Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation 
CENTRE FOR REGIONAL STUDIES 
OF HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 
 
 
DISCUSSION PAPERS 
 
No. 70 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the 
Regional System of Innovation 
 
 
by 
Zoltán CSIZMADIA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Series editor 
Zoltán GÁL 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pécs 
2009 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This paper is based on the ‘Hungarian Academy of Sciences Scholarship Programme for 
Young Researchers’, on the project titled ‘Foundation and Operation of Pannon Novum 
West-Hungarian Regional Innovation Agency’ announced by the Office of National 
Research and Technology and on the programme of ELTE titled ‘Paradigms of Modern 
Sociology’ sponsored by the National Research Fund of Hungary. The two-year 
scholarship of Universitas-Győr was also a significant contribution to our work. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ISSN 0238–2008 
ISBN 978 963 9899 09 4 
 
 
©  Zoltán Csizmadia 
© Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2009 by Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 
Printed in Hungary by Sümegi Nyomdaipari, Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Ltd., Pécs. 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation 
Contents 
 
 
1  The basic problem ........................................................................................................   5 
2  The actuality of the issue ..............................................................................................   6 
3   Starting point, hypothesis and research topics .............................................................   7 
4 Methodology 
................................................................................................................ 
  9 
5  The four forms of the questionnaire survey on inter-organizational relationships .....   14 
5.1 Directions of cooperation and intensity ..............................................................   14 
5.1.1   The spatial differentiation of contacts .....................................................   17 
5.1.2   Information exchange networks ..............................................................   19 
6  The network structure of the regional innovation system ...........................................   24 
6.1 Centralization .....................................................................................................   27 
6.2  Ego-networks in the network of the regional innovation system ........................   29 
6.3  Beyond the organization – contact points between the types of 
organizations in the system .................................................................................   31 
7  
Conclusions ...............................................................................................................   33 
References ........................................................................................................................   34 
Annex 1 ............................................................................................................................   36 
Annex 2 ............................................................................................................................   38 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation 
List of figures 
Figure 1  The spatial features of the cooperation contacts of innovative firms 
grouped by the seven types of interaction ......................................................   18 
Figure 2  Firm profiles based on the structure of the information contact system.........   21 
Figure 3  Interdependency and the indexes of central position in project-based 
contacts ..........................................................................................................   28 
Figure 4  The size and the density of the actors' ego-network in the innovation 
system – interdependency or project oriented cooperation ............................   30 
Figure 5  The density matrix and block network of contacts among the different 
institutional types of the system .....................................................................   32 
List of tables 
Table 1 
The four forms of the questionnaire survey on inter-organizational 
relationships ...................................................................................................   11 
Table 2 
The contact types of the members of the innovation system ..........................   13 
Table 3 
The probability of occurrence of organization types involved in 
development-oriented cooperation .................................................................   15 
Table 4 
The frequency of occurrence of innovation-oriented inter-organizational 
cooperation relations ......................................................................................   16 
Table 5 
The probability of occurrence of the most important information sources 
for the enterprise's competitiveness ...............................................................   20 
 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
1  The basic problem 
The regional process and the homogenous systemic architecture of innovation are 
embedded into the context of social contacts and their relevant networks which 
fundamentally determines their operation and efficiency. The problem here is that 
on the different levels of the domestic environment of innovation we do not have 
exact information on the mechanisms of their functional relationship. By moving 
off from the theoretical level we have not analysed and have not modelled the real 
patterns and configurations of this embedment. Putting in the simplest form of the 
major question of research sounds like that: ‘What kind of role do institutional 
contacts and their relevant networks play in a region’s skills for innovation?’ 
In my research I set up two objectives. One is that I would like to explore all 
the possible details and interrelations of this embedment (problem exploration 
component) within the region by carrying out a series of investigations. On the 
other hand on the basis of accumulated experiences I would like to think over all 
the necessary steps of future actions (problem solving component). My hypothesis 
is that the innovation processes of West-Transdanubia region – the very field of 
my research – (and of most parts of Hungary) are based on different type and 
purpose innovation cooperation systems grounded on social-institutional rela-
tions but functioning at a moderate intensity only. This statement is valid for the 
entrepreneurs’ sector, for its satellite, background and intermediary organisation 
system and also for the contact points between the two fields of force. In an eco-
nomic and innovation environment lacking natural resources the utilization of 
these endowments is a must. This is the point where I am asking my question: 
What are the reasons of this moderate intensity or absence of cooperation or ex-
pressing it in a more sophisticated way – of the random occurrence of coopera-
tion? The truth is that innovation is not an isolated phenomenon therefore its effi-
ciency and success are the results of a coordinated series of actions performed by 
several actors. This is a systemic approach to innovation. As the system’s per-
formance depends on the interaction between its components – according to my 
hypothesis – even the existence of the regional innovation system is questionable. 
Thus, a further clearance of the problem raises the question whether we can speak 
of an existing and viable regional innovation system in West-Transdanubia re-
gion? To demonstrate this matter in a simplified approach I am starting from the 
assumption that we have no exact information on the system of regional coopera-
tion in Hungary and even do not know what kind of systemic configuration is 
made up of them. My assumption is pessimistic and by my paper I would like to 
deny that the majority of the segments of Hungarian innovation processes are 
isolated or poorly networked which – if this assumption proves to be true – would 
be a serious obstacle of competitiveness and a total deadlock from the point of the 
development of the whole system. As we will see it later this is a fundamental 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
principle of innovation policy having been propagated for several years but its 
application and implementation in practice are still questionable.  
2  The actuality of the issue 
Starting from the most comprehensive dimension in socio-theoretical aspect net-
working as a principle and mechanism of social organisation has grown into a 
key research issue. ‘The new social morphology of our civilization is built on 
networks. The spread of the logic of networking is significantly modifying both 
operational mechanisms and results in the processes of production, in social prac-
tice, in power and culture (Castells, 2005; 598). I am now searching for the re-
gional level fingerprints of this new morphology. If networking has an impact on 
operational processes, and on results and if joining or leaving the network and the 
relative dynamism are the key factors of change, the study of the whole phe-
nomenon on a concrete ‘operational model’ seems to be an exciting task. 
We can approach the significance of innovation and innovation related activi-
ties mostly from the viewpoint of economic issues. Nearly in all cases emphasiz-
ing their role in increasing the level of competitiveness is the focal point of all 
analyses conducted on international level (World Competitiveness Yearbook 
2002;  Porter, 1990; Porter–Stern, 2001), national level (Kiss–Pandurics–Lapid, 
1997;  Papanek, 2006) or regional level (Rechnitzer–Grosz, 2005). By today the 
role of contacts, cooperation projects and networking initiatives and structures has 
been definitely increased in innovation activities. Nowadays the success of mod-
ern technical solutions to an increasing degree stands or fails on the basis of the 
entanglement and mutual linkage of heterogeneous actors with ‘knowledge 
fields’. 
The importance of ‘networked cooperation generating and integrating’ knowl-
edge-based innovations can be well measured on international level by the num-
ber of inter-firm technological cooperation projects. A rapid growth in the num-
ber of R&D and technological exchange projects can be observed since the late 
70s in international data archives. Besides growth the transformation of the for-
mal mechanism of cooperation into a more heterogeneous structure is another 
significant element of innovation oriented cooperation patterns as the structure of 
firms showing cooperative attitude towards research and development comprises 
now several actors (Hegedoorn–Kranenburg, 2002: 16).  
The impacts of the above-mentioned trends of global transformation have 
emerged on the national and local levels of innovation policy as well in Hungary. 
It is the domestic planning-development policy and its institutional system that 
need most of all empirical analysis in this field. All the documents of national and 
regional level development deal with innovation related cooperation and its re-
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
lated organisational-institutional background. It should be considered as an im-
portant reason that in 2002–2003 the building of a national system of innovation 
started with the purpose of the ‘economic utilization of innovation’ (Lippényi 
2004). Among the objectives to be realised were not only the development of the 
institutional system of knowledge transfer, the enhancement of the innovative 
skills of SMEs but also fostering cooperation among innovation oriented institu-
tions and companies as well as the systemic development of the regional institu-
tions of innovation [with the purpose of closing up the regions on knowledge 
basis]. From an innovation policy and economic development perspective re-
gional level [in our case the territorial integration of several counties] from or-
ganisational-institutional-infrastructural-human-social-cultural (etc.) aspects a 
more or less homogenized spatial structure can serve as a basis for a new eco-
nomic (and maybe) a new social organisational force. 
3  Starting point, hypothesis and research topics 
The description of the Hungarian system of innovation – as a starting point – is 
clearly referring to problems and tasks to be solved. The national system of inno-
vation is covering an area of spatially uneven development level. The strong 
dominance of Budapest – the capital – cannot be counterbalanced by the largest 
regional centres. The largest network structures lining up and serving as an or-
ganisational framework for Hungary’s R&D organisations and companies on 
national, regional and local level are missing or underdeveloped. The contacts 
between innovation organizations and between companies and innovative institu-
tions have rather an occasional character. Only few organisations are involved in 
innovative cooperation projects. We cannot speak of innovation clusters (net-
works) in a real sense. There are only a few cases when a regional level enterprise 
is a member of R&D or innovative cluster. 
Fostering cooperation between innovation-oriented institutions and firms, and 
the systemic development of the regional institutions of innovation are priorities 
as it is the region that is the most adequate spatial level of network building and 
networking. The development degree of innovation is determined by the ‘intensity 
and density’ of contacts between the active, catalysing and cooperative actors of 
network. The task therefore is complex as it comprises 1) interconnecting the 
existing elements of network 2) setting up the necessary infrastructural back-
ground 3) generating the missing elements and fostering clustering 4) building a 
network of business promotion organizations 5) accessing and integration into 
international networks (Lippényi, 2004: 4–5).  
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
My investigation is proceeding from four hypotheses: 
H1:  Social-institutional relations having coordinative role in building various 
forms of and functions of inter-firm cooperation have only a limited role 
in the innovation processes of Hungarian regions. 
H2:  If any co-operations exist between companies, companies and research 
institutes or between companies and universities they are weak, occa-
sional and unstable. 
H3:  The majority of innovations are implemented by isolated or weakly con-
nected actors who are rather bilateral cooperation partners than members 
of multi-agent cooperation networks. 
H4:  The embeddedness of knowledge generator and knowledge transfer 
organizations into the region’s innovation system is the weakest. 
The questions I have formulated for the research are referring to the network 
parameters of the actors of the two institutional groups of innovation (company 
sector and innovation institutions). 
Economic sector 
Q1:  What parameters does the cooperation system of business organizations 
have within the region (size, density, contents, dimensions, directions)? 
Q2:  Are there any differences between innovative and non-innovative firms 
regarding the affinity for cooperation? If yes, what is the size and the 
content of this differentiation? 
Q3:  Can enterprises be categorized regarding the nature of their organiza-
tional network? 
Q5:  To what extent are innovation cooperation activities are localized? 
On systemic level I am investigating the cooperation of the region’s network 
of innovative institutions consisting of nearly forty members for assessing their 
degree of networking and of their integration into the system. 
Q6:  Can we speak of a well-functioning, viable regional network which can 
be regarded as a complex system of relations? 
Q7:  If not what factors are hampering the networking process? 
Q8:  What contacts and cooperation activities are grounding the cohesion 
power of the network of innovative institutions? What kind of interrela-
tionship has been formulated between differently functioning organiza-
tions? 
Q9:  What kind of form has the innovation network has been shaped into? 
Who are in the centre (who join the threads), and are there any holes or 
gaps within the structure? 
Q10: How can the relationship structure between the institution blocks be char-
acterized? 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
4  Methodology 
The two research fields demand two differing survey methods. The survey con-
ducted within the framework of project ‘The Foundation and Operation of Pannon 
Novum West-Transdanubian Regional Innovation Agency’ by the commission of 
the tender of the Office of National Research and Technology the questionnaire 
survey of companies prepared by the West-Transdanubian Research Institute CRS 
HAS assessed the innovation activity and network capacity of companies operat-
ing in the region (Csizmadia–Grosz, 2007). The survey in the region was made in 
the autumn of year 2006. It was gathering information on innovations having been 
implemented by West-Transdanubian companies during a three-year period be-
tween 2003 and 2005. The majority of questions inquired about new or signifi-
cantly updated goods or services, about the introduction of new or significantly 
updated logistic or diffusion methods and about the introduction of new organiza-
tional-corporate or marketing methods.  
In the sampling period we did not intend to provide a comprehensive survey 
on the enterprises’ and region’s general situation of innovation by investigating 
all the business enterprises. Instead we rather selected a group of firms being pre-
sumably rather more concerned and more active in innovation activities. There-
fore our survey data are not relevant for all enterprises of the region as we rather 
focused on a limited scale of ‘highly innovative’ enterprises who according to 
their main business profile are more involved in or expected to more actively 
participate in innovation. For this reason our survey data are not relevant for the 
innovation activities of all the enterprises in the region but they inform us on their 
trends in the region’s dominant sectors. There were three outstanding factors 
taken into account during the sampling process. One is – as it has just been men-
tioned – the limited scale of enterprises was selected according to their main busi-
ness profile. The other is that micro- and private enterprises employing less than 5 
people were excluded from our survey. Besides main sampling another 53 inno-
vative enterprises – selected on the basis of expert proposals – were queried. And 
finally, some enterprises operating in certain economic sectors by their main pro-
file were also precluded from the survey. The purpose of all the three set-up crite-
ria was the maximization of the elements of relevant responses so our conclusions 
drawn from the representative sample can be generalized only with taking the 
above-mentioned sampling criteria into consideration. 
Surveying innovation-related activities in the servicing, knowledge generator 
and transfer organizations by structured interviews was the project’s other re-
search component. This survey was conducted in the second half of year 2006.1 In 
                                                      
