农业产业集群的知识网络及其创新绩效研究――以河南省鄢陵县花木(精)

河南大学硕士学位论文农业产业集群的知识网络及其创新绩效研究--以河南省鄢陵县花木产业集群为例姓名:刘萍申请学位级别:硕士专业:区域经济学指导教师:李二玲2011-06摘要当前, 中国农业产业集群竞争恶劣、创新乏力、知识网络很不发育。

新经济背景下, 知识和创新正成为经济增长的重要因素,而网络恰恰是知识创新和传播的有效途径。

针对农业产业集群存在的诸多问题,学者们从农业集群的特征、形成机制、发展模式等诸多方面进行研究,提出了许多有益的见解。

但有关农业集群内部结构、网络、创新等方面的研究还很少见。

因此,本文基于网络视角,以河南省鄢陵花木产业集群为例,对整个产业集群的发展概况、集群网络特点,以及集群内企业创新情况作了详细调查,将个人访谈与实地调查所获得的数据作为本文的主要数据。

在此基础上,利用描述统计、社会网络分析、主成分分析、回归分析等方法,从知识网络结构与知识网络关系两个维度及技术网络、市场网络和合作网络三个层面深入探究农业集群知识网络的结构特征和关系特征,并探讨了知识网络对集群企业创新绩效的影响。

本文主要结论如下:(1三个层面的知识网络呈现了三种不同的结构形态。

技术网络呈现核心——外围结构,核心节点比其他节点拥有更多的网络关系,能够广泛搜索外部知识,而外围节点与其他成员则松散地联系着;市场网络呈现团体分离结构,大团体具有很强的内聚力, 内部成员关系紧密,而小团体的知识关联则较少,这种结构的网络不够稳定,应注意避免派系分离;合作网络可以看成是一个封闭的整体网络,网络中很少出现孤立节点,每个节点都深深嵌入在知识网络结构中。

(2三种知识网络中,合作网络成员间的联系最频繁,网络密度最大,其次是市场网络,技术网络则最为松散。

农户间互补完成订单、共同形成市场使得合作网络最为密集,而种植技术的外显性使得网络成员无需过多交流。

此外,焦点企业在三种知识网络中拥有较多的知识关联,是集群中重要的知识守门人,而农户和一些小企业往往是网络中的孤立点,这就导致了知识溢出的不对称性。

除了核心企业,一些中介组织和服务机构对知识扩散也起到了很重要的作用。

(3三种知识网络中,核心企业比其他类型组织的关系强度与关系质量都要强些。

可见,频繁而高质量的知识流动更倾向于集中在高层次团体内,而不会发生在整个集群中,知识更多地围绕着知识禀赋的强核心。

农户在这三种网络中的关系强度和关系质量I则处于弱势地位。

(4核心企业的技术网络关系强度比自身的市场网络和合作网络关系强度要低,这与正规企业、准企业和农户这三类组织的情况相反。

这可能是由于核心企业往往是集群内的技术研发中心,本身的技术知识存储量相对市场知识和合作知识而言更充足,所以技术知识网络的关系强度也会相应低一些。

但总体上,核心企业的技术网络关系强度仍然比其他组织的要强。

此外,整个花木集群的市场网络关系质量比技术网络和合作网络的关系质量要高。

(5集群内企业的创新绩效差异很大。

综合驱动型企业的创新绩效最高,它们主要由核心企业和正规企业组成,是集群中综合实力较强的创新主力;资本驱动型企业的创新绩效其次,缺乏创新的实践能力;综合非优型企业的创新绩效最低,这类企业以准企业居多,各方面尚未成熟和完善。

(6通过对网络结构和网络关系的特征指标与企业创新绩效指标进行回归分析可知, ○ 1企业在市场网络和合作网络中的程度中心性对其创新绩效的正向影响显著。

多样性和非重复性的知识联系,便于知识流动和创新扩散,有利于促进创新; ○ 2企业在技术知识网络中的外向程度中心性对其创新的负向作用显著。

农业集群中的中小企业过多依赖外部技术, 技术冗余较多, 信息同质化较为严重, 这将不利于企业自主创新; ○ 3企业的技术网络关系强度和市场网络关系强度分别负向和正向影响其创新。

技术知识的内生性使得企业在技术网络中更需弱关系, 而市场知识的外生性则使企业在市场网络关系中更需强关系; ○ 4企业的技术网络关系质量和合作网络关系质量均对企业的创新有显著的正向影响,而市场网络关系质量则负向影响着企业的创新绩效。

可能在市场网络关系中,不同成员拥有的信息量是不对称的,容易产生机会主义行为,而影响彼此的创新行为; ○ 5企业规模和企业的吸收能力均对企业的创新绩效有显著正向作用,而企业家经验负向影响企业创新。

