Towards Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts? - Eu-SPRI 2021
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Towards Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts? Authors: Lars Coenen1, Sebastian Fastenrath2, Darren Sharp3, Sam Tavassoli4, Bruce Wilson4, Leo Goedegebuure5 & Rob Raven3. 1 The Mohn Centre for Innovation and Regional Development, Western Norway University of Applied Science Department of Geography and Regional Research, University of Vienna 2 Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University 3 RMIT University 4 University of Melbourne 5 1. Introduction The Brookings Institute has been instrumental in popularising the notion of Innovation Districts (Katz and Wagner, 2014). Being essentially a policy and practice concept, Innovation districts — or innovation precincts — acknowledge a new, urban geography of innovation, i.e. place-based forms of innovation that occur not within the confines of the big industrial labs of the 1950s or the innovation campuses in suburban areas of the 1980s, but within the heart of cities. An innovation district is a place-based urban development strategy that aims to regenerate an under-performing downtown neighbourhood into a desirable location for innovative and creative companies and workers (Morisson, 2020). It aligns with the basic premise that innovation emerges from dynamic and collaborative environments facilitated by various forms of proximity in precincts like this — where people share knowledge, skills and ideas as they work, meet and socialise together (Boschma, 2005). Cities are seen as natural sites for this type of knowledge-based entrepreneurship and creativity, as emphasised by the recent rise of Innovation Precincts around the world. Here, Innovation Precincts, provide a compelling and persuasive logic to help create thriving cities. Modern-day knowledge workers are attracted to liveable and accessible places. They look for high quality urban services, with ample opportunity for interaction across organisational boundaries. As a result, Innovation Precincts have quickly emerged as global best practice or policy mobility for cities wanting to become leaders in the knowledge economy (Oinas et al., 2018) . Districts are evolving in cities like Barcelona, Berlin, London, Eindhoven, Medellin, Montreal, Seoul, Stockholm and Toronto. However, innovation precinct theory so far has yet to link up with a major trend in innovation policy, i.e. innovation policy that has moved beyond primarily economically framed rationales and is concerned with addressing societal challenges. Governments across the world are re-thinking and re- orientating their rationale for innovation policy and ‘new industrial policy’. In order to help realise the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and international climate change targets, governments are redesigning their innovation portfolios to resolve pressing social problems while also creating opportunities for jobs and economic growth. Governments increasingly understand that it’s not just the rate of economic growth and innovation that matters, but also its directions. While in the 1970s–2000s innovation policy was mainly geared towards economic growth, national competitiveness and jobs — today climate change and reduction of inequality, poverty and pollution are seen as key challenges and opportunities for innovation policy. Conceptualisations such as ‘mission-oriented innovation’ (Mazzucato, 2018), ‘transformative innovation policy’ (Stewart, 2012; Schot and Steinmuller, 2018) and ‘mission-oriented innovation systems’ (Hekkert et al., 2020) subscribe to this trend. However, so far this challenge-led innovation
policy thinking has yet to get to terms with its geographies, spatial context and embeddedness (Coenen et al., 2015). 2. Aims, research question and methods The aim of this paper is to explore what the analytical contours of Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts (MOID) might look like. We ask the question: how can Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts be conceptualised, measured and governed? We address this question by reviewing the academic literatures on both topics using a systematic approach. Scopus is used as the primary source, complemented with a search of grey literature (in particular innovation policy documentation in Europe). Iterative and interpretative coding is used to explore three themes. First, what are the reoccurring arguments, concepts, strengths and critiques? Second, what forms of innovation measurements and indicators are proposed in the literature, if any? Third, how is governance understood and conceptualised, i.e. which actors, relations and roles are emphasised in enacting mission-oriented innovation policy at the precinct scale. The review will also document empirical examples from innovation precincts and districts globally, and assess the ways in which they engage with a challenge-led innovation policy framing. 