The Influence of Knowledge Transfer on Outputs of Innovative Process – Case Study of Czech Regions

The goal of this article is the analysis of knowledge
transfer at the regional level of the Czech Republic. We show how
goals of enterprises´ innovative activities are related to the rate of
cooperation with different actors within regional innovative systems
as well as in other world regions. The results show that the most
important partners of enterprises are their suppliers and clients in
most Czech regions. The cooperation rate of enterprises correlates
significantly mainly with enterprises´ efforts to enter new markets
and reduce labour costs per unit output. The meaning of this
cooperation decreases with the increase of partner’s distance.
Regarding the type of a cooperating partner, cooperation within an
enterprise had to do with the increase of market share and decrease of
labour costs. On the other hand, cooperation with clients had to do
with efforts to replace outdated products or processes or enter new
markets. We can pay less attention to the cooperation with
government authorities and organizations. The reasons for
marginalization of this cooperation should be submitted to further
detailed investigation.

• J. Stejskal
• P. Hajek

• Knowledge
• transfer
• innovative process
• Czech republic
• region.

[1] J. V. Henderson, Urban Development: Theory, Facts and Illusion,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
[2] P. Krugman, Keynote Lecture, Association of American Geographers´
Annual Conference, Washington D. C., 2010.
[3] M. E. Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, London:
Macmillan, 1990.
[4] R. Nelson, “The agenda for growth Theory: a different point of view,”
Cambridge Journal of Economics, vol. 22, pp. 491–520.
[5] A. Marshall, The Economics of Industry, Macmillan and Co., 1920.
[6] B. A. Lundvall, “Introduction”. In: B. A. Lundvall(ed.),National Systems
of Innovation - Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning.
London: Pinter Publishers., 1992, pp. 1–19.
[7] P. Maskell, H. Eskelinen, I. Hannibalsson, A.Malmberg, and E. Vatne,
Competitiveness, Localised Learning and Regional Development:
Specialisation and Prosperity in Small Open Economies. London:
Routledge, 1998.
[8] A. Malmberg, “Industrial geography: location and learning,” Progress in
Human Geography, vol. 21, 1997, pp. 573–582.
[9] M. Fujita, and T. Tabuchi, “Regional growth in postwar Japan,”
Regional Science and Urban Economics, vol. 27, 1997, pp. 643–670.
[10] V. J. Henderson, “Understanding knowledge spillovers,” Regional
Science and Urban Economics, vol. 37, 2007, pp. 497–508.
[11] L. H. Dobkins, “Location, innovation and trade: the role of localisation
and nation-based externalities,”Regional Science and Urban Economics,
vol. 26, 1996, pp. 591–612.
[12] M. Frenz, and G. Ietto-Gillies, “The impact on innovation performance
of different sources of knowledge: Evidence from the UK Community
Innovation Survey,” Research Policy, vol. 38, 2009, pp. 1125–1135.
[13] R. Camagni, “The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for
public policies in European lagging regions,” Papers in Regional
Science, vol. 74, 1995, pp. 317–340.
[14] D. Maillat, “Innovative milieux and new generations of regional
policies”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International
Journal, vol. 10, 1998, pp. 1–16.
[15] R. A. Boschma, and R. C. Kloosterman, Learning from Clusters: A
Critical Assessment, Dordrecht: Springer, 2005.
[16] R. Cappellin, and R. Wink, International Knowledge and Innovation
Networks: Knowledge Creation and Innovation in Medium-technology
Clusters, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2009.