BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Reidolf Merli (Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia), Graffenberger Martin (Leibniz Insti tute for Regional Geography, Germany)
Tytuł
How Local Resources Shape Innovation and Path Development in Rural Regions. Insights from Rural Estonia
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2019, vol. 15, nr 3, s. 131-162, tab., rys., bibliogr. s. 156-161
Tytuł własny numeru
Entrepreneurship, Technological Upgrading and Innovation Policy in Less Developed and Peripheral Regions
Słowa kluczowe
Obszary wiejskie, Innowacje, Innowacyjność przedsiębiorstw
Rural areas, Innovations, Enterprise innovation
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: 031, R11
streszcz., summ.
Kraj/Region
Estonia
Estonia
Abstrakt
Niniejszy artykuł analizuje rolę lokalnych zasobów (fizycznych, ludzkich, niematerialnych, społecznych, społecznościowych oraz finansowych) w kształtowaniu innowacyjności przedsiębiorstw i rozwoju ścieżek na obszarach wiejskich. Istniejące badania nad innowacyjnymi badaniami przestrzennymi w dużej mierze pominęły specyficzne dla danego regionu zasoby obszarów wiejskich jako cechy ułatwiające innowacje. Niniejszy artykuł porusza następujące pytania badawcze: (i) jaka jest rola lokalnych zasobów wiejskich w działalności innowacyjnej firmy oraz (ii) w jaki sposób te zasoby kształtują ścieżki rozwoju regionalnego? Proponujemy ramy, które przyjmują całościowy obraz zasobów wiejskich i ich roli w kształtowaniu innowacji i ścieżek rozwoju regionalnego. Analizy empiryczne sugerują, że zasoby wiejskie oferują cenne i różnorodne możliwości wzrostu innowacyjności firmy, pod warunkiem, że firmy (pro) aktywnie mobilizują i celowo wykorzystują te zasoby w ramach swoich wysiłków na rzecz innowacji. Stwierdzamy, że zasoby wiejskie mają potencjał, aby rozszerzyć i ulepszyć ścieżki rozwoju regionalnego i działać jako składniki wzbogacające istniejące ścieżki o dodatkowe funkcje, a tym samym uczynić je bardziej zorientowanymi na przyszłość. Jednak samo poleganie na zasobach wiejskich nie wystarcza do ułatwienia istotnych zmian w ścieżkach regionalnych. Nasze analizy oparte są na częściowo ustrukturyzowanych wywiadach z przedstawicielami firm zlokalizowanych w wiejskiej części Estonii, działających w różnych branżach produkcyjnych i usługowych. Niniejszy artykuł przyczynia się do powstawania, ale nadal fragmentarycznej, literatury na temat innowacji na obszarach wiejskich i oferuje (kontekstowo) oparte, na poziomie mikro, ramy dotyczące roli lokalnych zasobów wiejskich dla trwałych innowacji na obszarach wiejskich. Ponadto badanie stanowi empiryczny wkład rzadko badanego kontekstu regionalnego w Europie Środkowej i Wschodniej. (abstrakt oryginalny)

This paper examines the role of local resources (physical, human, immaterial, social and community, and financial) in shaping firm innovation and path development in rural areas. Existing research in spatially informed innovation studies has largely overlooked the place-specific resources of rural regions as innovation facilitating qualities. This paper addresses the following research questions: (i) what is the role of local rural resources in a firm's innovation activities, and (ii) how do these resources shape regional development paths? We propose a framework that takes a holistic view of rural resources and their role in shaping innovation and regional development paths. The empirical analyses suggest that rural resources offer valuable and diverse opportunities for firm innovation, providing that firms (pro-)actively mobilize and purposefully exploit these resources as part of their innovation endeavors. We find that rural resources have the potential to extend and upgrade regional development paths and operate as ingredients to enrich existing paths with additional functions and, thereby, to make them more future-oriented. However, merely relying on rural resources does not suffice to facilitate substantial changes in regional paths. Our analyses are based on semi-structured interviews with representatives of firms located in rural Estonia, active in different manufacturing and service industries. This paper contributes to the emerging, but still fragmented, literature on rural innovation and offers a contextually grounded micro-level framework on the role of local rural resources for firm innovation in rural areas. Furthermore, the study adds an empirical contribution from a rarely studied Central and Eastern European regional context. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: An entrepreneurial reconstruction? Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12(2), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1080 /089856200283027
  2. Asheim, B., Grillitsch, M., & Trippl, M. (2017). Introduction: Combinatorial knowledge bases, regional innovation, and development dynamics. Economic Geography, 93(5), 429-435. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1380775
  3. Atterton, J. (2007). The "Strength of Weak Ties": Social networking by business owners in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(3), 228-245. https://doi.org /10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00435.x
  4. Atterton, J., Newbery, R., Bosworth, G., & Affleck, A. (2011). Rural enterprise and neo-endogenous development. In G. Alsos, S. Carter, E. Ljunggren, & F. Welter (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in Agriculture and Rural Development (pp. 256-280). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
  5. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
  6. Camps, S., & Marques, P. (2014). Exploring how social capital facilitates innovation: The role of innovation enablers. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.008
  7. Cannarella, C., & Piccioni, V. (2011). Traditiovations: Creating innovation from the past and antique techniques for rural areas. Technovation, 31(12), 689-699. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.technovation.2011.07.005
  8. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  9. Dinis, A. (2006). Marketing and innovation: Useful tools for competitiveness in rural and peripheral areas. European Planning Studies, 14(1), 9-22. https://doi.org/10.1080 /09654310500339083
  10. Eder, J. (2019). Innovation in the periphery. International Regional Science Review, 42(2), 119-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017618764279
  11. Eder, J., & Trippl, M. (2019). Innovation in the periphery: Compensation and exploitation strategies. Papers in Economic Geography and Innovation Studies, 07, 1-17.
