EU Legitimacy and Social Affiliation: A case study of engineers in Europe

Analyses of European governance usually put the member states in the foreground, placing the citizens in the background. This article brings explanations of EU legitimacy down to the level of individuals. A method is suggested that combines explanations based on individual interests and a sociological approach to identity. The paper investigates how work organisations become levers for a European outlook that may release legitimising from its national context. The individual level analysis is carried out for one particular occupational group (engineers) and the research questions are elucidated by case studies.social capital; social identity; civil society; open methods of coordination

Standard-Setting and Knowledge Dynamics in Innovation Clusters

Extensive research has been conducted on how firms and regions take advantage of spatially concentrated assets, and also why history matters to regional specialisation patterns. In brief, it seems that innovation clusters as a distinctive regional entity in international business and the geography of innovation are of increasing importance in STI policy, innovation systems and competitiveness studies. Recently, more and more research has contributed to an evolutionary perspective on collaboration in clusters. Nonetheless, the field of cluster or regional innovation systems remains a multidisciplinary field where the state of the art is determined by the individual perspective (key concepts could, for example, be industrial districts, innovative clusters with reference to OECD, regional knowledge production, milieus & sticky knowledge, regional lock-ins & path dependencies, learning regions or sectoral innovation systems). According to our analysis, the research gap lies in both quantitative, comparative surveys and in-depth concepts of knowledge dynamics and cluster evolution. Therefore this paper emphasises the unchallenged in-depth characteristics of knowledge utilisation within a cluster's collaborative innovation activities. More precisely, it deals with knowledge dynamics in terms of matching different agents´ knowledge stocks via knowledge flows, common technology specification (standard-setting), and knowledge spillovers. The means of open innovation and system boundaries for spatially concentrated agents in terms of knowledge opportunities and the capabilities of each agent await clarification. Therefore, our study conceptualises the interplay between firm- and cluster-level activities and externalities for knowledge accumulation but also for the specification of technology. It remains particularly unclear how, why and by whom knowledge is aligned and ascribed to a specific sectoral innovation system. Empirically, this study contributes with several descriptive calculations of indices, e.g. knowledge stocks, GINI coefficients, Herfindahl indices, and Revealed Patent Advantage (RPA), which clearly underline a high spatial concentration of both mechanical engineering and biotechnology within a European NUTS2 sample for the last two decades. Conceptually, our paper matches the geography of innovation literature, innovation system theory, and new ideas related to the economics of standards. Therefore, it sheds light on the interplay between knowledge flows and externalities of cluster-specific populations and the agents' use of such knowledge, which is concentrated in space. We find that knowledge creation and standard-setting are cross-fertilising each other: although the spatial concentration of assets and high-skilled labour provides new opportunities to the firm, each firm's knowledge stocks need to be contextualised. The context in terms of 'use case' and 'knowledge biography' makes technologies (as represented in knowledge stocks) available for collaboration, but also clarifies relevance and ownership, in particular intellectual property concerns. Owing to this approach we propose a conceptualisation which contains both areas with inter- and intra-cluster focus. This proposal additionally concludes that spatial and technological proximity benefits standard-setting in high-tech and low-tech industries in very different ways. More precisely, the versatile tension between knowledge stocks, their evolution, and technical specification & implementation requires the conceptualisation and analysis of a non-linear process of standard-setting. Particularly, the use case of technologies is essential. Related to this approach, clusters strongly support the establishment of technology use cases in embryonic high-tech industries. Low-tech industries in contrast rather depend on approved knowledge stocks, whose dynamics provide better and fast accessible knowledge inputs within low-tech clusters.innovation clusters, standard-setting, knowledge externalities and flows, knowledge alignment, mechanical engineering, biotechnology

Innovation dynamics and the role of infrastructure

This report shows how the role of the infrastructure – standards, measurement, accreditation, design and intellectual property – can be integrated into a quantitative model of the innovation system and used to help explain levels and changes in labour productivity and growth in turnover and employment. The summary focuses on the new results from the project, set out in more detail in Sections 5 and 6. The first two sections of the report provide contextual material on the UK innovation system, the nature and content of the infrastructure knowledge and the institutions that provide it. Mixed modes of innovation, the typology of innovation practices developed and applied here, is constituted of six mixed modes, derived from many variables taken from the UK Innovation Survey. These are: Investing in intangibles Technology with IP innovating Using codified knowledge Wider (managerial) innovating Market-led innovating External process modernising. The composition of the innovation modes, and the approach used to compute them, is set out in more detail in Section 4. Modes can be thought of as the underlying process of innovation, a bundle of activities undertaken jointly by firms, and whose working out generates well known indicators such as new product innovations, R&D spending and accessing external information, that are the partial indicators gathered from the innovation survey itself