3. Preliminary results As of Feb 2020, Scopus lists 52 papers that engage with the topics ‘innovation precincts’ or ‘innovation districts’, the majority of papers being published since 2015 (78%). Scopus returns no results if search terms such as “challenge-led”, “mission-oriented” and “transformative innovation” are added. Literature tends to describe cases from various geographical regions, mostly with attention to major capital cities, with Boston, Barcelona and Sydney re-appearing regularly. Initial scanning of the abstracts suggest there is no overarching agreement of the conceptual contours of what an innovation precinct or -district is. Re-occurring themes suggest a focus on the role of community engagement, neighbourhood revitalisation, building retrofitting, gentrification, urban planning and the role of universities and other knowledge institutes. Although the notions of community engagement and gentrification suggest there is some attention for social issues, in general there appears very limited attention for a major-challenge-led orientation in the literature so far beyond the occasional focus on issues such as energy efficiency. Scopus lists 422 results when searching for publications that engage with topics such as transformative innovation policy, mission-oriented innovation policy and challenge-led innovation policy, the majority of papers published since 2010 (76%). Only 6 (irrelevant) results are returned when adding notions of ‘precinct’, ‘district’ or ‘neighbourhood’. Our rudimentary analysis only suggests that there is an opportunity for further integrative analysis across both literatures. So far the literatures remain disconnected, hence without further content analysis, no conclusive results can yet be given regarding what a Mission-Oriented Innovation Precinct might look like in terms of conceptualisation, measurement and government. This work will be undertaken in the next months. 4. Conclusions So far the place-based nature of mission-oriented or challenge-led innovation appears to have been underdeveloped in literature, policy and practice. In this paper we hone in connecting the academic literature on challenge-led innovation policy, with recent discourse on innovation at district or precinct scales. With major cities globally moving forward in reorienting their innovation policies to this particular scale, we believe there is a major opportunity to bring insights from across these
literatures together to outline an agenda for developing more comprehensive approaches to conceptualising, measuring and governing Mission-Oriented Innovation Districts. References Boschma, R., 2005. Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies. 39:1, 61-74 Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Rekers, J.V., 2015. Innovation Policy for grand challenges. An economic geography perspective. Geography Compass. 9, 483-496 Hekkert, M.P., Janssen, M.J., Wesseling, J.H., Negro, S.O., 2020. Mission-oriented innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. 34, 76-79 Katz, B., Wagner, J., 2014. The rise of innovation districts: a new geography of innovation in America. Brookings. Mazzucato, M., 2018. Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. European Commission Morisson, A., 2020. A Framework for Defining Innovation Districts: Case Study from 22@ Barcelona. In: Bougdah, H., Versaci, A., Sotoca, A., Trapani, F., Migliore, M., Clark, N. (Eds.), Urban and Transit Planning. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 185–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030- 17308-1_17 Oinas, P., Gómez, L., Kettunen, E., Kalliomäki, H. 2018. The landings of ‘innovation districts’ around the world: Travels, translations, legitimizations, and incremental implementations. Paper presented at the Global Economic Geography Conference, Cologne, Germany. Schot, J.W., Steinmueller, W.E., 2018. Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy. 47, 1554-1567 Steward, F., 2012. Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low- carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. 24, 331-343
How do shifts in scalar orientation of policies influence technology
legitimacy? Norwegian climate and energy policy and technologies
for decarbonization
Teis Hansen1,2, Jens Hanson2,3, Tuukka Mäkitie2, Håkon Normann3, Markus Steen2
1
University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics
2
SINTEF, Department of Technology Management
3
University of Oslo, TIK centre
Abstract
Increasing attention has recently been given to the politics and geographies of sustainability
transitions (Hansen and Coenen 2015; Kern 2015; Normann 2015). This is also the case for studies in
the technological innovation systems (TIS) literature, where the development of TISs are arguably
influenced by political and geographical contexts (Bergek et al. 2015). So far, the geographical
context has mainly been addressed by pointing to key territorialized material (e.g., natural resources,
existing infrastructures) and non-material factors (e.g., capabilities, institutions) shaping (the
conditions for) TIS dynamics and transition processes in different places, regions and countries (e.g.
Njøs et al. 2020; Rohe 2020).
In this paper we build further on this work to analyse how TIS dynamics are influenced by
developments in policy objectives and scalar orientations in national level climate and energy policy,
leading to differing rationales for supporting (or not) technologies that can contribute to
decarbonization. As such, we focus on how technologies gain or lose legitimacy, i.e. how
technologies align with (changing) institutions in sectoral, geographical and political contexts in
which they are embedded. On the one hand, legitimation narratives (Smith and Raven 2012) may be
related to various policy objectives, for instance to the importance of addressing climate change,
promote energy security or stimulate industrial development and job creation. We suggest that there
is a distinct geography to legitimation narratives in the sense that key policy objectives to support
particular technologies will differ between countries and regions (MacKinnon et al. 2021). On the
other hand, there may also be varying scalar orientations to policy objectives depending on whether
policies primarily seek to address local/national or global challenges (or both). For example, a key
rationale for imposing stricter emission regulations in shipping to date have mainly been due to local
pollution, whereas only recently has this sector become subject to pressure to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions that contribute to global warming and locally harmful aerial pollution (Steen et al.
