The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems

Abstract and Keywords

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.

Introduction

This chapter addresses four key issues. First, why does location “matter” when it comes to innovative activity? If one considers the production and circulation of new knowledge to be the core of innovation, then it is important to have a sound understanding of the nature of the different types of knowledge involved and their geographical tendencies. Second, what are regional innovation systems, and what role do they play in generating and circulating new knowledge leading to innovation? Third, what is the relationship between regional systems of innovation and institutional frameworks at the national level? Finally, what is the relationship between local and global knowledge flows, and is there any evidence that the global nature of today's economy has weakened or altered the influence of proximity on the geography of innovation?

 

11.6 Conclusions and Issues for Future Research

In this chapter we have argued that the geographical configuration of economic actors— firms, workers, associations, organizations, and government agencies—is fundamentally important in shaping the innovative capabilities of firms and (p. 310) industries. We have distinguished between two types of knowledge base—synthetic and analytical—and have demonstrated that, while the nature of innovation processes may differ in each case, innovative activity tends to be spatially clustered in both cases, though for somewhat different reasons.We then introduced the concept of regional innovation systems, describing the elements, relationships, and systemic character that comprise a key part of a region's distinct institutional endowment. We also explored the variety of different types of regional innovation systems that can be identified, noting how particular regional systems may be more strongly associated with particular regimes of business systems and institutional frameworks at the national level. Although there is significant variation in economic performance across different regions within the same national system, the characteristics of successful regional innovation systems under the same national regime will exhibit certain consistencies from case to case.

Despite the emergence of a strong consensus around the above issues, there remain a number of contentious or unresolved questions that are likely to provide the focus for future research. First, in the ongoing discourse on the nature and impact of globalization, some authors have argued that tacit knowledge has become increasingly codified and hence ubiquitous, ultimately eroding the competitive advantage of high-cost regions and nations (Maskell et al. 1998; Maskell 1999). Others maintain that much strategic knowledge remains “sticky,” and that important parts of the learning process continue to be localized as a result of the enabling role of geographical proximity and local institutions in stimulating interactive learning (Asheim 1999; Markusen 1996).Nevertheless, global knowledge networks and flows are important sources of innovative ideas for a growing number of economic activities (Mackinnon et al. 2002). If so, then how should we understand their impact on the geographical distribution of innovative activity, and on the future importance of regionally based innovation systems? In a recent conceptual paper, Bathelt et al. (2004) seek to reconcile these divergent views. They argue that firms clustered in particular locales require access to non-local sources of knowledge as an essential complement to the knowledge they generate and share locally. The metaphor they have adopted to capture the dual nature of emerging geographies of innovation is “local buzz and global pipelines.” They view these global knowledge pipelines as extending between different nodal geographical concentrations of firms and other knowledge-producing organizations around the world. On the one hand, no firm—especially in analytical, science-based sectors such as biotechnology—can afford to cut themselves off from non-local knowledge sources. To do so would be to court potential disaster, as regional innovation systems would be prone to encouraging technological stagnation and “lock-in” tendencies. On the other hand, the abilities of firms to make the most effective use of this knowledge—that is, to convert it most effectively into economic value—still depends on their access to important place based assets, both tangible and intangible, and the close interaction with other (p. 311) organizations around them that such locations foster (see also Asheim and Herstad 2003; Cooke et al. 2000; Freeman 2002).This work is a welcome conceptual contribution, but the empirical basis for its framework remains underdeveloped. Clearly, there is a need for future research—both case studies and aggregate statistical analyses—to investigate the prevalence of this “dual geography” of innovation more systematically. At the same time, this approach raises a further question that remains unanswered: is this metaphor of local buzz and global pipelines appropriate only for those science-intensive industries whose innovation rests on an analytical knowledge base? To what extent are non-local knowledge flows and learning relationships extending between localized centers of innovation becoming important for those industries that rely more heavily on a synthetic knowledge base?A problematic aspect of the learning economy and learning regions literature has been its focus on learning by doing and using based largely on local synthetic knowledge with a high tacit content and incremental innovations. We continue to agree with Freeman's useful insight concerning “the tremendous importance of incremental innovation, learning by doing, by using and by interacting in the process of technical change and diffusion of innovations” (Freeman 1993: 9–10). Yet in a highly competitive, globalizing economy, it may be increasingly difficult for the reproduction and growth of a learning economy to rely primarily on incremental improvements to products and processes, and not on new products (i.e. radical innovations). Crevoisier (1994: 259) argues that the exclusive reliance on incremental innovations “would mean that these areas will very quickly exhaust the technical paradigm on which they are founded.”In future studies it will be important to follow these tendencies, which undoubtedly will be reinforced by globalization processes (see Ch. 12 by Narula and Zanfei in this volume). The basic rationale of regional innovation systems is that the systemic promotion of localized learning processes can improve the innovativeness and competitive advantage of regional economies. What remains to be seen is how the capacity of regional innovation systems to upgrade the knowledge bases of firms in regional clusters will develop over time.

