较长,其网络合作度对集群绩效的影响较为显著,同时其网络内部合作关系在知识获取方而的质量并不高。这是进入成熟期的集群面临的普遍问题,一方面依赖于网络内部合作关系,另一方面这种合作关系的作用下降,这就导致功能和认知锁定。
当市场竞争度较高并且.技术环境相对稳定时,网络合作度十分重要,这表明并非任何一种环境不确定性较高时,创新网络就不能发挥作用。区域聚集的企业集群在面临其它企业高度竞争挑战时,其协同性和承压性更好,更容易降低成本、获取信息、以及保持商业网络的有效性。
(3)集群创新网络合作度与开放度之间的负相关性没有得到证实,表明集群网络的开放式变化可以为集群创新提供新的信息和知识,而不受现存网络结构与关系制约;同时现有网络合作关系也可以发挥作用,而不用担心开放性异致的网络关系解体和作用丧失。
(4)产业集群面临的外部环境是动态变化的,当环境不确定性总体高,其中技术不确定性相对较高时,要强调网络开放性;当环境不确定性偏高,其中竞争性相对较高时,要注重网络合作性以及新成员加入;当环境较为稳定时,既要发挥网络内部关系作用,也要建立跨网络关系,和增强网络柔性。
基于演化视角对集群核心企业进行案例研究,以下构成对上述结论的解析和补充：
(1)在集群网络成长期,网络合作关系在案例企业建立商业联系、获取市场和产品信息,指引创新方向,形成社会资本,进而开展技术合作等方面发挥重要作用。这个解释了网络合作度在集群成长期发生作用的方式和路径。
(2)随着集群进入成熟阶段,其知识网络的功能老化和弱化,本土化商业网络局限性也日益明显。有的企业适应了变化,开发跨网络商业与知识关系,同时利用本土网络降低成本和形成规模经济,逐渐发展成为核心企业,其它企业维持现状或衰落。这一点解释了网络合作度在成熟期为什么会在创新上逐渐失去显著作用。在产业集群形成20年后,集群网络结构发生较大变化,网络成为几个龙头企业的附属品,存在解体风险。一些企业可以破网而出,可能形成新的网络。
(3)在高技术产业集群中,集群企业从集群开始发生时就比较注重建立跨区域的产业技术合作关系,强调网络开放度。本地网络关系主要用来建立与本土公共机构、政府部门的合作,以获取资金、政策以及产品采购机会。随着集群进入成长中期,开始建立一些区域内产学研合作关系,获取人力资源。由于外部环境不确定性始终较高,较弱的本土嵌入性有利于集群企业应对变化。
(4)发生时间较长的产业集群创新网络在演化过程中存在以下问题：主业不明确带来的产品生产类型经常改变使得用于创新的网络内合作关系出现中断和失去知识积累,并导致网络成员加入和退出过于频繁。其次,进入成熟期后,同质化生产导致集体模仿剽窃,失去创新动力,网络内部关系缺乏信任和稳定度。
(5)集群创新网络的阶段性特征对于不同企业的影响和作用是不同的。在那每个发展阶段,核心企业善于调整内部合作关系,强调学习创新或集成创新,通过跨区域关系获取和整合知识资源,所以,对于现阶段的我国产业集群,其创新网络开放度比合作度更重要。只有我国集群企业在原始创新和集成创新能力上得到很大提高,网络合作度的作用才会大大增强,,只有网络合作度的作用大大增强,区域产业集群的生命力和竞争力才会大大的延长和真正体现出来。
The firms gather together in a region and form an industry cluster which has played an important role in regional development and industrial innovation. The cluster firms establish network relationships for technology co-operation and knowledge transfer. The cluster innovation network consists of relationships among local firms, research agents, public agents, universities, and other organizations, and has become the important organizational pattern of innovation activities.
The network co-operation relationship among network members is benefited for transfer and use of technology, knowledge, information and new ideas among the network firms and other members. Therefore the degree and quality of relationships among network members have positive effects on innovation and cluster performance. However, the network pattern of cluster innovation has gradually occurred some risks and problems. In fact, the high degree of network co-operation in innovation does not essentially result in high degree of performance in some regional industry clusters. The network proximity and relationship dependence are the cause of formation of an industry cluster, but also the reason for rigid and lock-in of the cluster firms in innovation. This is because the network characteristics make the network being unable to adapt to fast changing technology and market environment, and also respond to technology changes slowly. As a result, the cluster firms have been locked into a trap.
On the other hand some studies emphasize the importance of open innovation model and knowledge exploring. It asks to break up the border of the cluster network, pay attention to network openness and dynamics, such as diversity of network members, new members affiliating, and cross-network relationships. They argued that the cluster innovation network has to enhance its ability to set up new relationships and to explore new knowledge, so that the network can extend its life cycle and play a role in technology innovation.
More importantly, The effects of cluster innovation network co-operation and network openness have been changing according to the change of external technology and market environment that the network are embedded in. The cluster firms respond to the external environment change by re-arrange the relationships between them and other actors. In other words, the cluster innovation network must change along with the technology and market environment change. Therefore, it must introduce the environment variables and network openness variables into the research framework to understand how the cluster innovation network works. In the thesis, it uses environment uncertainty to measure the external environment conditions.
The thesis focuses on resolving such a question:How the industry cluster develops actively when maintaining the innovation network model? The research contents include (1) the relationship between network cooperation and the cluster performance, and the effects of environment variation on the relationship.(2) the relationship between network cooperation and the cluster performance, and the effects of environment variation on the relationship,(3) the relationship between network cooperation and openness,(4) In the evolution of the cluster innovation networks, the relative effects of the network co-operation, openness on the core cluster firm's innovation activities and performance at different stages of evolution. At last, it looks at management and policy implications.
In the thesis, it acquires some research findings by quantitative and statistical analysis as the following.
(1)When facing external changing technology and market environment, it must introduce new variables to measure the effects of cluster innovation network on the cluster performance. For making the innovation network work well, it not only depends on those characteristics inside the network, but also depends on characteristics outside the network but is closely related to the network. The characteristics from the two sides play different roles.
(2)The external characteristics make effects on the cluster network and performance. However, the external technology variables and market variables play different roles. When the external technology uncertainty is higher, the effects of network openness on the cluster performance are stronger. The network openness means the strong cross-network relationship and new member joining-in.
When the external technology and market uncertainty is relatively stable, which suggests that the cluster has formed for quite a time, the effects of network co-operation is significant on the performance. However, since the quality of the network co-operation is low in knowledge transfer, the dependence on such a co-operation relationship may lock firms into function and knowledge rigidity.
When the external market competition degree is higher, the network co-operation makes significant effects on the performance. It suggests that it is not true to see the useless of the network co-operation when the degree of any external characteristics is high. When the cluster firms face strong market competition from firms in other regions, the co-ordination among local firms, the easy cut of costs by firms working together, and easy access to market information play an important role.
(3) The negative relationship between the network co-operation degree and network openness has not been proved. It suggests that the change of the network openness can provide the cluster firms with new knowledge and information, but not to worry about the constraint of the network co-operation relationship. The current network co-operation can play the role in innovation, but not to worry about the disintegration of the network caused by network openness
(4) The industry cluster faces fast changing external environment. When the degree of both technology and market uncertainty are high, particularly the technology uncertainty is much higher, it must take advantage of the network openness. When the market competition degree is higher, it must take advantage of the network co-operation. When both are stable, it must improve the quality of the network co-operation and keep the network to be open.
On the other hand, the results from case studies support and explain the above research findings in details.
1) In the growth stage of the development of the cluster network, the network co-operation plays an important role in helping firms establishing business relationships, acquiring market and product information, leading to the correct innovation direction, forming social capital for innovation, and conducting technology co-operation activities. It explains the way and method of network co-operation to be used in innovation.
