Search

This editorial seeks to contribute to a critical rethinking of the regional innovation system (RIS) framework and to examine what kind of 'reinvention' of regional innovation policy is needed in the era of grand societal challenges. The concept of challenge-oriented regional innovation systems (CoRISs) is employed to cast light on how RISs can be reconfigured in response to societal challenges. Based on the articles in this issue, the editorial distinguishes between two routes into which CoRISs could be developed: RIS reorientation strategies versus RIS transformation strategies. The first strategy assumes that at least some place-specific problems that are related to grand societal challenges can be tackled by use of existing assets, actors and institutions in historically grown RISs. RIS transformation strategies go a step further. They emphasize disruption and the strategic creation of new RIS elements. These include the inclusion of new innovative actors and actor groups, the implementations of institutional change, and also the disruption of old network linkages and the establishment of new ones. The editorial also reflects on the uptake of the two strategies in different spatial contexts as regional preconditions and challenges vary, which may demand different strategies and solutions on the regional level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses mechanisms and policy that stimulate regional economic restructuring. Economic restructuring is conceptualised through the notion of path development. The article distinguishes four types of path development: the extension and upgrading of existing regional industries are two types, diversification of existing industries and the creation of new industry paths are the two others and more substantial path developments. A main idea in the article is that new path development requires industry actors who initiate new firms or innovation activities in existing firms, i.e. firm level agency, but that restructuring also requires action by actors operating in the regional support system, i.e. system level agency. System level agency, understood as actions or intervention to transform regional innovation systems to better support economic restructuring, is particularly important for the two most 'radical' types of restructuring, i.e. path diversification and creation, and in regions with thin and specialised knowledge and industrial structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue is devoted to studying mechanisms that may stimulate or hamper the renewal of existing industry paths and the growth of new paths. In this guest editorial, we look closely at the role of policy instruments in situations where the majority of regional industries are embedded in strong regional and/or national innovation systems. This theme is currently very relevant in (parts of) Norway, where the dominant oil sector is downsizing and new growth paths are required to maintain employment and welfare. The guest editorial presents a theoretical framework for new regional industrial path development, followed by a discussion on how two Norwegian policy tools contribute to new path development. The 10 articles of the special issue study different aspects of new regional industrial path development based on cases in Norway, Sweden and Spain. Some papers also discuss the role of policy in new path development. Based on the findings from these articles, we believe that new path development is fostered by policies that incorporate both actor-based and system-based elements. Such policy mix could provide a vital push towards new path development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article casts light on the increasingly complex geography of innovation and knowledge sourcing activities. We argue that the spatial patterns of learning and knowledge exchange vary substantially across different types of regions and industries. The article elucidates such variations by combining three analytical approaches, namely, (i) modes of innovation (differentiating between science-technologyinnovation (STI) and doing-using-interacting (DUI) modes), (ii) regional innovation systems (distinguishing between organizationally thick and diversified, thick and specialized, and thin systems), and (iii) types of knowledge linkages that connect actors during the innovation process. We explore in detail the key characteristics of the spatial architectures of innovation and knowledge flows in STI and DUI industries located in regional innovation systems with varying degrees of organizational thickness and specialization. We also discuss empirical examples documented in the extant literature to illustrate our arguments on how innovation and knowledge circulation unfold in space in various territorial and industrial contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past two decades have witnessed an ever-growing scholarly interest in regional clusters. The focus of research has mainly been on exploring why clusters exist and what characteristics “functioning” clusters possess. Although the interest in more dynamic views on clusters is not new, in recent years, however, greater attention has been paid to providing better explanations of how clusters change and develop over time, giving rise to an increasing popularity of the cluster life-cycle approach. This paper discusses the key ideas and arguments put forward by the main protagonists of this approach and identifies several missing elements, such as indifference to place-specific factors, neglect of multi-scalar impacts and underappreciation of the role of human agency. Based on this critical assessment, a number of suggestions for future research are made. We argue that there is a need to study the influence of the wider regional environment on cluster evolution and to explore how cluster development paths are influenced by a multiplicity of factors and processes at various spatial scales. Finally, it is claimed that future research should pay more attention to the role of human agents and the ways they shape the long-term development of regional clusters. We outline how future studies can tackle these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conceptual framework of constructing regional advantage (CRA) is