集群企业的迁移：影响因素、方式选择与绩效表现
|
摘要
当前的产业集群实践中所涌现的企业迁移热潮虽然吸引了一些学者的目光,但其分析仍局限于中观层面的产业集群发展风险上。自20世纪90年代以来一些学者就强调微观层面集群企业行为研究的重要性,但鲜有研究关注集群企业的迁移行为。与之形成鲜明对比的是,在企业迁移研究领域大量学者关注了一般性企业的迁移行为。基于不同的研究假设这些研究大致形成了三个理论学派：新古典理论学派指出企业是理性的经济人,强调企业指向最优的区位因而仅在外部影响和企业需要发生改变时迁移；行为理论学派指出由于有限理性和有限信息企业只能选择满意行为,强调迁移的决策过程以及非经济因素在其中所起的作用；制度理论学派指出企业并非应激反应原子而是嵌入于组织网络之中,强调组织间关系、社会制度等因素对迁移行为的影响。
可以看到,制度理论学派的企业假设与集群企业的特征十分吻合,用该分析框架来研究集群企业的迁移行为成为从微观层面探究集群企业迁移行为的突破口,但该理论视角的研究由于缺乏合适的分析工具距离理论的模型化仍有一段距离。鉴于此,本研究将产业集群研究中应用广泛的网络分析方法与企业迁移研究制度理论学派的分析框架结合,在传统的三因素模型基础上进一步考虑了企业网络特征的影响,构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型,并考察了集群企业的不同特征对迁移方式选择的影响。在此基础上,本研究还探索了集群企业的迁移决策、迁移方式与其绩效表现之间的关系。基于问卷调查和公开数据库的相关数据,本研究的实证分析得到以下四个方面的主要结论：
(1)同时考虑网络特征的四因素模型在解释集群企业迁移决策时显著优于传统的三因素模型,其中集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征对迁移决策具有显著的影响。具体而言,集群企业的迁移决策具有以下三个特点：首先,处于城市中心的集群企业更易迁移；其次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着企业年龄的增加而减弱；再次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着网络地理开放性的增加而增强。
(2)环境满意度显著调节着集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征与迁移决策之间的关系。具体而言：首先,处于城市外围或乡村的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；其次,企业年龄大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；再次,本地网络规模大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱；最后,网络地理开放性高的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱。
(3)迁移组织部门选择受区位特征和网络特征的影响,迁移地理尺度选择受企业特征和网络特征的影响,迁移区域类型受区位特征和网络特征的影响。具体来说,集群企业的迁移方式选择具有以下三个特点：首先,偏好整体迁移的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小、本地网络中心度低,偏好总部迁移的集群企业处于城市外围、本地网络规模大,偏好其他部门迁移的集群企业本地网络中心度高；其次,偏好本地迁移的集群企业企业规模小、本地关系强度弱,偏好本省或跨省迁移的集群企业企业规模大；再次,偏好向城市中心迁移的集群企业本地网络规模大,偏好向城市外围迁移的集群企业处于城市、本地网络规模小,偏好向乡村迁移的的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小。
(4)迁移决策和迁移方式不同的集群企业迁移之后的绩效表现也不同。迁移决策不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移集群企业的财务绩效和成长绩效均显著优于未迁移的集群企业；迁移方式不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移组织部门、迁移地理尺度和迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其财务绩效与行业平均水平间的差异不同,迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其成长绩效与行业平均水平间的差异也不同。
与集群企业迁移相关领域已有的研究成果相比,本研究的创新和发展主要体现在以下三个方面：
(1)构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型。尽管企业迁移研究的制度理论学派的学者已经意识都特定环境下的企业间联系以及网络的重要性,但该领域的分析仍停留在理论探讨的层面。本文借鉴该学派的分析框架,结合集群企业研究的网络分析方法,在企业迁移影响因素研究的传统三因素模型基础上构建了考虑网络特征影响的集群企业迁移决策四因素模型和迁移权变模型。一定程度上弥补了企业迁移研究制度理论学派的理论分析缺乏模型化的不足。
(2)从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点。产业集群学者的离心力模型、本地锁定模型和负外部性模型均将迁移作为事件来看待,对集群企业迁移的考察采用的是中观层面视角。本研究基于对浙江省集群企业进行问卷调查所收集的数据,对集群企业的环境特征、区位特征、企业特征和网络特征与其迁移决策和迁移方式选择之间的关系进行了实证分析。以上研究以企业为分析单元,从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点,推动了集群企业迁移行为研究的完善和深入。
(3)揭示了集群企业的迁移行为与其绩效表现间的关系。在对企业迁移绩效表现进行的有限分析中,由于考察的样本、绩效指标的选择、强调的行为侧重点等因素上的差异,不同实证研究得到相差迥异的结论。本研究基于问卷调查以及公开数据库所收集的数据,分析了不同迁移决策和迁移行为的集群企业在财务绩效和成长绩效上的表现差异。具体的差异反映了集群企业迁移的两个重要特点：一是迁移是集群企业实现成长的有效途径之一,但对集群企业经营实力的提升作用有限；二是不同迁移方式对集群企业的能力要求不同,同时对集群企业经营实力的改善作用也不同。以上研究丰富了企业迁移绩效表现研究领域的相关成果。
本文研究还只是初步的探索,与系统性的框架构建和实证分析尚有一段距离。本研究的不足主要集中在研究变量的选取较为单一、实证结论的外部效度有待商榷以及其他影响因素的作用未一一加以控制三个方面。未来的研究可从以下几个方面进行深入的拓展：第一,从集群企业网络的地理嵌入和组织嵌入特性入手来解释集群企业迁移决策的形成过程；第二,尝试对个别典型的迁移集群企业进行追踪式的案例分析研究；第三,探讨企业主要产品所处的生命周期阶段、企业的发展战略、企业的迁移经历等因素对集群企业迁移决策的作用；第四,以环境不确定性代替环境满意度作为权变条件分析集群企业迁移的影响因素；第五,以集群企业迁移与产业集群演进之间的关系为焦点进行分析。
The Phenomenon of many firms relocated in industry clusters attracted the attention of some scholars, but there resesches are still limites to the development risks of industry cluster. Although some studies emphasize the behavior research of firms in cluster is important since 1990s, so far little is done in relocating behavior of cluster firms at micro level. In sharp contrast, a large number of researches have been done on general firm relocation. Those researches could mainly be devided into three schools, the neoclassical school point out relocation just accur if the external influence and the internal needs have changed and the behavioral school emphasice the decision-making process of relocation and the role non-economic factors play in that process, and the institutional school streeed the effect of inter-organizational relations, social systems and some other factors on firm relocation.
The hypotesis of firm which institutional school emphasized is consistent with the characteristics of cluster firm, and the analytical framework of this theoretical school could be used to explore the migration behavior of cluster firms. However, this theory is far away from modeling and empirical analyzing because of the lackage of appropriate analysical tools. Based on analysical framework of the insititutional school and analysical tool of the industry cluster studies, this paper builds the four-factor model and the contingency model of migration decision-making for cluster firms. And the influence which cluater firms' characters on their relocation patterns selection is also studied in this paper. Furthermore, the paper has expored the relationship between the decision-making, the pattern of migration and the performance for cluster firms. Based on data collected from survey and public databases, there are four main conclusions could be summarized from the empirical analysis of this study.
Fistly, the four-factor model which taking into accout the network characteristics of cluster firms is better than the traditional three-factor model in explaining the relocation decision-making of cluster firms. And enterprises features, location features and network features showed a significant impact on migration decision-making. In particular, firms which are in urban centers, young or have an open network in geography are more likely to relocate.
Secondly, cluster firms'satisfaction on environment has a regulation on relationship between enterprise features, location features, network features and the migration desition-making. Cluster firms located in urban periphery or rural area and old enough who are not satisfied on environment are more likely to relocate, and cluter firms owned a large local network or an open network in geography who are satisfied on environment are more unlikely to relocate.
Thirdly, location features and network features of cluster firms affect the establishment of relocation, enterprise features and network features of cluster firms affect the geographical scale of relocation, and location features and network features of cluster firms affect the area type of relocation. Specifically, firms located in rural area, owned a small local network and far from the network center will have the whole corporate to relocate, firms located in urban periphery and owned a large local network will relocate their headquarter, firms in the network center will relocate other departments, firms own a weak local relationship and small enough will relocate in local, firms who is old enough will relocated within province or out of the province, firms owned a large local network will relocate to urban center, firms located in urban area and owned a small local network will relocate to urban periphery, and firms located in rural area and owned a small local network will relocate to rurual area.
Fourthly, the difference in performance of cluster firms is due to the relocation decision-making and the relocation patterns. Cluster firms who relocated have better performance in financial and growth than firms who did not move, the financial performance are distinctive among firms who had different department to relocate, relocated in different geography scale and relocated to different areas, and the growth performance are distincetive among firms who relocated to different areas.
Compared to researches which are related to the relocation of cluster firms, this paper innovated in the following aspects:
First of all, build the four-factor model and contingency model for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Although the institutional school of firm migration has been conscious of the importance of relationship and the network between firms, these researches are still analysised from theorical view. Combined with the network analysis, this paper builds a four-factor model and a contingency model which have considered network features for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Up to a certain extent, this paper has maked up the shortage of institutional school of firm migration in empirical research.
Second, distinguish the relocating behavior of cluster firms from the micro level. All of the centrifugal force model, the local locking model and the negative externalities model treated the relocation as an event, and discuss the relocation of cluster firm from meso level. Based on the empirical date, this paper concerned about the relationship between features of cluster firms and their relocating behavior. The empirical analysis identified the behavior charactors for relocation of cluster firms, and promoted thees research to be more comprehensive.
Third, receals the relationship between the relocating behavior and the performance for cluster firms. Little has been studied for the performance of relocated firms, and the conclusions of different researches are varying because of samples, performance indicatiors and the respect emphasized are different. The empirical analysis of this paper discussed the difference of financial and growth for cluster firms which have behavioral disparity in relocation. And the conclution showed that migration is effective for cluster firms to achieve growth but is limited in upgrading the viability for cluster firms, and different migration patterns for firms with different features and have different effect on improving the viability of cluster firms. This paper has enriched the research of the performance of relocated firms.
