Jurisdictional Advantage

Our objective in this paper is to define jurisdictional advantage, the recognition that location is critical to firms' innovative success and that every location has unique assets that are not easily replicated. The purpose is to be normative and policy oriented. Drawing from the well-developed literature on corporate strategy, we consider analogies to cities in their search for competitive advantage. In contrast to the more passive term locational advantage, our use of the term jurisdiction denotes geographically-defined legal and political decision-making authority and coordination. Thus, jurisdictions may be constructed and managed to promote a coherent activity set. We review recent advances in our understanding of patterns of urban specialization and the composition of activities within cities, which suggest strategies that may generate economic growth as well as those strategies to avoid. This paper then considers the role of firms and their responsibility to jurisdictions in light of the net benefits received from place-specific externalities, and concludes by considering the challenges to implementing jurisdictional advantage.

Technological Dynamics and Social Capability: Comparing U.S. States and European Nations

This paper analyzes factors that shape the technological capabilities of individual U.S. states and European countries, which are arguably comparable policy units. The analysis demonstrates convergence in technological capabilities from 2000 to 2007. The results indicate that social capabilities, such as a highly educated labor force, an egalitarian distribution of income, a participatory democracy and prevalence of public safety, condition the growth of technological capability. The analysis also considers other aspects of territorial dynamics, such as the possible effects of spatial agglomeration, urbanization economies, and differences in industrial specialization and knowledge spillovers from neighboring regions.innovation; technological capabilities; European Union; United States Disclaimer: All

Technological Dynamics and Social Capability: Comparing U.S. States and European Nations

This paper analyzes factors that shape the technological capabilities of individual U.S. states and European countries, which are arguably comparable policy units. The analysis demonstrates convergence in technological capabilities from 2000 to 2007. The results indicate that social capabilities, such as a highly educated labor force, an egalitarian distribution of income, a participatory democracy and prevalence of public safety, condition the growth of technological capability. The analysis also considers other aspects of territorial dynamics, such as the possible effects of spatial agglomeration, urbanization economies, and differences in industrial specialization and knowledge spillovers from neighboring regions.innovation, technological capabilities, European Union, United States

Mapping the human brain: comparing the US and EU Grand Challenges†

The US Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies Grand Challenge and the EU Human Brain Project Future and Emerging Technologies Flagship, though seemingly similar in many dimensions, have distinct features that have been shaped by politics and institutional systems. This article documents the history of the two projects and compares their organization and funding mechanisms. While there is a call for Grand Challenges to motivate science, organizational factors and the mechanisms for allocating funding will have a great influence on the ultimate project outcomes. These two divergent examples suggest alternative strategies to consider when organizing future Grand Challenges, and provide context that should be considered when evaluating the outcomes of large public investments in science

Industrial Clustering and the Returns to Inventive Activity Canadian Biotechnology Firms, 1991-2000

We examine how industrial clustering affects biotechnology firms’ innovativeness, contrasting similar firms not located in clusters or located in clusters that are or are not focused on the firm’s technological specialization. Using detailed firm level data, we find clustered firms are eight times more innovative than geographically remote firms, with largest effects for firms located in clusters strong in their own specialization. For firms located in a cluster strong in their specialization we also find that R&D productivity is enhanced by a firm’s own R&D alliances and also by the R&D alliances of other colocated firms.Biotechnology, industrial clustering, knowledge spillovers, R&D productivity, strategic alliances

Evaluation of Quality of a Project Management & Scientific Publications Based On a New Wisdom Framework

This is a theoretical research paper. It presents a proposal for the evaluation of the quality of a project management based on a new and ‘General Cognitive Model of Wisdom’ -GCMW-. For the development of this GCMW, is proposed the conception of an ‘Information Ecosystem’ -IE-, which is composed by the following ‘cognitive units’: Data -D-; Information -I-; Knowledge(tacit, explicit) - K(tacit, explicit) = (Kt,e)- and Wisdom(tacit, explicit) -W(tacit, explicit) = (Wt,e)-, compactly written as DIKt,eWt,e. By aligning this IE with the DIKW hierarchical conception, wehave created a new, no hierarchical, integrated and generalized framework -the GCMW-. This GCMW framework aims -as an insight generator or strategic foresight- to provide a better assessment to different problems in any field of science, from information science, applied researchers or a more general audience as per example, to point out the theoretical and conceptual bases for the interaction between the project manager and this GCMW framework.It is introduced a new set of logical –general-, definitions for the DIKW to instrumentalize the GCMW framework. Finally, based on the GCMW framework, we have proposed a ‘Particular Cognitive Model of Wisdom’ -PCMW- for paper quality evaluation. Aiming at to build a comprehensive and in-depth evaluation of the quality of any scientific production, is derived from the GCMW framework a new no-hierarchical model -the PCMW framework- and a new set of logical –particular-, definitions for the DIKW are introduced to instrumentalize the PCMW towards paper quality assessment. This particular framework should provide –for any paper being written-, a better assessment and insight generator. By last, as we are admitting that any paper published has quality so; the proposal is, the quality of this paper is complete if -and only if-, the paper has also W. Both, the PCMW and the particular DIKW instruments definitions, are necessary and sufficient conditions for guaranteeing -guiding- if the paper -which is in evaluation-, has W