Series
Globelics Academy

Series Type
Event Series
Description
Associated Organization(s)
Associated Organization(s)
Organizational Unit

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
  • Item
    Technological Change and the challenges for Regional Development:building "social capital" in less-favoured region
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Nunes, Richard J. ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Conceição, Pedro
    The relevance of regional policy for less favoured regions (LFRs) reveals itself when policy-makers must reconcile competitiveness with social cohesion through the adaptation of competition or innovation policies. The vast literature in this area generally builds on an overarching concept of “social capital” as the necessary relational infrastructure for collective action diversification and policy integration, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of industrial change and a necessary balance between the creation and diffusion of knowledge through learning. This relational infrastructure or “social capital” is centred on people’s willingness to cooperate and envision futures as a result of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1993: 35). Advocates of this interpretation of “social capital” have adopted the “new growth” thinking behind “systems of innovation” and “competence building”, arguing that networks have the potential to make both public administration and markets more effective as well as learning trajectories more inclusive of the development of society as a whole. This essay aims to better understand the role of “social capital” in the production and reproduction of uneven regional development patterns, and to critically assess the limits of a “systems concept” and an institution-centred approach to comparative studies of regional innovation. These aims are discussed in light of the following two assertions: i) learning behaviour, from an economic point of view, has its determinants, and ii) the positive economic outcomes of “social capital” cannot be taken as a given. It is suggested that an agent-centred approach to comparative research best addresses the learning determinants and the consequences of social networks on regional development patterns. A brief discussion of the current debate on innovation surveys has been provided to illustrate this point.
  • Item
    From digital cities to mobile regions: a policy learning process fostering local systems of innovation and competence building
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Conceição, Pedro ; Ferreira, P. ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Moutinho, J. L.
    Given the current socio-economic context, in which innovation is a key driver of sustainable development, what are the challenges facing information-based development and cooperation, in a way that contributes to regional policies that stimulate localized learning and indigenous development? This broad question has motivated the work behind the present paper, which considered the development of case studies in selected Portuguese cities and regions and the emerging urbanization trends of increasing urban population, but reduced urban density. It is argued that the progressive integration of mobile ICT´s with sustainable mobility equipments and concepts will facilitate improving well being in urban regions if adequate incentives, infrastructures and institutions are adaptively implemented through a policy learning process. The analysis builds on the concept of local system of innovation and competence building, in a context much influenced by a dynamic of change and a necessary balance between the diffusion of mobile technologies and the social and cultural shaping of information technologies
  • Item
    The “Swing of the Pendulum” from Public to Market Support for Science and Technology: Is the US Leading the Way?
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Conceição, Pedro ; Heitor, Manuel V. ; Sirilli, Giorgio ; Wilson, Robert
    The structure and financing of science and technology activities are undergoing a slow, but profound, change. This change can be briefly characterized as a shift from relying and supporting public science to a stronger emphasis on “market-based” incentives for science and technology. In this paper we analyze this shift in a historical perspective, discussing both the theoretical explanations and the empirical trends of the ongoing change. While we do not claim to provide a comprehensive and exhaustive identification of the causes of this shift, we argue that it is largely driven by the perception of a shift of the US policy towards market-based, rather than publicly support, incentives for science and technology. This, in turn – given the strong economic performance of the US over the 1990s – has influenced policies in most OECD countries, and especially in Europe. We conclude by analyzing the evolution of research in US higher education and find two major trends: an increasing diversity in the number of institutions of different types other than universities and a steady and continuous public funding of the leading US universities. This has allowed the construction of an infrastructure now used largely by the private sector, but it also noted that the US has not compromised public support for core areas or in those fields in which there is a clear perception that market incentives are not sufficient for meeting the strategic targets of the US policy. The implication is that there is a considerable “policy diversity” in the US practice and that all aspects of this diversity should be considered when using the US as a reference.