1 An expert meeting cleared the list of interviewees representing the following organization types: 
incubator houses, innovation centres, technology transfer centres, competence centres, cluster 
organizations, business promotion foundations, chambers of commerce and industry, research 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
the majority of cases the interviewed persons representing the queried organiza-
tions were the company’s top managers or experts working in the field of innova-
tion services. The list of queried organizations was filtered by network analysis 
criteria. Only the most important, existing and not redundant organizations were 
interviewed (this means industrial parks, local governments and certain authori-
ties were excluded from the survey. This does not mean their role is unimportant 
but the size of network sample had to be kept at a reasonable level). The total 
number of queries was 36 in which all the queried persons gave a summary on 
their innovation services they rendered and on the parameters of their contacts 
and cooperation activities (who they were cooperating with, who they had coop-
erated with in the past, who they were intending to cooperate with in the future, 
when they had established their contact, in what concrete forms these contacts had 
been realized etc.). 
Thus, the research problem this investigation is focusing on can be divided 
into two layers: on the one hand it refers to the contacts of firms interpreted as 
inter-organizational cooperation where relations refer to social capital as a spatial 
resource-configuring element. On the other hand it refers to the regional innova-
tion cooperation network of non-economic actors which is also an indicator of the 
organization’s social capital but here the whole structure of contacts is revealed as 
well. In both cases we queried the details of contacts maintained with the actors of 
the ‘other layer’ to look for the trails of innovation oriented cooperation between 
the economic and civil sector. In the research model on the one hand the effect 
mechanisms on the other hand the intra- and inter-sectoral (intra-economic and 
socio-economic) relations are highlighted. 
In my paper I am going to analyze the directions of inter-organizational inte-
grations and the forms of the relation systems resulting from them in a division of 
three layers (Table 1). I mean cooperation in this context as innovation-oriented 
cooperation (Williams 2005) where inter-organizational contacts are established 
through the exchange contacts of autonomous in legal sense and independent 
organizations having set up common or complementary targets and they are based 
on long-term social relations. In this sense two relational variables can be defined: 
we may differentiate R&D-oriented cooperation and other innovation-oriented 
cooperation. 
The variable of R&D-oriented cooperation indicates which firms have partici-
pated in such cooperation project which has been launched between 2003 and 
2005 for developing 1) a new product or service or a significantly enhanced 
product or service or 2) a new or significantly enhanced technology, know-how or 
application, production system or sales method. The secondary less precise indi-
cator of innovation-related cooperation indicates the existence of cooperation 
                                                                                                                                     
institutes of cooperation, institutes of higher education, research institutes and other professional 
federations, organizations and associations (see Annex, Table 3). 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
between the region’s enterprises and the other actors of the innovation system in 
innovation process but not necessarily in the development process itself. Follow-
ing the suggestions of Ritter and Gemünden (2003) here they can serve as ex-
change and cooperation components of inter-organizational contacts. Here I mean 
such a technological, personal and organizational exchange mechanisms (princi-
pally in case of products and services or information and knowledge) which have 
an impact on the operation of an enterprise but cannot be regarded as bilateral or 
multilateral professional networks. 
Table 1 
The four forms of the questionnaire survey on inter-organizational relationships 
 
Relational 
Number 
What does it 
What conclusion can we 
variables 
of elements 
investigate? 
draw from it? 
I R&D-oriented 
56 enterprises 
Concrete inter-
– The existence, direc-
cooperation 
organizational rela-
tions, number and in-
tion 
tensity of contacts 
–  The composition of the 
contact system 
– Firm typology  
II Innovation-oriented 
205 innovative 
Concrete inter-
– The existence, direc-
cooperation 
enterprises 
organizational rela-
tions and number of 
tion  
contacts 
–  The spatiality of coop-
eration contacts 
–  The composition of the 
contact system 
– Firm typology 
III Information  356 firms, the full  The institutional 
–  The directions, intensity 
 exchange demand  sample 
basis of satisfying 
and complexity of in-
information de-
formation demands 
mands 
–  The types of informa-
tion contact systems 
Source: The author’s own compilation. 
The third type of variable is independent from the concrete innovation activity, 
so it can be used for an empirical analysis for the whole of the economic sector. 
Here we cannot speak of concrete inter-organizational relations, only of their im-
prints. One of the major advantages of networked regional innovation systems is 
the efficient utilization of resources flowing between agents having interactive 
contacts with each other. Information is one of the most valuable elements of the 
flow space of networks. Meanwhile the increasing complexity of the operation 
mechanism of enterprises and the increasing degree of specialization increase the 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
demands for services as well (Burt, 1992). Thus, I am on the opinion that the ac-
cess to information and the finding and the utilization of the most convenient 
service providers can be more efficient through building contacts and cooperation 
networks which also enables actors for establishing them at the same time. During 
the assessment of information demand based relationships all the queried firms 
had to evaluate2 twelve different information sources from the aspect how they 
are important for their competitiveness. Besides internal information sources 
eleven other sources of information were listed on the questionnaire. They cov-
ered all the elements of the innovation system such as market and institutional 
source3 but personal contacts and public forums4 were also mentioned on the list. 
The directions and composition of the company’s information demands can be 
regarded as a variable assessing contact system as it shows who are open at what 
agents of the innovation system and at what degree of intensity for the sake of 
increasing their own competitiveness. 
The relations between the region’s innovation oriented organizations are 
making up the second set of relational variables. The interviews revealed more 
than 25 forms of contact (Table 2). 
The range of interdependency may vary from proprietary relations to the mere 
exchange of information or professional cooperation. There can be three types of 
relationship differentiated which involves a kind of ranking sequence regarding 
the degree of interdependency.  
In case of ‘interdependency’ the interconnection of proprietary, checking and 
coordinating licenses stands as a basis and it can further be enhanced by the layers 
of project and information-based relationship. ‘Project based’ inter-organizational 
relationship is an interconnection stemming from some kind of common activities 
for a definite period of time for performing partial or complex tasks. The ‘info-
professional’ linkages are presumably the most frequent channels of relationship 
in the system, which do not even require setting up a common, coordinated target.  
By simplifying the real picture and interpreting it as a model we can observe 
the simultaneous presence of three ‘forces’ in the networking process of the sys-
tem. In certain cases corporate interdependency (proprietorship, overriding deci-
sion and coordination, funding etc.) serve as a ground for the coordination of ac-
tivities. Furthermore, on the basis of external and internal motivations – incited 
and coordinated through a tendering system – temporary projects act as coordi-
nating and tuning forces in the region. And finally for increasing the efficiency of 
the members and of the info-professional flow tracks are lubricating the operation 
                                                      
