ABSTRACT
Prior studies examining the impact of social capital on in nova tion have several lim ita tions. First, they have mainly focused on pro cesses taking place at the regional level (i.e., Saxanian, 1994; Storper, 1995; Maskell & Malmberg, 1999; Bellandi, 2001; Bathelt, 2003; Beugelsdijk & van Schaik, 2005; Westlund, 2006). In fact, there is strong empirical evid ence why the regional level is con sidered the most appropriate level of ana lysis for research on social capital (i.e., Almeida & Kogut, 1999; Sorenson, 2003; Owen Smith & Powell, 2004; Tallman et al., 2004). This approach is grounded in arguments that social capital is a geo graphically bound pub lic good that acts to reduce the search costs, transaction costs and verification costs involved in organ iza tions’ know ledge acquisition and in nova tion (Laursen et al., 2007). However, the impact of social capital on in nova tion varies with the ana lyt ical level: national vs regional levels. Thus, based on the same arguments and applying the same regional logic, I suggest the need to ex plore pos sible empirical differ enti ation conceptualized at and en com passing different levels of ana lysis – including national and regional – to more fully depict and appreciate vari ations in social capital dy namics and impact rel at ive to in nova tion. Given the regionally speci fied charac ter istics of social capital, it might be that the direct and pos it ive relationship between social capital and in nova tion may vary at different levels of ana lysis. Recently, Westlund and Adam (2010) have also shown that there are contra dict ory results of studies on national and regional levels based on 15 years of empirical research at various spatial levels on social capital. They argue that these contra dict ory results can be explained in part by insufficient meas ures of the main constructs of social capital.6 Thus, insights from ana lyses at various levels are needed to more expli citly identi fy and de scribe the relationship between social capital and in nova tion. Also, related findings can provide im port ant con textual in forma tion for more cir cumscribed regional ana lyses, offering possib il ities for more in depth understanding. Second, prior studies have produced conflicting results in examining the rela tionship between social capital and in nova tion. Some studies have produced pos it ive results (e.g., Coleman, 1988, 1990; Putnam, 1993a; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Onyx & Bullen, 2000), some negat ive results (e.g., Dasgupta, 2000; Chou et al., 2006) and some both (e.g., Fukuyama, 1999). One study produced partially pos it ive results re gard ing the effect of trust and asso ci ational activity (which is a type of social capital) on in nova tion (Dakhli & de Clercq, 2004). These conflict ing results have been produced because prior studies have not sufficiently de veloped the indic ators measuring social capital of each coun try or region. Despite the pop ular and frequent use of the term “social capital”, there is still a lack of agreement on its definition and meas ure ment, perhaps because of the multidimensional charac ter istics of the concept (Beugelsdijk & Van Schaik, 2005). The definition, constructs and meas ure ment of social capital depend on the researchers and on “whether they focus on the substance, the sources, or the effects of social capital” (Adler & Kwon, 2002: 19). Dakhli and de Clercq (2004) examined the effect of human capital and social capital on in nova tion based on pro cesses and phenomena at the national level. However, they failed to
produce an indic ator measuring the level of social capital, and to examine in depth the nature of the relationship between social capital and in nova tion. Thus, it is neces sary to produce a good indic ator measuring the level of social capital of each coun try in order to fully de scribe the impact of social capital on in nova tion at the national level. Third, there is no gen erally accepted empirical model that con siders the impact of social capital on in nova tion. In fact, human capital and entre pren eurship have been identified as determinants of in nova tion for the past several decades. Humans can improve their abil it ies, know ledge or skills through formal and informal edu cation and ex peri ence; therefore, their ways of thinking and acting can be changed by this improvement in their cap abil it ies. Human capital researchers funda mentally as sume the pres ence of this continual pro cess of improvement. For most of these sci ent ists, human capital is associated with know ledge and education. In par ticu lar, Coleman (1988) defines human capital as a set of know ledge, cap abil it ies and skills that facilitates productive ac tiv ities by indi viduals and stimulates in nova tion pro cesses. Thus, a basic com pon ent of human capital is the specific and unique know ledge acquired by training, education, and ex peri ence (Becker, 1975). This know ledge includes both formal codified and tacit know ledge (Saxanian, 1994), and con trib utes to sustain in nova tion (Lucas, 1988). Regarding the relationship between entre pren eurship and in nova tion, prior studies (i.e., Audretsch, 2002; Acs & Audretsch, 2003; Florida, 2005; Stimson et al., 2006; Carlsson et al., 2007; Acs, 2008) regard entre pren eurship as the know ledge filter serving as a conduit for know ledge spillovers that facilitate the exchange and flow of ideas. Thus, entre pren eurship acting as a know ledge filter can bring new in nova tions to market (Acs, 2008: 569). Furman et al. (2002) also suggests the im port ance of know ledge filters in a national innov at ive capa city. Baumol (2004) suggests that entre pren eurs, large firms with in ternal R&D capa city, universities and gov ern ments are im port ant players in expanding an eco nomy’s in nova tion. He concludes that effect ive gov ern mental pol icies for the facilitation and stimulation of entre pren eurship are par ticu larly im port ant to national innovation. Based on both human capital and entre pren eurship per spect ives, it can be said that higher levels of human capital and entre pren eurship are pos it ively related to higher levels of in nova tion in soci ety. Thus, it is neces sary for researchers to con sider human capital, entre pren eurship and social capital as drivers of in nova tion in an empirical model that de scribes the relationship between those factors and innovation. The purpose of this study is to test empirically the impact of social capital on in nova tion at the national level. The study de velops a more rel ev ant model of social capital at the national level, based on levels of trust, asso ci ational activity and civic norms. These factors are regarded as the core com pon ents of social capital fol low ing prior studies. The data are taken from the World Values Survey Association’s fourth wave (2000) survey. The social capital index is meas ured as an unweighted and weighted mean value of trust, asso ci ational activity and civic norms.
