Revista de Gestão e Economia, DGE/UBI, 2001, 1: 69-78
University and Global Economic Competition: What Perspectives for Low Density Regions?
Alcino Pinto Couto1 Management and Economics Department Universidade da Beira Interior email:
[email protected]
Abstract: A strategic role is recognised to the university. There is an institutional conviction about its engine capacity to generate the expected and dynamic changes required to reinforce the regional competitiveness and wealth creation. This means that within the emergent context of the knowledge society, the university is regarded as a vital economic actor. An important aspect that comes out of the research that has already been carried out is that regional performance depends not only on their internal consistency as well as on the ability to take advantage of external relations.
1. Introduction
Since 1950s there has been an increasing perception that scientific and technological knowledge play a crucial role for the economic performance and welfare worldwide. This explains the strong interest of the governments, first for reasons related with strategic issues of State, defence, and after to respond to the pressures of the globalisation and competitive advantage, to foster the national scientific and technological potential. However, it is only over the past decade that we have witnessed a growing effort to examine the way in which knowledge, in all its forms, actually leads to the generation and diffusion of technological innovation. This attention has produced a vast literature which begun to shine some light concerning the relationship between knowledge, technology, innovation and socio-economic development, (see e.g. C. Edquist, 1997, Abramovitz & David, 1996; OECD, 1996 and P. Romer, 1996). The main important insights are related with the process of the production, diffusion, economic application and management of knowledge, pointing out its
increasing importance for the development at the individual, organisational, regional, national and global levels. The studies highlight the new challenges posed, paraphrasing Rip & Van der Meulen (1996), by post-modern research system and claim for the new tasks to economic policy, territories, organisations, researchers, managers and individuals (see P. Conceição et al, 1998). From the territorial point of view, important questions arise in what concerns the capability of the university knowledge flows to foster the regional economic performance. What is the importance of the agglomeration effects on university based development policy? In other words, is it local economic development nurtured by academic knowledge flows a rule or an exception? Our aim is to analyse the impact of university knowledge effects on economy of the Low Density Regions. We start to highlight the fundamental dynamics of science and research in knowledge society. Next, we approach the topic of the knowledge, territory and development to focus on a university centred perspective. The core questions of the research, propositions and objectives are presented in the next section. After this point we discuss the theoretical framework and research methodology. Finally, we introduce the envisage table of contents and references.
2. The dynamics of science and research in knowledge society: main trends
2.1 The nature of the emerging knowledge society
An important and "provocative" contribute to the understanding of the dynamics of science and research within the context of the emerging knowledge society has been given by Gibbons et al (1994). The authors describe recent changes in the form of knowledge generation (M2) underlying, amongst others, massification of the higher education and research, the increase production of knowledge in context of application, a growing transdisciplinarity of knowledge generation, the proliferation of heterogeneous groups of researchers, and the interlinkages among researchers groups.
1
The author would like to thank to the anonymous referee of this journal for his helpful comments.
2
One can expect that these new movements have, at different levels, a strong influence upon the organisation of the relationship between knowledge infrastructure, economy and society. Indeed, we can identify two broader consequences. First, the massification of higher education and research has allowed not only a significant growth of the graduate workforce, namely in teaching and research activities. It has also stimulated the emergence of new units of knowledge production and distribution as a consequence of the development policy goal of the spatial decentralisation of the knowledge infrastructures that has oriented the creation of new universities. Many territories have been endowed with universities and other higher education institutions, whose main aim is to contribute to the economic and social development through a closer link with the community. Second, we think that the other trends point out the strategic role of the capitalisation of the knowledge, the changing division of labour in innovative process, and institutional dynamics as a core axes of the emergent innovation environment (see Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998 and Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997). The current literature tends to consider scientific and technological infrastructure as a subsystem of the innovation system, stressing the fact of the recent changes towards a growing integration of scientific and technological infrastructure into a productive structure (see K. Smith, 1997). The capitalisation of the knowledge, the transdisciplinarity, the interlinkages between research groups, academic or not, business and political actors and the externalisation of innovative activities have reinforced the analytical role of the systemic approach. As a matter of fact, the unit of analysis increasingly becomes innovation systems, viewed as a network of actors interacting in a specific context.2 But, this change is an expression of an enormously complex phenomenon. An approach based on networks theory provides us with significant theoretical and
2
In order to make clear the above statements, for example, the territorial context is focused at different levels of analysis. B-A Lundvall (1992), and Nelson & Rosenberg (1993) emphasise the role of National Systems of Innovation. Regional Innovation Systems deserves a substantial attention by, amongst others, Braczyk, Cooke & Heidenreich, (1998). Garmise & Rees (1997) and R. Miller (1995) takes into account the importance of local level. J. Niosi & B. Bellon (1996) and B. Asheim (1998) make references to the International Innovation Systems. From a sectoral point of view, Breschi & Malerba (1997) studies the Sectoral Innovation Systems and Technological Regimes, while Bo Carlsson (1996) highlights the role of the Technological Systems. The analysis of the intermediate networks of institutions, Meso-Level TechnoEconomic, as an economic actor is the main focus of K. Green et al (1998).