implicitly relevant for large, well-off regions that have strong regional innovation systems, a diversity of industrial sectors and resourceful firms that can partake in global knowledge networks. This paper discusses the extent to which small regions, with less developed regional innovation systems, may also constitute the basis for developing regional advantage. Four cases of regional industries dominated by different innovation modes make up the empirical test bed in the paper. The innovation modes are STI (science, technology, innovation), CCI (complex, combined innovation) and DUI (doing, using, interacting). With some reformulations, the CRA framework also is found to represent a useful conceptual construct for small regions. Adapting the CRA framework to small regions involves focusing more on increasing the innovation capabilities at the level of the firm – placing less emphasis on the endogenous capacity of regional innovation systems, but emphasising the importance of experience-based knowledge in local labour markets – and concentrating more on the need for a diversity of knowledge bases at the regional level. Policy lessons for constructing regional advantages in small regions should, in general, consider the upgrading of DUI firms and stimulating extra-regional links. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Some resource-based economies become wealthy while others stay poor and Norway belongs to the first category. This paper argues that part of the answer to why Norway has managed to benefit from its rich natural resources is found in the formation of a well-functioning national innovation system. The paper integrates the innovation system approach with a historical approach through the concept of co-evolution. The empirical study investigates how innovation systems evolve in natural resource industries through analysing the co-evolution between industry, knowledge organisations and national policy in the Norwegian aluminium and petroleum sectors. Parallels are found in the development of these two sectors, which are: (i) the deliberate use of concession laws to seize value creation and technological development from foreign direct investments, (ii) the establishment and prioritisation of state-owned companies and (iii) the more or less intentional formation of a national innovation system. The paper points to the relevance of analysing the historical evolution of national innovation systems to understand the creation of their specific path-dependent characteristics, to analyse how policy influences the creation and working of innovation systems, to use a multilevel approach in studies of innovation systems and to consider how innovation processes in different industries are linked in value chains and through knowledge flows. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The paper argues that no single formula exists for how universities can stimulate innovation activity and industrial development in a particular region. The type of university-industry cooperation must be fined-tuned according to the knowledge base of the university and to the dominant mode of innovation in the regional industry. This article discusses two different modes of innovation: science, technology, innovation (STI) and doing, using, interacting (DUI). The unit of analysis is innovation and cooperation with universities in two regional industries in Norway, which are dominated by the two modes of innovation: STI (marine biotechnology in Tromsø) and DUI (oil and gas equipment suppliers in Agder). The empirical analyses demonstrate the different roles that universities play in these two regional industries. The University of Tromsø is the main organization behind the development of the marine biotechnology industry in Tromsø and is an important knowledge node and source of biotechnology spin-offs. Equipment suppliers in Agder have become world leaders in some niches, almost without research cooperation with universities. A general lesson is that the dominant mode of innovation in a regional industry makes a difference to the role universities can play in stimulating the development of the industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Regional Studies is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper compares learning, knowledge flows and innovation processes in the high-tech clusters in four small Norwegian cities, which are specialized in high-tech industries. It addresses how the clusters have developed historically with important national stimuli and engagement, examines what existing knowledge sources and innovation networks the high-tech firms use and are integrated in, and identifies which of these are particularly locally rooted vis-à-vis relying more on global pipelines. The paper underlines the importance of glocal (global and local) networks for the innovation capabilities of high-tech firms in small regional clusters. However, it also critically examines the concepts of glocal networks and "local buzz and global pipelines", and argues in particular for the need to take into account some other types of proximities and spatial levels that directly and indirectly are focused by these concepts. Thus, the national level is found to be central in initiating the building of clusters in new industries, particularly in "resource thin" peripheral regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper describes and assesses three Norwegian innovation policy tools. The tools cover three different models of strengthening firms' innovation capability, i.e. direct financial support, broker and advisory systems and technology or knowledge centres. The tools include some new elements in innovation policy design, and thus, some elements of good practice. Guidelines for good practice includes an interactive perspective on innovation support, a focus on innovation systems, context sensitivity and a regional focus, learning in the support system and receiver-oriented and proactive working methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss various reports within the issue on topics including individual enterprise perspective on learning and innovation development, collaboration in intensitying innovation in Norway, and the conditions bridging science and business communities.