It is just a preliminary exploration, and it is far away from a systematic framework and an empirical analysis. The weakness of this paper reflected in there aspects, the selection of variables, the external validity of empirical finding and other factors affected the relocation behavior. Future research can be taken in following aspects. First, explaining the relocation decisions for cluster firms from the geographical embeddedness and organizational embeddedness. Second, track the migration for typical individual cluster firms with case study. Third, investigate the role life cycle stage, business development strategy, migration experience and other factors on the relocation decision-making of the cluster firms. Fourth, take the environmental uncertainty instead of the environmental satisfaction as the contingent factors affecting the migration of clulster firms. Fifth, analysis the effect cluster firms relocation behavior on cluster evolution.
可以看到,制度理论学派的企业假设与集群企业的特征十分吻合,用该分析框架来研究集群企业的迁移行为成为从微观层面探究集群企业迁移行为的突破口,但该理论视角的研究由于缺乏合适的分析工具距离理论的模型化仍有一段距离。鉴于此,本研究将产业集群研究中应用广泛的网络分析方法与企业迁移研究制度理论学派的分析框架结合,在传统的三因素模型基础上进一步考虑了企业网络特征的影响,构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型,并考察了集群企业的不同特征对迁移方式选择的影响。在此基础上,本研究还探索了集群企业的迁移决策、迁移方式与其绩效表现之间的关系。基于问卷调查和公开数据库的相关数据,本研究的实证分析得到以下四个方面的主要结论：
(1)同时考虑网络特征的四因素模型在解释集群企业迁移决策时显著优于传统的三因素模型,其中集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征对迁移决策具有显著的影响。具体而言,集群企业的迁移决策具有以下三个特点：首先,处于城市中心的集群企业更易迁移；其次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着企业年龄的增加而减弱；再次,集群企业的迁移意愿随着网络地理开放性的增加而增强。
(2)环境满意度显著调节着集群企业的企业特征、区位特征和网络特征与迁移决策之间的关系。具体而言：首先,处于城市外围或乡村的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；其次,企业年龄大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越低迁移的意愿越强烈；再次,本地网络规模大的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱；最后,网络地理开放性高的集群企业对要素环境的满意度越高迁移的意愿越弱。
(3)迁移组织部门选择受区位特征和网络特征的影响,迁移地理尺度选择受企业特征和网络特征的影响,迁移区域类型受区位特征和网络特征的影响。具体来说,集群企业的迁移方式选择具有以下三个特点：首先,偏好整体迁移的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小、本地网络中心度低,偏好总部迁移的集群企业处于城市外围、本地网络规模大,偏好其他部门迁移的集群企业本地网络中心度高；其次,偏好本地迁移的集群企业企业规模小、本地关系强度弱,偏好本省或跨省迁移的集群企业企业规模大；再次,偏好向城市中心迁移的集群企业本地网络规模大,偏好向城市外围迁移的集群企业处于城市、本地网络规模小,偏好向乡村迁移的的集群企业处于乡村、本地网络规模小。
(4)迁移决策和迁移方式不同的集群企业迁移之后的绩效表现也不同。迁移决策不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移集群企业的财务绩效和成长绩效均显著优于未迁移的集群企业；迁移方式不同的集群企业的绩效表现的差异体现在,迁移组织部门、迁移地理尺度和迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其财务绩效与行业平均水平间的差异不同,迁移区域类型不同的迁移集群企业其成长绩效与行业平均水平间的差异也不同。
与集群企业迁移相关领域已有的研究成果相比,本研究的创新和发展主要体现在以下三个方面：
(1)构建了集群企业迁移决策的四因素模型和权变模型。尽管企业迁移研究的制度理论学派的学者已经意识都特定环境下的企业间联系以及网络的重要性,但该领域的分析仍停留在理论探讨的层面。本文借鉴该学派的分析框架,结合集群企业研究的网络分析方法,在企业迁移影响因素研究的传统三因素模型基础上构建了考虑网络特征影响的集群企业迁移决策四因素模型和迁移权变模型。一定程度上弥补了企业迁移研究制度理论学派的理论分析缺乏模型化的不足。
(2)从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点。产业集群学者的离心力模型、本地锁定模型和负外部性模型均将迁移作为事件来看待,对集群企业迁移的考察采用的是中观层面视角。本研究基于对浙江省集群企业进行问卷调查所收集的数据,对集群企业的环境特征、区位特征、企业特征和网络特征与其迁移决策和迁移方式选择之间的关系进行了实证分析。以上研究以企业为分析单元,从微观层面识别了集群企业迁移的行为特点,推动了集群企业迁移行为研究的完善和深入。
(3)揭示了集群企业的迁移行为与其绩效表现间的关系。在对企业迁移绩效表现进行的有限分析中,由于考察的样本、绩效指标的选择、强调的行为侧重点等因素上的差异,不同实证研究得到相差迥异的结论。本研究基于问卷调查以及公开数据库所收集的数据,分析了不同迁移决策和迁移行为的集群企业在财务绩效和成长绩效上的表现差异。具体的差异反映了集群企业迁移的两个重要特点：一是迁移是集群企业实现成长的有效途径之一,但对集群企业经营实力的提升作用有限；二是不同迁移方式对集群企业的能力要求不同,同时对集群企业经营实力的改善作用也不同。以上研究丰富了企业迁移绩效表现研究领域的相关成果。
本文研究还只是初步的探索,与系统性的框架构建和实证分析尚有一段距离。本研究的不足主要集中在研究变量的选取较为单一、实证结论的外部效度有待商榷以及其他影响因素的作用未一一加以控制三个方面。未来的研究可从以下几个方面进行深入的拓展：第一,从集群企业网络的地理嵌入和组织嵌入特性入手来解释集群企业迁移决策的形成过程；第二,尝试对个别典型的迁移集群企业进行追踪式的案例分析研究；第三,探讨企业主要产品所处的生命周期阶段、企业的发展战略、企业的迁移经历等因素对集群企业迁移决策的作用；第四,以环境不确定性代替环境满意度作为权变条件分析集群企业迁移的影响因素；第五,以集群企业迁移与产业集群演进之间的关系为焦点进行分析。
The Phenomenon of many firms relocated in industry clusters attracted the attention of some scholars, but there resesches are still limites to the development risks of industry cluster. Although some studies emphasize the behavior research of firms in cluster is important since 1990s, so far little is done in relocating behavior of cluster firms at micro level. In sharp contrast, a large number of researches have been done on general firm relocation. Those researches could mainly be devided into three schools, the neoclassical school point out relocation just accur if the external influence and the internal needs have changed and the behavioral school emphasice the decision-making process of relocation and the role non-economic factors play in that process, and the institutional school streeed the effect of inter-organizational relations, social systems and some other factors on firm relocation.
The hypotesis of firm which institutional school emphasized is consistent with the characteristics of cluster firm, and the analytical framework of this theoretical school could be used to explore the migration behavior of cluster firms. However, this theory is far away from modeling and empirical analyzing because of the lackage of appropriate analysical tools. Based on analysical framework of the insititutional school and analysical tool of the industry cluster studies, this paper builds the four-factor model and the contingency model of migration decision-making for cluster firms. And the influence which cluater firms' characters on their relocation patterns selection is also studied in this paper. Furthermore, the paper has expored the relationship between the decision-making, the pattern of migration and the performance for cluster firms. Based on data collected from survey and public databases, there are four main conclusions could be summarized from the empirical analysis of this study.
Fistly, the four-factor model which taking into accout the network characteristics of cluster firms is better than the traditional three-factor model in explaining the relocation decision-making of cluster firms. And enterprises features, location features and network features showed a significant impact on migration decision-making. In particular, firms which are in urban centers, young or have an open network in geography are more likely to relocate.
Secondly, cluster firms'satisfaction on environment has a regulation on relationship between enterprise features, location features, network features and the migration desition-making. Cluster firms located in urban periphery or rural area and old enough who are not satisfied on environment are more likely to relocate, and cluter firms owned a large local network or an open network in geography who are satisfied on environment are more unlikely to relocate.
Thirdly, location features and network features of cluster firms affect the establishment of relocation, enterprise features and network features of cluster firms affect the geographical scale of relocation, and location features and network features of cluster firms affect the area type of relocation. Specifically, firms located in rural area, owned a small local network and far from the network center will have the whole corporate to relocate, firms located in urban periphery and owned a large local network will relocate their headquarter, firms in the network center will relocate other departments, firms own a weak local relationship and small enough will relocate in local, firms who is old enough will relocated within province or out of the province, firms owned a large local network will relocate to urban center, firms located in urban area and owned a small local network will relocate to urban periphery, and firms located in rural area and owned a small local network will relocate to rurual area.
Fourthly, the difference in performance of cluster firms is due to the relocation decision-making and the relocation patterns. Cluster firms who relocated have better performance in financial and growth than firms who did not move, the financial performance are distinctive among firms who had different department to relocate, relocated in different geography scale and relocated to different areas, and the growth performance are distincetive among firms who relocated to different areas.
Compared to researches which are related to the relocation of cluster firms, this paper innovated in the following aspects:
First of all, build the four-factor model and contingency model for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Although the institutional school of firm migration has been conscious of the importance of relationship and the network between firms, these researches are still analysised from theorical view. Combined with the network analysis, this paper builds a four-factor model and a contingency model which have considered network features for relocation decision-making of cluster firms. Up to a certain extent, this paper has maked up the shortage of institutional school of firm migration in empirical research.
Second, distinguish the relocating behavior of cluster firms from the micro level. All of the centrifugal force model, the local locking model and the negative externalities model treated the relocation as an event, and discuss the relocation of cluster firm from meso level. Based on the empirical date, this paper concerned about the relationship between features of cluster firms and their relocating behavior. The empirical analysis identified the behavior charactors for relocation of cluster firms, and promoted thees research to be more comprehensive.
Third, receals the relationship between the relocating behavior and the performance for cluster firms. Little has been studied for the performance of relocated firms, and the conclusions of different researches are varying because of samples, performance indicatiors and the respect emphasized are different. The empirical analysis of this paper discussed the difference of financial and growth for cluster firms which have behavioral disparity in relocation. And the conclution showed that migration is effective for cluster firms to achieve growth but is limited in upgrading the viability for cluster firms, and different migration patterns for firms with different features and have different effect on improving the viability of cluster firms. This paper has enriched the research of the performance of relocated firms.