3
methodological insights associated with the transformations of the mode to outline the knowledge flows between the determinant actors, academy, private and public sectors and innovation support organisations, and its impact upon relevant features of the new innovative environment. One major trait is an increasing interaction between producers and users of knowledge. As Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (1997) noted, knowledge is no longer transferred, but co-developed. This means, following B-A Lundvall (1992), P. Saviotti (1996) and C. Edquist (1997), that there is a shift from a linear perspective, vertical integration of the research activities and without sustaining connections among actors, to a cooperation framework based upon learning process. This perspective demands an integrated and interactive approach that blends scientific, technological, socio-economic and cultural aspects in rapidly moving environment. However, it is important, from the analytical as well as the normative point of view, to note that the interactive learning process is viewed as a collective learning process that can represent different levels of systemic integration. In other words, it is related with the level of territorial embeddedness of the techno-economic and politicalinstitutional structures. Then, the network analysis of the innovative performance brings together the role of the actors (universities, research institutes, technology transfer structures, firms, innovation support organisations and public administration), institutional context (laws, social rules, cultural norms, routines, habits, technical standards, etc,) and the appropriateness of the governance model3. Another significant outcome, closely associated with the previous one, is the coevolution of the technological change and institutional set up (C. Freeman, 1987 and B. Johnson, 1992)4. We observe organisational changes and institutional arrangements pursuing a collaborative achievement, in connection with the emergence of new actors 3
As C. Edquist (1997) recognises the concept of institution, which is a core element to the innovation systems approaches, is associated to "conceptual pluralism", because it is used differently by various authors. 4
It must be borne in mind that institutions may also be, or become, obstacles to innovation. There is often intense resistance to change. Inertia phenomenon explains why many institutions become unsuitable to perform functions they previously performed or for which they were originally intended. This concept of institutions also includes the other elements such as organisations.
4
and new missions in response to stimulus and pressures stemming from the market, public sector and within academy. These movements of organisational and institutional reconfiguration co-evolve with the redesign of the missions, objectives and the operational context of the different protagonists in arena. In what concerns the links among institutional sectors (academia, private and public) we observe an unstable phase, a transition regime, in which each sector appears to show a high propensity to assume the role of another one. In a dynamic context of the uncertainties, blurring of basic and applied research and strong financial constraints; the multifunctionality seems, actually, to guide the redefinition of the institutional missions. Concerning the academia, the archetypal of the contemporary university goes beyond its traditional missions. Its ancient and primary function is to provide higher education. Through teaching activities the university must improve the level of the human capital, associated to diffusion of cultural and social values. Later, first revolution, the university has incorporated the development of research activities, the creation and dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge provides a knowledge-based to foster the innovative dynamics. Finally, second revolution, the university seeks closer links with society, introducing economic and social functions as part of its missions. (see e.g. C. Lucas, 1996; J. Caraça et al, 1996 and H. Etzkowitz, 1993) In fact, many universities take on entrepreneurial tasks - entrepreneurial university - (see amongst others B. Hodgson (1998); M. Klofsten et al, (1998); and D. Jones-Evans, 1997) as well as plays a "quasi-governmental role as a regional or local innovation organiser" (Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998). Otherwise, some companies are fashioned for the university language. Following P. David (1997) there is a trend towards a peri-university 'cloud',5 in parallel with the picture that illustrate university initiatives to create an industrial penumbra as a means to convert knowledge and technology into assets, presented by Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, (1998).
5
As he shows big companies like Microsoft, America's General Electric, Motorola, Unipart and British Aerospace have created research structures with characteristic very similar to the university research atmosphere. Moreover, some of them, namely the British Aerospace, intend to implement faculty of engineering and manufacturing technology, faculty of learning and an international business school.
