BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Solesvik Marina (Haugesund University College, Norwegia), Gulbrandsen Magnus (University of Oslo, Norway)
Tytuł
Interaction for Innovation : Comparing Norwegian Regions
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2014, vol. 10, nr 3, s. 7-28, tab., bibliogr. 52 poz.
Tytuł własny numeru
Learning and Innovation in Space
Słowa kluczowe
Model Triple Helix, Innowacje, Innowacyjność regionu, Regionalne systemy innowacyjne (RSI), Współpraca
Triple Helix model, Innovations, Regional innovation, Regional Innovation System, Cooperation
Uwagi
streszcz., summ.
Kraj/Region
Norwegia
Norway
Abstrakt
Na podstawie dotychczasowych badań nad współpracą w dziedzinie innowacji na poziomie regionu oraz w oparciu o teoretyczne koncepcje potrójnej helisy, lokalnych i regionalnych systemów innowacji i innowacji otwartej, w artykule bada się czy współpraca między firmami, uniwersytetami i władzami publicznymi w równym stopniu zwiększa innowacyjność przedsiębiorstw w stolicy Norwegii i w regionach peryferyjnych. Analizuje się ponadto, czy norweskie firmy zlokalizowane w regionie stołecznym w większym stopniu korzystają ze wsparcia publicznego, współpracy z uniwersytetami i z innymi interesariuszami, niż firmy zlokalizowane na peryferii. Na podstawie logistycznej regresji binarnej wykazano, że przedsiębiorstwa z regionu stołecznego nie są generalnie bardziej innowacyjne, niż firmy z innych lokalizacji. Ponadto, nie stwierdzono, aby współpraca z uniwersytetami wpływała na innowacyjność, jakkolwiek występuje zależność między korzystaniem ze wsparcia publicznego i innowacyjnością w zakresie produktu i procesu. Wyniki badań sugerują, że należy unikać uproszczeń w stosowaniu koncepcji potrójnej helisy i innowacji otwartej, gdyż wiele form współpracy wydaje się mieć ograniczony wpływ na powstawanie innowacji, niezależnie od kontekstu regionalnego. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Building upon insights from earlier investigations of innovation collaboration from a regional perspective as well as the triple helix perspective, local/regional innovation systems and open innovation approaches, this study explores whether cooperation between firms, universities and government increases the intensity of innovation equally for the capital city and peripheral regions. We investigate whether firms located in the capital region benefit more from public support, cooperation with universities, and cooperation with different stakeholders than firms located in peripheral regions. Using logistic binary regressions, we find that capital region firms are generally not more innovative than those located elsewhere. We also find no effect on innovation from cooperation with universities, although public support is related to engagement in product and process innovations. Our results warn against simple applications of triple helix and open innovation approaches, as many forms of collaboration seem to have little impact on innovation, regardless of regional context. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Acs, Z. J. (2002). Innovation and the Growth of Cities, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  2. Afuah, A. (2000). How Much Do Your Co-opetitors' Capabilities Matter in the Face of Technological Change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 397-404.
  3. Ahuja G. (2000). Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes and Innovation: a Longitudinal Study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.
  4. Almus, M., and Czarnitzki, D. (2003). The Effects of Public R&D Subsidies on Firms' Innovation Activities: The Case of Eastern Germany. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 21(2), 226-236.
  5. Asheim, B. (2007). Differentiated Knowledge Bases and Varieties of Regional Innovation Systems. Innovation, 20(3), 223-241.
  6. Asheim, B. and Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters, Research Policy, 34(8),1173-1190.
  7. Asheim, B. and Gertler, M.S. (2005). The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems. In: Fagerberg, J., Nelson, R.R. and Mowery, D.C. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Burton, R. M., and Obel, B. (2004). Strategic Organizational Diagnosis and Design: The Dynamics of Fit., New York: Kluwer.
  9. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology. Harvard Business Press.
  10. Clausen, T. (2013). External Knowledge Sourcing From Innovation Cooperation and The Role of Absorptive Capacity: Empirical Evidence From Norway and Sweden, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(1), 5770.
  11. Dorfman, N. (1988). Route 128: The Development of a Regional High Technology Economy, In Lampe, D. (Ed.), The Massachusetts Miracle: High Tech and Economic Revitalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Ebersberger, B., and Herstad, S. (2011). Product Innovation and the Complementarities of External Interfaces. European Management Review, 8 (3), 117-135.
  13. Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., and Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and Open Innovation: Exploring the Phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311316.
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of University-industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293337.
  15. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: a Triple Helix of University-Industry- Government Relations. London: Pinter.
  16. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and 'Mode 2' To a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Research Policy, 29(2),109-123.
  17. European Union (2014). Regional Innovation Scoreboard. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/
  18. Fitjar, R. D., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm Collaboration and Modes Of Innovation In Norway. Research Policy, 42(1), 128-138.
  19. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise Of The Creative Class And How it is Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group.
  20. Fritsch, M., and Franke, G. (2004). Innovation, Regional Knowledge spillovers and R&D Cooperation. Research Policy, 33(2), 245-255.
  21. Fritsch, M. and Schwirten, C. (1999). Enterprise-University Cooperation and the Role of Public Research Institutions In Regional Innovation Systems. Industry and Innovation, 6(1), 69-83.
