ABSTRACT
Traditionally, the economic literature has argued that regional economic success requires physical proximity of actors, close access to larger markets/ customers, and availability to utilise different kinds of knowledge and support resources. Previous research, such as Michael Porter’s studies on clusters or Richard Florida’s studies on the creative class, have underpinned an understanding that metropolitan areas (and metropolitan areas only) possess the conditions required for developing into hubs for a dynamic development and highly specialised activities. The concept of geographical proximity is defined by the absolute and relative spatial or physical distances between economic actors (Boschma, 2005). In previous research, it has been claimed that spatial concentration could lead to enhanced knowledge development. Close distances make information contacts and exchange of tacit knowledge easier, and the opposite – larger distances – makes such transfer more difficult (Howells, 2002).
