Janvier 2006 - Service central d`authentification

5th Proximity congress
Bordeaux 28 30 juin 2006
A proposal
Indicators of territorial potentialities proxies for the Knowledge Society: new
proposals.
Maurice Baslé, professeur,
Chaire Jean Monnet, CREM-CNRS-Université de Rennes 1, France
Raphaël Suire, MCF, CREM-CNRS-Université de Rennes 1, France
Janvier 2006
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
As suggested by experts, the key factors of success for the deepening, enlargement and integration of
the European Union are better governance and greater ability to explain stakes and policies and
particularly the Lisbon summit objective of a knowledge-based society, the Gothenburg objectives and
the recent revision of the European agenda, following the Kok report.
The European commission have to define elements of argumentation in favor of the new revised
agenda and in favor of the European choice, targeting Competitiveness and Employment objectives
in the perspective of a KBES (Knowledge-based European society) with a view to sustainable growth
and not forgetting social inclusion, social acceptability and better governance (Baslé, M. Renault, M.
Edrs 2004).
Arguments for legitimization of European policies and for allocation of European structural funds have
been well-designed in the past. Many studies and the process of Evaluations of ESF (for example,
mid-term ESF evaluation, EC November 2004) have continued to explain the reasons for this bundle
of objectives and justify the need to pursue the previous orientations of European structural policies.
For structural funds, objective 1 is well legitimized (convergence). Objective 2, Competitiveness, not
per se but on the issue of “how to do it” is not an “intouchable” fund. So, it has to be more analyzed
and its implementation has to be more and more precise.
Linking the totality of objectives (Lisbon plus Gothenburg agenda), and seeking an up to date
argumentation, we can use two sources of inspiration :
– new lessons from European past regional policies (European Commission, 2005)
– and recent literature exploring the links between knowledge and growth and employment at a local
or regional level. These new approaches postulate that Human capital and Social capital are
factors of development (in a socioeconomic and sustainable sense).
So, targeting the issue of legitimization of objective 2 structural funds, we are looking for more
knowledge about necessary conditions for more and more competitiveness : these conditions are
contexts, potentials and public interventions necessary for the deepening of a new knowledge society.
Therefore, we will support indicators for monitoring and evaluating the KBES development through
ESF objective 2. This will be twofold: conditions for a better information society, and conditions for
becoming a deeper knowledge-based society.
1. A first proposal of indicators for the monitoring of KBES fostering.
Using the simplified typology, we could present a first set of indicators concerning an attractivity supply
strategy. It begins with a basic condition for interaction mechanisms : the accessibility to networks by
means of ICT. And it adds some form of social capital resource.

1.1.ICT accessibility
1.2. Social capital resources.
A sounder analyse could be presented, using the proximities theory.
2. Local sources of growth and the density of the local networks of excellence
2.1. A new set of indicators for production of human capital and educative contexts.
2.2. A new set of proxies : aids to international mobility and relocation at home
3. Good governance indexes
We suggest the adoption or transfer of the index of Effectiveness of the government…
An and index of Quality of laws and regulations.
4 A new table of proxies : KBES potentialities indicators (a proposal)
4 A new table of KBES development indicators (a proposal)
source Maurice Baslé octobre 2005
Digital infrastructure and access
Size and broadband access
Attractivity and performance of ITC supply
Use is stimulated with social environment
What contents for which population
Geographical proximity
Physical Infrastructures
Firms
Firms and other actors
Level, accessibility (time, social…)
Sector, size and nature of interactions
Density of firms networks
Measuring the density of the local networks of excellence :
clubs, groups, partnerships
Telecommunications costs

Socio-economic proximity
 Cognitive proximity
Human capital and talents : Education
Research, R/D
Reputational mechanisms
Attractivity for researchers
 Relational proximity
Social capital and social networks
Urban amenities, socio-environment,
environmental and cultural goods
Minimal education in basic disciplines
Intermediate level in general education
Professional training at an intermediate level
Access to long-life training
Higher education level (engineers, masters professional)
Higher education-research level, PhD, doctorat,
Number and density of researchers and universities
professors
Contracts between Universities and firms,
Ph. D. students within firms
Patents and amount of information contained in these
patents
Joint patents (public-private partnership)
Good news channels, firms and salaries information specific
supports and their audience
Researcher Mobility (departure and arrival)
Territorial openness and strong social capital in order to
support friendly relationship : proxies such as :
-Degree of trust into institution (opinions),
-Degree commitment in social and associative activities
-Number and density of associative and sports activities
-Percentage of abroad born high wages population
-Percentage of creative class (authors, designers, musicians,
actors, painters, dancers, artists …)
-Degree of tolerance regarding minorities and ethnical
diversity
Number of urban amenities and quality of life, collective
goods and natural and cultural resources uses (nature,
culture)