  • Item
    No Exit: A voice for Globelics? Reflections on research on global governance
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Soete, Luc ; Weehuizen, Rifka
    This paper addresses the issue of global governance. At first sight this is a topic which appears to fall beyond the “village borders” of the Globelics initiative. The analytical focus for the Globelics network proposed last year (Lundvall and Soete, 2002) was upon national innovation and competence building systems, paying in particular attention to international comparative analyses with respect to the “south”. The geographical emphasis on low(er) income countries appeared justified by the impression of an increasing tendency towards research diversion in this area in favor of international, high income countries’, comparative analyses, providing policy advice and support to various countries’ attempts at becoming the most competitive or knowledge intensive regions in the world. At the same time, the definition of innovation system was kept broad: “rooted in the production and human resource development system” to quote Lundvall (2002) rather than just limited to the R&D system. There were several reasons which justified such an approach. Thus as Lundvall noted: “Several OECD-countries that are characterised by a low-tech specialisation in production and exports are among the countries in the world with the highest GNP per capita. To focus on the rather small part of the economy engaged in formal R&D-activities would give very limited insights regarding the growth potential for these countries and the same would be true for low income countries. A second reason has to do with the fact that empirical studies only partially support the original hypothesis in Lundvall (1985) about innovations systems as primarily constituted by inter-firm, user-producer relationships. It is an obvious alternative to broaden the perspective on regional and national systems and to see them as constituted also by a common knowledge base embedded in local institutions and embodied in people living and working in the region. The final and perhaps the most important reason for taking the broader view has to do with the developments toward a ‘learning economy’. This hypothesis points to the need to give stronger emphasis to the analysis of the development of human and organisational capabilities. In the national education systems people learn specific ways to learn. In labour markets they experience nation specific incentive systems and norms will have an impact on how and what they learn.” (Lundvall, 2002). But such insights will of course also have to fit the rather radically changing external, international environment. As we already indicated last year, we side on this issue with Ulrich Beck: “a fundamental change is occurring in the nature of the social and political – an erosion of anthropological certitudes which compels the social sciences to modify their theoretical tools… the crucial question is how, beyond the mere assertion of an epochal break, sociology can strengthen its theoretical, methodological and organizational foundations by making them more concrete or focused and in this was ultimately renew its claim to another enlightenment. The keyword in this international controversy is globalisation. The consequences of this for society (and sociology) have been spelt out most clearly in the English-speaking countries… where it has been forcefully argued that conventional social and political science remains caught up in a national-territorial concept of society. Critics of ‘methodological nationalism’ processes and that the national framework is still the one best suited to measure and analyse major social, economic and political changes. The social sciences are thus found guilty of ‘embedded statism’ and thought is given to a reorganization of the interdisciplinary field…”(Beck, 2002) The focus on “national” systems of innovations is from this perspective invaluable in bringing to the forefront the importance of such “state” institutions in inducing or hindering processes of national competence building in a variety of different countries. The attempts at comparative learning through such detailed studies have actually formed the basis for the hype of innovation policy benchmarking exercises carried out within the EU and across the EU, the US and Japan. Following Beck though, there is in our view, here too a need to broaden this framework in line with the rapid rise in globalisation pressures and the existing lack of global governance. It is to the latter issue that this paper hopes to make a small contribution. After all, our network is named Globelics.
  • Item
    Innovation: A Guide to the Literature
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Fagerberg, Jan
    Innovation is not a new phenomenon. Arguably, it is as old as mankind itself. However, in spite of its obvious importance, innovation has not always got the scholarly attention it deserves. This is now rapidly changing, however. As shown in the paper, research on the role of innovation economic and social change has proliferated in recent years, particularly within the social sciences, and often with a bent towards cross-disciplinarity. It is argued that this reflects the fact that no single discipline deals with all aspects of innovation, and that in order to get a comprehensive overview of the role played by innovation in social and economic change, a cross-disciplinary perspective is a must. The purpose of the paper is to provide the reader with a guide to this rapidly expanding literature. In doing so it draws on larger collective effort financed by the European Commission (the TEARI project, see http://tikpc51.uio.no/teari/teari.htm ), one of the outputs of which will emerge as Oxford Handbook of Innovation, edited by Jan Fagerberg, David Mowery and Richard R. Nelson.