It is just a preliminary exploration, and it is far away from a systematic framework and an empirical analysis. The weakness of this paper reflected in there aspects, the selection of variables, the external validity of empirical finding and other factors affected the relocation behavior. Future research can be taken in following aspects. First, explaining the relocation decisions for cluster firms from the geographical embeddedness and organizational embeddedness. Second, track the migration for typical individual cluster firms with case study. Third, investigate the role life cycle stage, business development strategy, migration experience and other factors on the relocation decision-making of the cluster firms. Fourth, take the environmental uncertainty instead of the environmental satisfaction as the contingent factors affecting the migration of clulster firms. Fifth, analysis the effect cluster firms relocation behavior on cluster evolution.
引文
[1]Adizes, I. Corporates Lifecycles:How and Why Corporations Grow and Die and What to Do About it. Englewod Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice Hall,1989.
[2]Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(3):425-457.
[3]Amin, A.& Thrift, N. What sort of economics for what sort of economic geography? Antipode,2000,32:4-9.
[4]Albino, V., Garavelli, A.& Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relations in industrial districts:the role of the leader firm. Technovation,1999 (19):53-63.
[5]Albornoz, F.& Corcos, G. Regional integration, Subsidy Competition and the Relocation Choice of MNCs. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,2007, 7(1):1-25.
[6]Alli, K. L., Ramirez, G.. G.& Yung, K. Corporate headquarters relocation:Evidence from the capital markets. Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association,1991,19(4):583-599.
[7]Arauzo-Carod, J. M.& Manjon-Antolin, M. C. Location and relocation:modeling, determinants and interrelations. Universitat Rovira I Virgili, working papers, No. 2007-6,2007.
[8]Artis, M., Ramos, R.& Surinach, J. Job Losses, Outsourcing and Relocation: Empirical Evidence Using Microdata. Research Institute of Applied Economics, Working Papers, No.2006/1,2006.
[9]Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E.& Warning, S. University spillovers:Strategic location and new firm performance. London, CEPR discussion papers,37,2003.
[10]Bade, F. J. Locational behaviour and the mobility of firms in West Germany. Urban Studies,1983,20:279-297.
[11]Ball, M. Institutions in British property research:a review. Urban Studies,1998, 35(9):1501-1517.
[12]Barnes, T. J. Retheorizing economic geography:from the quantitative revolution to the "Cultural Turn". Annals of the Association of American Geographers,2001, 91(3):546-565.
[13]Batjargal, B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Performance in Russia:A Longitudinal Study. Organization Studies,2003,24(4):535-556.
[14]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T.& Silverman, B. S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups'performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):267-294.
[15]Becattini, G. Industrial Sectors and Industrial Districts:Tools for Industrial Analysis. European Planning Studies,2002,10(4):483-493.
[16]Belfrage, C.& Gallo, F. Shackling the footloose firm? Factor interests and majority voting. Lund University, Department of Economics, Working Papers, No.2006:16, 2006.
[17]Bell, G. G. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(3):287-296.
[18]Bhabra, H. S., Lei, U.& Tirtiroglu, D. Stock market's reaction to business relocations:Canadian evidence. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,2002, 19(4):346-358.
[19]Bian, Y. Bringing strong ties back in:Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review,1997,62(3):366-385.
[20]Bianchi, L.& Mariotti, I. The relocation of Italian firms to the Mezzogiorno and to the SEEC:Two systems in comparison. Regional Studies Associationan International Conference, Pisa, Italy,2003.
[21]Biggiero, L. Industrial and knowledge relocation strategies under the challenges of globalization and digitalization:the move of small and medium enterprises among territorial systems. Entrepreneurship & regional development,2006,18:443-471.
[22]Boari, C. Industrial clusters, focal firms, and economic dynamism:A perspective from Italy. World Bank Institute, Working paper, for, No.24,2001.
[23]Bos, W.& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research,1999,31(8):659-671.
[24]Boschma, R. A.& Frenken, K. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6:273-302.
[25]Bretschger, L. Knowledge diffusion and the development of regions. Annals of Regional Science,1999,33,251-268.
[26]Brons, L. L.& Pellenbarg, P. H. Economy, culture and entrepreneurship in a spatial context. In:Marszal T., ed., Spatial Aspects of Entrepreneurship. Warsaw:Polish Academy of Sciences,2003:11-36.
[27]Brouwer, A. E. The inert firm; why old firms show stickiness to their location. The 44th European Regional Science Association conference, Porto, Portugal,2004.
[28]Brouwer, A. E., Mariotti, I.& van Ommeren, J. N. The firm relocation decision:an empirical investigation. The Annals of Regional Science,2004,38:335-347.
[29]Bruinsma, F., Gorte, C.& Nijkamp, P. Nomadic firms in a globalizing economy:a comparative study. The 38th European Regional Science Association conference, Vienna, Austria,1998.
[30]Buckley, P. J.& Mucchiell, J. L. Multinational firms and international relocation. Cheltenham, UK:E. Elgar,1997.
[31]Burt, R.S. Structural holes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[32]Cameron, G. C.& Clark, B. D. Industrial Movement and the Regional Problem. University of Glasgow Social and Economic Studies, Occasional Paper, No.5. Edinburgh:Oliver & Boyd,1966.
[33]Caniels, M.C.J.& Romijn, H.A. Agglomeration advantages and capability building in industrial clusters:The missing link. The Journal of Development Studies,2003, 39(3):129-154.
[34]Chan, S. H., Gau, G. W.& Wang, K. Stock market reaction to capital investment decisions:Evidence from business relocations. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,1995,30(1):81-101.
[35]Christian, C. M.& Bennett, S. J. Industrial relocations from the black community of Chicago. Growth and Change,1973,4(2):14-20.
[36]Christiansen, U. Moves of firms 1961-1976 between Danish functional urban regions. IASA, Laxenburg (seminar paper),1978.
[37]Churchill, C.& Lewis, V. L. The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review,1983,61(3):30-50.
[38]Cohen S. S.& Fields G. Social Capital and Capital Gains, or Virtual Bowling in Silicon Valley. The LEED conference "Local Economic Development:Social Capital and Productive Networks", Mexico City,1999.
[39]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[40]Cohen, J. P.& Morrison, C. J. P. Agglomeration economies and industry location decisions:The impacts of spatial and industrial spillovers. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2005,35(3):215-237.
[41]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94:S95-120.
[42]Combs, J. G.& Ketchen, D. J. Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(9):867-888.
[43]Cooper, M. J. M. The industrial location decision making process, Birmingham: Centre for urban and regional studies University of Birmingham,1975.
[44]Devereux, M. P.& Griffith, R. Taxes and the location of production:evidence from a panel of US multinationals. Journal of Public Economics,1998,68(3):335-367.
[45]van Dijk, J.& Pellenbarg, P. H. Firm relocation decisions in the Netherlands:An ordered Logit approach. Regional Science,2000,79(2):191-219.
[46]Duranton, G.& Puga, D. Nursery cities:Urban diversity, process innovation and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review,2001,91(5):1454-1477.
[47]van Eenennaam, F.& Brouthers, K. D. Global Relocation:High Hopes and Big Risks! Long Range Planning,1996,29(1):84-93.
[48]Eraydin A.& Armatli-Koroglu, B. Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters:the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2005,17: 237-266.
[49]Feldman, M. P. The new economics of innovation spillovers and agglomeration:A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999, 8(1):5-26.
[50]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003,32(5):751-770.
[51]Garreau, J. Edge city:Life on the new frontier. New York:Doubleday,1991.
[52]Garwood, J. D. An analysis of postwar industrial migration to Utah and Colorado, Economic Geography,1953,29(1):79-88.
[53]Gemser, G., Brand, M. J.& Sorge, A. M. Exploring the internationalisation process of small businesses:a study of Dutch old and new economy firms. Management International Review,2004,44(2):127-150.
[54]Ghosh, C., Rodriguez, M.& Sirmans, C. F., Gains from corporate headquarters relocations:Evidence from the stock market. Journal of Urban Economics,1995,38: 291-311.
[55]Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D.& Scheinkman, J. A. et al. Growth in cities. The Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6):1126-1152.
[56]Giuliani, E. The Structure of cluster knowledge networks:Uneven and selective, not pervasive and collective. DRUID Working Paper,2005, No.05-11.
[57]Giuliani, E.& Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation:evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy,2005,34(1): 47-68.
[58]Gnyawali, D. R.& Madhavan, R. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001,26, 431-445.
[59]Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78,1360-1380.
[60]Granovetter, M. S. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[61]Granovetter, M. S. The Myth of Social Network Analysis as a Special Method in the Social Sciences.Connections,1990,13(2):13-16.
[62]Granovetter, M. S. The nature of economic relationships. New York:Russell Sage Foundation,1993,3-41.
[63]Gregory, R., Lombard, J. R.& Selferr, B. Impact of Headquarters Relocation on the Operating Performance of the Firm. Economic Development Quarterly,2005,19: 260-270.
[64]Greiner, L. E. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review,1972,50(4):37-46.
[65]Gulati, R.& Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation:Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43(4):781-814.
[66]Hagedoorn, J.& Schakenraad, J. The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance." Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(4):291-309.
[67]Hakansson, H.& Snehota, I. No Business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,1989,4(3):187-200.
[68]Harabi, N. Channels of R&D spillovers:An empirical investigation of Swiss firms. Technovation,1997,17(11/12):627-635.
[69]Hart, S. L., Denison, D. R.& Henderson, D. A. A contingency approach to firm location:The influence of industrial sector and level of technology. Policy Studies Journal,1989,17(3):599-623.
[70]Hayter, R. Locational decision making in a resource based manufacturing sector: case studies from the pulp and paper industry of British Columbia. The Professional Geographer,1978,30(3):240-249.
[71]Hayter, R. The dynamics of industrial location. The factory, the firm and the production system. New York:Wiley,1997.