To be created by the European commission
Good governance indexes (Referring to the
World bank synthetic index, design of a
specific European Commission synthetic
index of good governance for each member
state and at a regional level)
Quality of regulation
Effectiveness of government
Accessibility to essential facilities(water, energy, health…)
Bibliography.
Aghion, P, Cohen, E., Dubois, E., (2003), Education et croissance, Rapport du Conseil d’analyse économique,
La Documentation Française. Paris.
Agrawal A.K., Cockburn I.M., McHale J., (2003), “Gone But Forgotten: Labor Flows, Knowledge Spillovers, and
Enduring Social Capital”, NBER Working Paper N°9950
Allen R., (1983), « Collective Invention », Journal of Economic and Organization Behaviour, vol 4, n°1, p 1-24.
Altinok, N. (2005), vers une meilleure compréhension de la qualité du capital humain, Association française de
science économique, congrès 2005.
AMIN, A., COHENDET, P., (2003), Architectures of knowledge, Oxford University Press, New York.
Amin, A., and Thrift, N. 1993. Globalization, institutional thickness and local prospects. Revue d'Economie
Regionale et Urbaine 3, 405-27.
Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman. 1996. « Knowledge Spillovers and The Geography of Innovation and
Production. », American Economic Review, 86: 630-640
AUTANT-BERNARD, C., (2001), The geography of knowledge spilhovers and technological proximity,
Economies of innovation and New Technology, vol. 10, n° 4, pp. 237-254.
Ayoub, H. Kamal, A. (2005), Investissement direct étranger, croissance et gouvernance dans les pays sud de la
Méditerranée. Une estimation sur données de panel. Association française de science économique, congrès
2005.
Bachtler, J., Wishlade, F., (2004), Searching for consensus : the debate on reforming EU cohesion policy,
European Policy research paper, n°55 ;
Bapttista R., Swann P., (1998), “Do firms in clusters innovate more ?”, Research Policy, 27, p525-540.
Baslé, M. Renault, M. edrs (2004), L’économie fondée sur la connaissance, questions au projet européen,
Editions Economica, Paris.
Baslé, M. (2006), Mesures multi-critères de la bonne gouvernance publique : questions d’évaluation adressées
aux travaux de la Banque mondiale, to be published.
Bengtsson M., Sölvell, Ö., (2004), « Climate of competition, clusters and innovative performance »,
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 20, p225-244.
Blanc. C. (2004), “Pour un éco-système de la croissance”, rapport à l’Assemblée nationale française.

Boshma R., 2005, “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment”, Regional Studies, n°1, p61-74.
Bouba Olga O. and Grossetti M. (2005) Une (re)définition des notions de proximité, Unpublished research note
Breschi S., Lissoni F., (2003), “Mobility and Social Networks: Localised Knowledge Spillovers Revisited”, DRUID
Academy Winter PhD Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, January 16-18
Bresnahan T., Gambardella A., Saxenian A.L., (2001), “Old Economy Inputs for New Economy Outcomes:
Cluster Formation in the New Silicon Valleys”, Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), p835-860
Commissariat Général du Plan, (2001), Economie de la connaissance, SDTI, Paris.
European commission, (2004), November, The mid-term Evaluation in objective 1 and 2 regions-Growing
Evaluation capacity, see : http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/tech_fr.htm
European commission, (2005), Les bonnes pratiques du développement régional, Inforegio panorama,Mai.
Ferrary M., (2003),« The gift exchange in social networks of Silicon Valley », Californian Management Review,
45, 120-138.
Florida R, (2002), The rise of the creative class, NY, Basic Books
Florida R., (2001), « The economic geography of talent », Working Paper, Université de Carnegie Mellon.
Florida R., (2002), « Bohemia and economic geography », Journal of Economic Geography, vol 2, n°1, p 55-71.
Foray D., (2000), L’économie de la connaissance, La Découverte, Paris
Galia, F. Lhuillery, S. (2005), The R/D kiss of death : empirical evidence of failure to cooperate. Working paper.
Afse congress.
Glaeser EL., (2004), ‘Review of Richard Florida’s The rise of the creative class”
Glaeser EL., Saiz, A., (2003), “The rise of the skilled city”, NBER WP 10191.
Goffman, E. 1973, La mise en scène de la vie quotidienne, Paris, Les éditions de Minuit
Guerrieri, Paolo, Bernardo Maggi, Valentina Meliciani, and Pier Carlo Padoan Technology diffusion, services,
and endogenous growth in Europe. Is the Lisbon Strategy still alive? Bruges European Economics Research
paper n° 2
Hall, P., (2000), « Creative cities and economic development », Urban Studies, 37, p639-649.
Hanshek E.A. and Kimko, D.D. (2001), Schooling, labor-force quality and the growth of nations, The American
Economic Review, volume 90, issue 5, december, pp. 1184-1208.
Jaffe A.D., Trajtenberg M., Henderson R., (1993), “Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as
Evidenced by Patent Citations“, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), p577-598
Kirat T, LungY, 1999, « Innovation and proximities: territories as a loci of collective learning », European Urban
and Regional Studies, 1999, Vol. 6, n°1, pp. 27-38.
Markusen A., 1996, « Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial
districts », Economic Geography, 72, 293-313.
Kolko J., 2002, « Silicon Mountains, Silicon Molehills, Geographic Concentration and convergence of Internet
Industries in the US », Economics of Information and Policy, 14, p. 211-232.
KOK, W., (2004), Relever le défi de la stratégie de Lisbonne pour la croissance et l’emploi, Rapport du groupe
de haut niveau à la Commission européenne, novembre.