 

초록

지식 생산 과정은 매우 독특한 지리적 특징을 보인다. 이 글은 이 지리학이 혁신 과정 자체에 부수적인 것이 아니라 근본적인 것이라고 주장한다. 즉, 이 과정에서 공간적 근접성과 집중의 중심적 역할을 인식하지 못하면 혁신을 제대로 이해할 수 없다는 것이다. 이 논문의 목표는 왜 이것이 사실인지를 입증하고, 시간이 지남에 따라 이 고르지 못한 지리를 생산하고 재생산하는 데 하위 국가 규모의 혁신 시스템이 어떻게 핵심적인 역할을 하는지를 검토하는 것이다. 이 기사는 네 가지 주요 문제를 다룬다. 첫째, 혁신활동에 있어서 위치가 중요한 이유를 살펴본다. 둘째, 지역 혁신 시스템을 살펴보고, 혁신으로 이어지는 새로운 지식을 창출하고 유통하는 데 있어 이들이 수행하는 역할을 살펴본다. 셋째, 이 글은 국가적 차원에서 지역혁신체제와 제도적 틀 간의 관계를 고찰한다. 마지막으로, 로컬 지식 흐름과 글로벌 지식 흐름 간의 관계를 조사한다.

 

11.1 소개

이 장에서는 네 가지 주요 문제를 다룹니다. 첫째, 혁신적인 활동과 관련하여 위치가 "중요한" 이유는 무엇입니까? 새로운 지식의 생산과 유통이 혁신의 핵심이라고 생각한다면, 관련된 다양한 유형의 지식의 특성과 지리적 경향을 제대로 이해하는 것이 중요하다. 둘째, 지역 혁신 시스템은 무엇이며, 혁신으로 이어지는 새로운 지식을 창출하고 유통하는 데 어떤 역할을 하는가? 셋째, 지역혁신체제와 국가 차원의 제도적 틀은 어떤 관계가 있는가? 마지막으로, 지역적 지식 흐름과 세계적 지식 흐름의 관계는 무엇이며, 오늘날의 경제의 세계적 특성이 혁신의 지리에 대한 근접성의 영향력을 약화시키거나 변화시켰다는 증거가 있는가?

 

11.6 결론

이 장에서 우리는 기업, 근로자, 협회, 조직 및 정부 기관과 같은 경제 주체의 지리적 구성이 기업과 (310쪽) 산업의 혁신 능력을 형성하는 데 근본적으로 중요하다고 주장했습니다. 우리는 두 가지 유형의 지식 기반(합성과 분석)을 구별했고, 혁신 프로세스의 특성이 각각의 경우에 다를 수 있지만, 다소 다른 이유로 인해 두 경우 모두에서 혁신 활동이 공간적으로 군집화되는 경향이 있음을 입증했다.그런 다음 지역의 고유한 제도적 기부의 핵심 부분을 구성하는 요소, 관계 및 시스템 특성을 설명하는 지역 혁신 시스템의 개념을 소개했다. 우리는 또한 특정 지역 시스템이 국가 차원에서 특정 비즈니스 시스템 및 제도적 프레임워크의 특정 체제와 어떻게 더 강하게 연관될 수 있는지 주목하면서 식별할 수 있는 다양한 유형의 지역 혁신 시스템을 탐구했다. 동일한 국가체제 내에서 지역에 따라 경제적 성과에 상당한 차이가 있지만, 동일한 국가체제 하에서 성공적인 지역혁신체제의 특성은 경우에 따라 일정한 일관성을 보일 것이다.

