Content uploaded by Björn Asheim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Björn Asheim on Jun 21, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems
Abstract
The process of knowledge production exhibits a very distinctive geography. This article argues that this geography is fundamental, not incidental, to the innovation process itself: that one simply cannot understand innovation properly if one does not appreciate the central role of spatial proximity and concentration in this process. The goal of this article is to demonstrate why this is true, and to examine how innovation systems at the subnational scale play a key part in producing and reproducing this uneven geography over time. This article addresses four key issues. First, it looks at the reason why location matters when it comes to innovative activity. Second, it turns to examine regional innovation systems, and the role played by them in generating and circulating new knowledge leading to innovation. Third, the article considers the relationship between regional systems of innovation and institutional frameworks at the national level. Finally, the relationship between local and global knowledge flows is examined.
... Hence, it can be expected that firms dependent on new scientific findings will be located near the respective places. One essential mechanism behind the clustering is the exchange of tacit knowledge: While codified knowledge is easily accessible, tacit knowledge is created, disposed and disseminated through personal interaction (see Asheim and Gertler 2006;Heimeriks and Boschma 2014;Maskell and Malmberg 1999;Wal 2014). This was investigated in particular for the biotechnology industry by Cortright and Mayer (2002), wherein biotechnology clusters emerged in geographical proximity to pharmaceutical manufacturers, and also Messeni Petruzzelli et al. (2015) who affirm the innovative relationship between those two industries. ...
... Such a dependence on former related activity can also be found with respect to scientific activity, although with a lower importance. When distinguishing between industries with a synthetic knowledge base versus an analytical one (Asheim and Coenen 2005), the bioeconomy, at least biotechnology, has a rather analytical knowledge base (Asheim and Gertler 2006). Whereas industries with a synthetic knowledge base receive innovative ideas predominantly from interaction with customers or other users than from scientific research, industries with an analytical knowledge base usually rely on close links to universities and research institutions, i.e., they have many joint research projects. ...
... Thus, we can expect spatial proximity to be of great importance for circulating knowledge within the bioeconomy. Knowledge spillovers will happen firstly, fast, and most accurately within the local (and social) networks of the actors involved (Asheim and Gertler 2006). This happens even before findings are published and hence become codified analytical knowledge. ...
The literature provides clear evidence that the kind, amount, and location of innovation activity changes during the life cycle of industries. However, the relevant literature in this respect focuses on large, long-existing industries such as the automobile industry, while it is unclear whether smaller technological fields show similar influences of life cycle processes on the location of innovation activity. Hence, we analyze the life cycle stages of various fields in the bioeconomy and the location of the respective innovation activity in Germany. Within the three fields of biomass, biotechnology, and biomaterials, subfields were built through a keyword-driven approach. We conduct a logit regression model to check the influence of population density, prior topic-specific patents and publications, as well as the overall patent and publication activity on the emergence of bioeconomy patents. The results indicate that the researched bioeconomy mainly follows the stylized life cycle concepts. Moreover, they show that most of the studied subfields do not integrate into existing technologies but build their own innovation systems and that bioeconomy patents rather emerge in rural areas. Interestingly, we find a deviation from the standard life cycle stages, which seems to be caused by the crossover-technology characteristics. We call it the dandelion rubber effect: After the usual initial phase, there seems to be a phase in which the possibilities of application are extended, widening the field instead of becoming more specialized and leading to a new science-based innovation activity. Furthermore, path dependence is clearly visible in bioeconomy patent locations.
... With regard to the procedural dimension, our findings confirm the established understanding that all types of proximity are relevant for the (co-)creation of innovations (in our case bioeconomy innovations), albeit to varying degrees, thereby also seconding seminal research on RIS and the stickiness of tacit knowledge (Asheim & Gertler, 2006;Asheim & Isaksen, 2002). While less relevant in the context of a biotechnology-centered vision, geographical proximity to resource providers is deemed an important success factor for developing biomass-based innovations, especially when linked to the ideas of circular economy and cascading resource use (see also Bourdin & Torre, 2025, for the relevance of proximity in the circular economy). ...