[72]Huisman, C.& Van Wissen, L. J. G. A model of internal firm relocation in the Netherlands. The 45th European Regional Science Association conference, Amsterdam,2005.
[73]Holl, A. Start-ups and relocations:Manufacturing plant location in Portugal. Papers in Regional Science,2004,83(4):649-668.
[74]Holsti,O. R. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Don Mills: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,1969.
[75]Howells, J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies,2002,39(5-6):871-884.
[76]Jaffe, A. B. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review,1989, (5):957-970.
[77]Johannisson, B.& Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Networking for Entrepreneurship:Building a Topography Model of Human, Social and Cultural Capital. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Jonkoping, Sweden,2001.
[78]Johdo, W.& Hashimoto, K. International relocation, the real exchange rate and welfare. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control,2005,29:1449-1469.
[79]Johnston, R. Clusters:a review of their basis and development in Australia. Innovation:Management, Policy& Practice,2004,3:380-391.
[80]Karvel, G R., Musil, T. A.& Sebastian, R. Minnesota Business Migration: Relocation, Expansion, and Formation in Border States. American Experiment Quarterly,1998:67-85.
[81]Keeble, D. Industrial decentralization and the metropolis:the north-west London case. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers,1968,44:1-54.
[82]Klaassen, L. H.& Molle, W.T.M. Industrial Mobility and Migration in the European Community. Aldershot:Gower,1983.
[83]Knoben, J. A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. The 46th European Regional Science Association conference with number ersa06p1,2006.
[84]Knoben, J.& Oerlemans, L.A.G. The effects of spatial mobility on the performance of firms. Economic Geography.2008a,84(2):157-183.
[85]Knoben, J.& Oerlemans, L.A.G Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. Regional Studies,2008b,42(3):385-400.
[86]Koka, B. R.& Prescott, G E. Strategic alliances as social capital:A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(9):795-816
[87]Krumme, G. Towards a geography of enterprise. Economic Geography,1969,45: 30-40.
[88]Kruyt, B. The changing spatial pattern of firms in Amsterdam:empirical evidence. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,1979,70(3):114-157.
[89]Lagendijk, A. Towards conceptual quality in regional studies:The need for a subtle critique. Regional Studies,2003.
[90]Leamer, E. E. In search of Storper-Samuelson linkages between international trade and lower wages. Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,1998,143-203.
[91]Lee, Y. Relocation patterns in U.S. manufacturing. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper, No.0624,2006.
[92]Leone, R.A.& Struyck, R. The incubation hypothesis:evidence from five SMA's. Urban Studies,1976,13(3):325-331.
[93]Liao, J.& Welsch, H. Social capital and growth intention:the role of entrepreneurial networks in technology-based new ventures. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Colege, Mass,2001.
[94]Lloyd, P. E.& Dicken, P. Location in space.2nd edition. London/New York:Harper & Row,1977.
[95]Lorenzen, M. Localized learning and social capital:The geography effect in technological and institutional dynamics. DRUID Working Paper, No.05-22,2005.
[96]Louw, E. Kantoorgebouw en vestigingsplaats. PhD thesis, Technical University Delft, 1996.
[97]Louw, E. Accommodation as a location factor for office organizations:implications for location theory. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,1999, 13:477-494.
[98]Love, L. L.& Crompton, J. L. The role of quality of life in business (re)location decisions. Journal of business research,1999,44:211-222.
[99]Love, J. H.& Roper, S. Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy,2001, 30(4):643-661.
[100]Luttrell, W. F. Factory Location and Industrial Movement:a study of recent experience in Great Britain. Volume 1 and 2. London:National Institute of Economic and Social Research,1962.
[101]Machlup, F. Theories of the firm:marginalist, behavioral, managerial. The American Economic Review,1967,57(1):1-33.
[102]Mackun, P.& MacPherson, A. D. Externally-assisted product innovation in the manufacturing sector:The role of location, in house R&D and outside technological support. Regional Studies,1997,31(7):659-668.
[103]Malipiero A., Munari F.& Sobrero, M. Focal Firms as Technological Gatekeepers within Industrial Districts:Knowledge Creation and Dissemination in the Italian Packaging Machinery Industry. The DRUID Winter Conference,2005.
[104]Manjon-Antolin, M. C.& Arauzo-Carod, J. M. Locations and relocations:Modelling, determinants, and Interrelations. Department of Economics and GRIT, Rovira i Virgili University,2006.
[105]Manning, C., Rodriguez, M.& Ghosh, C. Devising a Corporate Facility Location Strategy to Maximize Shareholder Wealth. Journal of Real Estate Research,1999, 17(3):321-340.
[106]Maoh, H.& Kanaroglou, P. Business establishment mobility behavior in urban areas: a microanalytical model for the City of Hamilton in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Geographical Systems,2007,9(3):229-253.
[107]Mariotti, I. Methodological problems in firm migration research. The case of Italy. Milan:Franco Angeli,2002,208-229.
[108]Mariotti, I. Firm relocation and regional policy:A focus on Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. PhD thesis, Royal Dutch Geographical Society/Department of Spatial Sciences University of Groningen,2005.
[109]Mariotti, I.& Pen, C. J. Firm migration patterns in the Netherlands and United Kingdom. An end of twenty calm years geographical interest. The 41st Congress of the European Regional Science, Zagreb,2001.
[110]Markusen, A. Sticky places in slippery space:a typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography,1996,72:293-313.
[11l1 Martin, R. Institutional approaches in economic geography. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,2000.
[112]Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(3):921-943.
[113]Mason, C. Intra-urban plant relocation:A case study of Greater Manchester. Regional Studies,1980,14(4):267-283.
[114]McCann, P. Urban and regional economics. Oxford:University Press,2001.
[115]McCann, P., Arita, T.& Gordon, I. R. Industrial clusters, transactions costs and the institutional determinants of MNE location behaviour. International Business Review, 2002,11(6):647-663.
[116]McDermott, P. Spatial margins and industrial location in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer,1973,29:64-74.
[117]McLaughlin, G. E.& Robock, S. Why industry moves south:A study of factors influencing the recent location of manufacturing plants in the South. Kingsport: Kingsport Press,1949.
[118]Medda, F., Nijkamp, P.& Rietveld, P. Urban industrial relocation:The theory of edge cities. Environment and planning B,1999,26(5):751-761.
[119]Meester, W. J.& Pellenbary, P. H. The mental map of Dutch entrepreneurs. Changes in the subjective rating of locations in the Netherlands,1983-1993-2003. The 44th European Regional Science Association Congress, Porto, Portugal.2004.
[120]Meester, W. J.& Pellenbary, P. H. The spatial preference map of Dutch entrepreneurs: Subjective rating of locations,1983,1993 and 2003. Journal of Economic and Social Geography,2006,97:364-376.
[121]Minguzzi, A.& Passaro, R. The network of relationships between the economic environment and the entrepreneurial culture in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing,2001,16(2):181-207.
[122]Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D.& Theoret, A. The structure of unstructured decisions processes. Administrative Science quarterly,1976,21:246-275.
[123]Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B.& Lampel, J. A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management, London:Prentice Hall,1998.
[124]Mitchell, J. C. The Concept and Use of Social Networks. Manchester:Manchester University Press,1969.
[125]Molle, W. T. M. Industrial Mobility; A review of empirical studies and an analysis of the migration of industry from the City of Amsterdam. Regional Studies,1977,11: 323-335.
[126]Moore, B.& Rhodes, J. Regional economic policy and the movement of manufacturing firms to development areas. Economica,1976,43:17-31.
[127]Morrison, A. Do leading firms feed industrial districts? Evidence from an Italian furniture district. The DRUID Phd Conference, Aalborg,2004.
[128]Mosakowski, E. Organizational boundaries and economic performance:An empirical study of entrepreneurial computer firms. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12: 115-133.
[129]Moulaert, F.& Sekia, F. Territorial innovation models:a critical review. Regional Studies,2003,37:289-302.
[130]Mucchielli, J. L.& Saucier, P. European industrial relocation in low-wages countries: policy and theory debates. London:Edwar Elgar,1997.
[131]Mueller, E., Wilken, A.& Wood, M. Location decisions and industrial mobility in Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan:Institute for Social Research the University of Michigan,1961.
[132]Nakosteen, R. A.& Zimmer, M. A. Determinants of regional migration by manufacturing firms. Economic Inquiry,1987,50:351-362.
[133]Oerlemans, L. A. G.& Meeus, M. T. H. Do organisational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies,2005,39(1):89-104.
[134]Oerlemans, L. A. G, Meeus, M. T. H.& Boekema, F. W. M. Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analyzing innovation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,1998,89(3): 298-309.
[135]Oerlemans, L. A. G, Meeus, M. T. H.& Boekema, F. W. M. Firm clustering and innovation:Determinants and effects. Papers in Regional Science,2001,80(1): 337-356.
[136]Ostgaard, A.& Birley. S. New Venture Growth and Personal Networks. Journal of Business Research,1996,36:37-50.
[137]Ormerod, R. J. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation? Omega,2000,28(2):241-245.
[138]Ortona, G. & Santagata, W. Industrial mobility in the Turin metropolitan area 1961-1977. Urban Studies,1983,20:59-71.
[139]Owens, R. E.& Sarte, P. D. Analyzing firm location decisions-is public intervention justified. Journal of Public Economics,2002,86(2):223-242.
[140]Pangarkar, N. Determinants of alliance duration in uncertain environments:The case of the biotechnology sector. Long Range Planning,2003,36(3):269-284.
[141]Park, S. H.& Russo, M. V. When competition eclipses cooperation:An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science,1996,42(6):875-889.
[142]Pellenbarg, P. H. Firm migration in the Netherlands. The 45th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Amsterdam,2005.
[143]Pellenbarg, P. H.& Kemper, N. J. Industrial mobility in the Netherlands:patterns, causes and impacts for spatial policy. University of Groningen, SOM Research Report, No.99D34,1999.
[144]Pellenbarg, P. H., van Wissen, L. J. G.& van Dijk, J. Firm Migration. McCann, P. Industrial Location Economics. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002:110-148.
[145]Pen, C. J. Improving the behavioral location theory:Preliminary results of a written questionnaire about strategic decision-making on firm relocations. The 39th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Dublin,1999.