(2) In the mature stage of the development of the cluster network, the function of the network in knowledge transfer has weakened, and the limit of the network function on business relationship set-up becomes obvious. Some firms adapt to the changes by developing new cross-border relationship for knowledge and innovation, and meanwhile keeping old relationships with some network members for cost reduction and mass production. Then the firm has developed to become so called the core firm, but others declined or maintain the production difficultly. This explains why the network co-operation relationship has lost its effects in some clusters. When about the cluster has developed for20years, the cluster network structure has changed largely; the core firm has controlled the network. Not all firms declined while the cluster network declined, some firms may break up the network and lead to new network.
(3) In the high-tech industry cluster, the cluster firms pay much attention to the external relationship with other innovation actors across the region, which suggests they take advantage of the network openness. The local network is used to set up the relationship with local public agent, government agents, etc, for acquiring financial and policy resources for innovation along with the cluster developed into the mature stage, the firms began to set up local relationships with R&D institutes and acquire human resources. In the high degree of the technology uncertainty, the weak local embedness of firms can help firms to avoid the risks for fast changing environment.
(4) From the firm's view, the developments of the industry clusters has shown some weaknesses. The uncertainty of production and fast change of product types have interrupted the network co-operation relationships and declined the knowledge accumulations. It also leads to the frequent network member change. When the network develops into the mature stage, homogenization of production leads to collective imitation and plagiarism, losing power of innovation. The internal relationships of network members lack of trust and stability.
(5)The characteristics of cluster innovation network are different in different stage of the development of the network. Whatever the stage is, the core firm is able to adjust the relationship inside the network, and pay attention to innovation by learning and integration. The core firm acquires knowledge and information through cross border relationships. Therefore, for the current Chinese industry clusters, it is more important to take advantage of network openness than the network co-operation. Only clusters of firms in our country have been greatly improved in the original innovation and integrated innovation ability, the effects of network co-operation on performance can be greatly enhanced, then the vitality and the competitive power of regional industrial clusters can greatly prolong and truly realize.
引文
[1].Albert R, Barabasi A-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks [J]. Reviews of Modern Physics,2002,74:47-97.
[2].Anderson, P, and Tushman, ML. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change[J]. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(3): 604- 633.
[3].Ahuja, G and R. Katila. Technological Acquisitions and the Innovation Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Longitudinal Study[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2001 (22):197-220.
[4].Aharonson, B. S.,Baum,J.A.,Feldman, M. P., Desperately seeking spillovers? Increasing returns, industrial organization and the location of new entrantsin geographic and technological space [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change ,2008,16(1),89-130.
[5].Angel, D, Inter-firm Collaboration and Technology Development Partnerships within US Manufacturing Industries[J]. Regional Studies,2002, Vol36, No.4: 333-344.
[6]. Arikan, A. T. ,Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters[J]. Academy of Management Review,2009,34(4), 658-676.
[7].Audretsch,D. and Klepper, S.(ed.),Innovation, Evolution of Industry and Economic Growth, Vol I, Cheltenham: Edward El gar.2000
[8].Audretsch,D.B.Finn profitability,growth, and innovation[J]. Review of Industrial Organization , 2009, 10:579-588.
[91. Bapt. ista, R. & P. Swan. Do firms in clusters innovate more? [J]. Research Po1icy, 1998,2(5):525-540.
[10]. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison,D. Resource interaction in inter organizational networks: foundations comparison and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 2011, 65 (2), 266 276.
[11]. Barney J. B. Fi nil Resources and Sustained Compelitive Advantage[J]. Journal of Management,2001,17(1):99-120.
[12]. Bathelt, H. ,Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation.[J]. Geography, 2004, 28:31-56.
[13]. Malerba, F.(eds.), The Organisation of Economic Innovation in Europe [M] pp. 81-113, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
[14]. Becattini G. The Marshallian Industrial Districts:a Socio-economic Not ion [A]. In:F. Pyke, G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (Eds.). Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy [C]. Geneva:International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS),1990.31-57.
[15]. Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P. R., Phillips. Friends or strangers? Firm specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection[J]. Organization Science,2004,15,259-275.
[16]. Bell, M., Giuliani, E. Catching up in the global wine industry:innovation systems, cluster knowledge networks and firm-level capabilities in Italy and Chile[J]. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation,2007,3,197-223.
[17]. Bell, S. J, Tracey, P., Heide, J. B. The organization of regional clusters[J]. Academy of Management Review,2009,34(4):623-642.
[18]. Borgatti, S.P,etal. Network analysis in the social sciences[J]. Science,2009, 323(5916),892-895.
[19]. Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F., Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001 10:975-1005.
[20]. Breschi, S. and Malerba, F., Sector innovation systems:technological regimes, Schumpterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries, In Edquist, C. (ed.), Systems of Innovation:Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, pp. 130-156, London:Pinter Ltd. 2001.
[21]. Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., Saxenian, A. L. Old economy'inputs for'new economy' outcomes:cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10,835-860.
[22]. Burt, R. Structural holes:The social structure of competition[C]. in N. Nohria and R. Eccles(eds.) Networks and organizations:Structure, form and action[M], Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1992:57-91.
[23]. Camagni, R. Local milieu, uncertainty and innovation networks:towards a new dynamic theory of economic space[C], in Conti, G. and Malecki, E. (eds.), The Industrial Enterprise and Its Environment[M], Aldershot:Avebury.1995.
[24J. Cantner & Graf. The network of innovators in jena:An application of social network analysis [J]. Research Policy,2006(35):463-480.
[25]. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M]. Harvard Business School Press,Cambridge, MA,2003
26]. Cohen, W. M., Empirical studies of innovat i ve act ivit [C], in Stoneman, P. (ed.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, pp.182-264, Oxford:Basil Blackwell.1995.
[27]. Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital[J]. American Journalof Sociology,1988,94,95-120.
[28]. Cooke, P., Regional systems of innovation:an evolutionary perspective[J]. Environment and Planning A,1998, Vo130, pp.1563-1584.
[29]. Cooke, P., Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy [J], Industrial and Corporate Change,2001, Vol 10, No.4, pp.945-974.
[30]. Das & Teng, Trust, Control, & risk in strategie alliances:an integrated framework [J], Organization Studies,2000, Vol.22, No.2,251-283
[31]. David, P., Hall, B. and Toole, A., Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D?[J], Research Policy,2000, (29) 4-5, pp497-529.
[32]. Daniel, Z., and Levin, R. The strength of weak ties:the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge t.ransfer[J).Management Seience,2004,50(11):1477-1490
[33]. Debresson, C., Economic Interdependence and Innovative Activity, Cheltenham: Edward El gar.1996.
[34]. Debresson, C. & F. Amesse Networks of innovation:areview and introduction to the issue[J]. Research Policy,1991, (20):363-379.
[35]. Dittrich K. and Duysters G. Networking as a means to strategy change:the:case of open innovation in mobile telephony[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007, Vo1.24 No.6:510-21.
[36]. Dousset. D, innovation and network structural dynamics:Study of the alliancenetwork of a major sector of the biotechnology industry [J]. Research Policy,2005(3):1457-1475.
[37]. Dodgson, M., The Management of Technological Innovation: an international and strategic approach, Oxford:Oxford University Press.2005.
[38]. Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (ed.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.1994.
[39J. Dosi, G., Sources, procedures and inicroeconomic effects of innovation[J], Journal of Economic Literatlire,1988, volume 36, pp.1126 1171.
[40]. Dosi, G., Nelson, R. and Winter, S, The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford:Oxford University Press.2000.
[41]. Dosi, G., and Marengo, L. The co evolution of technological knowledge and corporate organizat ions[C], in A. Gambardella and F. Malerba (eds.) The Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe[M],15-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
[42]. Dyer J H, Nobeoka, K. Creating and Managing a High-per-Formance Knowledge-sharing Network:The Toyota Case [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(1):214-311.