企业家经验容易导致认知锁定而不利于创新。

关键词:农业产业集群,知识网络,创新绩效IIAbstractAt present, the competitiveness of China's agricultural industry cluster is poor, innovation is weak, and knowledge network is undeveloped. In the context of the new economy, knowledge and innovation are becoming the important factors in economic growth, while the network is precisely the effective way to innovate and spread knowledge. In order to solve problems in agricultural industry clusters, scholars carried out a lot of research from the characteristics, formation mechanism, development of model, and many other aspects of agricultural industry clusters, and made many useful insights. However, the researches on internal structure, network and innovation of theagriculture industry clusters are still very rare. Therefore, this paper based on the network perspective, taking the flowers and plants industry in Yanling County, Henan Province for example, makes a detailed investigation on the development overview of the wholein dustrial clusters, the cluster network characteristics, and the enterprise’s innovation within the cluster. Then, this paper takes the data obtained from personal interviews and field survey as the main data. From two dimensions (network structure and network relations and three levels (technology network, market network and collaborative network, this paper using descriptive statistics, social network analysis, principal component analysis, regression analysis, etc., deeply explores the structural characteristics and relationship characteristics of the agriculture industry clusters, and explores the knowledge network’s effects on the cluster enterprise’s innovation performance. The following is a summary of the conclusions. (1 Three types of knowledge networks present in three different structural forms. In the technology network which presents core – periphery structure, core nodes have more network relationships than any other nodes, and they can search external knowledge extensively, while the peripheral nodes loosely linkIIIwith other members. In the market network which presents group separated structure, large group has a strong cohesion and the internal members have a close relationship, while the small group has a loose cohesion. This network which is not stable enough should be taken to avoid separation of factions. Cooperation network can be viewed as a closed whole network. There are rare isolated nodes in the network and each node deeply embedded in knowledge network.(2 In the three kinds of knowledge networks, members in cooperation network link most frequent. The cooperation network’s density is maximal, market network is next, and technology network’s density is minimal. Complementarities among farmers to complete the order and together form the market make the cooperation network mostdense. The explicitness of growing technology makes members of the network without much interaction. In addition, core enterprises in the three knowledge networks have more knowledge associations. These enterprises are the important knowledge gatekeeper in the cluster, while the farmers and some small enterprises are often isolated in the network. All of these lead to the asymmetry of knowledge spillovers. Except the core enterprises, a number of intermediary organizations and service agencies for knowledge diffusion play a very important role.(3 In the three kinds of knowledge networks, core enterprises have stronger relationship strength and relationship quality than other types of organizations. It proves that frequent and high-quality knowledge flows tend to concentrate at a high level group, but does not flow in the whole cluster. Knowledge tends to around the strong core which has more knowledge endowment. Farmers in the three networks have the weakest relationship strength and relationship quality.(4 Core enterprises’ technology network relationship strength is lower than their own market network relationship strength and cooperation network relationship strength, which is contrary to the normal enterprises, quasi enterprises and farmers. This may be due to these core enterprises in the cluster are oftenIVthe technology development center. Their own technology knowledge storage is more adequate than market knowledge storage and cooperation knowledge storage, so the technology knowledge network relationship strength will be lower correspondingly. In general, core enterprises’ technology network relationship strength is still stronger than the other organizations. Furthermore, the market network relationship quality is higher than the technology network relationship quality and the cooperation network relationship quality in the whole flowers and plants industry cluster.(5 Innovation performance of enterprise in the cluster varies widely. Innovation performance of the general-driven enterprise is highest. General-driven enterprises are mainly by the composition of the core enterprises and informal enterprises. They are the main innovative members and have the strongest comprehensive strength in the cluster. Innovation performance of the capital driven enterprise is second, which lacks the practical ability of innovation. Innovation performance of the general non-optimal enterprise is lowest. General non-optimal enterprises are mainly by the composition of the associate companies, which are not yet mature and perfect in all aspects.(6 Through regression analysis between the character indexes of the network structure and network relationship and the indexes of the enterprise’s innovation performance, the following results have been obtained. ○ 1Degree centrality of enterprise in the market knowledge network and the cooperation network has a significant positive influence on innovation performance. Diversity and non-repetitive knowledge contacts are in favor of knowledge flows and innovation diffusion, which could promote innovation. ○ 2Out-degree centrality of enterprise in the technology knowledge network has a significant negative effect on innovation performance. Small and medium enterprises in theagricultural cluster too much depend on external technology. They have more technical redundancy and the homogenization of information is very serious.These would not conducive to the independent innovation of enterprises. ○ 3VThe technology network relationship strength and the market network relationship strength of enterprise have significant negative influence and significant positive influence on innovation performance respectively. Endogenous of the technical knowledge makes enterprise need more weak ties in the technology network, while exogenous of the market knowledge makes enterprise need more strong ties in the market network. ○ 4Technology network relationship quality and cooperation network relationship quality of enterprises have significant positive influence on innovationperformance, while market network relationship quality of enterprises have significant negative influence on innovation performance. In the market network relations, different members have asymmetrical information, which prone to opportunistic behavior, and affect each other's innovation behavior. ○ 5Firm size and absorptive capacity of enterprise have significant positive effect on innovation performance, while entrepreneurial experience has significant negative effect on innovation performance. Entrepreneurial experience easily leads to cognitive locked, which is not conducive to innovation.Key Words:agricultural industry clusters, knowledge network, innovation performanceVI1绪论1 绪论1.1 选题背景与意义1.1.1 选题背景中国农业正处于由传统农业向现代农业转变的阶段性转型时期, 这一时期农业的发展目标、运行机制和工作重点等都产生了深刻变化。