The Role of Regional Innovation Systems in a Globalizing Economy: Comparing Knowledge Bases and Institutional Frameworks in Nordic Clusters

In order to advance the understanding of which types of regional innovation system represent effective innovation support for what kinds of industry in different regions analyses must be contextualized by reference to the actual knowledge base of various industries as well as to the regional and national institutional framework, which strongly shape the innovation processes of firms. Of special importance is the linkage between the larger institutional frameworks of the national innovation and business systems, and the character of regional innovation systems. In making the arguments about a general correspondence between the macro-institutional characteristics of the economy and the dominant form and character of its regional innovation systems a link is provided to the literature on ‘varieties of capitalism’ and national business systems.regional innovation systems; Industrial Knowledge; Nordic clusters

Face-to-Face, Buzz and Knowledge Bases: Socio-spatial implications for learning and innovation policy

While concurring with the new streams of literature in geography that highlight the importance of face-to-face and buzz in the globalizing learning economy, the article argues that this literature is misleading on three interrelated accounts. Firstly, it conflates face-to-face and buzz; secondly, it fails to distinguish between the importance of face-to-face and buzz for industries drawing on different knowledge bases, and thirdly, these conceptual inadequacies lead to an exaggeration of the importance of cities as sites for creativity and innovation, and hence regional competitiveness. By applying an industrial knowledge base approach the article seeks to reconstruct an alternative framework that allows for a systematic differentiation between the importance of both face-to-face and buzz for different industries. This provides a framework for developing a more nuanced understanding of the spatial implications of face-to face communication and buzz for learning and innovation.Innovation Policy; face-to-face; Buzz

Unpacking resource mobilisation by incumbents for biorefineries: The role of micro-level factors for technological innovation system weaknesses

This paper unpacks resource mobilisation for biorefineries by studying investment decisions of incumbent pulp and paper firms in Sweden and Finland. The analysis highlights that the limited adoption of biorefinery technologies can be attributed to both insufficient abilities (lack of needed competencies and partnerships) and interests (preference for improving existing technologies) by pulp and paper incumbents. Drawing on the technological innovation system perspective complemented with insights from the management literature on the role of incumbents in technological change, four issues are empirically identified as important for improving resource mobilisation for biorefinery technologies: establishing loosely coupled divisions in pulp and paper firms; creating internal markets for new bioproducts aimed at further technological development; entering purchasing agreements with downstream actors; and investing in new managerial competencies

The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: Review, Synthesis and Reflections on an Emergent Research Field.

This review covers the recent literature on the geography of sustainability transitions and takes stock with achieved theoretical and empirical insights. The review synthesises and reflects upon insights of relevance for sustainability transitions following from analyses of the importance of place specificity and the geography of inter-organisational relations. It is found that these contributions focus on the geography of niche development rather than regime dynamics, and that there is an emphasis on understanding the importance of place-specificity at the local level. While there is a wide consensus that place-specificity matters there is still little generalisable knowledge about how place-specificity matters for transitions. Most contributions add spatial sensitivity to frameworks from the transitions literature, but few studies suggest alternative frameworks to study sustainability transitions. To address this, the review suggests promising avenues for future research on the geography of sustainability transitions, drawing on recent theoretical advancements in economic geography

The role of policy instruments for an environmentally sustainable and competitive food industry: Sweden in a comparative perspective. A Literature Review

This report is a literature review on the role of policy instruments for an environmentally sustainable and competitive Food industry. The review focuses its attention on the food industry in Sweden and in an international perspective, and covers developments after 1990

Towards a theory for transition regions in sustainable energy innovation: comparing system innovation and innovation systems

Many of the findings in transition studies are interesting but have relatively little theoretical purchase, largely because of its linear logic and lack of spatiality. A lot of attention is directed to the so-called niche level because this is conceived as the level where innovations begin, which may subsequently influence socio-technical regimes and ultimately societal landscapes. This linearity runs the risk of reifying niche experiments by considering them as stand-alone agents of change which ignores that these experiments actually ‘take place’ over time and in context. As a result, transition theory and practice experiences severe difficulties to ‘upscale’ successful niche innovations towards broader and more widespread application in society. To address this lacuna, existing conceptual frameworks need to be enriched to capture the spatially uneven development processes engendered in transitions. Grounding transition theory in its spatial context will force it to address the question how and why sustainability experiments are performing differently in different geographical settings and, consequently, what the governance challenges are for translating localities into generalities and backwards and ultimately upscaling into mainstream regime practice. This poses a major theoretical challenge because there is a strictly limited literature on economic geography or regional innovation from a green perspective

Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway

[EN] Debates on how to address societal challenges have moved to the forefront of academic and policy concerns. Of particular importance is the growing awareness that to deal with issues such as ageing, it will be necessary to implement concerted efforts on technological, social, institutional or political fronts. Drawing on a number of theoretical perspectives ¿ including socio-technical transitions and embedded state theory ¿ the aim of this paper is to identify and understand different approaches to the governance of such system innovations by comparing state responses to assisted living in two contrasting national systems of care, namely that of the UK and Norway. Its findings highlight that state-supported and funded experimentation projects have been instrumental in designing and implementing system innovation: through their emphasis on co-design and co-creation, these projects demonstrated the value of early implementation pilots to explore the `fit¿ between novel technologies and prevailing practices and institutional structures in national systems of care. Still, competition, biases or conflicting interests should not be ignored between well-established agents and institutions and experimental solutions whose efficacy remains relatively untested and which involve a combination of new technical, social, organizational and institutional solutions.This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 320131 (SmartSpec).Bugge, M.; Coenen, L.; Marques, P.; Morgan, K. (2017). Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway. European Planning Studies. 25(12):2138-2156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078S213821562512Benner, M. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart experimentation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1). doi:10.1515/zfw.2014.0003Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.xBulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., & Edwards, G. (2012). Bringing climate change to the city: towards low carbon urbanism? Local Environment, 17(5), 545-551. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.681464Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968-979. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014Coenen, L., Raven, R., & Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295-302. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.006Devlin, A. M., McGee-Lennon, M., O’Donnell, C. A., Bouamrane, M.-M., Agbakoba, R., … O’Connor, S. (2015). Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the dallas program in the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 48-59. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv097Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. doi:10.1515/9781400821723Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536. doi:10.1080/09537320802292982Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603-633. doi:10.1016/s0304-3878(03)00124-xJacobsson, B., Pierre, J., & Sundström, G. (2015). Governing the Embedded State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684168.001.0001Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823-835. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.006Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2014). Metering motorbike mobility: informal transport in transition? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 453-468. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.870991Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(4), 763-770. doi:10.1068/a39310Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.663959Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.00

Assessing change agency in urban experiments for sustainability transitions

Experimentation has become one of the prevailing modes of governing the transition toward sustainable practices in urban environments. The spatial variation of urban sustainability transition has been attributed to a variety of conditions erected at different spatial scales. What remains less well-understood is how spatial situatedness shapes agency in urban experiments and the shapes agency can take is a field that requires further research and frameworks. The paper addresses this gap by introducing a framework from the literature on regional development, identifying three distinct types of agency that shape regional development processes. Combining this framework with a process perspective on urban experiments, we develop an analytical framework, which allows for a more granular understanding of agency in urban sustainability transitions. The analytical framework is then brought to use in a case study of an urban experiment aiming to electrify public transport in Gothenburg, Sweden.publishedVersio