  22. Gulbrandsen, M. and Solesvik, M. (2012). Comparing University-Industry Linkages in Two Industrial Clusters In Norway. Paper presented At The Regional Innovation Policy Conference in Porto, October 2012, Retrieved from: http://foreigners.textovirtual.com/rip2012-porto/2
  23. Haskel, J., and Wallis, G. (2013). Public Support for Innovation, Intangible Investment and Productivity Growth in the UK Market Sector. Economics Letters, 119(2), 195-198.
  24. Herstad, S., Aslesen, H. W., and Ebersberger, B. (2014). On Industrial Knowledge Bases, Commercial Opportunities and Global Innovation Network Linkages. Research Policy, 43(3), 495-504.
  25. Herstad, S., and Ebersberger, B. (2014). Urban Agglomerations, Knowledge Intensive Services and Innovation Activity: Establishing the Core Connections. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(03-04), 211-233.
  26. Herstad, S., Palshaugen, 0., and Ebersberger, B. (2011). Industrial Innovation Collaboration in a Capital Region Context. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2(4), 507-532.
  27. Hewitt-Dundas, N., and Roper, S. (2010). Output Additionally of Public Support for Innovation: Evidence for Irish Manufacturing Plants. European Planning Studies, 18(1), 107-122.
  28. Howells, J., James, A., and Malik, K. (2003). The Sourcing of Technological Knowledge: Distributed Innovation Processes and Dynamic Change. R&D Management, 33(4), 395-409.
  29. Huggins, R. (1998). Local Business Co-Operation and Training And Enterprise Councils: The Development of Inter-Firm Networks. Regional Studies, 32(9), 813-826.
  30. Jaffe, A.B. (1989). Real Effects of Economic Research, American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
  31. Johansen, A. F. R., Rubach, S., Billington, M. G., Bye, G., Svare, H., and Solesvik, M. (2013). Nettverk Er Man N0dt Til A Ha! Men Hva Kan Det Offentlige Bidra Med?. Plan: Tidsskrift forSamfunnsplanlegging, Byplan ogRegional Utvikling, 12(6), 23-29
  32. Laursen, K., and Salter, A. (2004). Searching High and Low: What Types of Firms Use Universities as a Source of Innovation?. Research Policy, 33(8), 1201-1215.
  33. Laursen, K., and Salter, A. (2006). Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance among UK Manufacturing Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131- 150.
  34. Laursen, K., Masciarelli, F., & Prencipe, A. (2012a). Regions Matter: How Localized Social Capital Affects Innovation and External Knowledge Aquisition. Organization Science, 23(1), 177-193.
  35. Laursen, K., Masciarelli, F., & Prencipe, A. (2012b). Trapped or Spurred by the Home region? The Effects of Potential Social Capital on Involvement in Foreign Markets for Goods and Technology. Journal of International Business Studies, 43(9), 783- 80
  36. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University-Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507-523.
  37. Lester, R. (2005) Universities, Innovation, and the Competitiveness of Local Economies. a Summary Report from the Local Innovation Systems Project - Phase 1. Boston, MA: MIT.
  38. Mitra, J. (2012). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Regional Development: An Introduction. Oxon: Routledge.
  39. Mol, M. J., and Birkinshaw, J. (2009). The Sources of Management Innovation: When Firms Introduce New Management Practices. Journal of Business Research, 62(12), 1269-1280.
  40. OECD (2008). Reviews of Innovation Policy: Norway. Paris: OECD.
  41. Productivity Commission. (2007). Public Support for Science and Innovation. Productivity Commission, Government of Australia Research Reports.
  42. Putnam, R.D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  43. Reichwald, R. and Piller, F. (2009). Interaktive Wertschöpfung: Open Innovation, Individualisierung und Neue Formen der Arbeitsteilung. Bering, Heidelberg: Springer.
  44. Segal, N.S. (1988). The Cambridge Phenomenon: Universities, Research, and Local Economic Development In Great Britain, In Smilor, R.W., Kozmetsky, Gibson, D.V. (eds.), Creating the Technolpolis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  45. Smilor, R.W., Kozmetsky, and Gibson, D.V. (1988). The Austin/San Antonio Corridor, The Dynamics Of a Developing Technopolis, In: Smilor, R.W., Kozmetsky, Gibson, D.V. (Eds.), Creating the Technolpolis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
  46. Solesvik, M. and Gulbrandsen, M. (2013). Partner Selection for Open Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(4), 11-16.
  47. Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., and Knockaert, M. (2010). Building Absorptive Capacity to Organise Inbound Open Innovation in Traditional Industries. Technovation, 30(1), 130-141.
  48. SSB (2014). Standard for nringsgruppering (SN2007). Retrieved from http://stabas.ssb.no/ItemsFrames.asp?ID=8118001&Language=nb
  49. Strand, O., and Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Where is synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system? Triple-Helix relations among technology, organization and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 417-484.
  50. Tether, B. S. (2002). Who Co-operates for Innovation, and Why: An Empirical Analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947-967.
  51. Vahter, P., Love, J. H., and Roper, S. (2012). Openness and Innovation Performance: Are Small Firms Different? Coventry: Warwick Business School.
  52. von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press: New York.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu