Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGądecki, Jacek
dc.contributor.authorAfeltowicz, Łukasz
dc.contributor.authorAnielska, Karolina
dc.contributor.authorMorawska, Ilona
dc.description.abstractThis article is an attempt to answer the question: how one selects a neighbourhood to develop an innovation district, using the case of Cracow. This article mainly refers to the issue of the shape of innovation districts, showing how much the morphology of such spaces and their functions can promote or limit the development of innovative enterprises from the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) industry. It also refers to our research carried out with quantitative and qualitative methods in Poland, using two locations in Cracow as a case study. In this paper, we focus on the significant restrictions which hinder the emergence and development of such districts. We also indicate the potential solutions to these difficulties such as the temporary spaces of events we mapped and which we called ‘totemic spaces’.en
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEuropean Spatial Research and Policy;1en
dc.subjectinnovation districten
dc.titleHow Innovation Districts (Do Not) Work: the Case Study of Cracowen
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationGądecki, Jacek - Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszyńska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Poland; AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Humanities Gramatyka 8a, 30-071 Kraków, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationAfeltowicz, Łukasz - AGH University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Humanities, Gramatyka 8a, 30-071 Kraków, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationAnielska, Karolina - Jagiellonian University, Faculty of Geography and Geology, Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Polanden
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationMorawska, Ilona - Institute of Urban and Regional Development, Cieszyńska 2, 30-015 Kraków, Polanden
dc.referencesASHEIM, B., BUGGE, M.M., COENEN, L. and HERSTAD, S. (2013), ‘What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table? Reconceptualising regional innovation systems’, Papers in Innovation Studies, 5.en
dc.referencesAUDRETSCH, D.B. and FELDMAN, M.P. (2004), ‘Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation’, Handbook of regional and urban economics, Elsevier, 4, pp. 2713–2739.
dc.referencesBAPTISTA, R. (2000), ‘Do innovations diffuse faster within geographical clusters?’ International Journal of Industrial Organization, 18, pp. 515–535.
dc.referencesBECATTINI, G. (1990), ‘The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-Economic Concept’, [in:] PYKE, F., BECATTINI, G. and SENGENBERGER, W. (eds.), Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, Geneva, IILS.en
dc.referencesBOSCHMA, R. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment’, Regional Studies, 39 (1), pp. 61–74.
dc.referencesBRESCHI, S. and LISSONI, F. (2001), ‘Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: a critical survey’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10 (4), pp. 975–1005.
dc.referencesBUZARD, K., CARLINO, G.A., HUNT, R.M., CARR, J. and SMITH, T.E. (2015), Localized Knowledge Spillovers: Evidence from the Agglomeration of American R&D Labs and Patent Data, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Research Department.
dc.referencesCARLINO, G. and KERR, W.R. (2015), ‘Agglomeration and Innovation’, Chapter 6, [in:] DURANTON G., HENDERSON J.V. and STRANGE, W.C. (eds.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 5, Elsevier, pp. 349–404.
dc.referencesCRESCENZI, R., NATHAN, M. and RODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. (2016), ‘Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation’, Research Policy, 45 (1), pp. 177–194.
dc.referencesCUSMANO, L., MORRISON, A. and PANDOLFO, E. (2014), ‘Spin-off and clustering: a return to the Marshallian district’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 39 (1), pp. 49–66.
dc.referencesDELGADO, M., PORTER, M.E. and STERN, S. (2014), ‘Clusters, convergence, and economic performance’, Research Policy, 43 (10), pp. 1785–1799.
dc.referencesDEPRET, M.H. and HAMDOUCH, A. (2013), ‘Clusters, Networks, and Entrepreneurship’, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, pp. 211–224.
dc.referencesERIKSSON, R.H. (2011), ‘Localized spillovers and knowledge flows: How does proximity influence the performance of plants?’, Economic Geography, 87 (2), pp. 127–152.
dc.referencesFLORIDA, R. (2010), Narodziny klasy kreatywnej: oraz jej wpływ na przeobrażenia w charakterze pracy, wypoczynku, społeczeństwa i życia codziennego, Warsaw, Narodowe Centrum Kultury.en
dc.referencesGLAESER, E.L. (2014), (accessed on 27.10.2019).en
dc.referencesGLAESER, E.L., KALLAL, H.D., SCHEINKMAN, J.A. and SHLEIFER, A. (1992), ‘Growth in cities’, Journal of Political Economy, 100 (6), pp. 1126–1152.
