| 1. |
- Asheim, Björn, et al.
(author)
-
Constructing knowledge-based regional advantage : Implications for regional innovation policy
- 2007
-
In: International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management. - 1368-275X .- 1741-5098. ; 7:2-5, s. 140-155
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- A focus on constructing regional advantage requires an 'unpacking' of what makes territorial agglomerations important for innovation and competitiveness by disclosing and revealing the contingencies, particularities and specificities of the various contexts and environments where knowledge creation, innovation and entrepreneurship take place. In order to achieve more effective regional innovation policy, this paper presents and discusses three dimensions along which such unpacking can take place. These dimensions refer to (1) specific industrial knowledge bases, (2) globally distributed knowledge networks and (3) different territorial competence bases.
|
|
| 2. |
- Asheim, Björn, et al.
(author)
-
Constructing regional advantage : Towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe?
- 2011
-
In: European Planning Studies. - : Taylor & Francis. - 0965-4313 .- 1469-5944. ; 19:7, s. 1133-1139
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The core arguments of the constructed regional advantage (CRA) approach stem from the work that started in Brussels in an expert group appointed by DG Research of the EU Commission. In 2006, DG Research launched the final report on "Constructing Regional Advantage" as the new way of taking on and combating new challenges and problems of globalization for European regions (Asheim et al., 2006). CRA means turning comparative advantage into competitive advantage through an explicit policy push promoting a Chamberlinian monopolistic competition based on product differentiation creating unique products, an assumption which was fundamental for Porter's cluster approach also. While building on the lessons from the dynamic principle of the theory of competitive advantage (Porter, 1990, 1998) as well as of the innovation system approach (Lundvall, 2008) emphasizing that competitiveness can be influenced by innovation policies and supporting regulatory and institutional frameworks, the constructed advantage approach recognizes the important interplay between industrial and institutional dynamics as well as calls for greater attention to multi-level governance. What is especially highlighted is the role of a proactive public-private partnership and impact of the public sector and public policy support by acknowledging to a greater extent the importance of institutional complementarities in knowledge economies. This approach represents an improved understanding of key regional development challenges as well as a better anticipation and response to the problems by addressing system failures of lack of connectivity in regional innovation systems (RIS).
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Asheim, Björn, et al.
(author)
-
Regional Innovation System Policy: a Knowledge-based Approach
- 2005
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- A focus on constructing regional advantage requires an unpacking of what makes territorial agglomerations important for innovation and growth by disclosing and revealing the contingencies, particularities and specificities of the various contexts and environments where knowledge creation, innovation and entrepreneurship take place. In order to achieve more effective regional innovation policy, the paper presents and discusses five dimensions along which such unpacking can take place. These dimensions refer to different perspectives that originate in different industrial knowledge bases, different territorial competence bases, the distributed knowledge base, the importance of creative knowledge environments and different institutional frameworks.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Benneworth, Paul, et al.
(author)
-
Exploring the Multiple Roles of Lund University in Strengthening Scania's Regional Innovation System: Towards Institutional Learning?
- 2009
-
In: European Planning Studies. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1469-5944 .- 0965-4313. ; 17:11, s. 1645-1664
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Universities are increasingly seen as potential contributors to regional innovative capacity by serving as local knowledge conduits, bringing global state-of-the-art science and technology into the region. In practice, however, more active university engagement with their regional innovation systems is not as straightforward as it may seem. The article uses examples from a successful case by which less successful regions could be inspired. Our analysis considers how various forms of technological learning intersecting within Lund University around three distinct sectoral engagement efforts have been built up and how this created new structural regional innovation capacity.
|
|
| 10. |
- Bergkvist, John-Erik, et al.
(author)
-
Third-Generation Innovation Policy : System Transformation or Reinforcing Business as Usual?
- 2022
-
In: Questioning the Entrepreneurial State. - Cham : Springer. - 1572-1922. - 9783030942724 - 9783030942755 - 9783030942731 ; , s. 201-217
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- There has been a shift in innovation policy in recent years toward more focus on systemic transformation and changed directionality. In this chapter, we describe a collection of challenges that such policies need to address. Based on a review of dominant frameworks regarding socio-technical transitions, we compare these theories with examples of innovation policy in different countries. Systemic transformation across an economy usually requires a process of creative destruction in which new competencies may be required, actors need to be connected in novel ways, and institutions may need to be changed. Our empirical illustrations show that support programs and initiatives across Europe do not always seem to result in such a process, as they include mechanisms favoring large, established firms and universities. These actors have often fine-tuned their activities and capabilities to the existing order, and therefore have few incentives to engage in renewal. As the incumbent actors also control superior financial and relational resources, there is a risk that they captivate innovation policies and thus reinforce established structures rather than contributing to systemic transformation.
|
|