5
The phenomenon of the reconfiguration of the traditional boundaries is not only an institutional, but also a territorial matter. The globalisation process has generated an important movement from national innovation systems towards international innovation systems and regional, local and urban innovation systems. The topic of international and subnational levels and its relationships knows an increasing centrality in the research agenda. This fact brings out new important theoretical and methodological aspects. On the one hand, networks approach brings out new insights and a growing complexity in consequence of the emergence of the different types of networks reshaped by the dynamic recombination of the different territorial levels with new kind of relationships between the academia and private and public sectors. The key perspective seems to foster locally based links in a regional, national and global context. D. Gibson (1998) introduce the concept of global networked entrepreneurship as an important way for the small high-tech companies to explore and expand worlwide niche markets while Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, (1998) point out the emerging hypernetworks. A. Saxenian (1994) highlights a more clearly territorial perspective of this phenomenon when she refers that the creation of regional clusters and the globalisation of production go hand in hand. As she stresses, paradoxically firms reinforce the dynamism of their own localities by linking them to similar regional clusters elsewhere. In addition, J.L. Gaffard. et al (1994) underline the alliance that was achieved between Wales and Baden-Wurttemberg to promote economic cooperation, technology transfers and research, education and training as an attempt to lift the regions' human resource limitations. M. Gulbrandsen (1997) focus the example of Oulu where the authorities, industry and research organisations of the region have established links together with corresponding entities in other European regions in order to supplement the lack of private venture capital improve the synergy effects from joint internationalisation. On the other hand, in the knowledge economy innovation is the result of numerous interactions among a greater number of organisations. The actor searches for linkages, partners or networks to promote interactive learning and provides complementary assets. One can argue that the economy becomes a hierarchy of networks. We are facing the emergence of the networks society, where the opportunity and
6
capability to get access to and join knowledge and learning intensive relations determines the innovative performance and socio-economic position of individuals, firms, regions and nations (David & Foray, 1995).
2.2 The role of knowledge codification and localised learning process
The notion of the economy as a hierarchy network brings out relevant issues regarding territorial convergence and divergence trajectories. Obviously, it supposes that well design knowledge-based could ensure a catching-up phenomenon. However, the question is how to design and operate well design knowledge-based given global environment and specific context? Knowledge has very specific characteristics that make it economically different from tangible inputs. In order to facilitate the analysis, we think to be more important to distinguish the different types of knowledge to improve the perception about its economic impact. In what concerns the concept of knowledge, David & Foray (1995) refer the notions of the codified knowledge (embodied knowledge) and tacit knowledge (disembodied knowledge). The codification of knowledge implies the translation of the knowledge into information, which can easily be transmitted through information and communication technologies. Patents, books, CD-ROMs, papers and blueprints are examples of codified knowledge that has a standard and compact design. These features permit its transferring over long distances and across organisational boundaries to low cost. In contrast, tacit knowledge refers to skills or the ability to execute something, which is typically developed and maintained within an individual's brain. Despite being easier to obtain, codified knowledge implies, however, skills and competencies to operate and maximise the benefits. There is a high-level of complementarity with human capital. In addition, tacit knowledge is rooted in practical experience, social practice and often in specialised educational and training environments. Because it tends to be socially embedded, its transferring through formal channels of information is too much difficult. For this reason, the accumulation process of tacit knowledge, skills and competencies, is crucial to transform the codified knowledge, resource with high-level of
7
the homogeneity and easy access, into a specific asset, or a new tacit knowledge. Moreover, it is essential to break path dependency and to avoid look-in phenomenon as a necessary condition to create a renewed competitive advantage. The economic valorisation, based on differentiation, of these kind of intangible resources intensified by digital revolution demands for capabilities for selecting relevant and disregarding irrelevant information, recognising patterns in information, interpreting and decoding information as well as learning new and forgetting obsolescent skills. The territorial innovative performance is closely connected to the dynamics of these kinds of knowledge and their mode of interacting. B. Asheim (1998) points out this question, stressing the fact that the territorial innovation systems and networks have started building on different types of knowledge. From his point of view, the interaction between codified and tacit knowledge must assume a contextualised form. The translation of local practical and tacit knowledge into some de-contextualised codified knowledge would eliminate the specific context conditions, which would severely damage their innovative and competitive assets. The knowledge in form of embodied technology progress can be exported independently of social institutions, while disembodied knowledge cannot be absorbed