European Regional Science Association
|
European Regional Science Association
|
|
|
|
|
The abstract for paper number 533:
Jan-Evert Nilsson, Blekinge Institute of Technology, , Sweden
Innovative Regions: Three Theoretical Perspectives
In general terms economists has always realized the importance of innovations in economic development. In the introductory chapter of the Wealth of Nations Adam Smith discusses how division of labour support specialized innovations and about one hundred years later Alfred Marshall described knowledge as the engine of growth. Joseph Schumpeter became the most influential economist in he 20th century focusing on the importance of innovations. He stressed the role of the entrepreneurs as the dynamic force in the capitalist economic system, which through their initiatives could achieve a state of temporary monopoly and for a while were rewarded by large profits. However Schumpeter was the exception. Most economists did not pay attention to innovations.
In the 1970s economic growth in the OECD-countries was reduced by 50 per cent. This new economic situation with slow growth renewed interest in innovation. Many economists considered increased innovation rates as a road to higher growth. Some old concepts from the 1930s – like creative destruction and Kondratiev-cycles – became fashion again, while some new concepts – like innovation system, cluster and triple helix - was introduced. In the same process geography rediscovered by some economists and focused was placed on learning regions and innovative regions.
In this paper I will discuss and compare three different theoretical perspectives on innovative regions. The three perspectives are rooted in different research traditions.
The research on Kondratiev-cycles, concluded that the upswing of long waves involved a simultaneous explosive burst of growth of one or several major new industries and technologies based on a paradigm change implying a unique new combination of decisive technical and economic advantages. Based on these insights the notion of innovation systems – a network of institutions in the public and private sector whose interactions initiate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies - grow up. Learning is considered to be the key variable in a dynamic innovation system. The innovation system concept was initially applied to nations because of the policies of national government, but over time more attention has been paid to regional innovation system.
In the second perspective the focus is moved from institutions to corporate structure or clusters. The research question is reformulated to understand why corporations in some countries are able keep innovative and uphold sustained competitive advantages. Demand, resources, cooperation and rivalry are among the factors mentioned as important in answering the question. The existence of a transformations pressure is considered essential in order to foster innovative behaviour. Initially the discussion of cluster primarily referred to national cluster. Initially, there was little room for a regional perspective. However, this changed when economic geographers adopted the perspective a made it a synonym to industrial districts.
The third perspective, triple helix, takes its point of departure in the new role of universities in a knowledge-based society in which knowledge is the single most important production factor. One consequence of the changing economic role of knowledge is that traditional borders between universities and business are loosen up. Science and society are invading each others’ domains. Society claims that the universities should be useful in a manifest way. In the triple helix model attention is put on the interplay between university, corporations and government. This interplay has stimulated some universities to become more entrepreneurial in order to match society’s demand. The dynamics of this interplay between the university, corporations and the government is one important determinant of the regional impact of a university. Because the focus of this perspective is on some identified institutions the regional perspective is inherent in triple helix.
In the paper I will compare these three perspective and discuss their implications when it come to understanding the role of universities in regional development. I will also discuss policy implications of the three perspectives.
Unfortunately full paper has not been submitted.