  • Item
    Economic Development and the National System of Innovation Approach
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Johnson, Björn ; Edquist, Charles ; Lundvall, Bengt-Åke
    “One major academic aim of the conference is to enrich and enhance the quality of innovation research by applying some of its fundamental concepts such as 'innovation systems', 'competence building' and 'interactive learning' to issues at the core of economic development. It is well known that applying a theoretical framework outside the arena where it was first developed may bring fundamental new theoretical insights.” In this paper we will try to substantiate what is referred to in the above text taken from the conference web-site for the first Globelics conference. We will try to demonstrate that the application of the innovation system concept on economic development makes more visible some general weaknesses of the concept and gives strong incentives to develop it further. In the development context it becomes clear that we need to understand better the formation of as well as the openness of national systems and the role of power relationships as well as the broader institutional context supporting competence building.
  • Item
    Universities in national innovation systems
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Sampat, Bhaven N. ; Mowery, David C.
    The research university plays an important role as a source of fundamental knowledge and, occasionally, industrially relevant technology in modern knowledge-based economies. In recognition of this fact, governments throughout the industrialized world have launched numerous initiatives since the 1970s to link universities to industrial innovation more closely. Many of these initiatives seek to spur local economic development based on university research, e.g., by creating “science parks” located nearby research university campuses, support for “business incubators” and public “seed capital” funds, and the organization of other forms of “bridging institutions” that are believed to link universities to industrial innovation. Other efforts are modeled on a U.S. law, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, that is widely (if perhaps incorrectly) credited with improving university-industry collaboration and technology transfer in the U.S. national innovation system. This chapter examines the roles of universities in industrial-economy national innovation systems, the complex institutional landscapes that influence the creation, development, and dissemination of innovations.The inclusion of a chapter on university research in a volume on innovation is itself an innovation—it is likely that a similar handbook published two decades ago would have devoted far less attention to the role of universities in industrial innovation. But scholarship on the role of universities in the innovation process, as opposed to their role in basic research, has grown rapidly since 1970. One important theme in this research is the re-conceptualization of universities as important institutional actors in national and regional systems of innovation. Rather than “ivory towers” devoted to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, a growing number of industrial-economy and developing-economy governments seek to use universities as instruments for knowledge-based economic development and change.
  • Item
    The Competitiveness of Nations: Economic Growth in the ECE Region
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Fagerberg, Jan ; Knell, Mark ; Srholec, Martin
    Why do some countries grow much faster, and have much better trade performance, than other countries? What are the crucial factors behind such differences, and what can governments do in order to improve the relative position of their economies? This paper outlines a synthetic framework, based on Schumpeterian logic, for analysing such questions. Four different aspects of competitiveness are identified; technology, costs, capacity and demand. The framework is applied to a sample of 49 countries between 1993 and 2001.
  • Item
    Innovation Through Time
    (Georgia Institute of Technology, 2004) Bruland, Kristine ; Mowery, David C.
    Most analysts of innovation emphasize the importance of a historical approach, with good reason. First, innovation is time consuming, based on conjectures about the future, and its outcomes typically are uncertain for long periods. Analysis of any innovation therefore requires an understanding of its history. Second, innovative capabilities are developed through complex, cumulative processes of learning. Finally, innovation processes are shaped by social contexts, as Lazonick has pointed out: “The social conditions affecting innovation change over time and vary across productive activities; hence theoretical analysis of the innovative enterprise must be integrated with historical study.” Historical patterns of innovation are characterized by complexity, reflecting the heterogeneous nature of economic activity, and diversity of processes of technology creation across sectors and countries. These characteristics make it problematic to construct overarching schemas of historical development. Nevertheless, some historians and analysts of innovation have developed taxonomies of epochs, often based on “critical technologies” that define whole periods of development. One form of this is the wave theory proposed by Schumpeter in Business Cycles, in which steam power drove the first industrial revolution, electricity the second industrial revolution, and so on. Other work that does not rely on wave theories also stresses the role of a small number of technologies in driving broader processes of economic growth. Although valuable, many of these frameworks overemphasize the importance of the allegedly critical technologies while slighting other areas of innovation and economic activity that are no less important. In what follows we challenge some of the historical discussions that stress the transformative effects of ‘critical innovations’. Instead, we emphasize the complex multisectoral character of innovation, and hence the need to take seriously the co-existence of a range of innovation modes, institutional processes, and organizational forms.