[146]Pen, C. J. Actors, causes, and phases in the decision-making process of relocated firms in the Netherlands. The 40th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Barcelona, Spain,2000.
[147]Pen, Cees-Jan & Pellenbarg, P. H. Central, provincial, and municipal government policy in the Netherlands and the impact on firm migrations. The 38th European Regional Science Association Conference, Vienna, Austria,1998.
[148]Pennings, E.& Sleuwaegen, L. International relocation:firm and industry determinants. Economics Letters,2000,67(2):179-186.
[149]Porter, M. E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London:Macmillan,1990.
[150]Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6):77-90.
[151]Putnam, R. The prosperous community:social capital and public life. American. Prospect,1993,13:35-42.
[152]Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A. M. A.& Datta, D. K. Strategic decision processes: critical review and future directions. Journal of Management,1993,19(2):349-384.
[153]Ray, L.& Sayer, A. Culture and Economy after the Cultural Turn. London:Sage, 1999.
[154]Rickne, A. New technology-based firms and industrial dynamics:Evidence from the technological system of biomaterials in Sweden, Ohio and Massachusetts. Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology,2000.
[155]Romo, F. P.& Schwartz, M. The structural embeddedness of business decisions:The migration of manufacturing plants in New York state,1960 to 1985. American Sociological Review,1995,60,874-907.
[156]Saviotti, P. P. On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8):843-856.
[157]Sayer, A. Explanation in economic geography:abstraction versus generalization. Progress in Human Geography,1982,6:68-89.
[158]Schmenner, R. W. Choosing new industrial capacity:On-site expansion, branching, and relocation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1980,95(1):103-119.
[159]Schmidt, C. G. An Analysis of Firm Relocation Patterns in Metropolitan Denver, 1974-76. The Annals of Regional Science,1979,13(1):78-91.
[160]Schmitz, H. Global competition and local cooperation:success and failure in the Sinos Valley, Brazil. World Development,1999,27 (9):1627-1650.
[161]Schutjens, V., Mackloet, A.& Korteweg, P. J. Hom-based business:exploring the place attachment of entrepreneurs. The 46th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Volos, Greece,2006.
[162]Schriver, W. R. The industrialization of the South-East since 1950:some causes of manufacturing relocation, with speculation about its effects. The American Journal of Economical and Sociology,1971,30(1):47-70.
[163]Schutjens, V.& Stam, E. The evolution and nature of young firm networks:A longitudinal perspective. Small Business Economics,2003,21(2):115-134.
[164]Stam, E. Why Butterflies Don't Leave. Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography,2007,83(1):27-50.
[165]Van Steen, P. J. M.& van der Velde, B. M. R. Expansieruimte voor bedrijven. Mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden voor uitbreiding van bedrijfspanden. Onderzoek en Advies 69, Groningen; Faculteit der Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,1993.
[166]Steinmetz, L. L. Critical stages of small business growth. Business Horizons,1969.
[167]Storper, M. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later:The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies,1995, 2(3):191-221.
[168]Strauss-Kahn, V.& Vives, X. Why and where do headquarters move? The International Consortium of Real Estate Associations-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2005.
[169]Stuart, T. E. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms:A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(8):791-811.
[170]Stuart, T.& Sorenson, O. The geography of opportunity:Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy,2003, 32(2):229-253.
[171]Taylor, M. J. Organisational growth, spatial interaction and location,1978.
[172]Tirtiroglu, D., Bhabra, H. S.& Lel, U. Political uncertainty and asset valuation: Evidence from business relocations in Canada. Journal of Banking & Finance,2004, 28(9):2237-2258.
[173]Traistaru, I., Nijkamp, P.& Longhi, S. Determinants of Manufacturing Location in EU Accession Countrie. The 43rd European Congress of the Regional Science Association, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland,2003.
[174]Torre, A.& Rallet, A. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies,2005,39(1): 47-59.
[175]Townroe, P. M. Industrial location decisions:a study in management behavior. Birmingham:Centre for urban and regional studies University of Birmingham,1971.
[176]Townroe, P. M. Some behavioural considerations in the industrial location decision, Regional Studies,1972,6:261-272.
[177]Townroe, P. M. The supply of mobile industry:a cross-sectional analysis. Regional and Urban Economics 1973,2(4):371-386.
[178]Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review, 1996,61(4):674-698.
[179]Uzzi, B. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks:The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1):35-67.
[180]Verbeke, T.& Clercq, M. D. E. Environmental policy uncertainty, policy coordination and relocation decisions. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Working Papers, No.03/208,2003.
[181]Vogel, R. M. Relocation subsidies:Regional growth policy or corporate welfare. Review of Radical Political Economics,2000,32(3):437-447.
[182]Wellman, B. Studying Personal Communities. Sage Publication,1982.
[183]Williamson, O. E. Markets and hierarchies:Analysis and antitrust implications. New York:Free Press,1975.
[184]Wins, P. The location of firms:an analysis of choice processes.1995,244-266.
[185]van Wissen, L. A micro-simulation model of firms:applications of concepts of the demography of the firm. Papers of Regional Science,2000,79:111-134.
[186]van Wissen, L.& Schutjens, V. Geographical scale and the role of firm migration in spatial economic dynamics. The 45th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Amsterdam,2005.
[187]Wu, L., Wang, Y.& Lin, B. X. et al. Local tax rebates, corporate tax burdens, and firm migration:evidence form China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2007, 26:555-583.
[188]Zhao, L. M.& Aram, J. D. Networking and growth of young technology-intensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10(5):349-370.
[189]白玫.企业迁移研究.博士学位论文,南开大学,2003.
[190]白玫.企业迁移的三个流派及其发展.经济学动态,2005,8：83-88.
[191]蔡宁和杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进：从“聚集经济”到“创新网络”.科研管理,2004,25(4)：104-109.
[192]陈建军.中国现阶段产业区域转移的实证研究.管理世界,2002,6：64-74.
[193]陈金波.基于生态学的企业集群内在风险与对策研究.当代财经.2005,6：68-72.
[194]陈耀和冯超.贸易成本、本地关联与产业集群迁移.中国工业经济,2008,3：76-83.
[195]窦军生和贾生华.“家业”何以长青?——企业家个体层面家族企业代际传承要素 的识别.管理世界,2008,9：105-117.
[196]傅晓霞,魏后凯和吴利学.城市工业搬迁的动因、方式和效果——以北京市为例.经济管理,2007,21：66-71.
[197]葛辉.浙江专题调研企业外迁现象.http://www.people.com.cn/GB/paper40/ 12722/1143029.html,2004-08-18.
[198]郭新民和晋卫.城市企业搬迁与环境问题研究.中国环境保护优秀论文集,2005.
[199]黄洁.集群企业成长中的网络演化：机制与路径研究.浙江大学博士学位论文,2006.
[200]李松志.佛山禅城建筑陶瓷产业转移机理.经济地理,2007,27(2)：208-212.
[201]李王鸣,朱珊和王纯彬.民营企业迁移扩张现象调查——以浙江省乐清市为例.经济问题,2004,9：30-32.
[202]李志刚,汤书昆和梁晓艳等.产业集群网络结构与企业创新绩效关系研究.科学学研究,2007,25(4)：777-782.
[203]刘怀德.经济发展中的企业迁移.财经理论与实践,2001,22(111)：114-116.
[204]刘怀伟.商务市场中顾客关系的持续机制研究——基于顾客的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[205]刘军.社会网络分析导论,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[206]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯.管理学.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[207]宁钟.企业集群理论的演进及其评述.武汉大学学报：社会科学版,2002,55(6)：687-696.
[208]钱文荣和邬静琼.城市化过程中农村企业迁移意愿实证研究.浙江社会科学,2003,1：191-193.
[209]唐勇钢和沈雁.自主创新：民营经济飞跃的新起点http://www. westtimes. com/news/2005_11/200511151030487972.shtml,2005-11-16.
[210]王缉慈.创新的空间——企业集群与区域发展.北京：北京大学出版社,2001
[211]王缉慈.关于中国产业集群研究的若干概念辨析.地理学报,2004,59(增刊)：47-52.
[212]王业强.国外企业迁移研究综述.经济地理,2007,27(1)：30-35.
[213]魏后凯.产业转移的发展趋势及其对竞争力的影响.福建论坛·经济社会版,2003,4：11-15.
[214]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[215]邬爱其.企业集群化成长的网络机制及其影响因素研究：以浙江省为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[216]邬爱其.乡村企业进城成长的意愿与绩效：对浙江省的调查分析.农业经济问题,2006,5：34-38.
[217]吴波.基于匹配视角的集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[218]吴波和杨菊萍.区域龙头企业的知识溢出与本地中小企业成长.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：130-136.
[219]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[220]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003.
[221]吴晓波和耿帅.区域集群自稔性风险成因分析.经济地理,2003,23(6)：726-730.
[222]徐金发,张宏和江青虎.总部经济对区域经济发展的积极意义——基于对企业搬迁过程和效果的剖析.技术经济,2006,25(7)：45-47.
[223]颜士梅.内容分析方法及在人力资源管理研究中的运用.软科学,2008,22(9)：133-139.
[224]杨文兵.企业迁移理论研究的主要流派及其述评.经济问题探索,2007,2：137-140.
[225]杨兴云.深圳产业调整加工贸易型企业外迁引发连锁反应http://www.28833. com/1//chuangye/2006-11/193289.htm,2006-11-07.
[226]臧旭恒和何青松.试论产业集群租金与产业集群演进.中国工业经济,2007,3：5-13.
[227]张嘉文.地理群聚、组织间关系镶嵌于网络地位对创新绩效之影响.远东学报,2006,23(2)：353-372.
[228]张文彤.SPSS统计分析高级教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004,304-304.
[229]张文彤和闫洁.SPSS统计分析基础教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004,360-360.
[230]中共浙江省委政研室课题组.快速成长的浙江区域块状经济http://www. zjol.com.cn/gb/node2/node43163/node70701/userobjectl 5ai984907.html, 2002-06-11
[231]周立新和李传昭.西方企业家网络理论研究述评.当代财经,2003,1：90-92.
[232]朱华晟.浙江产业集群——产业网络成长轨迹与发展动力.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2003.