2019). These rationales may also change over time, as part of a broader TIS-in-context co-
evolutionary process.
The aim of the current paper is to contribute to this strand of literature by analysing how policy
objectives and their scalar orientation affect the development of TISs. Empirically, we perform a
1longitudinal study of Norwegian climate and energy policy, analysing, firstly, the developments in
policy objectives and their scalar orientation over time. Secondly, we analyse how developments in
climate and energy policies are mirrored in policies at the sectoral level, focusing here on the
electricity, maritime, petroleum, and energy-intensive processing sectors. Thirdly, we examine the
influence of variation over time in the sector policies’ objectives and scalar orientation on the
legitimacy of three technologies – liquefied natural gas (LNG) in maritime shipping; carbon capture
and storage (CCS) in petroleum and energy-intensive processing industry; and offshore wind in
electricity supply – and discuss implications for broader TIS development. In summary, this allows us
to respond to the research question posed in this paper namely how changes in policy objectives and
their scalar orientation influence TIS development over time?
Our analysis is based on substantial primary data generated since 2010 for offshore wind (e.g.
Mäkitie et al. 2018; Normann and Hanson 2018; Steen and Karlsen 2014), since 2015 for CCS
(Normann 2017; Mäkitie et al. 2020), and since 2016 for LNG (Steen et al. 2019; Bach et al. 2021). We
complement this data with various secondary material, including literature reviews, media data and
document studies notably of White Papers and key Government strategy papers.
Our findings suggest that shifting scalar orientations in Norway's climate and energy policy have had
substantial influence on TIS developments. Norway has since the early 1990s adopted a global cost-
efficiency approach to climate policy. This approach has served to protect the domestic oil and gas
industry from reducing production levels whilst simultaneously maintaining a global leadership
ambition. For many years, this approach constrained the development of domestic climate measures
(Boasson and Lahn 2017). However, over the last two decades, Norway has also adopted a series of
national measures that has run counter to the global cost-efficiency approach. These measures have
mostly focused on subsidies rather than regulating or otherwise restricting economic activities in
large emitting sectors such as industry, transport and agriculture (Mildenberger 2020). Thus,
following two climate settlements in 2008 and 2012, a range of measures have been introduced to
support the development and/or diffusion of e.g. offshore wind, electrical vehicles, maritime
transport, and carbon capture and storage.
Climate and energy policy has largely been treated as separate issues in Norwegian policy making.
Norway’s mainland electricity production has been close to 100% renewables due to the vast
hydropower resources. Consequently, increased renewable energy production has to a lesser extent
than in most other European countries been tied to climate change action (Hanson, Kasa, and Wicken
2011). Yet, in the early 2000s, energy policy became a salient issue due to periods of power deficit
and high electricity prices. Combined with increased domestic and international attention to climate
change, there was a growing demand for policies that simulated increased renewable energy
production (Boasson 2020). The main instrument to achieve this was the technology neutral
certificate scheme, introduced in 2012 and discontinued in 2021. Because this scheme was
technology neutral, it stimulated investments almost exclusively in onshore wind. Technologies such
as offshore wind, LNG, and CCS can in different ways be related to energy, industry and climate
policy. However, the extent to which these policy domains have interacted to support these
technologies differs between these technologies, and over time.
