Spatial innovation models focus on the region and highlight the social and economic interactions of the actors as a main factor in regional innovative output. This paper examines the role of German chambers of commerce and industry (CCIs), which could be relevant for the innovation process through: (1) moderating or founding regional and local (innovative) initiatives; (2) creating and maintaining formal and informal networks; (3) building reputations and providing references; (4) providing information and advisory services; (5) conducting final examinations in vocational training; and (6) founding educational institutions. The empirical analyses show a positive impact of CCI expenditures on the number of start-ups and the number of patents, as well as a positive impact of seminar and information day participation on the number of start-ups. The results lead to the assumption that the network effect (functions 2 and 3) plays a more important role than providing pure information and advice (function 4).
AsheimBGertlerM S (2005) “The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems”. In: FagerbergJMoweryD CNelsonR R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 291–317
2.
AulaPHarmaakorpiV (2008) “An innovative milieu—a view on regional reputation building: case study of the Lahti urban region”. Regional Studies42: 523–538
3.
AydalotP (1986) Milieux innovateurs en Europe, Paris: GREMI
4.
BennettR J (1998) “Explaining the membership of voluntary local business associations: the example of British Chambers of Commerce”. Regional Studies32: 503–514
5.
BennettR J (1999) “Business associations: their potential contribution to government policy and the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy17: 593–608
6.
BennettR J (2008) “SME policy support in Britain since the 1990s: what have we learnt?”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26: 375–397
7.
BennettR J (2011) Local Business Voice: The History of Chambers of Commerce in Britain, Ireland, and Revolutionary America 1760–2011, Oxford: Oxford University Press
8.
BennettR JRobsonP (2004) “Support services for SMEs: does the ‘franchisee’ make a difference to the Business Link offer?”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy22: 859–880
9.
BerkR A (2004) Regression Analysis: A Constructive Critique, London: Sage
10.
Berry C R, Glaeser E L, 2005, “The divergence of human capital levels across cities”, RWP05-057, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
BramantiASennL (1991) “Innovation, firm and milieu: a dynamic and cyclic approach”. In: CamagniR (eds) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, London: Belhaven Press, pp. 89–104
13.
BrixyUNieseM (2006) “The determinants of regional differences in new firm formation in Western Germany”. In: NijkampPMoomawR LTraistaru-SiedschlagI (eds) Entrepreneurship, Investment and Spatial Dynamics: Lessons and Implications for an Enlarged EU, Cheltenham, Glos: Edward Elgar, pp. 109–120
CamagniR (1995) “The concept of innovative milieu and its relevance for public policy in European lagging regions”. Papers in Regional Science74: 317–340
16.
CamagniR (2004) “Uncertainty, social capital and community governance: the city as a milieu”. In: CapelloRNijkampP (eds) Urban Dynamics and Growth: Advances in Urban Economics, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 121–150
17.
CamagniR (2007) “Regional competitiveness: towards a concept of territorial capital”. In: CapelloRCamagniRChizzoliniBFratesiU (eds) Modelling Regional Scenarios for the Enlarged Europe: European Competitiveness and Global Strategies, Berlin: Springer, pp. 33–48
18.
CapelloRFaggianA (2005) “Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes”. Regional Studies39: 75–87
19.
CookePUrangaMEtxebarriaG (1997) “Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions”. Research Policy26: 475–491
20.
EdquistC (1997) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, London: Frances Pinter
21.
EdquistC (2005) “Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges”. In: FagerbergJMoweryD CNelsonR R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 181–208
FagerbergJ (2005) “Innovation: a guide to the literature”. In: FagerbergJMoweryD CNelsonR R (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–26
24.
FeldmanM P (1993) “An examining of the geography of innovation”. Industrial and Corporate Change2: 451–470
25.
FloridaR (1995) “Toward the learning region”. Futures27: 527–536
26.
FloridaR (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class and How it’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life, New York: Basic Books
27.