[43]. Edquist, C. Systems of innovation approaches-their emergence and characteristics[C], in Edquist, C. (Ed), systems of Innovation:Technologies, Institutions and Organizations [M],1997, pp.1-35, London:Pinter.
[44]. Edward,H & Brennan,J.A methodology for identifying the drivers of industrial clusters:The foundation of regional competitive advantage [J], Economic Development Quarterly,2000,4:567-573
[45]. Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T.& Ollila, S. Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,2009,12(3),326-345.
[46]. Eisingerich A, Bell S, Tracey P., How can Clusters Sustain Performance? The Role of Network Strength, Network Openness, and Environmental Uncertainty[J]. Research Policy,2010,39(4), pp239-253.
[47]. Filipe M S. The co-evolution of firms and their knowledge environment:Insights from the pharmaceutical industry[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2003,70:687-715.
[48]. Freeman, C. Networks of Innovations:A Synthesis of Research Issues[J]. Research Policy 1991,20(5):499-514.
[49]. Freeman, C. Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2004,13(3):541-569.
[50]. Freeman, C. and Soete, L., The Economics of Industrial Innovation, London: Pinter,1997.
[51]. Frazier, GL. Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution[J]. Journal of the Aeademy of Marketing Seienee,1999,27(2):226-240.
[52]. Gulati,R. Alliances and Networks[J]. Strategic Management journal.1998, (19):33-36
[53]. Gambardel la, A. and Malerba, F. (ed.), The Organisat ion of Economic Innovation in Europe, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
[54]. Garnsey, E. and Lawton Smith, H.'The high tech race:Oxford Vs Cambridge[J], Local Economy,1998, Volume 13, No.1, pp.39-50.
[55]. Ginliani,E.,& Martin,B. The mirco-determinantsl of meso-levelleaming and innovation:evidence from a Chilean winee cluster.Researeh Policy[J], 2005,34(1):47-68
[56]. Gordon, I.R. and McCann, P. Industrial clusters:complexes, agglomerat ion and/or social networks?[J], Urban studies,2000, Vol.37, No.3:513-532.
[57]. Grabher, H. The weakness of strong ties:the lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area[A].In:Grabher,H,The embedded firms:on social-economics of industrial networks[C]. London:Routledge,1993
[58]. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness[J], American Journal of Sociology,1985, Vol.91, No.3, pp. 481-510.
[59]. Grant RM. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996, (17):109-122.
[60]. Hakansson, H., Corporate Technological Behaviour:co-operation and networks, London:Routledge.1989.
[61]. Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (eds.) (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, London:Routledge.
[62]. Hakansson, H. Industrial Technological Development:A Network Approach[M]. London Press,1987
[63]. Hansen, M. T. The Search-Transfer Problem:The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44(1):82-91.
[64]. Hite, H. The Evolution of Firm Networks; From Emergence to Early Growth[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,21(3):275286.
[65]. Hobday, M., Rush, H. and Tidd, J.,'Innovation in complex products and systems' Research Policy,2000, Vol.29, No.7-8, pp.793804.
[66]. Inkpen, A. C. and Tsang, E. W. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer[J]. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1):146-165.
[67]. Inkpen, A. Cx&Tsang, E. Networks, social capital, and learning [J]. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[68]. Jean Marc Callois. The two sides of proximity inindustrial clusters:The trade of f between process and product innovation [J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2008,63(1):146162.
[69]. Kale, P., Singh, K., Perlmutter, H.,2000. Learning and protect ion or proprietary assetsin strategic alliances: building relational capital [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,217-237.
[70]. Keeble, D. Small firms, innovation and regional development in Britain in the 1990s[J], Regional Studies,1997, Volume 31, No.3, pp.281294.
[71]. Khoja,F. The trend: organizational cultural values, practices and strong social intra firm networks. Journal of Business Strategies,2010,27(2),205228
[72]. Kotable, M., Martin, X., and Hiroshi.D. Gaining from Vertical Partnerships: Knowledge Transfer, Relationship, Duration, and Supplier Performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese Automotive Industries[J], Strategy Management Joural,2003, Vol.24, Issue4:293-316.
[73]. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J. Market orientation:the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications[J]. Journal of Marketing,1990,54,1-18.
[74]. Krugman, P., Development, Geography and Economic Theory, Cambridge, MA:MIT press. 1995
[75]. Laursen K, Salter A., Open for Innovation:The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovative Performance among UK Manufacturing Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2), pp131-150.
[76]. Lawson, B. and Samson, D.,'Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach', International Journal of Innovation Management,2010, Vol.5, No.3, pp.377-400.
[77]. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge:Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[78]. Lissoni, F. Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation:the case of Brescia mechanical cluster[J], Research Policy,2001, Vol 30, Issue 9, pp. 1479-1500.
[79]. Lang J, Lockhart D., Increased Environmental Uncertainty and Changes in Board Linkage Patterns[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(4), pplO6-128.
[80]. Lundvall, BA. (Ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation, London:Pinter.
[81]. Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.) National Systems of Innovation:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning[M]. London:Pinter Publishers.2002.
[82]. Malerba, F. Sectoral systems and innovation and technology policy', CESPRI Working Paper, Milan:Bocconi University.2001
[83]. McCann, B. T., Folta, T. B.,. Performance differentials within geographic clusters[J] Journal of Business Venturing,2011,26 (1),104-123.
[84]. Mansfield, E. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing [J],1995,Review of Economics and Statistics, February, pp.55-65.
[85]. Markusen, A., Sticky Places in Slippery Space:a Typology of Industrial District s[J]. Economic Geography,1996,72, pp293-313.
[86j. Markusen, A, R., Profit Cycles, Oligopoly, and Regional Development, Cambridge: MIT Press,1985.
[87]. Marsili,0., The Anatomy and Evolution of Industries:Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,2001.
[88]. Maskell, P. Knowledge creation and diffusion in geography clusters:Regional development applicat ions[J]. Intenational Journal of Innovation Management,special issue,2001,5(2):213-238
[89]. McKendrick, D., Doner, R., Haggard, S. From Silicon Valley to Singapore:Location and Competitive Advantage in the Hard Disk Drive Industry. Stanford University Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.2000.
[90]. McFadyen, A.M., Cennalla, A. A., Social Capital and Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns of the Number and Strength of Exchange Relationships [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47, pp735-746.
[91]. McEvily, B., Zaheer, A. Bridging ties:a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities[J]. Strategic Management. Journal,1999,20,1133-1158. [92]. Mckelvey, M. and Or sen i go, L., Pharmaceuticals as a Sectoral Innovation System,
Working Paper ESSY,2002. [93]. Mullet', E. and Zenker, A. Analysis of innovation-oriented networking between
R&D intensive small firms and knowledge-intensive business services:empirical evidence from France and Germany[C], In Oakey, R., During, W. and Mukhtar, S. (eds.), New Technology-Based Firms in the 1990s[M], Volume VI, pp.143169, London:Paul Chapman.1997 [94]. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. An Evolutionary of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard university Press.1982 [95]. Nelson,R. Technology, Institutions, and Economic Growth[M]. Harvard
University.1999. [961. North, D., Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance,
Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press,1990. [97]. Owen-Smith, J., Powell, W. Knowledge networks as channels and conducts:the
effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community[J]. Organization Science,200415,5-21. [98]. Pavilt, K., Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation[M], Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar,1999. [99]. Padmorc T, Gibson II., Modelling System of Innovation. Part II, A Framework for
Industrial Cluster Analysis in Regions [J]. Research Pol icy,1998,26(4), pp625-641. [100]. Perroux, F. Economic Space: Theory and Applicationsi [J]. Quarterly Journal of
Economics,1950,64(1):89-104.
[101]. Phelps, C. C., longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation[J]. Academy of Management Journal 2010,53 (4).