  12. Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
  13. Faulconbridge, J. R. (2017). Relational geographies of knowledge and innovation. In H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn, & L. Simon (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation (pp. 671-684). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  14. Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011). Innovating in the periphery: Firms, values and innovation in Southwest Norway. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 555-574. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.548467
  15. Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. (2017). The city as innovation machine. Regional Studies, 51(1), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1255324
  16. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindeful deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path Dependence and Creation (pp. 124-209). New York: Psychology Press.
  17. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 760-774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00914.x
  18. Gibson, C. (2016). Material inheritances: How place, materiality, and labor process underpin the path-dependent evolution of contemporary craft production. Economic Geography, 92(1), 61-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2015.1092211
  19. Golejewska, A. (2018). Innovativeness of enterprises in Poland in the regional context. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.7341 /20181412
  20. Gomm, R. (2004). Social Research Methodology. A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
  21. Graffenberger, M., & Vonnahme, L. (2019). Questioning the "periphery label" in economic geography: Entrepreneurial action and innovation in South Estonia. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 18(2), 529-550.
  22. Grillitsch, M., Asheim, B., & Trippl, M. (2018). Unrelated knowledge combinations: The unexplored potential for regional industrial path development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 257-274. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsy012
  23. Grillitsch, M., & Sotarauta, M. (2018). Regional Growth Paths: From Structure to Agency and Back (Papers in Innovation Studies No. 2018/1). Retrieved from http://www.circle.lu.se /publications
  24. Gummesson, E. (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. (E. Gummesson, Ed.) (2nd ed.). California, US: Sage Publications.
  25. Hansen, T., & Winther, L. (2011). Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries. European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), 321-339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776411403990
  26. Hassink, R., Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2019). Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080 /00343404.2019.1566704
  27. Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2009). Knowledge networks in an uncompetitive region: SME innovation and growth. Growth and Change, 40(2), 227-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2257.2009.00474.x
  28. Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2019). The behavioural foundations of urban and regional development: Culture, psychology and agency. Journal of Economic Geography, 19, 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbx040
  29. Isaksen, A. (2015). Industrial development in thin regions: Trapped in path extension? Journal of Economic Geography, 15(3), 585-600. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbu026
  30. Isaksen, A., Jakobsen, S. E., Njøs, R., & Normann, R. (2019). Regional industrial restructuring resulting from individual and system agency. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(1), 48-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2018.1496322
  31. Isaksen, A., & Karlsen, J. (2016). Innovation in peripheral regions. In R. Shearmur, C. Carrincazeaux, & D. Doloreux (Eds.), Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation (pp. 277-285). Cheltenham, UK, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710774
  32. Kalantaridis, C. (2009). SME strategy, embeddedness and performance in East Cleveland, North East England. International Small Business Journal, 27(4), 496-521. https://doi.org/10.1177 /0266242609335019
  33. Korsgaard, S., Ferguson, R., & Gaddefors, J. (2015). The best of both worlds: How rural entrepreneurs use placial embeddedness and strategic networks to create opportunities. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 27(9-10), 574-598. https://doi.org/10.1080 /08985626.2015.1085100
  34. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
  35. Květoň, V., & Blažek, J. (2018). Path-development trajectories and barriers perceived by stakeholders in two Central European less developed regions: Narrow or broad choice? European Planning Studies, 26(10), 2058-2077. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1509061
  36. Lafuente, E., Vaillant, Y., & Serarols, C. (2010). Location decisions of knowledge-based entrepreneurs: Why some Catalan KISAs choose to be rural? Technovation, 30(11-12), 590-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.07.004
  37. Martin, R. (2010). Roepke lecture in economic geography-Rethinking regional path dependence: Beyond lock-in to evolution. Economic Geography, 86(1), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01056.x
  38. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012
  39. Mayer, H., & Baumgartner, D. (2014). The role of entrepreneurship and innovation in peripheral regions. DisP - The Planning Review, 50(1), 16-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2014.926720