Due to space constraints, we illustrate our findings with the case of the LNG TIS in the sectoral
context of shipping, which is one example of how changes in policy objectives and their scalar
2orientation have influenced TIS development (in this case LNG). Within shipping, LNG emerged in the
early 2000s as a solution to reduce local harmful pollution. LNG produces significantly less nitrogen
(NOx) and sulphur (SOx) oxides as well as other harmful local pollutants than other marine fuels, such
heavy fuel oil. Indeed, in 2000 the Public Roads Administration of Norway issued a development
contract for the world's first LNG powered car ferry. In addition to reducing pollution from shipping,
a rationale for supporting LNG from a policy point of view was to provide a new market opportunity
for the domestic maritime supplier industry and to develop technology for exports. At this point,
reducing CO2 emissions from shipping was not a policy objective in Norway. Subsequent public
tendering had further emission reduction targets which during the following years led to launching
more LNG powered vessels in Norway (Bach et al. 2021). However, while LNG vessels emit somewhat
less CO2 than maritime diesel/oil, suboptimal combustion may lead to methane emissions, meaning
that LNG is not a significant solution to the climate change problem. As climate change gained
ground in politics especially after 2008, other low- and zero-carbon energy solutions gained attention
in shipping. Indeed, in 2015 the first battery-electric ferry was launched in Norway, again following a
public tendering aiming to develop a highly environmentally friendly vessel. After this milestone,
rapid development and deployment of battery-electric vessels, especially in car/passenger ferry
segment, has ensued (Bach et al. 2020). In 2019, the Norwegian Government announced its goal to
reduce the domestic maritime emissions by 50% by 2030 from 2005 levels, further moving the
attention to alternative fuels with significant potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as
battery-electric and hydrogen. These fuels also do not emit local emissions, such as NOx and SOx.
Consequently, this led to reduced attention to LNG, as this fossil fuel did not offer an effective
solution to the new priority target of carbon emission reduction, reflecting also a change in scalar
orientation of key policy objectives. In sum, public policy, which has had a central role in pushing new
environmentally friendly solutions in shipping in Norway, has moved from reducing locally relevant
emissions (like NOx and SOx) in early 2000s to reducing both locally and globally (carbon) important
emissions by late 2010s. This led to LNG TIS gaining momentum in the early 2000s, only to be
crowded out by other emerging TISs (battery-electric, hydrogen) since around 2015.
In sum, we suggest that shifts in scalar orientation in climate and energy policy can lead to changes in
sectoral policy objectives, which in turn results in differences, both among technologies and over
time, in terms of TISs` legitimation narratives and alignment with these objectives.
3References
Bach, H.; A. Bergek; Ø. Bjørgum; T. Hansen; A. Kenzhegaliyeva; and M. Steen. 2020. Implementing
maritime battery-electric and hydrogen solutions: A technological innovation systems
analysis. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 87:102492.
Bach, H.; T. Mäkitie; T. Hansen; and M. Steen. 2021. Blending new and old in sustainability
transitions: technological alignment between fossil fuels and biofuels in Norwegian coastal
shipping Energy Research & Social Science.
Bergek, A.; M. Hekkert; S. Jacobsson; J. Markard; B. Sandén; and B. Truffer. 2015. Technological
innovation systems in contexts: Conceptualizing contextual structures and interaction
dynamics. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16:51-64.
Boasson, E.L. 2020. Certificate supporters turning opponents. Comparative Renewables Policy:193.
Boasson, E.L. and B. Lahn. 2017. Norway: A dissonant cognitive leader? In Still Taking a Lead? The
European Union in International Climate Change Politics, ed. R.K.W. Wurzel; J. Connelly; and
D. Liefferink, 189-203. London: Routledge.
Hansen, T. and L. Coenen. 2015. The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and
reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
17:92-109.
Hanson, J.; S. Kasa; and O. Wicken. 2011. Politikk for den store transformasjonen. In
Energirikdommens paradokser. Innovasjon som klimapolitikk og næringsutvikling, ed. J.
Hanson; S. Kasa; and O. Wicken, 233-244. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Kern, F. 2015. Engaging with the politics, agency and structures in the technological innovation
systems approach. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 16:67-69.
MacKinnon, D.; A. Karlsen; S. Dawley; M. Steen; S. Afewerki; and A. Kenzhegaliyeva. 2021.
Legitimation, institutions and regional path creation: a cross-national study of offshore wind.
Regional Studies:1-12.
Mildenberger, M. 2020. Carbon Captured: How Business and Labor Control Climate Politics. MIT
Press.
Mäkitie, T.; A.D. Andersen; J. Hanson; H.E. Normann; and T.M. Thune. 2018. Established sectors
expediting clean technology industries? The Norwegian oil and gas sector's influence on
offshore wind power. Journal of Cleaner Production 177:813-823.
Mäkitie, T.; M. Steen; T.M. Thune; H.B. Lund; A. Kenzhegaliyeva; E.F. Ullern; P. Kamsvag; A.D.