[102]. Piore, M. J., Sabel, C. F. The Second Industrial Divide [M]. Basic Books, New York.1984
[103]. Porter M. E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations[M]. Basingstoke, Macmillan. 1996
[104]. Porter M. E. Clusters and Competition:New Agendas for Companies, Governments andlnstitutions [M]. Boston:1-Iarvard Business School Press.1997
[105]. Portes, A., Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration:notes on thesocial determinants of economic action [J]. American Journal of Sociology 98,1320-1350.
[106]. Powell, W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W. and Owen-Smith, J. Network dynamics and field evolution:The growth of inter organizational collaboration in the life science[J]. American Journal of Sociology,2005,110 (January),1132-1205.
[107]. Pyke, F., Becattini, G, and Sengenberger, W. (Eds), Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-operation in Italy [J], Geneva:International Institute for Labour Studies.1990
[108]. Rantisi, N. The local innovation system as a source of'variety':openness and Adaptability in New York City's Garment District [J], Regional Studies,2002, Vol 36, No.6:587-602.
[109]. Robinson, D. K., Rip, A., Mangematin, V. Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology [J]. Research Policy,2007,36,871-879.
[110]. Rodan, S., Galunic, C. More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,541-562.
[111]. Romanelli, E., Khessinn, 0.M. Regional industrial identity:cluster configurations and economic development [J]. Organization Science,2005,16,344-358.
[112]. Rosenthal, S. and Strange, W. Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglornerat ion economies[C], in J. Thisse and V. Henderson, eds, the Handbook of Urban and Regional Economies [M],2005,North Holland.
[113]. Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box, Cambridge:Cambridge University-Press.
[114]. Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. External linkages and innovation in small and medium sized enterprises[J], R&D Management,1994, Vol.21, No.2, pp.125-137.
[115]. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: ananalysis of structural and relational embedness in the steel and semiconductor industries[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,369-386.
[116]. Saviotti, P., Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1996.
[117]. Saxenian, A., Regional Advantage, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1994
[118]. Saxenian, A. L.,2006. The New Argonauts:Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[119]. Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York:Harper & Brothers,1942.
[120]. Scott, J., Social Network Analysis:A Handbook, London:Sage,1991.
[121]. Simonin, B.L. Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20:595-623.
[122]. Simmie, J and Sennett, J.,'Innovative clusters:global or local linkages?' Regional Institute Economic Review,1999.
[123]. St John, C. H., Pouder, R. W. Technology clusters versus industry clusters:resources, networks, and regional advantages[J]. Growth and Change 2006,37,141-171.
[124]. Storper, M., The Regional World, London:The Gui lford Press,1997.
[125]. Storper, M. and Salais, R., Worlds of Production, London:Pinter,1997.
[126]. Strogatz S 11. Exploring complex networks [J]. Nature,2001,410: 268276.
[127]. Stuart, T., Sorenson,0. The geography of opportunity:spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy [J],2003,32,229-252.
[128]. Strogatz SH. Exploring complex networks [J]. Nature,2001,410:268276.
[129]. Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., Pinch, S. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review,2004,29,258-271.
[130]. Tallman, S., Phene, A. Leveraging knowledge across geographic boundaries [Jl.Organizat ion Science,2007,18,252-260.
[131]. Teecc, D., Economic Performance and the Theory of the Finn, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1998.
[132]. Tichy,G. Clusters:Less Dispensable and More Risky than Ever Clusters and Regional Specialisation. PionLmiited,207 Brondesbury Park, London NW2 SJM.1998
[133]. Tidd, J., Besant, J. and Pavitt, K., Managing Innovation:Intergrating Technological Market and Organizational Change, Chichester:John Wiley & Sons,1997.
[134]. Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in infra-organizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[135]. Utterback, J. and Abernathy, W.,'A dynamic model of process and product innovation', Omega,3,639-656,1975.
[136]. Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect [J]. American Sociological Review,1996, 61(4),674-698.
[137]. Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks; The paradox of embeddedness [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[138]. Vito Albino A., Garavelli,C., and Schiuma, C. Knowledge Transfer and Inter-firm Relationships in Industrial Districts:the Role of the Leader Firm [J].Technovation,1999, (19).210-215
[139]. Visser, Evert-Jan. The Complementary dynamic effects of clusters and networks[J]. industry & innovation,2009,16 (2):167-195.
[140]. VonHippel, E., The Sources of Innovation, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988.
[141]. Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-based View of the Firm [J]. Strategic management Journal,1984,5 (2):171-180.
[142]. Werker, C. Knowledge and organization strategies in innovation system [J], International Journal of Innovation Management,2001, Vol.5, No.1, pp.105-127.
[143]. West, J.. Does appropriability enable or retard Open Innovation? [C],in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverb, E., and West, J. (eds.), Open Innovation:R esearching a New Paradigm [M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2006, chapter 6.
[144]. Wiilliamson,0. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism [M]. Free Press, NewYork.1985.
[145]. Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P. & Lyles, M. A. Inter-and-nfra-organizational knowledgetransfer:A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecendents andconsequences[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(4),830-853.
[146]. Zaheer, A., George, V. P. Reach out or reach within? Performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology[J]. Managerial and Decision Economics,2004,25,437-452.
[147].安虎森.空间接近与不确定性的降低经济活动聚集与分散的一种解释[J].南开经济研究,2001,(3)：51-56
[148].安金辉,中国基因工程制药企业技术创新网络研究,科学学与科学技术管理,2005,7,13-17
[149].巴顿.城市经济学：理论与政策(上海社会科学院部门经济研究所)城市经济研究室译,北京商务印书馆,1984：21.
[150].陈佳贵,中国产业集群可持续发展与公共政策选择,中国工业经济,2005,9：45-50
[151].陈劲,童亮.联知创新：复杂产品系统创新的知识管理[M],科学出版社,2008
[152].曹玉玲,李随成(2008)企业间信任的影响因素模型及实证研究,科研管理,2011,1：30-35
[153].陈学光,网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究—以浙江高新技术企业为例[D].杭州,浙江大学,2007.
[154].池仁勇、汤临佳,企业外部创新网络与创新源的关联性特征研究[(J].科技进步与对策,2008,25(11：38-40.
[155].池仁勇.区域中小企业创新网络形成、结构属性与功能提升：浙江省实证考察[J].管理世界,2005(10)：102-112.
[156].仇保兴.小企业集群研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1999：43-46
[157].盖文启,朱华晟.产业的柔性集聚及其区域竞争方[J].经济理论与经济管理,2001,(10)：25-30
[158].贺寨平.国外社会支持网研究综述[J],国外社会科学.2001,(01)：4043
[159].贾根良,刘辉锋.自组织创新网络与科技管理的变革[J].天津社会科学,2003,1：23-26.
[160].李怀祖,管理研究方法论[M],西安交通大学出版社,2004
[161].李金华.广义创新网络的演化结构及其现实意义[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,2：101-107.
[162]李金华.广义创新网络的演化结构及其现实感义[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,5：7-10
[163].刘军.社会网络分析导论m].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2004：113-182.
[164].柳卸林.技术创新经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,1993：1215.
[165].刘存福,侯光明,李存金.中小民营企业集群的社会网络分析及发展趋势探索[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,7：144-148.
[166].宁钟.国外创新空间集群理论评述[J].经济学动态.2001,(3)：33-40
[167].贾根良,刘辉锋.自组织创新网络与科技管理的变革[J].天津社会科学,2003,1:23 26.
[168].马歇尔.经济学原理(朱志泰译)北京商务印书馆,1981
[169].马骏、唐方成、郭菊娥、席逎民,复杂网络理论在组织网络研究中的应用,科学学研究,2005,2：21-25
[170].迈克尔.波特.国家竞争优势,李明轩,邱如美译,北京华夏出版社,2002: 112.