[2]Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(3):425-457.
[3]Amin, A.& Thrift, N. What sort of economics for what sort of economic geography? Antipode,2000,32:4-9.
[4]Albino, V., Garavelli, A.& Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relations in industrial districts:the role of the leader firm. Technovation,1999 (19):53-63.
[5]Albornoz, F.& Corcos, G. Regional integration, Subsidy Competition and the Relocation Choice of MNCs. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy,2007, 7(1):1-25.
[6]Alli, K. L., Ramirez, G.. G.& Yung, K. Corporate headquarters relocation:Evidence from the capital markets. Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association,1991,19(4):583-599.
[7]Arauzo-Carod, J. M.& Manjon-Antolin, M. C. Location and relocation:modeling, determinants and interrelations. Universitat Rovira I Virgili, working papers, No. 2007-6,2007.
[8]Artis, M., Ramos, R.& Surinach, J. Job Losses, Outsourcing and Relocation: Empirical Evidence Using Microdata. Research Institute of Applied Economics, Working Papers, No.2006/1,2006.
[9]Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E.& Warning, S. University spillovers:Strategic location and new firm performance. London, CEPR discussion papers,37,2003.
[10]Bade, F. J. Locational behaviour and the mobility of firms in West Germany. Urban Studies,1983,20:279-297.
[11]Ball, M. Institutions in British property research:a review. Urban Studies,1998, 35(9):1501-1517.
[12]Barnes, T. J. Retheorizing economic geography:from the quantitative revolution to the "Cultural Turn". Annals of the Association of American Geographers,2001, 91(3):546-565.
[13]Batjargal, B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Performance in Russia:A Longitudinal Study. Organization Studies,2003,24(4):535-556.
[14]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T.& Silverman, B. S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups'performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):267-294.
[15]Becattini, G. Industrial Sectors and Industrial Districts:Tools for Industrial Analysis. European Planning Studies,2002,10(4):483-493.
[16]Belfrage, C.& Gallo, F. Shackling the footloose firm? Factor interests and majority voting. Lund University, Department of Economics, Working Papers, No.2006:16, 2006.
[17]Bell, G. G. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(3):287-296.
[18]Bhabra, H. S., Lei, U.& Tirtiroglu, D. Stock market's reaction to business relocations:Canadian evidence. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences,2002, 19(4):346-358.
[19]Bian, Y. Bringing strong ties back in:Indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. American Sociological Review,1997,62(3):366-385.
[20]Bianchi, L.& Mariotti, I. The relocation of Italian firms to the Mezzogiorno and to the SEEC:Two systems in comparison. Regional Studies Associationan International Conference, Pisa, Italy,2003.
[21]Biggiero, L. Industrial and knowledge relocation strategies under the challenges of globalization and digitalization:the move of small and medium enterprises among territorial systems. Entrepreneurship & regional development,2006,18:443-471.
[22]Boari, C. Industrial clusters, focal firms, and economic dynamism:A perspective from Italy. World Bank Institute, Working paper, for, No.24,2001.
[23]Bos, W.& Tarnai, C. Content analysis in empirical social research. International Journal of Educational Research,1999,31(8):659-671.
[24]Boschma, R. A.& Frenken, K. Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6:273-302.
[25]Bretschger, L. Knowledge diffusion and the development of regions. Annals of Regional Science,1999,33,251-268.
[26]Brons, L. L.& Pellenbarg, P. H. Economy, culture and entrepreneurship in a spatial context. In:Marszal T., ed., Spatial Aspects of Entrepreneurship. Warsaw:Polish Academy of Sciences,2003:11-36.
[27]Brouwer, A. E. The inert firm; why old firms show stickiness to their location. The 44th European Regional Science Association conference, Porto, Portugal,2004.
[28]Brouwer, A. E., Mariotti, I.& van Ommeren, J. N. The firm relocation decision:an empirical investigation. The Annals of Regional Science,2004,38:335-347.
[29]Bruinsma, F., Gorte, C.& Nijkamp, P. Nomadic firms in a globalizing economy:a comparative study. The 38th European Regional Science Association conference, Vienna, Austria,1998.
[30]Buckley, P. J.& Mucchiell, J. L. Multinational firms and international relocation. Cheltenham, UK:E. Elgar,1997.
[31]Burt, R.S. Structural holes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[32]Cameron, G. C.& Clark, B. D. Industrial Movement and the Regional Problem. University of Glasgow Social and Economic Studies, Occasional Paper, No.5. Edinburgh:Oliver & Boyd,1966.
[33]Caniels, M.C.J.& Romijn, H.A. Agglomeration advantages and capability building in industrial clusters:The missing link. The Journal of Development Studies,2003, 39(3):129-154.
[34]Chan, S. H., Gau, G. W.& Wang, K. Stock market reaction to capital investment decisions:Evidence from business relocations. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,1995,30(1):81-101.
[35]Christian, C. M.& Bennett, S. J. Industrial relocations from the black community of Chicago. Growth and Change,1973,4(2):14-20.
[36]Christiansen, U. Moves of firms 1961-1976 between Danish functional urban regions. IASA, Laxenburg (seminar paper),1978.
[37]Churchill, C.& Lewis, V. L. The five stages of small business growth. Harvard Business Review,1983,61(3):30-50.
[38]Cohen S. S.& Fields G. Social Capital and Capital Gains, or Virtual Bowling in Silicon Valley. The LEED conference "Local Economic Development:Social Capital and Productive Networks", Mexico City,1999.
[39]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[40]Cohen, J. P.& Morrison, C. J. P. Agglomeration economies and industry location decisions:The impacts of spatial and industrial spillovers. Regional Science and Urban Economics,2005,35(3):215-237.
[41]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94:S95-120.
[42]Combs, J. G.& Ketchen, D. J. Explaining interfirm cooperation and performance: Toward a reconciliation of predictions from the resource-based view and organizational economics. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(9):867-888.
[43]Cooper, M. J. M. The industrial location decision making process, Birmingham: Centre for urban and regional studies University of Birmingham,1975.
[44]Devereux, M. P.& Griffith, R. Taxes and the location of production:evidence from a panel of US multinationals. Journal of Public Economics,1998,68(3):335-367.
[45]van Dijk, J.& Pellenbarg, P. H. Firm relocation decisions in the Netherlands:An ordered Logit approach. Regional Science,2000,79(2):191-219.
[46]Duranton, G.& Puga, D. Nursery cities:Urban diversity, process innovation and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review,2001,91(5):1454-1477.
[47]van Eenennaam, F.& Brouthers, K. D. Global Relocation:High Hopes and Big Risks! Long Range Planning,1996,29(1):84-93.
[48]Eraydin A.& Armatli-Koroglu, B. Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters:the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development,2005,17: 237-266.
[49]Feldman, M. P. The new economics of innovation spillovers and agglomeration:A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999, 8(1):5-26.
[50]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003,32(5):751-770.
[51]Garreau, J. Edge city:Life on the new frontier. New York:Doubleday,1991.
[52]Garwood, J. D. An analysis of postwar industrial migration to Utah and Colorado, Economic Geography,1953,29(1):79-88.
[53]Gemser, G., Brand, M. J.& Sorge, A. M. Exploring the internationalisation process of small businesses:a study of Dutch old and new economy firms. Management International Review,2004,44(2):127-150.
[54]Ghosh, C., Rodriguez, M.& Sirmans, C. F., Gains from corporate headquarters relocations:Evidence from the stock market. Journal of Urban Economics,1995,38: 291-311.
[55]Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D.& Scheinkman, J. A. et al. Growth in cities. The Journal of Political Economy,1992,100(6):1126-1152.
[56]Giuliani, E. The Structure of cluster knowledge networks:Uneven and selective, not pervasive and collective. DRUID Working Paper,2005, No.05-11.
[57]Giuliani, E.& Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation:evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy,2005,34(1): 47-68.
[58]Gnyawali, D. R.& Madhavan, R. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001,26, 431-445.
[59]Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78,1360-1380.
[60]Granovetter, M. S. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[61]Granovetter, M. S. The Myth of Social Network Analysis as a Special Method in the Social Sciences.Connections,1990,13(2):13-16.
[62]Granovetter, M. S. The nature of economic relationships. New York:Russell Sage Foundation,1993,3-41.
[63]Gregory, R., Lombard, J. R.& Selferr, B. Impact of Headquarters Relocation on the Operating Performance of the Firm. Economic Development Quarterly,2005,19: 260-270.
[64]Greiner, L. E. Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review,1972,50(4):37-46.
[65]Gulati, R.& Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation:Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43(4):781-814.
[66]Hagedoorn, J.& Schakenraad, J. The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance." Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(4):291-309.
[67]Hakansson, H.& Snehota, I. No Business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,1989,4(3):187-200.
[68]Harabi, N. Channels of R&D spillovers:An empirical investigation of Swiss firms. Technovation,1997,17(11/12):627-635.
[69]Hart, S. L., Denison, D. R.& Henderson, D. A. A contingency approach to firm location:The influence of industrial sector and level of technology. Policy Studies Journal,1989,17(3):599-623.
[70]Hayter, R. Locational decision making in a resource based manufacturing sector: case studies from the pulp and paper industry of British Columbia. The Professional Geographer,1978,30(3):240-249.
[71]Hayter, R. The dynamics of industrial location. The factory, the firm and the production system. New York:Wiley,1997.
[72]Huisman, C.& Van Wissen, L. J. G. A model of internal firm relocation in the Netherlands. The 45th European Regional Science Association conference, Amsterdam,2005.
[73]Holl, A. Start-ups and relocations:Manufacturing plant location in Portugal. Papers in Regional Science,2004,83(4):649-668.
[74]Holsti,O. R. Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Don Mills: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company,1969.
[75]Howells, J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies,2002,39(5-6):871-884.
[76]Jaffe, A. B. Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review,1989, (5):957-970.
[77]Johannisson, B.& Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Networking for Entrepreneurship:Building a Topography Model of Human, Social and Cultural Capital. Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Jonkoping, Sweden,2001.
[78]Johdo, W.& Hashimoto, K. International relocation, the real exchange rate and welfare. Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control,2005,29:1449-1469.