Andersen; and K.M. Hydle. 2020. Greener and smarter? Transformations in five Norwegian
industrial sectors. Trondheim: SINTEF.
Njøs, R.; S.G. Sjøtun; S.-E. Jakobsen; and A. Fløysand. 2020. Expanding Analyses of Path Creation:
Interconnections between Territory and Technology. Economic Geography 96:266-288.
Normann, H.E. 2015. The role of politics in sustainable transitions: The rise and decline of offshore
wind in Norway. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 15:180-193.
Normann, H.E. 2017. Policy networks in energy transitions: The cases of carbon capture and storage
and offshore wind in Norway. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 118:80-93.
Normann, H.E. and J. Hanson. 2018. The role of domestic markets in international technological
innovation systems. Industry and Innovation 25:482-504.
Rohe, S. 2020. The regional facet of a global innovation system: Exploring the spatiality of resource
formation in the value chain for onshore wind energy. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions 36:331-344.
Smith, A. and R. Raven. 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to
sustainability. Research Policy 41:1025-1036.
Steen, M.; H. Bach; Ø. Bjørgum; T. Hansen; and A. Kenzhegaliyeva. 2019. Greening the fleet: A
technological innovation system (TIS) analysis of hydrogen, battery electric, liquefied biogas,
and biodiesel in the maritime sector. In SINTEF rapport 2019:0093, 75. Trondheim: SINTEF.
4Steen, M. and A. Karlsen. 2014. Path creation in a single-industry town: The case of Verdal and
Windcluster Mid-Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift - Norwegian Journal of Geography
68:133-143.
5One nation, divergent dynamics of cities and the uneven processes towards
sustainable transitions:
The cases of bio‐diesel innovation systems of Shenzhen and Shanghai in China
Chao‐chen Chung 1*, Ziji Wei, Yixuan Wang, Lina Liu, and Yapeng Zhang
(Long Abstract submitted to Track 14)
1 School of School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University, P.R.China
* Correspondence: chaochen.chung@gmail.com
Abstract
This article presents divergent dynamics of regional innovation systems embedded
within the same national boundary. Even though all regional systems in principle co‐
evolved with the system of the nation, each regional innovation system however
could reveal unique dynamics and possess divergent trajectories towards innovation.
We empirically explored the trajectories of bio‐diesel innovation in Shenzhen and
Shanghai, the two highly developed cities in China. Each city indeed promoted its
own research, technology, development and innovation (RTDI) policies out of
different regional incentives and eventually shaped the specific regional trajectories
co‐existing among the same nation. We thus find that sustainable transitions are the
uneven processes which exist concurrently among nations. While national
governments could provide the guidance towards sustainability, it is the
governments of regions which actually guide the paths of innovation and eventually
shape the dynamics for transitions.
1. Research Aims
Transitions of innovation systems to more sustainable modes of production and
consumption involve long‐term and uneven processes that fundamentally transform
established social‐technical structures (Markard et al. 2012). Nations are composed
of different regions. As regional innovation systems indeed reveal divergent dynamics
embedded within national boundaries, sustainable transitions of nations thus are the
uneven processes achieved through the miscellaneous dynamics of different regional
systems.
We choose the bio‐diesel innovation systems of Shenzhen and Shanghai, the two
highly developed cities of China for empirical case studies, because the two cities
provide interesting examples for analyzing the divergent dynamics of regional
innovation systems co‐existing within the nation. The first generation biodiesel,
currently in widespread production, is derived from a variety of feed stocks such as
used cooking oil; and the second generation biodiesel, only a few of which is close to
1large‐scale commercialisation, is derived from multiple feed stocks and refining
technologies such as algae (Harvey and Pilgrim 2011). The two cities of Shenzhen and
Shanghai in fact responded to the guidance of national government in different ways
due to the different evolutionary path of each city. The national government of China
introduced the ‘Renewable Energy Law’ in 2005 and the ‘Twelfth Five‐Year Plan of
Bio‐energy’ in 2012 whose original policy purposes prioritized the sustainable
development and afterwards energy security and industrial development.