dc.referencesGLAESER, E.L., RESSEGER, M. and TOBIO, K. (2009), ‘Inequality in Cities’, Journal of Regional Science, 49 (4), pp. 617–646.
dc.referencesGRAHAM, S. and GUY, S. (2002), ‘Digital space meets urban space. Sociotechnologies of urban restructuring in downtown San Francisco’, City, 6 (3), pp. 369–382.
dc.referencesHEALY, A. and MORGAN, K. (2012), ‘Spaces of innovation: Learning, proximity and the ecological turn’, Regional Studies, 46 (8), pp. 1041–1053.
dc.referencesHOWELLS, J.R. (2002), ‘Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography’, Urban Studies, 39 (5–6), pp. 871–884.en
dc.referencesJACOBS, J. (2016), The economy of cities, Vintage.en
dc.referencesJAFFE, A.B., TRAJTENBERG, M. and HENDERSON, R. (1993), ‘Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108 (3), pp. 577–598.
dc.referencesKATZ, B. and WAGNER, J. (2014), The rise of innovation districts: A new geography of innovation in America, Washington: Brookings Institution.en
dc.referencesKLEPPER, S. (2010), ‘The origin and growth of industry clusters: The making of Silicon Valley and Detroit’, Journal of Urban Economics, 67 (1), pp. 15–32.
dc.referencesKO, A.J. (2017), ‘A Three-Year Participant Observation of Software Startup Software Evolution’, IEEE, pp. 3–12.
dc.referencesLÖW, M. (2016), The Sociology of Space – Materiality, Social Structures, and Action, New York, Cultural Sociology, Palgrave, Macmillan.
dc.referencesMAFFESOLI, M. (1995), The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in mass society, Sage.en
dc.referencesMAILLAT, D. (1995), ‘Territorial dynamic, innovative milieus and regional policy’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 7 (2), pp. 157–165.
dc.referencesMARKUSEN, A. (1996), ‘Sticky places in slippery space: A typology of industrial districts’, Economic Geography, 72 (3), pp. 293–313.
dc.referencesMARSHALL, A. (1920), Principles of Economics, 8th Edition, London, Macmillan.en
dc.referencesMARTIN, R. and SUNLEY, P. (2003), ‘Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?’, Journal of Economic Geography, 3, pp. 5–35.
dc.referencesMAUSS, M. (2002), The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies, Routledge.en
dc.referencesMICEK, G. (2017), Bliskość geograficzna przedsiębiorstw zaawansowanego przemysłu i usług a przepływy wiedzy, Krakow, Instytut Geografii i Gospodarki Przestrzennej, Uniwersytet Jagielloński w Krakowie.en
dc.referencesMIRABAL, N.R. (2009), ‘Geographies of Displacement: Latina/os, oral history, and the politics of gentrification in San Francisco’s Mission District’, The Public Historian, 31 (2), pp. 7–31.
dc.referencesMORETTI, E. (2012), The new geography of jobs, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.en
dc.referencesMORGAN, K. (2004), ‘The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems’, Journal of Economic Geography, 4 (1), pp. 3–21.
dc.referencesMORRISON, A. and BEVILACQUA, C. (2019), ‘Balancing gentrification in the knowledge economy: the case of Chattanooga’s innovation district’, Urban Research & Practice, 12 (4), pp. 472–492.
dc.referencesOLIVEIRA, V. (2018), Teaching Urban Morphology, Springer.
dc.referencesPORTER, M.E. (2000), ‘Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy’, Economic Development Quarterly, 14 (1), pp. 15–34.
dc.referencesRODRÍGUEZ-POSE, A. and CRESCENZI, R. (2008), ‘Mountains in a flat world: why proximity still matters for the location of economic activity’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1 (3), pp. 371–388.
dc.referencesSAXENIAN, A. (1996), Regional advantage, Harvard University Press.
dc.referencesSPENCER, G.M. (2015), ‘Knowledge Neighborhoods: Urban Form and Evolutionary Economic Geography’, Regional Studies, 49 (5), pp. 883–898.en
dc.referencesSTORPER, M. and VENABLES A.J. (2004), ‘Buzz: face-to-face contact and the urban economy’, Journal of Economic Geography, 4, pp. 351–370.en
dc.referencesWIŚNIEWSKI, M. (2011), ‘Zabłocie – a model revitalization?’, Herito , 4, pp. 58–77.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailGądecki, Jacek -
dc.contributor.authorEmailAfeltowicz, Łukasz -
dc.contributor.authorEmailAnielska, Karolina -
dc.contributor.authorEmailMorawska, Ilona -

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as