FritschMMuellerP (2006) “Gründungsaktivitäten über die Zeit—Welches Potenzial hat die Gründungsförderung? ”. In: AchleitnerA KKlandtHKochL TVoigtK I (eds) Jahrbuch Entrepreneurship 2005/2006, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 91–105
28.
FritschMGrotzRBrixyUNieseMOttoA (2003) “Die statistische Erfassung von Gründungen in Deutschland. Ein Vergleich von Beschäftigungsstatistik, Gewerbeanzeigenstatistik und den Mannheimer Gründungspanels”. Allgemeines statistisches Archiv87: 87–96
29.
FritschMBrixyUNieseMOttoA (2004) “Gründungen in Städten”. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie48: 182–195
30.
Fromhold-EisebithM (2004) “Innovative milieu and social capital: complementary or redundant concepts of collaboration-based regional development?”. European Planning Studies12: 747–765
31.
GrabherG (1993) “Rediscovering the social in the economies of interfirm relations”. In: GrabherG (eds) The Embedded Firm, London: Routledge, pp. 1–31
32.
GranovetterM (1973) “The strength of weak ties”. American Journal of Sociology78: 1360–1380
33.
GreifSSchmiedlD (2002) Patentatlas Deutschland: Dynamik und Strukturen der Erfindungstätigkeit, München: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
34.
GreifSSchmiedlDNiedermeyerG (2006) Patentatlas Deutschland: Regionaldaten der Erfindungstätigkeit, München: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
KleinknechtAvan MontfortKBrouwerE (2002) “The non-trivial choice between innovation indicators”. Economics of Innovation and New Technology11: 109–121
37.
Koschatzky K, Muller E, Zenker A, Eickelpasch A, Pfeiffer I, Dohse D, Bode E, Gehrke B, Legler H, Schmidt J, 2000, “Regionale Verteilung von Innovations- und Technologiepotentialen in Deutschland und Europa”, Endbericht an das Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, ISI, Karlsruhe
38.
KöstersSObschonkaM (2011) “Public business advice in the founding process: an empirical evaluation of subjective and economic effects”. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy29: 577–604
39.
MaennigWÖlschlägerM (2011) “Innovative milieux and regional competitiveness: the role of associations and chambers of commerce and industry in Germany”. Regional Studies45: 441–452
OlsonM (1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
42.
PutnamR (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
43.
RöschA (2000) “Kreative Milieus als Faktoren der Regionalentwicklung”. Raumforschung und Raumordnung58: 161–172
44.
RothwellR (1989) “Small firms, innovation and industrial change”. Small Business Economics1: 51–64
45.
Schmidt-Trenz HJ (1996) Die Logik kollektiven Handelns bei Delegation, Tübingen: Mohr
46.
Schmidt-TrenzH J (2006) “Wie viel Zwang braucht der Dritte Sektor? Die Logik kollektiven Handelns bei Delegation am Beispiel der Industrie- und Handelskammern”. In: Schmidt-TrenzH JStoberR (eds) Der Dritte Sektor im 21. Jahrhundert—Auslauf- oder Zukunftsmodell?, Baden-Baden: Nomos, pp. 140–164
47.
SchumpeterJ A (1931) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung: eine Untersuchung über Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den Konjunkturzyklus, München: Duncker and Humblot
48.
SimmieJ (2003) “Innovation and urban regions as national and international nodes for the transfer and sharing of knowledge”. Regional Studies37: 607–620
49.
Statistisches Bundesamt, 2010, “Stadt-/Landgliederung nach der Zuordnung von Eurostat 2000”, Wiesbaden
50.
TuraTHarmaakorpiV (2005) “Social capital in building regional innovative capability”. Regional Studies39: 1111–1125
51.
ZEW, 2005, “Die Bereitstellung von Standardauswertungen zum Gründungsgeschehen in Deutschland und Österreich für externe Datennutzer”, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung, Mannheim