2 The degree of importance was grouped into three categories: the contribution of the given 
information source to the firm’s competitiveness could be high, medium or low. 
3 Customers, suppliers, other entrepreneurs, universities, innovation and technology centres, 
business promotional and professional organizations. 
4 Conferences, fairs and displays, scientific and professional publications. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
of the whole machinery in which the communication mechanisms necessary for 
the performance of own tasks are the most frequently occurring elements. The 
initial structure of all the relations of the network (307 links) provides a lot of the 
probability occurrence of the three types of relations. Of them interdependency is 
the least frequent (16%), 41% of the total relationships is project based while 
another 43% of interrelationships has info-professional character only. 
Table 2 
The contact types of the members of the innovation system 
Relationship type 
Forms 
Features 
1 Interdependency 
  Proprietary rights, founder, associated partner 
 formal, contract-
 Involved in the organization’s management by 
based, strictly regu-
position (personally or as head of organization) – 
lated  
e.g. trustee, committee chairman 
 it may occur that it 
 General meetings, chairman sessions (for the 
works only formally 
county or regional level coordination of network) 
or documented in 
 Funding, crediting and capital investment 
papers only  
relationships 
 Place holding, Office rent 
2 Project based 
 Common tender, consortium membership, tender   co-influence of 
cooperation activi-
opening and evaluation, tender support 
formal and informal 
ties 
 Consultancy rights and function 
components 
 Cooperation for organization development 
 the tightest 
 Service contacts 
 predefined timescale 
 task-oriented 
3 Info –professional   General meetings, discussions, lectures, profes-
 the most frequent 
sional consultations (conferences, workshops, 
contacts  
businessman meetings etc.) 
 do not necessarily 
 Regular exchange of information, bulletin, 
require institutional 
publications, running a website etc. 
framework  
 Partner finding services, institutional representa-
 more ad-hoc charac-
tion, introduction and promotion of institution 
ter 
 serves as a basis for 
network  
Note:  Obviously interdependency and project-based relationships comprise info-professional rela-
tions as well. Thus, this linkage indicates that only these forms of relationship occur while in 
case of the other two relationship types they are preconditions standing on the basis of common 
activities or interests. 
Source: A survey on the innovation supply side of West-Transdanubia region, 2006. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
5  Inter-organizational networks in the corporate sector 
5.1  Directions of cooperation and intensity 
13% of the enterprises of our sample were involved in the cooperative develop-
ment of products or processes during the past three years. In the supplementary 
sample of our innovation survey this rate increased to 30%. If we look at innova-
tive firms only then every fourth enterprises are involved in it. And finally if we 
look at those firms only that implemented any product or process innovation the 
ratio of companies with cooperation related contacts reaches the figure of 33%. 
Of the 205 enterprises regarded as innovative in our survey 56 reported on some 
kind of development-oriented cooperation in the research period. In the further 
part of my analysis I will concentrate on this special group only and my state-
ments will be relevant to this group, instead of the full circle of entrepreneurs. 
Let us start from the probability of occurrence of the different organization 
types (Table 3). It refers to the role of the different institutions of the innovation 
system in developments. Most of them are grounding their new product or process 
innovation on their own supplier contacts. They can be regarded the most impor-
tant cooperation partners in the relation system of innovations. Customers/clients 
have moderate but still important role in innovation-oriented networking as they 
got involved into it at 40% of the enterprises. Cooperation within a firm group is 
regarded as a special case (36%). The region’s knowledge generator and transfer 
institutions and innovation-oriented organizations have much less weight in the 
development oriented contact system of enterprises. 20% of the queried 56 firms 
cooperated with a university or with a kind of expert or research-development or-
ganization and only 16% reported on cooperation with innovation centres or busi-
ness promotion foundations. 
The results make it clear that 1) the majority of enterprises is a ‘lonely wolf’ 
implementing their innovation projects on the basis of their own resources; 2) if 
the region’s typical firm is not the only one who implements innovation it can 
predominantly count on its own major business partners: suppliers and custom-
ers. All the other components have only marginal role in the innovation system. 
The complexity degree of development-oriented networks tells a lot of informa-
tion on the structure of cooperation chains. This value is not very high. 40% of 
firms cooperated with maximum one organization and another 20% cooperated 
with maximum two partners during the development of a product or manufactur-
ing process. 
Not only the number of businesses involved in development-oriented coopera-
tion is low but also if we ever can speak of such inter-organizational relations in 
the majority of cases they cannot be regarded as a complex system. At most com-
panies a development oriented contact system is not unidirectional but as it can be 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
seen supplier and client/customer centred. Those who have only unidirectional 
contacts within innovation system are cooperating with their own suppliers only. 
Only one fourth of the queried firms can build complex structured contact sys-
tems. To sum it up we say that the number of innovation-oriented contacts tar-
geted at the realization of common development projects is low, contacts are one-
dimensional and built on already existing supplier and customer relations. The 
other actors of the innovation system (especially knowledge generator and trans-
fer organizations) are only in a few cases have key position in the networks of 
innovators. 
Table 3 
The probability of occurrence of organization types involved in development-
oriented cooperation 
What type of organization did your organization cooperate with during 
Yes, % 
development process? 
Suppliers 
61 
Clients or customers 
43 
Other enterprises within the firm group 
36 
Universities, colleges 
21 
Experts, private R&D institutions 
21 
Innovation and technology centres, business promotion organizations 
16 
Public research institutes 
04 
Source: A corporate survey on the innovation activity of the enterprises of West-Transdanubia, 
2006. 
The expanded version of our survey on innovation projects is investigating any 
kinds of interdependency among 205 innovation-oriented enterprises. We did not 
inquire about the ‘details of the exchange action’ the sole criteria’ of inclusion 
was that the enterprise should report us the type of its innovation-related partners. 
The probability of occurrence of partners in this case was similar to the values of 
our limited survey (Table 4). Here the frequency of the occurrence of market-
oriented contacts is the highest. 75% of enterprises did not build their contacts on 
knowledge (university and research expertise) and neither on innovation and 
business promotion institutes who were also excluded from their network building 
strategy. 
A kind of layer scheme can be outlined on the basis of the complexity of con-
tacts. 11% of contacts are isolated and more than 40% is oriented towards con-
centrated cooperation by building relations in one direction. In the institutional 
sphere 15% of the total firms had complex structural cooperation activities. These 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
results are verifying the prognosis set up in the earlier part of this paper. The ma-
jority of the region’s enterprises are not embedded into the wider system of inno-
vation beyond the economic sector not even through a bilateral form of interde-
pendency. For us comprehensive and complex contacts are important. In their 
characteristics there are several significant differences at many points. Companies 
seated in big cities are over-represented (90%) and 40% of firms with complex 
contact systems receive more than one billion HUF gross revenue annually (their 
ratio is 17% in the total sample). 65% of the total 17 innovative big firms have a 
complex or comprehensive contact system. On the basis of a combined firm ty-
pology based on the sum of annual gross revenue and on the number of employ-
ees we must say that the role of gross revenues is very important in contact 
building. Among micro, small and medium-sized enterprises firms with compre-
hensive and complex contact system were over-represented in all cases. 
Table 4 
The frequency of occurrence of innovation-oriented inter-organizational 
cooperation relations 
Directions of inter-organizational innovation-related cooperation relations  
% 
Suppliers of equipment, materials, spare parts or software 
75 
Clients or customers 
74 
 
 
Competitors or other enterprises within the sector 
33 
Experts, private R&D institutions  
26 
Universities, colleges  
24 
Innovation and technology centres, business promotion organizations 
21 
Public research institutes 
08 
 