This article explores the regional embeddedness of bioeconomy innovations in Germany, focusing on “flagship” innovation projects that exemplify the challenges and opportunities of systemic changes towards bioeconomies. While bioeconomies have been promoted as solutions to global challenges and opportunities for sustainable regional development, there are ongoing debates about the actual benefits of bioeconomies. These debates result not least from diverging visions of both bioeconomy and innovation. The concept of regional embeddedness shows promise for addressing such issues but needs empirical refinement and conceptual substantiation. Therefore, our study investigates how innovators perceive their bioeconomy innovations to be regionally embedded and which regional challenges and opportunities they identify, using a qualitative multiple-case study approach. More precisely, we report the findings from 16 interviews with experts involved in “flagship” innovations in the German bioeconomy. Our findings highlight the heterogeneity of bioeconomy visions and corresponding innovations and confirm the relevance of different types of proximity. Moreover, higher education institutions and research institutes are found to play a key role in driving bioeconomy innovations, which may, however, contribute to regional differences in capacities and capabilities for sustainable bioeconomy innovations and transitions. Building on our findings, we propose a first conceptual framework incorporating both procedural and effectual dimensions of regional embeddedness. Generally, our article provides insights for policymakers, innovators, and other scholars interested in better understanding and governing bioeconomies through regionally embedded innovation processes.
... O uso da metáfora ecológica de um ecossistema, nos estudos de gestão (Moore, 1993;Iansiti & Levien, 2004), foi enriquecido com o conceito de ecossistema de inovação (Adner, 2006). O conceito do ecossistema de inovação foi introduzido como um conjunto dinâmico e colaborativo de atores, relacionamentos e instituições, afetando o processo de inovação sustentável dentro de uma região (Asheim & Gertler, 2005;Romano et al., 2014). No ecossistema existe um conjunto de um grande número de participantes, interligados entre si, composto de clientes, fornecedores, concorrentes, distribuidores, terceirizados diversos, fornecedores de tecnologia e instituições ligadas através de muitos tipos de relacionamentos. ...
Objetivo do estudo: Neste estudo analisou-se o ecossistema inovador de startups por meio de uma leitura das produções científicas publicadas mantidas na base de dados da Web of Science.Metodologia: Este trabalho fundou-se no método bibliométrico, pela análise de citações e cocitações, sendo utilizada conjuntamente a análise fatorial.Originalidade: A inovação em organizações emergentes tem despertado o interesse de inúmeros pesquisadores. A startup é um fenômeno que tem contribuído de maneira salutar para as inovações em economias emergentes. Startups de sucesso aparentam situar-se em ambientes diferenciados. Os dados coletados elucidaram os caminhos pelos quais o tema - ecossistema inovador das startups -percorreu durante os últimos anos, apresentando o que tem sido publicado até o momento nessa área.Principais resultados: Os resultados apontaram para a existência de 3 principais direções: empreendedorismo, capital de risco e incubadoras.Contribuições téoricas/metodológicas: Este estudo contribuiu para ampliar o entendimento sobre o tema, orientando futuros estudos com base nas lacunas conceituais identificadas.
This study highlights the importance of understanding the geographical context of innovation processes in industries driven by tacit knowledge, with German wind energy as its object of investigation. The subject of the research is the spatial organization of innovation processes in the wind energy sector, focusing on the co-location of inventors, production facilities, and installed capacities, particularly among locally embedded enterprises. The aim of this research is to characterize the geography of innovation in the German wind energy sector by examining the correlation between innovation departments and installed capacities, the degree of company embeddedness, and the industry’s stage of development. The novelty lies in the application of a spatial analysis framework combined with network theory to explore how proximity and embeddedness shape the innovation cycle. The study developed a methodology to quantitatively assess the co-location of company branches and installed capacities over time using influence zones. Findings reveal a strong link between the locations of knowledge-generation sites and installed capacities, especially for embedded enterprises, where co-location coefficients within a 50-km radius range from 1.9 to 2.5. This correlation strengthens over time, particularly from 2000–2009 to 2010–2019. Foreign enterprises show high co-location coefficients for manufacturing sites but not for innovation departments. Further research is needed to explore the interplay of tacit and formalized knowledge in increasingly complex innovation processes and to determine causality in co-location patterns between innovators and installed capacities.
The article explores the theoretical and methodological foundations for assessing the resource potential of a region as a key factor in ensuring economic growth and sustainable development. It reveals the essence and structure of resource potential as a combination of natural, human, economic, technological, infrastructural, and ecological resources. A systematic approach is proposed to analyze the interconnections between the components of resource potential, taking into account the specifics of regional economies and socio-ecological conditions. Methodological approaches to assessing resource potential have been developed, including the identification of external and internal determinants of regional development, the formulation of a set of questions for evaluation, and the formalization of a function to measure the resource potential of a region. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of tools for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a region’s resource potential, which can be considered when justifying social and economic development programs and ensuring the rational use of resources.
