Regional Innovation Cultures Rune Dahl Fitj ar, IRIS Andrs - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Regional Innovation Cultures

Rune Dahl Fitj ar, IRIS Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, London S chool of Economics

Leveranser så langt

• 4 artikler publisert (eller akseptert) i

internasj onale tidsskrifter på nivå 2

• Ytterligere 4 p.t. inne til vurdering
• Og 4 til for tiden under utarbeidelse
• S

tor oppmerksomhet fra medier i inn- og utland, samt fra politikere og næringsorganisasj oner

• 3 ekstern finansierte prosj ekter (2 fra Norges

Forskningsråd og 1 fra Regionalt forskningsfond Vestlandet) med totalramme > 13 mill kr

Andrés Rodríguez-Pose and Rune Dahl Fitj ar (2012): Buzz, Archipelago Economies and the Future of Intermediate and Peripheral Areas in a S piky World. European Planning S t udies (forthcoming)

Regional development trends

• Large urban agglomerations increasingly

regarded as engines of economic development

– Attract capital, human resources and knowledge – Economies of scale and scope – Local buzz – diffusion of tacit knowledge – Global pipelines between largest metropoli (archipelago economies)

What are the options for peripheral areas?

• Decay and vanish (do nothing)

– S pread effects from dynamic agglomerations – More likely: Backwash effects

t0 t

(McCann 2008)

What are the options for peripheral areas?

• Fight for survival

– Build economic dynamism through knowledge and innovation – Buzz option

• Popular policy tool: Industrial districts, learning

regions, clusters, regional systems of innovation, innovative milieus

• Encouragement of agglomeration of firms in the

same or related sectors

• Often leads to «Cathedrals in the desert» (Lipietz

1980) and problems of lock-in

What are the options for peripheral areas?

• Fight for survival

– Pipeline option

• Alternative: Encourage interaction at a distance
• Building bridges from the local economy to the
• utside world
• Difficult, costly and uncertain, but may deliver

greater results

34 36 43 41 45 36 38 36 35 38 20 20 18 18 9

2 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 3

Oslo Bergen S t avanger Trondheim Krist iansand

”I trust other business managers in this region"

Fully agree Partly agree Neut ral Partly disagree Fully disagree

18 31 45 32 29 16 23 20 20 21 16 15 10 16 11 21 15 10 15 21 30 16 15 17 19 Oslo Bergen S t avanger Trondheim Krist iansand

”I find it easier to cooperate with local and regional actors than with people from outside the region”

Fully agree Partly agree Neut ral Partly disagree Fully disagree

Regional cooperation and product innovation

• No. of regional partners

Likelihood of product innovation

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6

International cooperation and product innovation

• No. of international partners

Likelihood of product innovation

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 2 4 6

Rune Dahl Fitj ar and Andrés Rodríguez-Pose (2012): Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy (forthcoming)

Research questions

• How does industrial (DUI) and scientific

(S TI) collaboration affect the innovative capacity of firms?

• Does it matter whether industrial and

scientific partners are located nearby or at a distance?

Sources of innovation

• S

cientific/ technical knowledge

– Linear model of innovation (Bush 1945, Maclaurin 1953) – Knowledge spillovers (Audretsch and Feldman 1996, S

• nn and S

torper 2008) – Key variables: R&D investment, human capital, links to scientific partners – Key skills: Know-why, know-what (Jensen et al. 2007)

• S

TI mode of innovation

• Learning by doing

– Regional innovation systems (Lundvall 1992, Cooke and Morgan 1998), industrial districts (Becattini 1987), learning regions (Morgan 1997), innovative milieux (Aydalot 1986) – Key variables: Informal interaction, social capital,

• rganisations, institutions,

markets – Key skills: Know-how, know-who (Jensen et al. 2007)

• DUI mode of innovation

Two types of interaction in DUI mode

• Within supply-chain

– With suppliers and customers – Close complementary bonds within supply chain – Clear economic purpose, j oint aim of improving products – Contractual links – Externalities from specialisation (Marshall) or related variety (Frenken et

• al. 2007, Boschma and

Iammarino 2009)

• Outside supply-chain

– With other firms, such as competitors – Transfer of knowledge not the main purpose – Unintended knowledge spillovers may happen – Externalities from diversification (Jacobs), potential for excessive cognitive distance (Boschma 2005)

The geography of STI and DUI

• S

TI mode

– Costly search for knowledge requires purpose-built connections – global pipelines (Bathelt et al. 2004) – Analytical and codified knowledge travels well (Asheim and Gertler 2005) – Geographical distance not necessarily a problem – Top research centres often located far away

• DUI mode

– Based on shared problems and experiences – Tacit knowledge – More frequent in industries with synthetic or symbolic knowledge base (Moodysson et al. 2008) – Local buzz (S torper and Venables 2004), informal interaction – ’ Being there’ (Gertler 1995) – S trong value-added of local cooperation

The case of Norway

– S mall and relatively remote – Population of around 4.5 million – Performs poorly on traditional (S TI-based) indicators of innovation (R&D investments, patenting) – From a DUI perspective, insufficient agglomeration and the long distance between maj or cities is a drawback – Yet high levels of productivity and growth – Firms invest little in intramural R&D and frequently pursue collaborative innovation strategies (Fagerberg et al. 2009) – Innovation policy increasingly focused on regions – Main assets: Good institutions, high level of trust, solid endowments of human capital, open economy, rich

Trondheim Oslo Kristiansand Bergen Stavanger

Norwegian city regions

Population (2009) Businesses > 10 empl S ample Oslo 1.400.000 4921 403 Bergen 375.000 1210 401 S tavanger 310.000 1282 400 Trondheim 240.000 901 300 Kristiansand 150.000 469 100 Total 2.475.000 8783 1604

(Fredrikstad) (Tromsø) Map from the Norwegian Government’s white paper no. 31, 2002-03: The Metropolitan Region Report: On the development of policies for metropolitan regions.