 
Had no contacts with any organizations between 2003 and 2005 
10 
N=203 
 
Source: A corporate survey on the innovation activity of the enterprises of West-Transdanubia, 
2006. 
From the point of innovation system I would like to highlight two tendencies. 
The integration between the corporate and the innovation service provider, 
knowledge generator and transfer sector can clearly been identified through two 
very different set of actors. The present key players here are big firms and small-
sized, knowledge intensive development companies. In their case the frequency of 
occurrence of cooperation strategies involving not only customers and clients but 
also research institutes, universities, innovation and technology centres into their 
action plans is one and a half – twice higher than the average. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
5.1.1  The spatial differentiation of contacts 
The spatial breakdown of cooperation contacts between each institute is also 
worth for analysis. This is necessitated by the fact that the entirely different func-
tional elements of the innovation system might show a totally differing spatial 
concentration. To make it simple the question in this context is where the coop-
eration partners of firms are located (Figure 1).5 
The enterprises integrating into the regional system of innovation have very 
different parameters of spatial distribution and the spatial features of their con-
tacts targeted at different types of institutions also show very differing patterns. In 
case of the companies of business sector supplier and client contacts are predomi-
nantly bilateral. In their case the frequency of occurrence of regional and foreign 
partners is the highest. R&D institutions have more or less an equal rate of con-
tacts with regional level and national level partners. Spatial proximity, the knowl-
edge and supply profile tailored to local facilities and demands are very important 
factors of universities and innovation institutions. In this aspect more than 60% of 
enterprises have contacts with the region’s institutions only (and in case of con-
tact building with universities this figure goes up to 72%). 
To put it simple three spatial organization schemes can be set up in this con-
text. 1) In the most frequent inter-firm market oriented cooperation scheme two 
firm groups can be differentiated. The first group (42% 46%) has innovation co-
operation partnership with suppliers or clients within their own region only. The 
second group (30% 30%) has a spatially complex cooperation system expanding 
up to international dimensions. 2) Both public and private research organizations 
have partners from other regions of Hungary and 28% of private R&D organiza-
tions have even foreign partners. 3) From the point of regional innovation system 
it might be very important that the majority of economic actors cooperating with 
universities, innovation and technology centres, business promotion organizations 
(21–24%) have so far established contacts with those operating in their own re-
gion. This is the field where space has the strongest impact on contact building 
and development. Presumably the value of local tacit knowledge, of special ex-
pertise and of interpersonal relations is dominating in building such types of con-
tact. 
                                                      
5 The data of the spatial breakdown of contact forms can be categorized into four spatial categories 
but they are not exclusive. The ‘dominantly other region’ label truly means that the firm has no 
partners in the region, the ‘everywhere in the country’ label means a homogenous country-wide 
dimension of contacts while the ‘in foreign countries as well’ category refers to such firms that 
have cooperation partners in all the four spatial categories. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Figure 1 
The spatial features of the cooperation contacts of innovative firms grouped 
by the seven types of interaction* 
Innovation and 
Technology 
R&D (state owned) 8% 
Centre 21%
University 24% 
R&D (private) 
26% 
Co 
Supplier 75% 
Other company 
74% 
Relative frequency of partners 
Location of partners 
 
Max. 20%   
Client 74% 
Region 
    21-40% 
Other part of the country 
    41-50% 
Foreign   
Min. 60%   
 
* The name of interaction type is followed by its full occurrence ratio. The arrows indicate how 
much percentage of enterprises has cooperation partners in different spatial categories (going out-
side from inside: region, country, foreign countries). For example 60% of those firms that had 
contacts with universities had this partnership with a higher education institute within their region. 
Source: A corporate survey on the innovation activity of the enterprises of West-Transdanubia, 
2006. 
 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
5.1.2  Information exchange networks 
Information flows through networks. The access to new, up to date information 
influences the total palette of economic activities. Today the mechanisms and 
structures providing quick, fresh and not redundant knowledge and information 
for institutions are considered as key resources of power and their importance has 
significantly increased. Bogatti and Fosters (2003) labelled them and their re-
searches as ‘access to resources’. Mark Granovetter (2005) researching the im-
pacts of networks on economic processes considers a major argument that they 
are influencing the flow and quality of information. Ronald S. Burt (1992) ana-
lysing the social structure of competition demonstrated that a network having 
been built on inter-organizational relations is valuable itself as it creates informa-
tion and information-related advantages for the actors adequately embedded into 
the system. 
For these reasons I would like to continue the presentation of the network 
building activity of the region’s enterprises by typifying their demands for contact 
through their ‘degree of hunger for information’. Assessing the demand for in-
formation by the hunger for information means measuring the degree how much 
importance do firms attach – with the purpose of preserving their competitiveness 
– to such information sources as customers, suppliers, universities, research in-
stitutes, consulting and development organizations, professional federations etc. 
The data collected help us to understand the characteristic features of relation 
(information exchange) serving as a basic texture for the interdependency of 
knowledge generator, consulting and developmental organizations.  
Information sources are structured in a surprisingly diverse way in the region 
(Table 5). Most firms use personal contacts i.e. interpersonal relations and the 
notes and remarks of their own clients/customers for gathering new information, 
for orientation and for decision-making (concrete elements of the content of in-
formation were not specified). A great number of enterprises consider the role of 
professional forums, fairs, publications, suppliers, other firms in the firm group 
and other players within the sector also very important. These are signs indicating 
a normal/expectable functioning in the economic sector. The rank of distribution 
is highlighting the weak points of the system as well because 75-80% of firms do 
not pay any attention for universities, research institutes, consulting and develop-
mental organizations. These firms have not been embedded into this very impor-
tant, new and increasingly dynamic network of information flow. The region's 
typical enterprise for the sake of preserving its own competitiveness focuses on its 
interpersonal network resources and – from functional aspects – on partners: cli-
ents and suppliers. 
The affinity for innovation significantly differentiates the demand for contacts 
manifesting in the demand for information. On the one hand almost every chan-
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
nels of information – the breakdown percentages are higher and on the other hand 
their information background is more complex. Big firms' hunger for information 
is much different (bigger) and built on a more heterogeneous resource base with a 
more complex structure of an average market-oriented viewpoint of a regional 
level enterprise. The difference is extremely big in the complexity of information 
channels where more than 20% of non-innovative enterprises did not use any 
information sources at all.  
Table 5 
The probability of occurrence of the most important information sources for the 
enterprise's competitiveness (N=303) 
 Information sources 
% 
Personal contacts, acquaintances 
81 
Clients or customers 
79 
 
 
Scientific journals and professional/technical publications 
73 
Member firms of the enterprise or firm group 
71 
Suppliers of equipment, materials, spare parts or software 
71 
Conferences, trade fairs, displays 
67 
Competitors or other enterprises within the sector 
64 
Professional or industrial federations 
61 
 
 
Experts, private R&D institutions 
35 
Universities, colleges 
24 
Innovation and technology centres, business promotion organizations 
23 
Public research institutes 
20 
Source: A corporate survey on the innovation activities of the enterprises of West-Transdanubia 
region 2006. 
We will get a more complex image on the degree and structure of embedded-
ness into information networks if we sort the queried enterprises by the impor-
tance attitude attached to the different sources of information. This we call as the 
structure of information system and it can be assumed that the sample can be di-
vided into separate, homogenous clusters with homogenous firm profiles. By 
cluster analysis we can differentiate eight groups in the full database of firms 
(Figure 2).6  
                                                      
6 The values indicated on the axis of the web diagram are indicating the importance of the types of 
institutions – as information sources – from the aspect of competitiveness/innovativeness of firms. 
(1= plays no role; 4=plays an important role). Thus, higher values can also indicate the intensity of 
information flow related interdependency. The higher this value is the greater is the importance the 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Figure 2 
Firm profiles based on the structure of the information contact system* 
Spider – 6% 
Market-oriented integrator – 5% 
Supplier
Supplier
4
4
3
3
Prof essional
Client
Prof essional
Client
2
2
1
1
0
0
IC or DA
University
IC or DA
University
R&D state owned
R&D private
R&D state owned
R&D private
Client-oriented developer – 4% 
Open manufacturer – 12% 
Supplier
Supplier
4
4
3
3
Prof essional
Client
Prof essional
Client
2
2
1
1
0
0
IC or DA
University
IC or DA
University
R&D state owned
R&D private
 