[171].倪鹏飞,政府促进产业集群的十大陷阱,理论与实践,2006,9,30-34
[172].秦夏明、董沛武、李汉铃.产业集群形态演化阶段探讨[J].中国软科学,2004(12)：150-154
[173].盛亚,李玮,强弱齐美尔连接对企业技术创新的影响,2012(6)：23-28
[174].盛亚,尹宝兴.复杂产品系统创新的利益相关者作用机理：ERP为例[J],科学学研究,2009,4：144-150
[175].盛亚,吴俊杰,网络强度、网络开放度对产业集群绩效的影响机制研究——以浙江产业集群为例,经济地理,2011(11)：43-48
[176].沈必扬,池仁勇.企业创新网络：企业技术创新研究的一个新范式[J],科研管理2005(3)：34-40
[177].宋华,王岚(2009)企业间学习与信任互补作用于创新绩效吗?——基于企业间合作行为的视角,科学学与科学技术管理,2009,2：18-22
[178].田钢,张永安.集群创新网络演化的动力模型及其仿真研究[J].科研管理,2010,1：104-115.
[179].王大洲.我国企业创新网络发展现状分析[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报,2005,3：67-73.
[180].王大洲.企业创新网络的进化与治理：一个文献综述[J].科研管理.2001(6)：22-27
[181].工大洲.企业创新网络的进化机制分析[J].科学学研究,2006,24(5)：780-787.
[182].王缉慈.创新的空间—企业集群与区域发展[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001
[183].工缉慈,创新及其相关概念的跟踪观察——返璞归真、认识进化和前沿发现[J],中国软科学,2002(1 2)：30-34.
[184].王发明;蔡宁;朱浩义.基于网络结构视角的产业集群风险研究——以美国128公路区产业集群衰退为例[J]：科学学研究;2006(06)：2328
[185].王国红.知识溢出和产业集群中企业学习研究[D].大连：大连理工大学,2007
[186].魏江.创新系统演进和集群创新系统构建[J].自然辩证法法通讯.2004.26(1)：4854.
[187].魏江,产业集群创新系统与技术学习,科技出版社,2003
[188].魏江,陈志辉.提高浙江省中小企业集群学习绩效的理论分析与对策研究[J].科技进步与对策,2003年第11期
[189].魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002,(1)：59-65
[190].阿尔弗雷德,韦伯.工业区位论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997
[191].邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004
[192].邬爱其.企业创新网络构建与演进的影响因素实证分析[J].科学学研究,2006,24(1)：141-149.
[193].吴晓波,耿帅,区域集群子稔性风险成因分析,经济地理,2003,6：18-24
[194].吴贵生,李纪珍.技术创新网络和技术外包[J].科研管理,2000,21(4)：33-43.
[195].吴永忠,企业创新网络的形成及其演化[J],自然辩证法研究,2005,9
[196].吴晓冰,集群创新网络特征、知识获取与创新绩效(R),浙江大学博士论文,2009
[197].徐维祥(2004)浙江区域块状经济在城镇化进程中的运行绩效分析[J],经济地理,2004,1：6-9
[198].谢洪明,王现彪,吴溯.集群、网络与IJVs的创新研究.科研管理.2008,27(6)：33-38。
[199].姚伟,关系网络、制度结构与经济绩效(D),中国人民大学,2006.
[200].叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学,2001,(3)：23-30
[201].原长弘,贾一伟.国内创新网络研究基本状况和主要进展[J].科学学研究,2003,(5)：52-55
[202].杨锐、黄国安.网络位置和创新—杭州手机产业集群的社会网络分析[J].工业技术经济,2005,24(7)：114-118.
[203].杨学津,刘明,基础产业市场绩效的评价与衡量[J],首都经贸大学学报,2000,4
[204].叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学.2001,(3)：23-30
[205].郑海涛、周海涛：走向高端：广东产业集群升级战略研究[M],北京：经济科学出版社,2006。
[206].张杰,刘东.企业网络的社会逻辑基础.科学学与科学技术管理.2006,(1)：132-135
[207].张存刚,李明,陆德梅.社会网络分析—一种重要的社会学研究方法[J].甘肃社会科学,2004,(2)：109-111.
[208].赵珍,池仁勇.中小企业创新网络的构架及其成因分析[J].科学与管理,2006,354：129-131.
[209].张伟峰,万威武.企业创新网络的构建动因与模式研究[.J].研究与发展管理,2004(3),2329.
[210].郑亚莉.产业集群中的知识创造机制[J].浙江社会科学,2005(3)：65-69.
[211].朱国宏,桂勇.经济社会学导论四].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005：234.
[2].Anderson, P, and Tushman, ML. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change[J]. Adminstrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(3): 604- 633.
[3].Ahuja, G and R. Katila. Technological Acquisitions and the Innovation Performance of Acquiring Firms: A Longitudinal Study[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2001 (22):197-220.
[4].Aharonson, B. S.,Baum,J.A.,Feldman, M. P., Desperately seeking spillovers? Increasing returns, industrial organization and the location of new entrantsin geographic and technological space [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change ,2008,16(1),89-130.
[5].Angel, D, Inter-firm Collaboration and Technology Development Partnerships within US Manufacturing Industries[J]. Regional Studies,2002, Vol36, No.4: 333-344.
[6]. Arikan, A. T. ,Interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters interfirm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters[J]. Academy of Management Review,2009,34(4), 658-676.
[7].Audretsch,D. and Klepper, S.(ed.),Innovation, Evolution of Industry and Economic Growth, Vol I, Cheltenham: Edward El gar.2000
[8].Audretsch,D.B.Finn profitability,growth, and innovation[J]. Review of Industrial Organization , 2009, 10:579-588.
[91. Bapt. ista, R. & P. Swan. Do firms in clusters innovate more? [J]. Research Po1icy, 1998,2(5):525-540.
[10]. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., & Harrison,D. Resource interaction in inter organizational networks: foundations comparison and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 2011, 65 (2), 266 276.
[11]. Barney J. B. Fi nil Resources and Sustained Compelitive Advantage[J]. Journal of Management,2001,17(1):99-120.
[12]. Bathelt, H. ,Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation.[J]. Geography, 2004, 28:31-56.
[13]. Malerba, F.(eds.), The Organisation of Economic Innovation in Europe [M] pp. 81-113, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
[14]. Becattini G. The Marshallian Industrial Districts:a Socio-economic Not ion [A]. In:F. Pyke, G. Becattini and W. Sengenberger (Eds.). Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy [C]. Geneva:International Institute for Labour Studies (IILS),1990.31-57.
[15]. Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P. R., Phillips. Friends or strangers? Firm specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection[J]. Organization Science,2004,15,259-275.
[16]. Bell, M., Giuliani, E. Catching up in the global wine industry:innovation systems, cluster knowledge networks and firm-level capabilities in Italy and Chile[J]. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation,2007,3,197-223.
[17]. Bell, S. J, Tracey, P., Heide, J. B. The organization of regional clusters[J]. Academy of Management Review,2009,34(4):623-642.
[18]. Borgatti, S.P,etal. Network analysis in the social sciences[J]. Science,2009, 323(5916),892-895.
[19]. Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F., Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001 10:975-1005.
[20]. Breschi, S. and Malerba, F., Sector innovation systems:technological regimes, Schumpterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries, In Edquist, C. (ed.), Systems of Innovation:Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, pp. 130-156, London:Pinter Ltd. 2001.
[21]. Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A., Saxenian, A. L. Old economy'inputs for'new economy' outcomes:cluster formation in the new Silicon Valleys[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10,835-860.
[22]. Burt, R. Structural holes:The social structure of competition[C]. in N. Nohria and R. Eccles(eds.) Networks and organizations:Structure, form and action[M], Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1992:57-91.
[23]. Camagni, R. Local milieu, uncertainty and innovation networks:towards a new dynamic theory of economic space[C], in Conti, G. and Malecki, E. (eds.), The Industrial Enterprise and Its Environment[M], Aldershot:Avebury.1995.
[24J. Cantner & Graf. The network of innovators in jena:An application of social network analysis [J]. Research Policy,2006(35):463-480.
[25]. Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation:The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology[M]. Harvard Business School Press,Cambridge, MA,2003
26]. Cohen, W. M., Empirical studies of innovat i ve act ivit [C], in Stoneman, P. (ed.) Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, pp.182-264, Oxford:Basil Blackwell.1995.
[27]. Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital[J]. American Journalof Sociology,1988,94,95-120.
[28]. Cooke, P., Regional systems of innovation:an evolutionary perspective[J]. Environment and Planning A,1998, Vo130, pp.1563-1584.
[29]. Cooke, P., Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy [J], Industrial and Corporate Change,2001, Vol 10, No.4, pp.945-974.
[30]. Das & Teng, Trust, Control, & risk in strategie alliances:an integrated framework [J], Organization Studies,2000, Vol.22, No.2,251-283
[31]. David, P., Hall, B. and Toole, A., Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D?[J], Research Policy,2000, (29) 4-5, pp497-529.
[32]. Daniel, Z., and Levin, R. The strength of weak ties:the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge t.ransfer[J).Management Seience,2004,50(11):1477-1490
[33]. Debresson, C., Economic Interdependence and Innovative Activity, Cheltenham: Edward El gar.1996.
[34]. Debresson, C. & F. Amesse Networks of innovation:areview and introduction to the issue[J]. Research Policy,1991, (20):363-379.
[35]. Dittrich K. and Duysters G. Networking as a means to strategy change:the:case of open innovation in mobile telephony[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007, Vo1.24 No.6:510-21.
[36]. Dousset. D, innovation and network structural dynamics:Study of the alliancenetwork of a major sector of the biotechnology industry [J]. Research Policy,2005(3):1457-1475.
[37]. Dodgson, M., The Management of Technological Innovation: an international and strategic approach, Oxford:Oxford University Press.2005.
[38]. Dodgson, M. and Rothwell, R. (ed.), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.1994.
[39J. Dosi, G., Sources, procedures and inicroeconomic effects of innovation[J], Journal of Economic Literatlire,1988, volume 36, pp.1126 1171.
[40]. Dosi, G., Nelson, R. and Winter, S, The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford:Oxford University Press.2000.
[41]. Dosi, G., and Marengo, L. The co evolution of technological knowledge and corporate organizat ions[C], in A. Gambardella and F. Malerba (eds.) The Organization of Economic Innovation in Europe[M],15-22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1999.
[42]. Dyer J H, Nobeoka, K. Creating and Managing a High-per-Formance Knowledge-sharing Network:The Toyota Case [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(1):214-311.
[43]. Edquist, C. Systems of innovation approaches-their emergence and characteristics[C], in Edquist, C. (Ed), systems of Innovation:Technologies, Institutions and Organizations [M],1997, pp.1-35, London:Pinter.
[44]. Edward,H & Brennan,J.A methodology for identifying the drivers of industrial clusters:The foundation of regional competitive advantage [J], Economic Development Quarterly,2000,4:567-573
[45]. Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T.& Ollila, S. Exploring the field of open innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management,2009,12(3),326-345.
[46]. Eisingerich A, Bell S, Tracey P., How can Clusters Sustain Performance? The Role of Network Strength, Network Openness, and Environmental Uncertainty[J]. Research Policy,2010,39(4), pp239-253.
[47]. Filipe M S. The co-evolution of firms and their knowledge environment:Insights from the pharmaceutical industry[J]. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 2003,70:687-715.
[48]. Freeman, C. Networks of Innovations:A Synthesis of Research Issues[J]. Research Policy 1991,20(5):499-514.
[49]. Freeman, C. Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2004,13(3):541-569.
[50]. Freeman, C. and Soete, L., The Economics of Industrial Innovation, London: Pinter,1997.
[51]. Frazier, GL. Organizing and Managing Channels of Distribution[J]. Journal of the Aeademy of Marketing Seienee,1999,27(2):226-240.
[52]. Gulati,R. Alliances and Networks[J]. Strategic Management journal.1998, (19):33-36
[53]. Gambardel la, A. and Malerba, F. (ed.), The Organisat ion of Economic Innovation in Europe, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1999.
[54]. Garnsey, E. and Lawton Smith, H.'The high tech race:Oxford Vs Cambridge[J], Local Economy,1998, Volume 13, No.1, pp.39-50.
[55]. Ginliani,E.,& Martin,B. The mirco-determinantsl of meso-levelleaming and innovation:evidence from a Chilean winee cluster.Researeh Policy[J], 2005,34(1):47-68
[56]. Gordon, I.R. and McCann, P. Industrial clusters:complexes, agglomerat ion and/or social networks?[J], Urban studies,2000, Vol.37, No.3:513-532.
[57]. Grabher, H. The weakness of strong ties:the lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area[A].In:Grabher,H,The embedded firms:on social-economics of industrial networks[C]. London:Routledge,1993
[58]. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness[J], American Journal of Sociology,1985, Vol.91, No.3, pp. 481-510.
[59]. Grant RM. Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996, (17):109-122.
[60]. Hakansson, H., Corporate Technological Behaviour:co-operation and networks, London:Routledge.1989.
[61]. Hakansson, H. and Snehota, I. (eds.) (1995), Developing Relationships in Business Networks, London:Routledge.
[62]. Hakansson, H. Industrial Technological Development:A Network Approach[M]. London Press,1987
[63]. Hansen, M. T. The Search-Transfer Problem:The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44(1):82-91.
[64]. Hite, H. The Evolution of Firm Networks; From Emergence to Early Growth[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,21(3):275286.
[65]. Hobday, M., Rush, H. and Tidd, J.,'Innovation in complex products and systems' Research Policy,2000, Vol.29, No.7-8, pp.793804.
[66]. Inkpen, A. C. and Tsang, E. W. Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer[J]. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1):146-165.
[67]. Inkpen, A. Cx&Tsang, E. Networks, social capital, and learning [J]. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[68]. Jean Marc Callois. The two sides of proximity inindustrial clusters:The trade of f between process and product innovation [J]. Journal of Urban Economics, 2008,63(1):146162.
[69]. Kale, P., Singh, K., Perlmutter, H.,2000. Learning and protect ion or proprietary assetsin strategic alliances: building relational capital [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,217-237.
[70]. Keeble, D. Small firms, innovation and regional development in Britain in the 1990s[J], Regional Studies,1997, Volume 31, No.3, pp.281294.
[71]. Khoja,F. The trend: organizational cultural values, practices and strong social intra firm networks. Journal of Business Strategies,2010,27(2),205228
[72]. Kotable, M., Martin, X., and Hiroshi.D. Gaining from Vertical Partnerships: Knowledge Transfer, Relationship, Duration, and Supplier Performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese Automotive Industries[J], Strategy Management Joural,2003, Vol.24, Issue4:293-316.
[73]. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J. Market orientation:the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications[J]. Journal of Marketing,1990,54,1-18.
[74]. Krugman, P., Development, Geography and Economic Theory, Cambridge, MA:MIT press. 1995
[75]. Laursen K, Salter A., Open for Innovation:The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovative Performance among UK Manufacturing Firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2), pp131-150.
[76]. Lawson, B. and Samson, D.,'Developing innovation capability in organisations: a dynamic capabilities approach', International Journal of Innovation Management,2010, Vol.5, No.3, pp.377-400.
[77]. Leonard-Barton, D. (1995), Wellsprings of Knowledge:Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation, Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.
[78]. Lissoni, F. Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation:the case of Brescia mechanical cluster[J], Research Policy,2001, Vol 30, Issue 9, pp. 1479-1500.
[79]. Lang J, Lockhart D., Increased Environmental Uncertainty and Changes in Board Linkage Patterns[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(4), pplO6-128.
[80]. Lundvall, BA. (Ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation, London:Pinter.
[81]. Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.) National Systems of Innovation:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning[M]. London:Pinter Publishers.2002.