Nevertheless, Shenzhen as a special economic zone emphasized technology
innovation and supported the innovation of bio‐diesel out of the purposes towards
industrial development. The regional government of Shenzhen intensively launched
research and innovation policies to encourage the knowledge accumulation and
knowledge diffusion of bio‐ diesel technologies, especially the second generation
biodiesel refined by algae. However, the regional government of Shanghai totally
followed the policy purposes of the national government and launched bio‐diesel
policies originally to mitigate climate change and sustainable development. Shanghai
government mainly adopted regulatory policies to formulate market for the first
generation bio‐diesel made by used cooking oil. Each city indeed launched their own
regional policies according to its specific dynamics and eventually shaped the unique
regional trajectories towards sustainability which simultaneously existed within the
national system and presented the uneven paths towards sustainability.
To further explore the divergent regional dynamics co‐existing within the same
national boundaries, we establish the conceptual framework based on the existing
literature. After the analysis of the evolution of the bio‐diesel innovation systems in
Shenzhen and Shanghai, we will reflect on the existing literature on the basis of our
empirical findings. Eventually we expect our finding of the divergent regional
dynamics and uneven processes towards sustainability will contribute to the present
research, technology, development and innovation (RTDI) policy studies which
concern the transitions of innovation systems.
2. Methodologies and empirical materials
Several data sources were used to collect all types of data to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the system evolution in Shenzhen and Shanghai.
First, archival data were collected from the regional governments' websites and
Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The regional governments'
websites provided key governmental policy and regulatory documents related to bio‐
2diesel in both digital and paper formats. CNKI was searched using the search terms of
'bio‐diesel' and ‘bio‐energy’ for titles of academic publications to provide scientific
and technological information about the trajectories of bio‐diesel innovation in the
two cities.
Second, field interviews will be conducted with industrial practitioners and academic
researchers. A series of interviews will be conducted with high level managers of bio‐
diesel companies, including large state‐own enterprises, private SMEs and MNCs
which have intensively involved in the innovation of bio‐ diesel rather than merely
manufacturing. A series of interviews will also be conducted with leading university
researchers who specialize in the bio‐ diesel technologies. The interview questions
will consider technology transfer from university to industry, industrial development,
policy support and technical obstacles.
3. Expected outcomes
Sustainable transitions involve long‐term processes in which different regions within
the same nation reveal divergent dynamics and uneven trajectories. While lots of
existing literature separately analyze the dynamics of innovation systems on national
or regional levels, we find national and regional innovation systems indeed co‐evolve
with each other. As different regions reveal various trajectories of evolution, the co‐
evolution between the national and regional systems reveal miscellaneous dynamics
which are worth of further exploration. Through the investigation of the experiences
in Shenzhen and Shanghai in China, we make one of the first attempts to analyze the
complex co‐evolution between the nation and different regions. The national
government could provide the guidance towards sustainability, yet regional
governments in practice responded to the guidance of the nation differently due to
the uneven evolutionary path of each region. The co‐ordination and appropriateness
of multi‐level governance frameworks should be re‐examined. As regions compose of
the nation, the national government should consider regional differences when
deciding national policies and formulate proper policies with the full understanding
of the uneven processes towards innovation and sustainability. As a result, the
national government could effectively support the transitions of each specific region
and ultimately achieve the overall national goals.
Reference
CHUNG, S. 2002. Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems.
3Technovation 22, 485–491.
COOKE, P. 2011. Transition regions: Regional–national eco-innovation systems and strategies. Progress in
Planning, 76, 105–146.
COOKE, P., URANGA, M. G. & ETXEBARRIA, G. 1997. Regional innovation systems: Institutional and
organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475-491.
GALLAGHER, K. S., GRUBLER, A., KUHL, L., NEMET, G. & WILSON4, C. 2012. The Energy Technology
Innovation System. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 137-162.
HARVEY, M. & PILGRIM, S. 2011. The new competition for land: Food, energy, and climate change. Food
Policy, 36, S40–S51.
LAURENTIS, C. D. 2015. Innovation and Policy for Bioenergy in the UK: A Co-Evolutionary Perspective.
Regional Studies, 49, 1111–1125.
MARKARD, J., RAVENB, R. & TRUFFERA, B. 2012. Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research
and its prospects. Research Policy 41, 41, 955-967.
MATTES, J., ANDREASHUBER & KOEHRSEN, J. 2015. Energy transitionsinsmall-scaleregions – What we
can learn from a regional innovation systems perspective. Energy Policy, 78)255–264.
4You can also read