R&D state owned
R&D private
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                     
enterprise attaches to the type of organization from the point of its own competitiveness. The eight 
groups were separated from each other by cluster analysis (two-means cluster) by the application 
of seven ordinal measure level contact variables. The ‘R&D private’ label marks private funded 
research-development organizations and consultants while the ‘R&D public’ label refers to public 
research institutes, research groups; Professional = professional and industrial federations; 
Innovation/Development = innovation and technology centres, business promotion organizations. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Closed manufacturer – 23% 
Client-oriented service activity – 19% 
Supplier
Supplier
4
4
3
3
Prof essional
Client
Prof essional
Client
2
2
1
1
0
0
IC or DA
University
IC or DA
University
R&D state owned
R&D private
R&D state owned
R&D private
Moderately isolated professional – 13% 
Island – 18% 
Supplier
Supplier
4
4
3
3
Prof essional
Client
Prof essional
Client
2
2
1
1
0
0
IC or DA
University
IC or DA
University
R&D state owned
R&D private
R&D state owned
R&D private
Source: A corporate survey on the innovation activity of the firms of West-Transdanubia region, 
2006. 
The structural differences of contact systems built on demands for information 
are matching with the earlier conclusions drawn from the spatial breakdown data. 
10% of firms in the region can be defined to have a complex information system. 
The 'Spider' is such an enterprise which intensively builds on institutionalized 
information contacts and considers multi-lateral connections very important for 
information flow. Market ‘Integrato' has a similar structure but attaches lower 
importance to universities and public research institutes and preferably involves 
private firms into its development projects. The 'Customer Oriented Developer’s 
(4%) information contact system is unilateral: it considers universities, research 
institutes and customers the only important sources of information. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
In the rest of groups the information source base structure gets simplified (as 
only one or no axis shows intensive demand for information). The ‘Producer’ 
type enterprise primarily focuses on its customers and suppliers: one fourth of the 
queried firms are ‘Closed Producers’ as their activity is based on such informa-
tion sources. 12% are ‘Open Producers’ as their information providers are several 
types of institutional contacts but they preserve the high importance of internal 
market zone (especially customers are important for them). The typical ‘Service 
Provider’ type actors (19%) on the one hand consider information flow important 
on the side of their customers and professional organizations but they neglect 
building contacts with the organizations of the knowledge generator, consulting 
and development sector. ‘Profession oriented’ enterprises (13%) are not fully 
isolated, their demand for information flow is low, they use only the information 
channels of professional organizations, production oriented suppliers or customers 
but they do not appreciate them too high from the point of competitiveness. ‘Is-
lands’ (18%) are such lonely wolf firms that do not see any importance in any 
institutional info contacts and keep themselves intact from them or at least they 
refrain from the complex information packages flowing in the economic sector. 
The structure shaping up from the different directions of contacts can roughly 
be summarized as follows: 10% of enterprises have complex information back-
ground and 15% use the facilities of knowledge generator and transfer organiza-
tions intensively as additional sources. The dominant behaviour in the majority of 
cases is openness towards the actors closely bound to the firm’s activity (35%). 
20% of the participants of survey are customer oriented firms and about 30% are 
definitely isolated, lonely wolves building only occasional channels of profes-
sional information. The forms of structure – although they are not exact copies of 
the cooperation contact system – are suitable for expressing the openness and ori-
entation of the actors of the economic sectors. On estimation level on the basis of 
the given proportions there is a possibility to build a classification system on the 
region’s economic actors by their demands and affinity for cooperation. On the 
basis of this assumption it seems perhaps not an unrealistic deduction that the 
majority of firms (55%) may be interested in participating in producer-servicing 
networks and a rather significant group (30%) is maintaining a dominantly iso-
lated activity and only 10–15% have a complex structured cooperation network 
system. 
The characteristic features of these firms are differing in many aspects. There 
seems to be a correlation between the affinity for innovation and the structure of 
information basis. In the first three firm groups the proportion of innovative firms 
is above 70%. The revenues of spiders and integrators with complex demands for 
information and with built on complex information systems are the highest, they 
have high demands for skilled labour and their research-development expendi-
tures are also by far higher than the average. In the group of spiders the ratio of 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
small enterprises and in the group of integrators the ratio of big firms is higher 
than the average. In the big producers’ group there is also some correlation be-
tween the affinity for innovation and the demand for information. Among other 
producer firms the ratio of innovative and high-skilled employees and research 
expenditures is by far higher than the average. Closed producer firms are smaller 
with lower income and under average parameters of innovation. In the schematic 
structure of information demands it is the group of isolated lonely wolves (the last 
two groups) who have the lowest number of innovative enterprises with by far 
lower than the average R&D expenditures.  
6  The network structure of the regional innovation system 
Mapping the contacts of the region's enterprises helped me to detect interactions 
within the economic sector and the special features of contacts targeted at other 
actors of the system but did not help in analysing the structural features of the 
whole system. This task can be performed on the provider/supply side of the inno-
vation system. Thus, I am going to give an overview on such inter-organizational 
cooperation activities which may be involved in innovation or participating in 
research-development processes (e.g. universities, research institutes) or support-
ing, facilitating (innovation centres, technology centres, business promotion or-
ganizations, chambers), coordinating (development agencies, innovation agen-
cies) or forming such networks which integrate all the actors of an economic sec-
tor (clusters). The corporate survey was targeted at verifying that the connection 
between the economic and the public sector is weak and casual and the transfer 
and division of resources on system level is inappropriate therefore all these are 
hindering the integration and networking of the regional innovation system. My 
analysis of the 'service' sector is starting from the assumption that the interrela-
tionship between non-economic components and structures is treated as a com-
prehensive network which is also influencing the efficiency of innovation proc-
esses. Thus, this organization system should also clarify its relations as this can 
serve as a basis for a future network. 
Before the empirical analysis of the network it is necessary to take a short 
turn-out. The typifying of interdependencies highlighted the importance of the 
different competition based and organizational type relations. They reorganize 
both the activity and information based relations and their dynamic development 
started during the past few years as a result of the 'reform' of the Hungarian inno-
vation system. Practically we are talking of such top-down interventions which -
as a regional imprint of interventions taken for the development of the national 
innovation system – generated changes in the organization and development of 
the network (Lippényi–Imre–Peredy, 2006: 47–52). The 'reform programmes' 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
launched during the last two or three years reconfigured the earlier structure of the 
regional innovation system through two mechanisms. On the one hand a funda-
mental restructuring can be seen on the level of network members which can be 
interpreted as an extension of the network. On the other hand such fundraising, 
distributional and controlling mechanisms were introduced in decentralized forms 
which generate new roles and the driving engine of cooperation can work not only 
on the level of research-development but of the coordination system as well. 
The comprehensive reform of the innovation system started in year 2003. In 
2003 an Act was passed on the Research and Technology Innovation Fund 
(KTIA). This is a separate government fund consisting of company contributions 
(in 2006 this was 0.3% of their total annual turnover) and from matching govern-
ment funding. As companies can reduce their due contributions to the Innovation 
Fund by the sum of expenditures spent on their own or ordered from public or 
non-profit research institute R&D activities the number of R&D profiled institu-
tions quickly started to grow and a more intensive cooperation started between the 
economic and research sectors. Thus, the number of system members and the 
affinity for cooperation may gradually increase. On 1st January 2005 the 2004 
CXXXIV Act on Research-development and Technology came into force. This is 
Hungary's first innovation act facilitating research-development, technology in-
novation and the utilization of results comprehensively by several provisions. I 
would like to highlight the importance of provisions targeted at the funding of 
innovation and at the utilization of results for intensifying cooperation within the 
framework of the regional innovation system. 
In year 2004 not only new legal regulations but also new actors emerged in in-
novation policy. The Science and Technology Policy Council (TTPK) is the top 
level governmental forum of science, technology and innovation policy. The Na-
tional Office for Research and Technology (NKTH) with national authority scope 
considers the improvement of the regional system of innovation with the en-
hancement of cooperation between the knowledge and business sector its most 
important task. The Research Technology and Innovation Council (KTIT) is re-
sponsible for the planning, operation and utilization issues of the Fund. And fi-
nally, the Office of Research-development, Competition and Research Exploita-
tion (KPI, operating since the August of 2003) is managing the innovation pro-
grammes of KTIA and GVOP [Economic Competitiveness Operative Pro-
gramme].  
From the perspective of this research the reforms having been introduced on 
regional level are the most important issues and they created new actors and di-
rections of cooperation during the past few years. The presentation of secondary 
data revealed spatial disparities in the elements of the national innovation system. 
As it has negative impacts on the development of the whole national economy an 
increasing attention is paid for developing the region's innovative skills. This 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
means more or less a series of simultaneous strategic interventions. One of the 
most important ones affects KTI Fund as 25% of resources should be utilized for 
regional-level purposes. This is a known regional basic problem as it may force 
regional cooperation as a measure for tackling economic development problems 
arising from living in an environment poorly provided with resources. 
In 2004 two programmes of key importance were launched for creating an in-
stitutional and instrumental system facilitating knowledge generation and transfer 
(2006; 51). The Pázmány Péter Programme by stimulating the utilization of the 
university's R&D results and cooperation with the industrial sector enters new 
actors into the network through university knowledge centres (RET) which is in 
this way can influence the direction of contact schemes and their composition. 
The establishment of the network of regional innovation agencies is a key ele-
ment in the Baross Gábor Regional Development Programme. Since the end of 
year 2004 the system has been expanded by such a new actor which stimulates the 
cooperation of the R&D and entrepreneurial sectors by providing information and 
various innovation services. The Innocsekk Programme which started in 2005 is 
also targeted at stimulating regional cooperation through providing support to 
micro and small enterprises who are engaged in innovation related initiatives. 
And finally, the role of regional innovation development programme package 
should be mentioned here as it provides a chance for regions to determine their 
own development priorities in the awareness of their own local circumstances so 
‘it depends on the regions' own activities how much support they will receive 
from the regional resources of the Technology Innovation Fund and how they will 
use it for increasing their own competitiveness’ (2006: 52). 
Institutes of higher education and research centres are the oldest players in the 
system. The chambers' network and the institutes of business promotion were 
established in every county in the first half of the 1990s. Innovation centres and 
regional development institutes entered into the system in the second half of the 
1990s not much earlier before the millennium. This means that one part of the 
institutions of innovation has at least 8–10 years of experience and they put such 
amount of knowledge and competence portfolio into the innovation network. 
These organizations in fact belong to the historical core of innovation network. 
The clusters, competence and knowledge centres attached to universities are new, 
just formulating so in this way they are just 'way seeker' types of organizations. 
Consequently, research is done not of just on the network which is not only a 
structurally complex and heterogeneous system but also has a chronologically 
divided structure.  
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
6.1  Centralization 
The analysis of network positions was always a cardinal issue in the complex 
structured attitude of network analysis. The identification of the central elements 
of network and the impacts of the over-centralized structure are unavoidable is-
sues in a general analysis. The question here is that who are the key players of 
innovation cooperation network and of the system formulating from it and what is 
the centralization degree of the whole network? 
The literature reviewing the interrelations between network structure and po-
sitions in the network and affinity for cooperation shows several proofs. Gulati 
and Ganguilo (1999) referred to the fact that the probability of cooperation in-
creases if there is a common partner between the two partner institutions. In this 
way the key players are intermediaries who can push the different players of the 
system towards cooperation by their pure existence and their extensive ego-net-
works. They also proved that central position in the network increases the prob-
ability of their own cooperation. Moreover, key players prefer cooperating be-
tween each other. Williams (2005) approached this question from another aspect 
and surveyed more factors such as formalization, density and stability. He was on 
the opinion that over-centralization and concentrated power in the network would 
decrease the chances of cooperation due to the companies’ striving for autonomy. 
It is evident that the first opinion is more relevant for an institution while the sec-
ond one better fits for networks as a whole. If we get acquainted with the key 
players of the system we will get a more detailed impression on the hardcore 
group who have greater affinity for cooperation. If we get exact information on 
the degree of the networks' full centralization it will be possible to decide whether 
the presented institutional structure works for or against cooperation. 
I apply the three classical, most frequently used basic indexes in my analysis 
which starting from the number of the degrees of proximity and of transitions will 
give a standardized transition index of the whole network and of the members. 
During the definition of indicator figures let us start from three assumptions. 1) 
The value of the degree is correlating with the central role. Innovation organiza-
tions having extensive contact relations within the network play more important 
role within the whole structure. 2) Those players have central role who are the 
closest to the other members of network from the point of accessibility. This 
means they have not only many direct contacts but also their indirect contacts are 
short in such a sense that they do not need many intermediaries. 3) A player is 
successful in the network because it plays intermediary role either between two 
members or between two groups. Thus it takes such a position where his role is 
indispensable therefore just cannot be avoided. It seems evident that by the three 
methods we can identify the central players of the network by different aspects. 
With the simultaneous application of these methods it can more clearly be seen 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
who play the role of core organization within the cooperation network of the re-
gion's innovation system (Figure 3). 
In the network of concrete cooperation contacts the centralization indexes are 
relatively higher so the centralization of the network should be accepted as a fact. 
There are significant differences in the positions of organizations within the sys-
tem. A small group bears extraordinarily high values while the majority – I mean 
the peripheral zone of the figures – cannot be regarded as key players in fact. It is 
clearly seen that the majority of educational, research and cluster type organiza-
tions are in peripheral position by all the three aspects. On the given organiza-
tional level the nucleus of the network consists of developmental organizations of 
some active chambers, business promotion organizations, innovation centres and 
cluster organizations. 
Figure 3 
Interdependency and the indexes of central position in project-based contacts 
Degree centrality-DC 
 