  40. Mcpherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444. Retrieved from www.jstor.org /stable/2678628.
  41. Mitchell, C. J.. (2013). Creative destruction or creative enhancement? Understanding the transformation of rural spaces. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 375-387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.09.005
  42. Müller, S., & Korsgaard, S. (2018). Resources and bridging: The role of spatial context in rural entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 30(1-2), 224-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2017.1402092
  43. Neffke, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R., & Henning, M. (2018). Agents of structural change: The role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversification. Economic Geography, 94(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2017.1391691
  44. OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpeting Innovation Data (3rd ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264013100-en
  45. OECD. (2006). The New Rural Paradigm: Policies and Governance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/thenewruralparadigmpoliciesandgovernance.htm
  46. OECD. (2014). Innovation and Modernising the Rural Economy. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205390-en
  47. Petrov, A. N. (2011). Beyond spillovers: Interrogating innovation and creativity in the peripheries. In H. Bathelt, M. P. Feldman, & D. F. Kogler (Eds.), Beyond Territory: Dynamic Geographies of Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Innovation (pp. 168-190). Oxon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203814871
  48. Plüschke-Altof, B., & Grootens, M. (2019). Leading through image making? On the limits of emphasising agency in structurally disadvantaged rural places. In T. Lang & F. Görmar (Eds.), Regional and Local Development in Times of Polarisation. New Geographies of Europe (pp. 319-341). Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1190-1
  49. Pylak, K. (2015). Changing innovation process models: A chance to break out of path dependency for less developed regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 46-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.979433
  50. Ratajczak-Mrozek, M. (2014). The importance of locally embedded personal relationships for SME internationalisation processes - from opportunity recognition to company growth. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10(3), 89-108. https://doi.org /10.2139/ssrn.2578709
  51. Ray, C. (2001). Culture Economies: A Perspective on Local Rural Development in Europe. Newcastle: Centre for Rural Economy.
  52. Reidolf, M. (2016). Knowledge networks and the nature of knowledge relationships of innovative rural SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 317-336. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-06-2015-0043
  53. Ring, J. K., Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2010). Business networks and economic development in rural communities in the United States. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(1), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00307.x
  54. Shearmur, R. (2017). Urban bias in innovation studies. In H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn, & L. Simon (Eds.), The Elgar Companion to Innovation and Knowledge Creation (pp. 440-456). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
  55. Shearmur, R., Carrincazeaux, C., & Doloreux, D. (2016). The geographies of innovations: Beyond one-size-fits-all. In Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation (pp. 1-16). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710774
  56. Siemens, L. (2010). Challenges, responses and available resources: Success in rural small businesses. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 65-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2010.10593474
  57. Simmie, J. (2012). Path dependence and new technological path creation in the Danish wind power industry. European Planning Studies, 20(5), 753-772. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.667924
  58. Solesvik, M., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2014). Interaction for innovation: Comparing Norwegian regions. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10(3), 7-28. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.7341/20141031
  59. Sotarauta, M., & Beer, A. (2017). Governance, agency and place leadership: Lessons from a cross-national analysis. Regional Studies, 51(2), 210-223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1119265
  60. Sotarauta, M., & Suvinen, N. (2018). Institutional agency and path creation: Institutional path from industrial to knowledge city. In A. Isaksen, R. Martin, & M. Trippl (Eds.), New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems - Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons. (pp. 1-17). New York: Springer.
  61. Spyridakis, M., & Dima, F. (2016). Reinventing traditions: Socially produced goods in Eastern Crete during economic crisis. Journal of Rural Studies, 53, 269-277. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.04.007
  62. Stathopoulou, S., Psaltopoulos, D., & Skuras, D. (2004). Rural entrepreneurship in Europe: A research framework and agenda. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 10(6), 404-425. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550410564725
  63. Strambach, S. (2008). Path Dependency and Path Plasticity: the Co- evolution of Institutions and Innovation - the German Customized Business Software Industry (Working Papers on Innovation and Space). Marburg. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/111860 %0AStandard-Nutzungsbedingungen
  64. Strambach, S., & Halkier, H. (2013). Editorial. Reconceptualizing change. Zeitschrift Fur Wirtschaftsgeographie, 57(1-2), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfw.2013.0001
  65. Šumane, S., Kunda, I., Knickel, K., Strauss, A., Tisenkopfs, T., Rios, I. des I., ... Ashkenazy, A. (2018). Local and farmers' knowledge matters! How integrating informal and formal knowledge enhances sustainable and resilient agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies, 48, 232-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.01.020
  66. Torre, A. (2015). New challenges for rural areas in a fast moving environment. European Planning Studies, 23(4), 641-649. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.945811
  67. Torre, A., & Wallet, F. (2016). Regional Development in Rural Areas. Analytical Tools and Public Policies. Springer Briefs in Regional Science. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org /10.1007/978-3-319-02372-4
  68. van Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Masurel, E. (2012). From innovation to commercialization through networks and agglomerations: Analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs. The Annals of Regional Science, 50(2), 425-452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0509-1
  69. Virkkala, S. (2007). Innovation and networking in peripheral areas - a case study of emergence and change in rural manufacturing. European Planning Studies, 15(4), 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310601133948
  70. Ward, N., & Brown, D. L. (2009). Placing the rural in regional development. Regional Studies, 43(10), 1237-1244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903234696
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20191535
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu