Social network approach and knowledge in economic geography

Abstract

Since the 1990s, a network perspective has attracted an increasing number of economic geographers. It conceptualizes economic objects as a set of networks of relationships among various actors such as firms, establishments, public organizations, and businesspeople. The aim of this paper is to consider the significance of the social network approach. It emphasizes that actors' behaviors are affected by the contents of relationships and the network structure. In other words, economic behaviors are embedded in networks of relations. This approach is useful especially to explain how knowledge is circulated and learned. In the context of the geography of knowledge, it is argued that the diversity of actors matters in the process of new knowledge transfer and creation. In the light of the social network approach, the diversity argument is about the contents of relationships and the characteristics of network structure. It is weak ties, bridges over "structural holes", and forming links accidentally or randomly that contribute to accessing diverse sources of knowledge and to the circulation of novel and useful knowledge. It should be noted that little attention has paid to the geographical aspects in the social network approach in economic sociology and organization studies. In economic geography, the problem of proximity among actors in the networks must be focused on. It is argued that geographical proximity facilitates the efficient transfer and learning of knowledge, especially sticky knowledge. However, we must avoid falling into the oversimplified scheme that geographical proximity necessarily determines the possibility of the transfer and learning of knowledge. In addition to geographical proximity, organizational proximity must be taken into consideration. Organizational proximity means the similarity of routines and practices shaped by organizations. Knowledge can be transferred beyond local and national boundaries if organizational proximity is sufficiently strong. In addition, the probability of the successful transfer and learning of knowledge partly depends on institutional proximity, that is, shared frameworks of formal and informal institutions. What should be noted is that geographical, organizational, and institutional proximities are not independent of one another but interrelated. We must address these interrelationships among the three types of proximities.