Network centralization 
index  
42.5% 
Average centralization 
index 0.254 
Smallest 0.056 
Biggest 0.667 
 
 
 
Source: A survey on the innovation supply side of West-Transdanubia region. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
I would like to emphasize that there are significant differences even among 
central positioned organizations in indexes and the West Pannonian Regional 
Development Agency has an outstanding role in cooperation organization show-
ing high values in all the three indexes. The simplicity of the picture results from 
the fact that the majority of central players as members of the innovation agency 
have close contacts with each other formulating an internal network within the 
network system. Thus, as a whole the system's central players can be identified by 
relations standing on the basis of institutional cooperation and originating from 
the requirements of competition and support schemes. There are extremely big 
differences among members in the university and research sector and the newly 
formed clusters are not valid network points.  
Concerning the centralization parameters of the system's interdependencies I 
would like to call the attention for two important characteristic features: 1) There 
are no signs of independent from innovation policy incentive cooperation con-
figurations in the system. If there were any then centralization index values would 
be more equalized. 2) Whatever network dimension is taken as a basis and what-
ever centralization index is applied the players of the education and professional 
training sectors (here I mean not only university knowledge centres of coopera-
tion research) are rather only joint agents of the central core structure but they 
cannot be considered as integral parts of it. 
6.2  Ego-networks in the network of the regional innovation system 
The characteristic features of the direct contact system can also be analyzed by 
taking both the degree (the number of contacts) and the density of ego-networks 
(the probability value of cooperation between partners) into consideration. By the 
application of such method several cooperation contact patterns can be identified: 
1) complex but of low density; 2) complex and of high density; 3) small but 
dense; 4) small and low density ego-networks can be formulated in the region 
(Figure 4). 
By following a vertical logic the density of the organizations' direct individual 
contact system can be grouped into three categories: below average, average and 
very high density ego-network. The differentiating feature here is the intensity of 
cooperation in the organization's contact scheme. Naturally it really matters how 
big the network is – this is the reason why making a horizontal differentiation is 
necessary. Eight organizations types can be separated in the lower left corner of 
the figure (university, research-development and cluster sectors) integrate into the 
network of the regional system through no or very few contacts but their partners 
are isolated from each other. In the upper left corner of the figure we can also find 
members of the network with low number of contacts but the density of their ego-
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
networks is very high therefore they have partners of similar indicator values who 
also cooperate with each other (here we mean an approximately 60% network 
density indicator). Typical organizations with average indexes are located in the 
central zone. As it is expected the density of the ego-network of central positioned 
organizations cannot be too high due to their known summarized parameters (the 
blank zone in the upper right corner). For an easier interpretation of the different 
configurations of ego-networks I would like to cite just some examples: the Pan-
non Automotive Cluster's (C-PANAC) own cooperation system is built on higher 
than the average number of cooperating partners who also cooperate with each 
other. 
Figure 4 
The size and the density of the actors' ego-network in the innovation system 
– interdependency or project oriented cooperation 
70% 
40% 
g
e
  
 
s
ű
r
ű
sé
ó
zat
-
h
ál
0% 
z
 én
A
5 db 
9 db
15 db
2
 
4 db 
 Az 
én-hálózat 
mérete 
(foka)
 
 
Legend: average size (degree) 9, average density 45%. Dot sizes mark different organization types. 
Source: A survey on the innovation supply side of West-Transdanubia region, 2006. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
The Zala County Business Promotion Foundation (U_ZMV_A) plays a central 
role in the system because on the one hand it plays an intermediary role among 
partners isolated from each other. The Regional Development Agency (F_FRFU) 
has contacts with almost every actor and for this reason its ego-network cannot be 
very dense. The Material and Product Testing Laboratory of West-Hungarian 
University (T_FAIMEI) cooperated with four organizations only but this network 
consists of partners cooperating with each other as well. As a whole, the ego-
network structure of system members is not homogenous and it has not a strong 
correlation with the organization profile either. The low angle of regression line 
indicates weak relation between size and density in the network. 
6.3  Beyond the organization – contact points between the types of 
organizations in the system 
The cooperation matrix between the 37 queried organizations can be suitable for 
an empirical description and interpretation of the patterns of the intra- and inter-
sectoral cooperation in the region. In other words: we transform the network into 
a simpler form where instead of the earlier 37 actors we work with seven, namely 
with seven types of organizations. The relations between the organizational seg-
ments of the innovation system are generated by the aggregation of inter-organ-
izational relations. On this level of the network we can find an answer for the 
question, how the internal and inter-organizational cooperation affinity of differ-
ent organization types look like on the level of closer cooperation contacts. The 
block model analysis was introduced by White – Boorman – Breiger in the 1970s 
(1976)7. In our network the following criteria can be applied. The density of the 
network is 25.4%. In this circumstance we assume any contact between two or-
ganizational segments if between all of its members more than 25.4% of all the 
possible relations are realized. To put it simple if the probability of interdepen-
dency between the two segments is higher than the average value measured for 
the whole network.  
The answer for our original question may be found in the contact network 
shaping out from the new block matrix. Thus our target is checking the fragmen-
tation degree of inter-organization relations within the regional innovation system 
                                                      
7 To put it simple it means that the members of the network are divided into structurally equivalent 
positioned parts – blocks – and these equivalent 'classes' are named as positions – then by the 
application of a so-called block model analysis we map the strength of bindings between positions. 
Several criteria exist for the identification of bindings within and among blocks. The essence of 
density criteria applied here is that the density of the network is taken as a basis, as a limit value 
and if the density of contacts within each group or between groups is higher than the average of the 
whole network then we can define it as a contact (oneblock) but if it is lower we cannot define it as 
a relation (zeroblock). 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
and the mapping the missing links between the ‘knowledge generator’, ‘transfer’ 
institutions and those organizational blocks who are involved in the 'utilization of 
innovation' and in the development of the region (Figure 5).  
Figure 5 
The density matrix and block network of contacts among the different institutional 
types of the system 
R&D 
University 
Cluster 
University 
Regional development 
Business 
Development Regional 
development 
Business 
Development 
Innovation Centre 
Interlocking or 
project-based 
Information 
exchange 
Innovation Centre 
Chamber 
Chamber 
Cluster 
R&D 
 
 
Density table 
Innov. 
R&D. 
Higher ed.
Dev. 
Chamber 
Business 
Cluster 
Prom 
Innovation 
0.67 0.25 0.19 0.75 0.27 0.56 0.04 
R&D 
  0.32 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.12 0.10 
Higher 
education 
 
 
–  0.35 0.17 0.14 0.22 
Development 
   
0.67 
0.25 
0.75 
0.75 
Chamber 
    1 
0.27 
0.11 
Business 
Prom.       
1.00 
0.29 
Cluster 
      