[79]Johnston, R. Clusters:a review of their basis and development in Australia. Innovation:Management, Policy& Practice,2004,3:380-391.
[80]Karvel, G R., Musil, T. A.& Sebastian, R. Minnesota Business Migration: Relocation, Expansion, and Formation in Border States. American Experiment Quarterly,1998:67-85.
[81]Keeble, D. Industrial decentralization and the metropolis:the north-west London case. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers,1968,44:1-54.
[82]Klaassen, L. H.& Molle, W.T.M. Industrial Mobility and Migration in the European Community. Aldershot:Gower,1983.
[83]Knoben, J. A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. The 46th European Regional Science Association conference with number ersa06p1,2006.
[84]Knoben, J.& Oerlemans, L.A.G. The effects of spatial mobility on the performance of firms. Economic Geography.2008a,84(2):157-183.
[85]Knoben, J.& Oerlemans, L.A.G Ties that spatially bind? A relational account of the causes of spatial firm mobility. Regional Studies,2008b,42(3):385-400.
[86]Koka, B. R.& Prescott, G E. Strategic alliances as social capital:A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(9):795-816
[87]Krumme, G. Towards a geography of enterprise. Economic Geography,1969,45: 30-40.
[88]Kruyt, B. The changing spatial pattern of firms in Amsterdam:empirical evidence. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,1979,70(3):114-157.
[89]Lagendijk, A. Towards conceptual quality in regional studies:The need for a subtle critique. Regional Studies,2003.
[90]Leamer, E. E. In search of Storper-Samuelson linkages between international trade and lower wages. Washington D.C.:Brookings Institution Press,1998,143-203.
[91]Lee, Y. Relocation patterns in U.S. manufacturing. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper, No.0624,2006.
[92]Leone, R.A.& Struyck, R. The incubation hypothesis:evidence from five SMA's. Urban Studies,1976,13(3):325-331.
[93]Liao, J.& Welsch, H. Social capital and growth intention:the role of entrepreneurial networks in technology-based new ventures. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, Babson Colege, Mass,2001.
[94]Lloyd, P. E.& Dicken, P. Location in space.2nd edition. London/New York:Harper & Row,1977.
[95]Lorenzen, M. Localized learning and social capital:The geography effect in technological and institutional dynamics. DRUID Working Paper, No.05-22,2005.
[96]Louw, E. Kantoorgebouw en vestigingsplaats. PhD thesis, Technical University Delft, 1996.
[97]Louw, E. Accommodation as a location factor for office organizations:implications for location theory. Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment,1999, 13:477-494.
[98]Love, L. L.& Crompton, J. L. The role of quality of life in business (re)location decisions. Journal of business research,1999,44:211-222.
[99]Love, J. H.& Roper, S. Location and network effects on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy,2001, 30(4):643-661.
[100]Luttrell, W. F. Factory Location and Industrial Movement:a study of recent experience in Great Britain. Volume 1 and 2. London:National Institute of Economic and Social Research,1962.
[101]Machlup, F. Theories of the firm:marginalist, behavioral, managerial. The American Economic Review,1967,57(1):1-33.
[102]Mackun, P.& MacPherson, A. D. Externally-assisted product innovation in the manufacturing sector:The role of location, in house R&D and outside technological support. Regional Studies,1997,31(7):659-668.
[103]Malipiero A., Munari F.& Sobrero, M. Focal Firms as Technological Gatekeepers within Industrial Districts:Knowledge Creation and Dissemination in the Italian Packaging Machinery Industry. The DRUID Winter Conference,2005.
[104]Manjon-Antolin, M. C.& Arauzo-Carod, J. M. Locations and relocations:Modelling, determinants, and Interrelations. Department of Economics and GRIT, Rovira i Virgili University,2006.
[105]Manning, C., Rodriguez, M.& Ghosh, C. Devising a Corporate Facility Location Strategy to Maximize Shareholder Wealth. Journal of Real Estate Research,1999, 17(3):321-340.
[106]Maoh, H.& Kanaroglou, P. Business establishment mobility behavior in urban areas: a microanalytical model for the City of Hamilton in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Geographical Systems,2007,9(3):229-253.
[107]Mariotti, I. Methodological problems in firm migration research. The case of Italy. Milan:Franco Angeli,2002,208-229.
[108]Mariotti, I. Firm relocation and regional policy:A focus on Italy, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. PhD thesis, Royal Dutch Geographical Society/Department of Spatial Sciences University of Groningen,2005.
[109]Mariotti, I.& Pen, C. J. Firm migration patterns in the Netherlands and United Kingdom. An end of twenty calm years geographical interest. The 41st Congress of the European Regional Science, Zagreb,2001.
[110]Markusen, A. Sticky places in slippery space:a typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography,1996,72:293-313.
[11l1 Martin, R. Institutional approaches in economic geography. Oxford:Blackwell Publishers,2000.
[112]Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(3):921-943.
[113]Mason, C. Intra-urban plant relocation:A case study of Greater Manchester. Regional Studies,1980,14(4):267-283.
[114]McCann, P. Urban and regional economics. Oxford:University Press,2001.
[115]McCann, P., Arita, T.& Gordon, I. R. Industrial clusters, transactions costs and the institutional determinants of MNE location behaviour. International Business Review, 2002,11(6):647-663.
[116]McDermott, P. Spatial margins and industrial location in New Zealand. New Zealand Geographer,1973,29:64-74.
[117]McLaughlin, G. E.& Robock, S. Why industry moves south:A study of factors influencing the recent location of manufacturing plants in the South. Kingsport: Kingsport Press,1949.
[118]Medda, F., Nijkamp, P.& Rietveld, P. Urban industrial relocation:The theory of edge cities. Environment and planning B,1999,26(5):751-761.
[119]Meester, W. J.& Pellenbary, P. H. The mental map of Dutch entrepreneurs. Changes in the subjective rating of locations in the Netherlands,1983-1993-2003. The 44th European Regional Science Association Congress, Porto, Portugal.2004.
[120]Meester, W. J.& Pellenbary, P. H. The spatial preference map of Dutch entrepreneurs: Subjective rating of locations,1983,1993 and 2003. Journal of Economic and Social Geography,2006,97:364-376.
[121]Minguzzi, A.& Passaro, R. The network of relationships between the economic environment and the entrepreneurial culture in small firms. Journal of Business Venturing,2001,16(2):181-207.
[122]Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D.& Theoret, A. The structure of unstructured decisions processes. Administrative Science quarterly,1976,21:246-275.
[123]Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B.& Lampel, J. A guided tour through the wilds of strategic management, London:Prentice Hall,1998.
[124]Mitchell, J. C. The Concept and Use of Social Networks. Manchester:Manchester University Press,1969.
[125]Molle, W. T. M. Industrial Mobility; A review of empirical studies and an analysis of the migration of industry from the City of Amsterdam. Regional Studies,1977,11: 323-335.
[126]Moore, B.& Rhodes, J. Regional economic policy and the movement of manufacturing firms to development areas. Economica,1976,43:17-31.
[127]Morrison, A. Do leading firms feed industrial districts? Evidence from an Italian furniture district. The DRUID Phd Conference, Aalborg,2004.
[128]Mosakowski, E. Organizational boundaries and economic performance:An empirical study of entrepreneurial computer firms. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12: 115-133.
[129]Moulaert, F.& Sekia, F. Territorial innovation models:a critical review. Regional Studies,2003,37:289-302.
[130]Mucchielli, J. L.& Saucier, P. European industrial relocation in low-wages countries: policy and theory debates. London:Edwar Elgar,1997.
[131]Mueller, E., Wilken, A.& Wood, M. Location decisions and industrial mobility in Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan:Institute for Social Research the University of Michigan,1961.
[132]Nakosteen, R. A.& Zimmer, M. A. Determinants of regional migration by manufacturing firms. Economic Inquiry,1987,50:351-362.
[133]Oerlemans, L. A. G.& Meeus, M. T. H. Do organisational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies,2005,39(1):89-104.
[134]Oerlemans, L. A. G, Meeus, M. T. H.& Boekema, F. W. M. Do networks matter for innovation? The usefulness of the economic network approach in analyzing innovation. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,1998,89(3): 298-309.
[135]Oerlemans, L. A. G, Meeus, M. T. H.& Boekema, F. W. M. Firm clustering and innovation:Determinants and effects. Papers in Regional Science,2001,80(1): 337-356.
[136]Ostgaard, A.& Birley. S. New Venture Growth and Personal Networks. Journal of Business Research,1996,36:37-50.
[137]Ormerod, R. J. Is content analysis either practical or desirable for research evaluation? Omega,2000,28(2):241-245.
[138]Ortona, G. & Santagata, W. Industrial mobility in the Turin metropolitan area 1961-1977. Urban Studies,1983,20:59-71.
[139]Owens, R. E.& Sarte, P. D. Analyzing firm location decisions-is public intervention justified. Journal of Public Economics,2002,86(2):223-242.
[140]Pangarkar, N. Determinants of alliance duration in uncertain environments:The case of the biotechnology sector. Long Range Planning,2003,36(3):269-284.
[141]Park, S. H.& Russo, M. V. When competition eclipses cooperation:An event history analysis of joint venture failure. Management Science,1996,42(6):875-889.
[142]Pellenbarg, P. H. Firm migration in the Netherlands. The 45th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Amsterdam,2005.
[143]Pellenbarg, P. H.& Kemper, N. J. Industrial mobility in the Netherlands:patterns, causes and impacts for spatial policy. University of Groningen, SOM Research Report, No.99D34,1999.
[144]Pellenbarg, P. H., van Wissen, L. J. G.& van Dijk, J. Firm Migration. McCann, P. Industrial Location Economics. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002:110-148.
[145]Pen, C. J. Improving the behavioral location theory:Preliminary results of a written questionnaire about strategic decision-making on firm relocations. The 39th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Dublin,1999.
[146]Pen, C. J. Actors, causes, and phases in the decision-making process of relocated firms in the Netherlands. The 40th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Barcelona, Spain,2000.
[147]Pen, Cees-Jan & Pellenbarg, P. H. Central, provincial, and municipal government policy in the Netherlands and the impact on firm migrations. The 38th European Regional Science Association Conference, Vienna, Austria,1998.