[82]. Malerba, F. Sectoral systems and innovation and technology policy', CESPRI Working Paper, Milan:Bocconi University.2001
[83]. McCann, B. T., Folta, T. B.,. Performance differentials within geographic clusters[J] Journal of Business Venturing,2011,26 (1),104-123.
[84]. Mansfield, E. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, characteristics, and financing [J],1995,Review of Economics and Statistics, February, pp.55-65.
[85]. Markusen, A., Sticky Places in Slippery Space:a Typology of Industrial District s[J]. Economic Geography,1996,72, pp293-313.
[86j. Markusen, A, R., Profit Cycles, Oligopoly, and Regional Development, Cambridge: MIT Press,1985.
[87]. Marsili,0., The Anatomy and Evolution of Industries:Technological Change and Industrial Dynamics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham,2001.
[88]. Maskell, P. Knowledge creation and diffusion in geography clusters:Regional development applicat ions[J]. Intenational Journal of Innovation Management,special issue,2001,5(2):213-238
[89]. McKendrick, D., Doner, R., Haggard, S. From Silicon Valley to Singapore:Location and Competitive Advantage in the Hard Disk Drive Industry. Stanford University Press, Thousand Oaks, CA.2000.
[90]. McFadyen, A.M., Cennalla, A. A., Social Capital and Knowledge Creation: Diminishing Returns of the Number and Strength of Exchange Relationships [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47, pp735-746.
[91]. McEvily, B., Zaheer, A. Bridging ties:a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities[J]. Strategic Management. Journal,1999,20,1133-1158. [92]. Mckelvey, M. and Or sen i go, L., Pharmaceuticals as a Sectoral Innovation System,
Working Paper ESSY,2002. [93]. Mullet', E. and Zenker, A. Analysis of innovation-oriented networking between
R&D intensive small firms and knowledge-intensive business services:empirical evidence from France and Germany[C], In Oakey, R., During, W. and Mukhtar, S. (eds.), New Technology-Based Firms in the 1990s[M], Volume VI, pp.143169, London:Paul Chapman.1997 [94]. Nelson, R. and Winter, S. An Evolutionary of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard university Press.1982 [95]. Nelson,R. Technology, Institutions, and Economic Growth[M]. Harvard
University.1999. [961. North, D., Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance,
Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press,1990. [97]. Owen-Smith, J., Powell, W. Knowledge networks as channels and conducts:the
effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community[J]. Organization Science,200415,5-21. [98]. Pavilt, K., Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation[M], Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar,1999. [99]. Padmorc T, Gibson II., Modelling System of Innovation. Part II, A Framework for
Industrial Cluster Analysis in Regions [J]. Research Pol icy,1998,26(4), pp625-641. [100]. Perroux, F. Economic Space: Theory and Applicationsi [J]. Quarterly Journal of
Economics,1950,64(1):89-104.
[101]. Phelps, C. C., longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation[J]. Academy of Management Journal 2010,53 (4).
[102]. Piore, M. J., Sabel, C. F. The Second Industrial Divide [M]. Basic Books, New York.1984
[103]. Porter M. E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations[M]. Basingstoke, Macmillan. 1996
[104]. Porter M. E. Clusters and Competition:New Agendas for Companies, Governments andlnstitutions [M]. Boston:1-Iarvard Business School Press.1997
[105]. Portes, A., Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration:notes on thesocial determinants of economic action [J]. American Journal of Sociology 98,1320-1350.
[106]. Powell, W., White, D. R., Koput, K. W. and Owen-Smith, J. Network dynamics and field evolution:The growth of inter organizational collaboration in the life science[J]. American Journal of Sociology,2005,110 (January),1132-1205.
[107]. Pyke, F., Becattini, G, and Sengenberger, W. (Eds), Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-operation in Italy [J], Geneva:International Institute for Labour Studies.1990
[108]. Rantisi, N. The local innovation system as a source of'variety':openness and Adaptability in New York City's Garment District [J], Regional Studies,2002, Vol 36, No.6:587-602.
[109]. Robinson, D. K., Rip, A., Mangematin, V. Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology [J]. Research Policy,2007,36,871-879.
[110]. Rodan, S., Galunic, C. More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,541-562.
[111]. Romanelli, E., Khessinn, 0.M. Regional industrial identity:cluster configurations and economic development [J]. Organization Science,2005,16,344-358.
[112]. Rosenthal, S. and Strange, W. Evidence on the Nature and Sources of Agglornerat ion economies[C], in J. Thisse and V. Henderson, eds, the Handbook of Urban and Regional Economies [M],2005,North Holland.
[113]. Rosenberg, N. (1982), Inside the Black Box, Cambridge:Cambridge University-Press.
[114]. Rothwell, R. and Dodgson, M. External linkages and innovation in small and medium sized enterprises[J], R&D Management,1994, Vol.21, No.2, pp.125-137.
[115]. Rowley, T., Behrens, D., Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: ananalysis of structural and relational embedness in the steel and semiconductor industries[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,369-386.
[116]. Saviotti, P., Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1996.
[117]. Saxenian, A., Regional Advantage, Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1994
[118]. Saxenian, A. L.,2006. The New Argonauts:Regional Advantage in a Global Economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
[119]. Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York:Harper & Brothers,1942.
[120]. Scott, J., Social Network Analysis:A Handbook, London:Sage,1991.
[121]. Simonin, B.L. Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer in Strategic Alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20:595-623.
[122]. Simmie, J and Sennett, J.,'Innovative clusters:global or local linkages?' Regional Institute Economic Review,1999.
[123]. St John, C. H., Pouder, R. W. Technology clusters versus industry clusters:resources, networks, and regional advantages[J]. Growth and Change 2006,37,141-171.
[124]. Storper, M., The Regional World, London:The Gui lford Press,1997.
[125]. Storper, M. and Salais, R., Worlds of Production, London:Pinter,1997.
[126]. Strogatz S 11. Exploring complex networks [J]. Nature,2001,410: 268276.
[127]. Stuart, T., Sorenson,0. The geography of opportunity:spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy [J],2003,32,229-252.
[128]. Strogatz SH. Exploring complex networks [J]. Nature,2001,410:268276.
[129]. Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., Pinch, S. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review,2004,29,258-271.
[130]. Tallman, S., Phene, A. Leveraging knowledge across geographic boundaries [Jl.Organizat ion Science,2007,18,252-260.
[131]. Teecc, D., Economic Performance and the Theory of the Finn, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar,1998.
[132]. Tichy,G. Clusters:Less Dispensable and More Risky than Ever Clusters and Regional Specialisation. PionLmiited,207 Brondesbury Park, London NW2 SJM.1998
[133]. Tidd, J., Besant, J. and Pavitt, K., Managing Innovation:Intergrating Technological Market and Organizational Change, Chichester:John Wiley & Sons,1997.
[134]. Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in infra-organizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[135]. Utterback, J. and Abernathy, W.,'A dynamic model of process and product innovation', Omega,3,639-656,1975.
[136]. Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect [J]. American Sociological Review,1996, 61(4),674-698.
[137]. Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks; The paradox of embeddedness [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[138]. Vito Albino A., Garavelli,C., and Schiuma, C. Knowledge Transfer and Inter-firm Relationships in Industrial Districts:the Role of the Leader Firm [J].Technovation,1999, (19).210-215
[139]. Visser, Evert-Jan. The Complementary dynamic effects of clusters and networks[J]. industry & innovation,2009,16 (2):167-195.
[140]. VonHippel, E., The Sources of Innovation, Oxford:Oxford University Press,1988.
[141]. Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-based View of the Firm [J]. Strategic management Journal,1984,5 (2):171-180.
[142]. Werker, C. Knowledge and organization strategies in innovation system [J], International Journal of Innovation Management,2001, Vol.5, No.1, pp.105-127.
[143]. West, J.. Does appropriability enable or retard Open Innovation? [C],in Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverb, E., and West, J. (eds.), Open Innovation:R esearching a New Paradigm [M]. New York:Oxford University Press,2006, chapter 6.