0.19 
Density limit value: 0.253 
Source: A survey on the innovation supply side of West-Transdanubia region, 2006. 
Figure 5 is demonstrating the essence of our whole empirical survey. From a re-
mote and deforming or to name it as a simplified perspective it gives an answer to 
our question and verifies the fundamental thesis of earlier surveys and strategic 
situational evaluations concerning West-Transdanubia region. In case of stronger 
and more intensive organizational interdependencies, the degree of research and 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
higher educational institutes is minimal and realized through central develop-
mental organizations only. 
The info-professional flow space of the network is operating by a similar prin-
ciple. Here besides the above-mentioned two problem sectors there are transfer 
lines between other institutional groups running into all possible directions. The 
general problem is that the actors of the research and educational sector are not 
embedded into the network mechanisms of the regional innovation system on this 
less formal level of cooperation either. In general it can be stated that the present 
integrated network is the result of the top-down oriented institutional reform of 
the past years. Without regional innovation agencies the institutional actors of 
science and education would be excluded from the network.  
7  Conclusions 
The survey has provided several new results. Many of them have verified the 
hypotheses of this paper and tested the results of former researches on regional 
level. We consider its most important conclusion that the intensity of inter-firm 
cooperation has not increased in the last fifteen years in Hungary. The coopera-
tion system is characterized by a low number of entirely bilateral connections and 
by the absence of complex development and innovation networks. Furthermore 
the majority of cooperation contacts are closed with partners operating in the eco-
nomic/market sector. Thus, only a small number of firms have been integrated 
into the regional innovation system during the past years. 
The other major finding of the survey can be seen on regional level. We cannot 
speak of a fully operating regional innovation system yet instead we can identify 
an evolving network. The main problem of the structure is that it is organized by a 
few players only and there are very few signs of making up a bottom-up schemed 
system of complex cooperation activities. The past 4–6 years of experience are 
certainly not sufficient yet for making out a clear picture but it seems definite that 
the key parts of the innovation system are not free of problems: the absence of 
decentralization, unsolved cooperation issues, anomalies in the distributional 
system of resources, the malfunctioning of the intermediary system in the region 
etc. 
The mapping of the network between innovation organizations operating in the 
economic sector has revealed the position and relation of actors with some ele-
ments of the structural logics of the sector manifesting in networks. The methods 
and procedures applied here may further be enhanced and distributed country-
wide to get a more precise picture on the different forms of the complex structures 
of the socio-spatial organizations both on national level and in the regions stand-
ing at various levels of development. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
References 
Acs, Z. J. 2002: Innovation and the Growth of the Cities. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. 
Burt, R. S. 1992: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: 
Harvard University Press. 
Castells, M. 2005: A hálózat társadalom kialakulása [The Evolution of Neetwork Society]. 
Budapest, Gondolat–Infonia. 
Csizmadia, Z. – Grosz, A. – Tilinger, A. 2007: Innováció a Nyugat-Dunántúlon [Innova-
tion in West-Transdanubia]. Pécs–Győr, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja.  
Csizmadia, Z. 2002: Robert D. Putnam: Bowling Alone, the Collapse and Revival of 
American Community. –  Szociológiai Szemle. 3. pp. 183–193. 
Csizmadia Z. 2004: Társadalmi kapcsolatok – struktúra – rétegződés: a szerkezet és az 
egyenlőtlenség kérdése a társadalmi tőkeelméletekben [Social Contacts – Structure – 
Stratification: The Question of Structure and Inequality in the Social Theories of 
Capital]. In Némedi, D. – Szabari, (eds.): Kötő-Jelek 2003. Budapest, ELTE Szo-
ciológiai Doktori Iskola. pp. 119–145. 
Csizmadia Z. 2008: Kapcsolathálózatok és társadalmi ’tőkék’. A társadalmi viszonyok 
felértékelődése a szociológia legújabb szakaszában [Contact Network and Social 
’Capitals’. The Appreciation of Social Contacts in the Contemporary Era of Sociol-
ogy]. In Némedi, D. (ed.): Modern szociológiai paradigmák. Budapest, Napvilág 
Kiadó. 
Dőry, T. 2005:  Regionális innováció-politika: kihívások az Európai Unióban és Mag-
yarországon [Regional Innovation Policy: Challenges in the European Union and 
Hungary]. Budapest, Dialóg Campus.  
Dőry, T. 2001: Az innovációs kutatások megjelenítése a regionális elemzésekben – Az 
innováció regionális perspektívában [The Presentation of Innovation Researche sin 
Regional Analyses – Innovation in a Regional Perspective]. – Tér és Társadalom. 2. 
pp. 87–106. 
Gulati, R. – Garguilo, M. 1999: Where Do Interorganizational Relations Come from? 
American Journal of Sociology. 104 (5). pp. 1439–1494.  
Hagedoorn, J. – van Kranenburg, H. 2002: Growth Patterns in R&D Partnerships: An 
Exploratory Statistical Study. MERIT, Faculty of Economics and Business Admini-
stration. http://www.mgmt.purdue. Edu/centers/ijio/Accepted/1974.pdf. 
Kiss, J. – Pandurics, A. – Lapid, K. (1997): Innováció és versenyképesség [Innovation and 
Competitiveness]. Budapest, Országos Műszaki Fejlesztési Bizottság. 
Lengyel, I. 2003: Verseny és területi fejlődés: térségek versenyképessége Magyarországon 
[Competition and Regional Development: The Competitiveness of Regions in Hun-
gary]. Szeged, JatePress. 
Lippényi, T. 2004: A regionális innovációs rendszer kialakítása [Formulating the Re-
gional Innovation System]. Budapest, Nemzeti Kutatási és technológiai Hivatal.  
Lippényi, T. – Imre, J. – Peredy, Z. (2006): A tudásalapú társadalom és a gazdaság ku-
tatás-fejlesztési és innovációs súlypontjai Magyarországon [Knowledge Society and 
the Priorities of the R&D and Innovation of Economy in Hungary]. – Infonia. 3. pp. 
40–53.  
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Papanek, G. 2006: Tudásáramlás, jogbiztonság, együttműködés. A magyar gazdaság fe-
jlődésének láthatatlan forrásai [Knowledge Flow, Legal SEcurity, Cooperation. The 
Invisible Sources of the Development of theHungarian Economy]. Budapest, Aula 
Kiadó. 
Porter, M. E. – Stern, S. 2001: National Innovative Capacity. In The Globel Competitive-
ness Report 2001–2002. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 102–120. 
Rechnitzer, J. – Grosz, A. (szerk.) 2005: Régiók és nagyvárosok innovációs potenciálja 
Magyarországon [The Innovation Potentials of Regions and Cities in Hungary]. Pécs-
Győr, MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja. 
Rechnitzer, J. 1993: Szétszakadás vagy felzárkózás. A térszerkezetet alakító innovációk 
[Disintegration or Closing Up. Innovations Shaping Spatial Structure]. Győr, MTA 
RKK. 
Ritter, T.  – Gemünden, H. G.  2003: Network Competence: Its Impact on Innovation 
Success and its Antecedents. – Journal of Business Research. 9. pp. 745–755. 
White, H. C. – Boorman, S. A. – Breiger, R. L. 1976: Social Structure from Multiple 
Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions. – American Journal of Sociology. 
81. pp. 730–779. 
Williams, T. 2005: Cooperation by design: structure and cooperation in interorganiza-
tional networks. – Journal of Business Research. 58. pp. 223–231. 
World Competitiveness Yearbook 2002. Institute for Management Development. 
http://www.imd.ch/research/centers/wcc/index.cfm. 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Annex 1 
The contact matrixes of the institutional system of innovation 
Interdependency 
 
Project 
 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Information-related 
 
 
 
 

---

Csizmadia, Zoltán : 
Cooperation and Innovativity: the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation. 
Pécs : Centre for Regional Studies, 2009. 38. p. Discussion Papers, No. 70. 
Annex 2 
The layers of the regional innovation network 
Network 1: Stronger ties – interlocking or project-based relations  
 
Network 2: Weaker ties – only professional cooperation or information exchange  
 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation
The Discussion Papers series of the Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian 
Academy of Sciences was launched in 1986 to publish summaries of research findings on 
regional and urban development. 
The series has 5 or 6 issues a year. It will be of interest to geographers, economists, so-
ciologists, experts of law and political sciences, historians and everybody else who is, in 
one way or another, engaged in the research of spatial aspects of socio-economic develop-
ment and planning. 
The series is published by the Centre for Regional Studies. 
Individual copies are available on request at the Centre. 
 
 
 
Postal address 
Centre for Regional Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 
P.O. Box 199, 7601 PÉCS, HUNGARY 
 
Phone: (36–72) 523 800 
 
Fax: (36–72) 523 803 
www.rkk.hu 
http://www.dti.rkk.hu/kiadv/discussion.html 
 
 
 
Director general 
Gyula HORVÁTH 
 
 
Editor 
Zoltán GÁL 
galz@rkk.hu 
 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation
Papers published in the Discussion Papers series 
 
Discussion Papers / Specials 
BENKŐNÉ LODNER, Dorottya (ed.) (1988): Environmental Control and Policy: Proceedings of 
the Hungarian–Polish Seminar in the Theoretical Problems of Environmental Control 
and Policy 
OROSZ, Éva (ed.) (1988): Spatial Organisation and Regional Development Papers of the 6th Polish–
Hungarian geographical Seminar 
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1993): Spatial Research and the Social–Political Changes: Papers of the 
7th Polish–Hungarian Seminar 
DURÓ, Annamária (ed.) (1999): Spatial Research in Support of the European Integration. 
Proceedings of the 11th Polish–Hungarian Geographical Seminar (Mátraháza, Hungary 
17–22 September, 1998) 
GÁL, Zoltán (ed.) (2001): Role of the Regions in the Enlarging European Union 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (ed.) (2002): Regional Challenges of the Transition in Bulgaria and Hungary 
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2004): New Aspects of Regional Transformation and the Urban-
Rural Relationship 
BARANYI, Béla (ed.) (2005):  Hungarian–Romanian and Hungarian–Ukrainian border regions as 
areas of co-operation along the external borders of Europe 
ENYEDI, György – KOVÁCS, Zoltán (eds.) (2006): Social Changes and Social Sustainability in 
Historical Urban Centres. The Case of Central Europe 
KOVÁCS, András Donát (ed.) (2007): Regionality and/or locality 
SZIRMAI, Viktória (ed.) (2007): Social Inequalities in Urban Areas and Globalization. The Case of 
Central Europe 
ILLÉS, Iván (2008): Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA) 
Discussion Papers 
No. 1 
OROSZ, Éva (1986): Critical Issues in the Development of Hungarian Public Health with 
Special Regard to Spatial Differences 
No. 2 
ENYEDI, György – ZENTAI, Viola (1986): Environmental Policy in Hungary 
No. 3 
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1987): Administrative Division and Administrative Geography in 
Hungary 
No. 4 
SIKOS T., Tamás (1987): Investigations of Social Infrastructure in Rural Settlements of 
Borsod County 
No. 5 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1987): Development of the Regional Management of the Economy in 
East-Central Europe 
No. 6 
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1988): Chance of Local Independence in Hungary 
No. 7 
FARAGÓ, László – HRUBI, László (1988): Development Possibilities of Backward 
Areas in Hungary 
No. 8 
SZÖRÉNYINÉ KUKORELLI, Irén (1990): Role of the Accessibility in Development and 
Functioning of Settlements 
No. 9 
ENYEDI, György (1990): New Basis for Regional and Urban Policies in East-Central 
Europe 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation
No. 10 
RECHNITZER, János (1990): Regional Spread of Computer Technology in Hungary  
No. 11 
SIKOS T., Tamás (1992): Types of Social Infrastructure in Hungary (to be not published) 
No. 12 
HORVÁTH, Gyula – HRUBI, László (1992): Restructuring and Regional Policy in 
Hungary 
No. 13 
ERDŐSI, Ferenc (1992): Transportation Effects on Spatial Structure of Hungary 
No. 14 
PÁLNÉ KOVÁCS, Ilona (1992): The Basic Political and Structural Problems in the 
Workings of Local Governments in Hungary 
No. 15 
PFEIL, Edit (1992): Local Governments and System Change. The Case of a Regional 
Centre 
No. 16 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1992): Culture and Urban Development (The Case of  Pécs) 
No. 17 
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1993): Settlement Network Development Policy in Hungary in the 
Period of State Socialism (1949–1985) 
No. 18 
KOVÁCS, Teréz (1993): Borderland Situation as It Is Seen by a Sociologist 
No. 19 
HRUBI, L. – KRAFTNÉ SOMOGYI, Gabriella (eds.) (1994): Small and medium-sized 
firms and the role of private industry in Hungary 
No. 20 
BENKŐNÉ Lodner, Dorottya (1995): The Legal-Administrative Questions of 
Environmental Protection in the Republic of Hungary 
No. 21   ENYEDI, György (1998): Transformation in Central European Postsocialist Cities 
No. 22   HAJDÚ, Zoltán (1998): Changes in the Politico-Geographical Position of Hungary in the 
20th Century 
No. 23 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (1998): Regional and Cohesion Policy in Hungary 
No. 24 
BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (1998): Sustainable Agricultural Development in the Region 
of the Lake Balaton 
No. 25 
LADOS, Mihály (1998): Future Perspective for Local Government Finance in Hungary 
No. 26 
NAGY, Erika (1999): Fall and Revival of City Centre Retailing: Planning an Urban 
Function in Leicester, Britain 
No. 27 
BELUSZKY, Pál (1999): The Hungarian Urban Network at the End of the Second 
Millennium 
No. 28 
RÁCZ, Lajos (1999): Climate History of Hungary Since the 16th Century: Past, Present 
and Future 
No. 29 
RAVE, Simone (1999): Regional Development in Hungary and Its Preparation for the 
Structural Funds  
No. 30 
BARTA, Györgyi (1999): Industrial Restructuring in the Budapest Agglomeration 
No. 31 
BARANYI, Béla–BALCSÓK, István–DANCS, László–MEZŐ, Barna (1999): 
Borderland Situation and Peripherality in the North-Eastern Part of the Great Hungarian 
Plain 
No. 32 
RECHNITZER, János (2000): The Features of the Transition of Hungary’s Regional 
System 
No. 33 
MURÁNYI, István–PÉTER, Judit–SZARVÁK, Tibor–SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt (2000): 
Civil Organisations and Regional Identity in the South Hungarian Great Plain 
No. 34 
KOVÁCS, Teréz (2001): Rural Development in Hungary 
No. 35 
PÁLNÉ, Kovács Ilona (2001): Regional Development and Governance in Hungary 
No. 36 
NAGY, Imre (2001): Cross-Border Co-operation in the Border Region of the Southern 
Great Plain of Hungary 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation
No. 37 
BELUSZKY, Pál (2002): The Spatial Differences of Modernisation in Hungary at the 
Beginning of the 20th Century 
No. 38 
BARANYI, Béla (2002): Before Schengen – Ready for Schengen. Euroregional 
Organisations and New Interregional Formations at the Eastern Borders of Hungary 
No. 39 
KERESZTÉLY, Krisztina (2002): The Role of the State in the Urban Development of 
Budapest 
No. 40 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2002): Report on the Research Results of the Centre for Regional  
Studies of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences 
No. 41 
SZIRMAI, Viktoria – A. GERGELY, András – BARÁTH, Gabriella–MOLNÁR, Balázs 
– SZÉPVÖLGYI, Ákos (2003): The City and its Environment: Competition and/or Co-
operation? (A Hungarian Case Study) 
No. 42 
CSATÁRI, Bálint–KANALAS, Imre–NAGY, Gábor –SZARVÁK, Tibor (2004): Regions 
in Information Society – a Hungarian Case-Study 
No. 43 
FARAGÓ, László (2004): The General Theory of Public (Spatial) Planning (The Social 
Technique for Creating the Future) 
No. 44 
HAJDÚ, Zoltán (2004): Carpathian Basin and the Development of the Hungarian 
Landscape Theory Until 1948 
No. 45 
GÁL, Zoltán (2004): Spatial Development and the Expanding European Integration of the 
Hungarian Banking System 
No. 46 
BELUSZKY, Pál – GYŐRI, Róbert (2005): The Hungarian Urban Network in the 
Beginning of the 20th Century 
No. 47 
G. FEKETE, Éva (2005): Long-term Unemployment and Its Alleviation in Rural Areas 
No. 48 
SOMLYÓDYNÉ PFEIL, Edit (2006): Changes in The Organisational Framework of 
Cooperation Within Urban Areas in Hungary 
No. 49 
MEZEI, István (2006): Chances of Hungarian–Slovak Cross-Border Relations 
No. 50  RECHNITZER, János – SMAHÓ, Melinda (2006): Regional Characteristics of Human 
Resources in Hungary During the Transition 
No. 51 
BARTA, Györgyi – BELUSZKY, Pál – CZIRFUSZ, Márton – GYŐRI, Róbert – 
KUKELY, György (2006): Rehabilitating the Brownfield Zones of Budapest 
No. 52 
GROSZ, András (2006): Clusterisation Processes in the Hungarian Automotive Industry 
No. 53 
FEKETE, G. Éva – HARGITAI, Judit – JÁSZ, Krisztina – SZARVÁK, Tibor – 
SZOBOSZLAI, Zsolt (2006): Idealistic Vision or Reality? Life-long learning among 
Romany ethnic groups 
No. 54 
BARTA, Györgyi (ed.) (2006): Hungary – the New Border of the European Union 
No. 55 
GÁL, Zoltán (2006): Banking Functions of the Hungarian Urban Network in the Early 
20th Century. 
No. 56 
SZÖRÉNYINÉ, Kukorelli Irén (2006): Relation Analysis in Rural Space – A Research 
Method for Exploring the Spatial Structure in Hungary 
No. 57 
MAUREL, Marie-Claude – PÓLA, Péter (2007): Local System and Spatial Change – The 
Case of Bóly in South Transdanubia 
No. 58 
SZIRMAI, Viktória (2007): The Social Characteristics of Hungarian Historic City Centres 
No. 59 
ERDŐSI, Ferenc – GÁL, Zoltán – GIPP, Christoph – VARJÚ, Viktor (2007): Path 
Dependency or Route Flexibility in Demand Responsive Transport? The Case Study of 
TWIST project 
No. 60 
PÓLA, Péter (2007): The Economic Chambers and the Enforcement of  Local Economic 
Interests 
 
 

---

Discussion Papers 2009. No. 70. 
Cooperation and Innovativity: 
the Network Foundations of the Regional System of Innovation
No. 61 
BUDAY-SÁNTHA, Attila (2007): Development Issues of the Balaton Region 
No. 62 
LUX, Gábor (2008): Industrial Development, Public Policy and Spatial Differentiation in 
Central Europe: Continuities and Change 
No. 63 
MEZEI, Cecília (2008): The Role of Hungarian Local Governments in Local Economic 
Development 
No. 64 
NAGY, Gábor (2008): The State of the Info-communication Markets in Dél-Alföld 
Region – Hungary 
No. 65 
HORVÁTH, Gyula (2008): Regional Transformation in Russia 
No. 66 
BELUSZKY, Pál – SIKOS T., Tamás (2008): Changing Village-Typology of  Rural 
Settlements in Hungary at the Beginning of the Third Millennium 
No. 67 
CSIZMADIA, Zoltán – GROSZ, András (2008): Regional Innovation System in West 
Transdanubia 
No. 68 
HARDI, Tamás (ed.) (2008): Transborder Movements and Relations in the Slovakian–
Hungarian Border Regions 
No. 69 
ERDŐSI, Ferenc (2008): Global and Regional Roles of the Russian Transport 
Infrastructures 
 
 
 
 

---