위의 문제들에 대한 강력한 합의의 출현에도 불구하고, 향후 연구에 초점을 제공할 가능성이 있는 논쟁적이거나 해결되지 않은 많은 질문들이 남아 있다. 첫째, 세계화의 본질과 영향에 대한 지속적인 담론에서 일부 저자들은 암묵적 지식이 점점 더 성문화되어 어디에나 존재하게 되어 궁극적으로 고비용 지역과 국가의 경쟁 우위를 잠식하고 있다고 주장했다(Maskell et al. 1998; Maskell 1999). 다른 사람들은 많은 전략적 지식이 "고정" 상태로 남아 있으며, 상호작용 학습을 자극하는 데 있어 지리적 근접성과 지역 기관의 역할의 결과로 학습 과정의 중요한 부분이 계속 현지화된다고 주장한다(Asheim 1999; Markusen 1996).그럼에도 불구하고, 글로벌 지식 네트워크와 흐름은 점점 더 많은 경제 활동을 위한 혁신적인 아이디어의 중요한 원천이다(Mackinnon et al. 2002). 그렇다면 혁신 활동의 지리적 분포와 지역 기반 혁신 시스템의 미래 중요성에 대한 영향을 어떻게 이해해야 할까? 최근의 개념적 논문에서 Bathelt et al. (2004) 이러한 다양한 견해를 조화시키기 위해 노력한다. 그들은 특정 지역에 클러스터된 기업들이 그들이 지역적으로 생성하고 공유하는 지식에 대한 필수적인 보완책으로 비 지역적 지식 소스에 대한 접근을 요구한다고 주장한다. 그들이 혁신의 신흥 지역의 이중성을 포착하기 위해 채택한 은유는 "지역적인 화제와 글로벌 파이프라인"이다 그들은 이러한 글로벌 지식 파이프라인을 기업과 전 세계의 다른 지식 생산 조직의 노드 지리적 집중 사이로 확장하는 것으로 본다. 한편으로, 특히 생명공학과 같은 분석적인 과학 기반 분야의 어떤 기업도 비현지 지식 원천으로부터 스스로를 분리할 수 없다. 지역 혁신 시스템은 기술 침체와 "잠금" 경향을 조장하기 쉽기 때문에, 그렇게 하는 것은 잠재적인 재앙을 정당화하는 것이 될 것이다. 반면에 기업이 이 지식을 가장 효과적으로 활용할 수 있는 능력, 즉 경제적 가치로 가장 효과적으로 전환할 수 있는 능력은 여전히 유형자산과 무형자산 모두에 대한 중요한 위치에 기초한 자산에 대한 접근과 다른 자산과의 밀접한 상호작용(p. 311) 그러한 장소가 육성하는 주변 조직(Asheim 및 Herstad 2003 참조). 2000; 프리먼 2002).이 작업은 환영할 만한 개념적 기여이지만, 프레임워크에 대한 경험적 기반은 아직 개발되지 않았다. 이러한 혁신의 "이중 지리"의 보편성을 보다 체계적으로 조사하기 위해서는 사례 연구와 종합 통계 분석 모두 향후 연구가 필요하다. 동시에, 이 접근법은 해결되지 않은 추가 질문을 제기한다: 지역적인 유행과 글로벌 파이프라인에 대한 이러한 은유는 분석적 지식 기반에 기반을 둔 과학 집약적인 산업에만 적합한가? 로컬이 아닌 지식 흐름과 현지화된 혁신 센터 간의 학습 관계가 합성 지식 기반에 더 많이 의존하는 산업에 어느 정도까지 중요해지고 있습니까?학습 경제 및 학습 지역 문헌의 문제적인 측면은 암묵적인 내용과 점진적인 혁신을 가진 지역 합성 지식을 주로 기반으로 하고 사용함으로써 학습에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 우리는 "기술적 변화와 혁신의 확산 과정에서 행함으로써, 사용함으로써, 그리고 상호작용함으로써 학습하는 점진적 혁신의 엄청난 중요성"에 대한 프리먼의 유용한 통찰력에 계속 동의한다(Freeman 1993: 9-10). 그러나 경쟁이 치열하고 세계화된 경제에서 학습 경제의 재생산과 성장은 신제품(즉, 급진적 혁신)이 아닌 제품과 프로세스의 점진적 개선에 주로 의존하는 것이 점점 더 어려워질 수 있다. 크레부아지에(Crevoisier, 1994: 259)는 점진적 혁신에 대한 독점적 의존은 "이러한 분야가 그들이 기반을 둔 기술 패러다임을 매우 빠르게 소진할 것임을 의미한다"고 주장한다향후 연구에서는 이러한 경향을 따르는 것이 중요할 것이며, 이는 의심할 여지 없이 세계화 과정에 의해 강화될 것이다(이 책의 나룰라와 잔페이의 12장 참조). 지역혁신시스템의 기본적인 근거는 지역화된 학습과정의 체계적인 추진이 지역경제의 혁신성과 경쟁우위를 향상시킬 수 있다는 것이다. 지역 클러스터 내 기업의 지식 기반을 업그레이드할 수 있는 지역 혁신 시스템의 역량이 시간이 지남에 따라 어떻게 발전할지 지켜볼 일이다.