[148]Pennings, E.& Sleuwaegen, L. International relocation:firm and industry determinants. Economics Letters,2000,67(2):179-186.
[149]Porter, M. E. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London:Macmillan,1990.
[150]Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6):77-90.
[151]Putnam, R. The prosperous community:social capital and public life. American. Prospect,1993,13:35-42.
[152]Rajagopalan, N., Rasheed, A. M. A.& Datta, D. K. Strategic decision processes: critical review and future directions. Journal of Management,1993,19(2):349-384.
[153]Ray, L.& Sayer, A. Culture and Economy after the Cultural Turn. London:Sage, 1999.
[154]Rickne, A. New technology-based firms and industrial dynamics:Evidence from the technological system of biomaterials in Sweden, Ohio and Massachusetts. Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology,2000.
[155]Romo, F. P.& Schwartz, M. The structural embeddedness of business decisions:The migration of manufacturing plants in New York state,1960 to 1985. American Sociological Review,1995,60,874-907.
[156]Saviotti, P. P. On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8):843-856.
[157]Sayer, A. Explanation in economic geography:abstraction versus generalization. Progress in Human Geography,1982,6:68-89.
[158]Schmenner, R. W. Choosing new industrial capacity:On-site expansion, branching, and relocation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1980,95(1):103-119.
[159]Schmidt, C. G. An Analysis of Firm Relocation Patterns in Metropolitan Denver, 1974-76. The Annals of Regional Science,1979,13(1):78-91.
[160]Schmitz, H. Global competition and local cooperation:success and failure in the Sinos Valley, Brazil. World Development,1999,27 (9):1627-1650.
[161]Schutjens, V., Mackloet, A.& Korteweg, P. J. Hom-based business:exploring the place attachment of entrepreneurs. The 46th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Volos, Greece,2006.
[162]Schriver, W. R. The industrialization of the South-East since 1950:some causes of manufacturing relocation, with speculation about its effects. The American Journal of Economical and Sociology,1971,30(1):47-70.
[163]Schutjens, V.& Stam, E. The evolution and nature of young firm networks:A longitudinal perspective. Small Business Economics,2003,21(2):115-134.
[164]Stam, E. Why Butterflies Don't Leave. Locational behavior of entrepreneurial firms. Economic Geography,2007,83(1):27-50.
[165]Van Steen, P. J. M.& van der Velde, B. M. R. Expansieruimte voor bedrijven. Mogelijkheden en onmogelijkheden voor uitbreiding van bedrijfspanden. Onderzoek en Advies 69, Groningen; Faculteit der Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen,1993.
[166]Steinmetz, L. L. Critical stages of small business growth. Business Horizons,1969.
[167]Storper, M. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later:The region as a nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies,1995, 2(3):191-221.
[168]Strauss-Kahn, V.& Vives, X. Why and where do headquarters move? The International Consortium of Real Estate Associations-Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 2005.
[169]Stuart, T. E. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms:A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(8):791-811.
[170]Stuart, T.& Sorenson, O. The geography of opportunity:Spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms. Research Policy,2003, 32(2):229-253.
[171]Taylor, M. J. Organisational growth, spatial interaction and location,1978.
[172]Tirtiroglu, D., Bhabra, H. S.& Lel, U. Political uncertainty and asset valuation: Evidence from business relocations in Canada. Journal of Banking & Finance,2004, 28(9):2237-2258.
[173]Traistaru, I., Nijkamp, P.& Longhi, S. Determinants of Manufacturing Location in EU Accession Countrie. The 43rd European Congress of the Regional Science Association, University of Jyvaskyla, Finland,2003.
[174]Torre, A.& Rallet, A. Proximity and localization. Regional Studies,2005,39(1): 47-59.
[175]Townroe, P. M. Industrial location decisions:a study in management behavior. Birmingham:Centre for urban and regional studies University of Birmingham,1971.
[176]Townroe, P. M. Some behavioural considerations in the industrial location decision, Regional Studies,1972,6:261-272.
[177]Townroe, P. M. The supply of mobile industry:a cross-sectional analysis. Regional and Urban Economics 1973,2(4):371-386.
[178]Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review, 1996,61(4):674-698.
[179]Uzzi, B. Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks:The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1):35-67.
[180]Verbeke, T.& Clercq, M. D. E. Environmental policy uncertainty, policy coordination and relocation decisions. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Working Papers, No.03/208,2003.
[181]Vogel, R. M. Relocation subsidies:Regional growth policy or corporate welfare. Review of Radical Political Economics,2000,32(3):437-447.
[182]Wellman, B. Studying Personal Communities. Sage Publication,1982.
[183]Williamson, O. E. Markets and hierarchies:Analysis and antitrust implications. New York:Free Press,1975.
[184]Wins, P. The location of firms:an analysis of choice processes.1995,244-266.
[185]van Wissen, L. A micro-simulation model of firms:applications of concepts of the demography of the firm. Papers of Regional Science,2000,79:111-134.
[186]van Wissen, L.& Schutjens, V. Geographical scale and the role of firm migration in spatial economic dynamics. The 45th European Congress of the Regional Science Association, Amsterdam,2005.
[187]Wu, L., Wang, Y.& Lin, B. X. et al. Local tax rebates, corporate tax burdens, and firm migration:evidence form China. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,2007, 26:555-583.
[188]Zhao, L. M.& Aram, J. D. Networking and growth of young technology-intensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10(5):349-370.
[189]白玫.企业迁移研究.博士学位论文,南开大学,2003.
[190]白玫.企业迁移的三个流派及其发展.经济学动态,2005,8：83-88.
[191]蔡宁和杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进：从“聚集经济”到“创新网络”.科研管理,2004,25(4)：104-109.
[192]陈建军.中国现阶段产业区域转移的实证研究.管理世界,2002,6：64-74.
[193]陈金波.基于生态学的企业集群内在风险与对策研究.当代财经.2005,6：68-72.
[194]陈耀和冯超.贸易成本、本地关联与产业集群迁移.中国工业经济,2008,3：76-83.
[195]窦军生和贾生华.“家业”何以长青?——企业家个体层面家族企业代际传承要素 的识别.管理世界,2008,9：105-117.
[196]傅晓霞,魏后凯和吴利学.城市工业搬迁的动因、方式和效果——以北京市为例.经济管理,2007,21：66-71.
[197]葛辉.浙江专题调研企业外迁现象.http://www.people.com.cn/GB/paper40/ 12722/1143029.html,2004-08-18.
[198]郭新民和晋卫.城市企业搬迁与环境问题研究.中国环境保护优秀论文集,2005.
[199]黄洁.集群企业成长中的网络演化：机制与路径研究.浙江大学博士学位论文,2006.
[200]李松志.佛山禅城建筑陶瓷产业转移机理.经济地理,2007,27(2)：208-212.
[201]李王鸣,朱珊和王纯彬.民营企业迁移扩张现象调查——以浙江省乐清市为例.经济问题,2004,9：30-32.
[202]李志刚,汤书昆和梁晓艳等.产业集群网络结构与企业创新绩效关系研究.科学学研究,2007,25(4)：777-782.
[203]刘怀德.经济发展中的企业迁移.财经理论与实践,2001,22(111)：114-116.
[204]刘怀伟.商务市场中顾客关系的持续机制研究——基于顾客的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[205]刘军.社会网络分析导论,北京：社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[206]斯蒂芬·罗宾斯.管理学.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[207]宁钟.企业集群理论的演进及其评述.武汉大学学报：社会科学版,2002,55(6)：687-696.
[208]钱文荣和邬静琼.城市化过程中农村企业迁移意愿实证研究.浙江社会科学,2003,1：191-193.
[209]唐勇钢和沈雁.自主创新：民营经济飞跃的新起点http://www. westtimes. com/news/2005_11/200511151030487972.shtml,2005-11-16.
[210]王缉慈.创新的空间——企业集群与区域发展.北京：北京大学出版社,2001
[211]王缉慈.关于中国产业集群研究的若干概念辨析.地理学报,2004,59(增刊)：47-52.
[212]王业强.国外企业迁移研究综述.经济地理,2007,27(1)：30-35.
[213]魏后凯.产业转移的发展趋势及其对竞争力的影响.福建论坛·经济社会版,2003,4：11-15.
[214]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[215]邬爱其.企业集群化成长的网络机制及其影响因素研究：以浙江省为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[216]邬爱其.乡村企业进城成长的意愿与绩效：对浙江省的调查分析.农业经济问题,2006,5：34-38.
[217]吴波.基于匹配视角的集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[218]吴波和杨菊萍.区域龙头企业的知识溢出与本地中小企业成长.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：130-136.
[219]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[220]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003.
[221]吴晓波和耿帅.区域集群自稔性风险成因分析.经济地理,2003,23(6)：726-730.
[222]徐金发,张宏和江青虎.总部经济对区域经济发展的积极意义——基于对企业搬迁过程和效果的剖析.技术经济,2006,25(7)：45-47.
[223]颜士梅.内容分析方法及在人力资源管理研究中的运用.软科学,2008,22(9)：133-139.
[224]杨文兵.企业迁移理论研究的主要流派及其述评.经济问题探索,2007,2：137-140.
[225]杨兴云.深圳产业调整加工贸易型企业外迁引发连锁反应http://www.28833. com/1//chuangye/2006-11/193289.htm,2006-11-07.
[226]臧旭恒和何青松.试论产业集群租金与产业集群演进.中国工业经济,2007,3：5-13.
[227]张嘉文.地理群聚、组织间关系镶嵌于网络地位对创新绩效之影响.远东学报,2006,23(2)：353-372.
[228]张文彤.SPSS统计分析高级教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004,304-304.
[229]张文彤和闫洁.SPSS统计分析基础教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004,360-360.
[230]中共浙江省委政研室课题组.快速成长的浙江区域块状经济http://www. zjol.com.cn/gb/node2/node43163/node70701/userobjectl 5ai984907.html, 2002-06-11
[231]周立新和李传昭.西方企业家网络理论研究述评.当代财经,2003,1：90-92.
[232]朱华晟.浙江产业集群——产业网络成长轨迹与发展动力.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2003.