Standard-setting and knowledge dynamics in innovation clusters

Extensive research has been conducted on how firms and regions take advantage of spatially concentrated assets, and also why history matters to regional specialisation patterns. In brief, it seems that innovation clusters as a distinctive regional entity in international business and the geography of innovation are of increasing importance in STI policy, innovation systems and competitiveness studies. Recently, more and more research has contributed to an evolutionary perspective on collaboration in clusters. Nonetheless, the field of cluster or regional innovation systems remains a multidisciplinary field where the state of the art is determined by the individual perspective (key concepts could, for example, be industrial districts, innovative clusters with reference to OECD, regional knowledge production, milieus & sticky knowledge, regional lock-ins & path dependencies, learning regions or sectoral innovation systems). According to our analysis, the research gap lies in both quantitative, comparative surveys and in-depth concepts of knowledge dynamics and cluster evolution. Therefore this paper emphasises the unchallenged in-depth characteristics of knowledge utilisation within a cluster?s collaborative innovation activities. More precisely, it deals with knowledge dynamics in terms of matching different agents´ knowledge stocks via knowledge flows, common technology specification (standard-setting), and knowledge spillovers. The means of open innovation and system boundaries for spatially concentrated agents in terms of knowledge opportunities and the capabilities of each agent await clarification. Therefore, our study conceptualises the interplay between firm- and cluster-level activities and externalities for knowledge accumulation but also for the specification of technology. It remains particularly unclear how, why and by whom knowledge is aligned and ascribed to a specific sectoral innovation system. Empirically, this study contributes with several descriptive calculations of indices, e.g. knowledge stocks, GINI coefficients, Herfindahl indices, and Revealed Patent Advantage (RPA), which clearly underline a high spatial concentration of both mechanical engineering and biotechnology within a European NUTS2 sample for the last two decades. Conceptually, our paper matches the geography of innovation literature, innovation system theory, and new ideas related to the economics of standards. Therefore, it sheds light on the interplay between knowledge flows and externalities of cluster-specific populations and the agents? use of such knowledge, which is concentrated in space. We find that knowledge creation and standard-setting are cross-fertilising each other: although the spatial concentration of assets and high-skilled labour provides new opportunities to the firm, each firm?s knowledge stocks.need to be contextualised. The context in terms of ?use case? and ?knowledge biography? makes technologies (as represented in knowledge stocks) available for collaboration, but also clarifies relevance and ownership, in particular intellectual property concerns. Owing to this approach we propose a conceptualisation which contains both areas with inter- and intra-cluster focus. This proposal additionally concludes that spatial and technological proximity benefits standard-setting in high-tech and low-tech industries in very different ways. More precisely, the versatile tension between knowledge stocks, their evolution, and technical specification & implementation requires the conceptualisation and analysis of a non-linear process of standard-setting. Particularly, the use case of technologies is essential. Related to this approach, clusters strongly support the establishment of technology use cases in embryonic high-tech industries. Low-tech industries in contrast rather depend on approved knowledge stocks, whose dynamics provide better and fast accessible knowledge inputs within low-tech clusters

Technology sovereignty as an emerging frame for innovation policy. Defining rationales, ends and means

In recent years, global technology-based competition has not only intensified, but become increasingly linked to a more comprehensive type of competition between different political and value systems. The globalist assumptions of the post-Cold War era that reliable mutually beneficial agreements could be reached with all nations, regardless of ideology, have been shattered. A previously less visible, mostly political, risk dimension has been brought to the fore by recent geopolitical and geo-economic developments. Against this background, the notion of technology sovereignty has gained prominence in national and international debates, cutting across and adding to established rationales of innovation policy. In this paper, we propose and justify a concise yet nuanced concept of technology sovereignty to contribute to and clarify this debate. In particular, we argue that technology sovereignty should be conceived as state-level agency within the international system, i.e. as sovereignty of governmental action, rather than (territorial) sovereignty over something. Against this background, we define technology sovereignty not as an end in itself, but as a means to achieving the central objectives of innovation policy - sustaining national competitiveness and building capacities for transformative policies. By doing so, we position ourselves between a naive globalist position which largely neglects the risks of collaboration and the promotion of near autarky which disregards the inevitable costs of creating national redundancies and reducing cooperative interdependencies. We finish by providing a set of policy suggestions to support technology sovereignty in line with our conceptual approach

Systemic Innovation in a Distributed Network Paradox or Pinnacle?

Previous research has suggested that there is a dichotomy of organisational practices: companies involved in autonomous or modularised innovations, it is argued, benefit from decentralised approaches where coordination primarily takes place through the marketplace, whereas the benefits of systemic innovation are said to be appropriated best by centralised organisations. However, case studies of subcontractors to the Danish wind turbine industry suggest that the ability to meet heterogeneous demands plays an important role for the success of different forms of organisational practices in relation to innovation. The modularised versus systemic architecture approach therefore appears to be a too sweeping dichotomy for describing what can better be perceived as an array of different practices for balancing innovation contribution with the ability of individual firms to appropriate innovation benefits – and a heterogeneous market perception is a core element in building and sustaining this ability.Organisational Forms, Innovation System, Knowledge Complementarities, Value Appropriation

The interplay of patents and standards for information and communication technologies

Dieser Beitrag ist mit Zustimmung des Rechteinhabers aufgrund einer (DFG geförderten) Allianz- bzw. Nationallizenz frei zugänglich.This publication is with permission of the rights owner freely accessible due to an Alliance licence and a national licence (funded by the DFG, German Research Foundation) respectively.ICT products are often interdependent and in some cases indispensably work together. Firms may thus compete on different market levels pursuing different business models to sponsor their proprietary technologies and to maintain market share for their products and services. Interoperability of products is a crucial factor for market success and firms evermore have to coordinate and set standards. These standardized technologies are in some cases protected by patents. Standard essential patents claim an invention that must be used by any company to comply with a technical standard. They are subject to a new and different legal framework which goes beyond the rights of regular patent law. This may influence incentives to develop and specify ICT standards, incentives to invest in R&D or incentives to file patents. Yet, the inclusion of intellectual property in standards, and the strategic behavior of its owners, can have far-reaching consequences for market structure, market entry, and sustained technical progress and innovation. This article discusses current legal and economic issues on the interplay of patents and standards and provides empirical insides on licensing, patenting and coordination