Neste estudo pretende-se estudar a dinâmica das redes de interação no cluster marítimo em Portugal e compreender se os diferentes atores competem e cooperam entre si para inovar e criar dinamismos e sinergias dentro do cluster. Para alcançar os objetivos efetuaram-se, em 2022, entrevistas e questionários aos associados do Fórum Oceano-Cluster da Economia do Mar. Como metodologia utilizou-se a investigação qualitativa através da análise descritiva e exploratória. Os resultados apontam que existem ligações de interação/cooperação entre os associados do Fórum Oceano-Cluster da Economia do Mar indicando que atua e funciona como cluster.
The idea that biology rather than physics provides the proper model for economics is a constantly recurring one. There is an increased concern with dynamics, competitiveness, and innovation which appear to be important elements in generating the increased interest in the evolutionary model of economic behavior. The first part of this article briefly addresses conceptual issues, and argues that the basic unit of analysis should be "national systems of political economy." Next, I analyze and compare the American and Japanese economies. Finally, I set forth a few speculations about whether or not one can evaluate these systems in evolutionary terms. My conclusion is that while evolutionary theory is a promising and fascinating approach to the study of economic systems, it is not yet a satisfactory one.
The version of record [Bathelt, H. (2003). Geographies of production: Growth regimes in spatial perspective 1 – Innovation, institutions and social systems. Progress in Human Geography, 27(6), 763-778.] is available online at:http://phg.sagepub.com/content/27/6/763
[doi: 10.1191/0309132503ph462pr]
The understanding of post-Fordist societies as learning economies, in which learning organizations such as learning firms and learning regions play a strategic role, has lately received some criticism. The critique has partly pointed at the structural limits to learning in a capitalist global economy, and partly argued that firms in capitalist societies have always been learning, referring especially to the role of innovation in inter-firm competition. Against the critics, it is argued that the learning region has great potential, both as a theoretical and normative concept and as a practical metaphor for formulating regional policy.
Biotechnology, rather than being defined as a distinct industry like steelmaking or shipbuilding, is in-stead a scientific knowledge base—a rapidly evolving technology—that has economically valuable applications in such diverse industries as pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostics, agriculture, bioen-vironmental remediation, and chemical processing. Biotechnology has captured the imagination of ambitious scientific investigators and investors seeking high rates of return, as well as state eco-nomic development officials who hope to anchor the industry in their locality and reap the industry's economic and employment rewards. Biotech is still at an early stage of its development, and there are many competing hypotheses about its future development. Most importantly, biotechnology involves the commercialization of science resources in which the federal and state governments have made substantial investment. One key question is how to leverage this investment for future economic growth. This article explores the policy issue related to the commercialization of biotech-nology, its role as an engine of economic development, and the appropriate public policy response. The late twentieth century has witnessed a scientific gold rush of astonishing proportions: the headlong and furious haste to commercialize genetic engineer-ing. This enterprise has proceeded so rapidly—with so little outside commen-tary—that its dimensions and implications are hardly understood at all.
Despite an expanding critique, the idea of the linear model of R & D (and the inequalities implicit within it) still holds sway in what Rosenberg (Science and Public Policy, 1991, 18, 335–346) has termed “our roadmap of the science/technology relationship”. In constructing a new map, we must first recognize R & D as having a social and spatial, as well as a technical, content. In the paper this approach is used to analyse four case studies of the R & D process. In each case, the company conceptualises the R & D process in terms of linearity but it doesn't work quite like that in practice. The variations are not major, but neither are they insignificant. Moreover, they do seem to be associated with social and spatial modifications of the inequalities inherent, or potentially present, in the pure linear model. Maybe if these companies could think less in terms of the linear model, and stop measuring their actual, complex practice against it and thereby conceiving of that complexity as in some way a deficiency, then further positive moves away from the linear model could be made.
An attempt is made, first, to assess the technopolis project of Sophia-Antipolis, and, second, to propose a qualitative means of understanding local systems of innovation. A quantitative analysis based on the evaluation of the Sophia-Antipolis development indicates success, but seems to be insufficient to give an indication of the economic strength of the project. A theoretical analysis of local systems of production and innovation appears to be necessary; such an analysis is carried out, and ends with the definition of a concept of innovative network that is based on the coordination modes of local activities and the related incentive schemes. This framework is then applied to Sophia-Antipolis, and allows a qualitative assessment of the project, revealing some weaknesses in the local context.