Search

Whilst personal knowledge networks between organisations have been argued to be important for regional economic development, their functioning and, within this context, the exact role of spatial proximity has been empirically underexplored. This paper addresses these issues by, first, examining the dynamic mechanisms of the formation, maintenance, and knowledge interaction of important knowledge relationships of R&D workers in the Cambridge information technology cluster in the UK. It is demonstrated that personal relations tended to transform from an initially professional context into privately governed relationships. Furthermore, it is argued that a sophisticated understanding of the role of spatial proximity requires an investigation of the spatiality of several stages of the network mechanisms. The results show that permanent spatial proximity and face-to-face interaction are more important for the formation of relationships than for the maintenance stage and, in particular, for work-related knowledge interactions. Finally, it is argued that, in contrast to the emphasis in much of the literature on communities of practice and epistemic communities, the knowledge relationships do not tend to be anchored in collective groups. Instead, the paper highlights the usefulness of the concept of individualised networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A somewhat overlooked aspect of the geography of 'after-Fordist' regulation concerns the precise role of different branches of the state in managing tensions between local economic development and the collective provision of social and physical infrastructure. In the United Kingdom, the state's reluctance to manage or spatially redistribute growth in the South East has resulted in localised pressures on housing markets, the land-use planning system, infrastructure, and the environment, intensifying struggles between progrowth and antigrowth factions in certain places. In this paper the authors examine conflicts arising from the rapid growth of new economic spaces in and around the Cambridge subregion and explore various attempts by different branches of the state and locally dependent factions of capital to overcome barriers to further growth within existing and proposed frameworks for territorial management. A key arena of conflict in this instance centres upon land-use planning and provision of infrastructure. The Cambridge 'growth crisis' raises a series of issues about the ability of interests claiming to represent nationally important city-regions to detach such places from their formative local and national modes of regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]