Data

• Tailor-made survey of firms with more than 10

employees in Norway

• Targeting the managers of those firms
• Conducted by telephone
• In the five largest urban agglomerations in Norway
• In the spring of 2010
• Examining

– Innovation during the last three years – The use of external partners in innovation processes – The location of external partners used

Innovation in Norwegian city regions

Product Process

(% yes)

Tot al Radical Tot al Radical N

Oslo 59.6 % 34.0 % 50.4 % 20.4 % 403 Bergen 46.4 % 25.1 % 42.4 % 16.5 % 401 S tavanger 54.0 % 33.8 % 46.8 % 18.8 % 400 Trondheim 52.3 % 29.0 % 48.7 % 19.7 % 300 Kristiansand 58.0 % 30.0 % 47.0 % 20.0 % 100 Total 53.4 % 30.5 % 46.9 % 18.8 % 1604

Percent of companies using partner type

10 20 30 40 50 60

Internal S uppliers Customers Competitors Consultants Universities Research inst.

Regional National International

Innovation and collaboration with partner types

Product New to market Process New to industry Wit hin congl 0.39** (0.12) 0.20 (0.13)

• 0.02

(0.12) 0.10 (0.15) S uppliers 0.39** (0.14) 0.33* (0.16) 0.76*** (0.14) 0.38* (0.19) Cust omers 0.36** (0.13) 0.54*** (0.15) 0.03 (0.13)

• 0.03

(0.17) Compet it ors

• 0.39***

(0.12)

• 0.55***

(0.13)

• 0.14

(0.12)

• 0.09

(0.15) Consult ancies 0.15 (0.12) 0.18 (0.13) 0.16 (0.12) 0.03 (0.15) Universit ies 0.30* (0.16) 0.53*** (0.15) 0.21 (0.15) 0.13 (0.18) Research inst 0.26 (0.16) 0.20 (0.16) 0.26 (0.16) 0.79*** (0.18)

Logistic regression models, N = 1604. Controls: S ector, region, education, age, board memberships, ownership, size

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Fitted probabilities of innovation

Product New to market Process New to industry No part ners

0.34 0.15 0.30 0.10

Wit hin congl

0.43 0.17 0.30 0.11

S uppliers

0.43 0.19 0.48 0.14

Cust omers

0.43 0.23 0.31 0.10

Compet it ors

0.26 0.09 0.27 0.10

Consult ancies 0.38

0.17 0.34 0.11

Universit ies

0.41 0.23 0.35 0.12

Research inst

0.40 0.17 0.36 0.20

Geographical dimension of DUI and S TI

Regional Non-regional DUI non-supply-chain 28.4 (1.1) 19.0 (1.0) DUI supply-chain 67.0 (1.2) 61.5 (1.2) S TI 48.0 (1.2) 29.1 (1.1)

What type of knowledge travels better?

Product New to market Process New to industry DUI non-supp regional

• 0.20

(0.13)

• 0.51***

(0.15)

• 0.13

(0.13)

• 0.08

(0.17) DUI non-supp non-regional

• 0.30*

(0.15)

• 0.13

(0.16)

• 0.07

(0.15)

• 0.01

(0.18) DUI supply-ch regional 0.12 (0.12) 0.17 (0.13) 0.13 (0.12)

• 0.03

(0.15) DUI supply-ch non-regional 0.73*** (0.12) 0.72*** (0.14) 0.50*** (0.12) 0.42** (0.16) S cient ific regional 0.23* (0.12) 0.40** (0.13) 0.20 (0.12) 0.14 (0.15) S cient ific non-regional 0.37** (0.14) 0.33* (0.14) 0.33* (0.13) 0.35* (0.16)

Logistic regression models, N = 1602. Controls: S ector, region, education, age, board memberships, ownership, size

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

Fitted probabilities of innovation

Product New to market Process New to industry No part ners

0.40 0.15 0.34 0.09

DUI non-supp regional

0.33 0.09 0.30 0.09

DUI non-supp non-regional

0.30 0.13 0.32 0.09

DUI supply-ch regional

0.45 0.18 0.39 0.09

DUI supply-ch non-regional

0.83 0.32 0.57 0.14

S cient ific regional

0.51 0.23 0.42 0.11

S cient ific non-regional

0.58 0.21 0.48 0.13

Conclusion

• Ext ernal cooperat ion import ant source of firm innovat ion
• Bot h S

TI and DUI part nerships mat t er

• However, local int eract ion has no significant effect on

innovat ion – especially wit hin DUI mode

• Cooperat ion wit h compet it ors can significant ly harm firms’

innovat ive abilit y

• Formal pipeline-t ype int eract ions key source of innovat ion –

bot h in t he S TI and in t he DUI mode

• Excessive cognit ive proximit y wit hin small and homogeneous

regions may be det riment al t o innovat ion

• Het erogeneit y among agent s is import ant