[144]. Wiilliamson,0. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism [M]. Free Press, NewYork.1985.
[145]. Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J.P. & Lyles, M. A. Inter-and-nfra-organizational knowledgetransfer:A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecendents andconsequences[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(4),830-853.
[146]. Zaheer, A., George, V. P. Reach out or reach within? Performance implications of alliances and location in biotechnology[J]. Managerial and Decision Economics,2004,25,437-452.
[147].安虎森.空间接近与不确定性的降低经济活动聚集与分散的一种解释[J].南开经济研究,2001,(3)：51-56
[148].安金辉,中国基因工程制药企业技术创新网络研究,科学学与科学技术管理,2005,7,13-17
[149].巴顿.城市经济学：理论与政策(上海社会科学院部门经济研究所)城市经济研究室译,北京商务印书馆,1984：21.
[150].陈佳贵,中国产业集群可持续发展与公共政策选择,中国工业经济,2005,9：45-50
[151].陈劲,童亮.联知创新：复杂产品系统创新的知识管理[M],科学出版社,2008
[152].曹玉玲,李随成(2008)企业间信任的影响因素模型及实证研究,科研管理,2011,1：30-35
[153].陈学光,网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究—以浙江高新技术企业为例[D].杭州,浙江大学,2007.
[154].池仁勇、汤临佳,企业外部创新网络与创新源的关联性特征研究[(J].科技进步与对策,2008,25(11：38-40.
[155].池仁勇.区域中小企业创新网络形成、结构属性与功能提升：浙江省实证考察[J].管理世界,2005(10)：102-112.
[156].仇保兴.小企业集群研究[M].上海：复旦大学出版社,1999：43-46
[157].盖文启,朱华晟.产业的柔性集聚及其区域竞争方[J].经济理论与经济管理,2001,(10)：25-30
[158].贺寨平.国外社会支持网研究综述[J],国外社会科学.2001,(01)：4043
[159].贾根良,刘辉锋.自组织创新网络与科技管理的变革[J].天津社会科学,2003,1：23-26.
[160].李怀祖,管理研究方法论[M],西安交通大学出版社,2004
[161].李金华.广义创新网络的演化结构及其现实意义[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,2：101-107.
[162]李金华.广义创新网络的演化结构及其现实感义[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,5：7-10
[163].刘军.社会网络分析导论m].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2004：113-182.
[164].柳卸林.技术创新经济学[M].北京：中国经济出版社,1993：1215.
[165].刘存福,侯光明,李存金.中小民营企业集群的社会网络分析及发展趋势探索[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2005,7：144-148.
[166].宁钟.国外创新空间集群理论评述[J].经济学动态.2001,(3)：33-40
[167].贾根良,刘辉锋.自组织创新网络与科技管理的变革[J].天津社会科学,2003,1:23 26.
[168].马歇尔.经济学原理(朱志泰译)北京商务印书馆,1981
[169].马骏、唐方成、郭菊娥、席逎民,复杂网络理论在组织网络研究中的应用,科学学研究,2005,2：21-25
[170].迈克尔.波特.国家竞争优势,李明轩,邱如美译,北京华夏出版社,2002: 112.
[171].倪鹏飞,政府促进产业集群的十大陷阱,理论与实践,2006,9,30-34
[172].秦夏明、董沛武、李汉铃.产业集群形态演化阶段探讨[J].中国软科学,2004(12)：150-154
[173].盛亚,李玮,强弱齐美尔连接对企业技术创新的影响,2012(6)：23-28
[174].盛亚,尹宝兴.复杂产品系统创新的利益相关者作用机理：ERP为例[J],科学学研究,2009,4：144-150
[175].盛亚,吴俊杰,网络强度、网络开放度对产业集群绩效的影响机制研究——以浙江产业集群为例,经济地理,2011(11)：43-48
[176].沈必扬,池仁勇.企业创新网络：企业技术创新研究的一个新范式[J],科研管理2005(3)：34-40
[177].宋华,王岚(2009)企业间学习与信任互补作用于创新绩效吗?——基于企业间合作行为的视角,科学学与科学技术管理,2009,2：18-22
[178].田钢,张永安.集群创新网络演化的动力模型及其仿真研究[J].科研管理,2010,1：104-115.
[179].王大洲.我国企业创新网络发展现状分析[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报,2005,3：67-73.
[180].王大洲.企业创新网络的进化与治理：一个文献综述[J].科研管理.2001(6)：22-27
[181].工大洲.企业创新网络的进化机制分析[J].科学学研究,2006,24(5)：780-787.
[182].王缉慈.创新的空间—企业集群与区域发展[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2001
[183].工缉慈,创新及其相关概念的跟踪观察——返璞归真、认识进化和前沿发现[J],中国软科学,2002(1 2)：30-34.
[184].王发明;蔡宁;朱浩义.基于网络结构视角的产业集群风险研究——以美国128公路区产业集群衰退为例[J]：科学学研究;2006(06)：2328
[185].王国红.知识溢出和产业集群中企业学习研究[D].大连：大连理工大学,2007
[186].魏江.创新系统演进和集群创新系统构建[J].自然辩证法法通讯.2004.26(1)：4854.
[187].魏江,产业集群创新系统与技术学习,科技出版社,2003
[188].魏江,陈志辉.提高浙江省中小企业集群学习绩效的理论分析与对策研究[J].科技进步与对策,2003年第11期
[189].魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002,(1)：59-65
[190].阿尔弗雷德,韦伯.工业区位论[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997
[191].邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长研究[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2004
[192].邬爱其.企业创新网络构建与演进的影响因素实证分析[J].科学学研究,2006,24(1)：141-149.
[193].吴晓波,耿帅,区域集群子稔性风险成因分析,经济地理,2003,6：18-24
[194].吴贵生,李纪珍.技术创新网络和技术外包[J].科研管理,2000,21(4)：33-43.
[195].吴永忠,企业创新网络的形成及其演化[J],自然辩证法研究,2005,9
[196].吴晓冰,集群创新网络特征、知识获取与创新绩效(R),浙江大学博士论文,2009
[197].徐维祥(2004)浙江区域块状经济在城镇化进程中的运行绩效分析[J],经济地理,2004,1：6-9
[198].谢洪明,王现彪,吴溯.集群、网络与IJVs的创新研究.科研管理.2008,27(6)：33-38。
[199].姚伟,关系网络、制度结构与经济绩效(D),中国人民大学,2006.
[200].叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学,2001,(3)：23-30
[201].原长弘,贾一伟.国内创新网络研究基本状况和主要进展[J].科学学研究,2003,(5)：52-55
[202].杨锐、黄国安.网络位置和创新—杭州手机产业集群的社会网络分析[J].工业技术经济,2005,24(7)：114-118.
[203].杨学津,刘明,基础产业市场绩效的评价与衡量[J],首都经贸大学学报,2000,4
[204].叶建亮.知识溢出与企业集群[J].经济科学.2001,(3)：23-30
[205].郑海涛、周海涛：走向高端：广东产业集群升级战略研究[M],北京：经济科学出版社,2006。
[206].张杰,刘东.企业网络的社会逻辑基础.科学学与科学技术管理.2006,(1)：132-135
[207].张存刚,李明,陆德梅.社会网络分析—一种重要的社会学研究方法[J].甘肃社会科学,2004,(2)：109-111.
[208].赵珍,池仁勇.中小企业创新网络的构架及其成因分析[J].科学与管理,2006,354：129-131.
[209].张伟峰,万威武.企业创新网络的构建动因与模式研究[.J].研究与发展管理,2004(3),2329.
[210].郑亚莉.产业集群中的知识创造机制[J].浙江社会科学,2005(3)：65-69.
[211].朱国宏,桂勇.经济社会学导论四].上海：复旦大学出版社,2005：234.