independent of such institutions. This perspective emphasises the role of localised learning process or the local character of knowledge in formation of competitive advantage based on innovative potential stems from local knowledge infrastructure (see e.g. M. Gulbrandsen, 1997; P Saviotti, 1996; B-A Lundvall; 1992 and M. Porter, 1990). Then, the territorial innovative phenomenon depends on, to a large extent, the level of articulation of local knowledge infrastructure and productive structure and their capability to codify the tacit knowledge, as well as endogenise the codified knowledge produced abroad. In the knowledge economy learning becomes extremely important in determining the fate of individuals, firms and local, regional and national economies. The innovative phenomenon is an output of the interactive learning and the design and quality of the local learning process shape its performance. This perspective implies severe contextual requirements that claim for new and articulated responses from structuring components of scientific and technological systems. The production, transmission and transfer of knowledge must be more integrated. This requisite demands from science system not only a systematic upgrading of human capital, knowledge transmission, but also a balance
8
and an active role of knowledge production and knowledge transfer functions, in order to disseminate through economic and social actors the knowledge outputs. The knowledge economy demands a high intensity of knowledge flows and a strong articulation of the different kinds of knowledge as a key factor of sustained change and self-adjustment. To response appropriately, organisational reconfigurations through an interactive and collaborative academia-private-public relations is needed. In sum, on the one hand, the academia, as a prominent actor of the science system, is facing the challenge of reconciling its traditional functions with a newer role as an integral part of the knowledge economy. On the other hand, the community is facing the challenge to improve the useful mechanisms to foster the collective identities and trust in order to rethink and redesign its organisational models of collaboration both strategic and operational levels.
3. Knowledge, territory and development: A university centred perspective
As M. Gibbons et al (1994) argue, the universities are at the core of the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. In fact, most universities have been involved in deep changes in the past few decades. They have been, and many of the new ones were created expressly, largely confined to research activities, development of the operational mechanisms of technology transfer and adopt a proactive role as an actor of the community in which they belong or are located. Since the 90s, within the context in which regional policy seems to be as important as macroeconomic or sectoral policies to promote competitive advantage, the university has become an important explicit instrument of science, technology and industrial policy oriented to local and regional development. First of all, we must underline two broader impacts of the university on a local and regional socio-productive basis: the static and dynamic effects. As M. Reigado (1998 and 1993), R. Florax (1992) and M. Bleaney et al (1992) argue this kind of impacts have a different nature and analytical importance. The static impacts are connected with university expenditure flows. These flows mean effects of expenditures by students and university on local demand conditions or employment, also considering indirect effects
9
on social, cultural and urban structure. The dynamic impacts are associated to the knowledge flows. While the university expenditure flows do not have relevant specific characteristics compared to the other large interventions through the public expenditure regionalisation such as government offices, hospitals, airports, military bases and others large structures, knowledge flows are a peculiar feature of academic institutions. The impact of these flows are related with specific manner and context in which university activities concerning production, transmission and transfers of knowledge can affect the competitive potential and performance of the local economy. The major number of the studies embraces the dynamic perspective. The regional literature shows us several examples of high-tech regions that have flourished around the local universities, (see e.g. H-J Braczyk et al, 1998; M. Klofsten et al, 1998; M. Gulbrandsen, 1997; European Commission, 1996; A. Saxenian, 1994; J.L. Gaffard, 1994; H. Etzkowitz, 1993)6. Silicon Valley, New England, Research Triangle Park and Cambridge are acknowledged as seminal and notable cases of technological vitality, entrepreneurship and extraordinary economic growth. How have university knowledge flows fostered the innovative dynamics of these regions ? How has university contributed to the revitalisation of the old industrial structures and to the generation and protagonist of the new economic regions? Important evidence that we should retain from the studies, is the role of the contextual conditions. There are no single trajectories. On the one hand, the role of the university as a component of the knowledge infrastructure is not isomorphic; it takes into account the different university models. One the other hand, the plurality of the environments and the perception about its evolution induce different organisational developments and strategic responses. These facts map the nature and the intensity of the university knowledge flows7.
6
Some of the most famous cases are Silicon Valley (Stanford University), New England (MIT), Research Triangle Park (North Carolina), in USA and Cambridge (Cambridge University), Wales (Glamorgan Business School University), Toulouse (National Institute Polytechnic of Toulouse), Grenoble (Grenoble University), Baden-Württemberg (Freiburg, Heidelberg and Karlsruhe Universities), Linköping (Linköping University), in Europe. 7
As A. Saxenian (1994) argues, we must keep in mind that analogous institutions could play different roles in different contexts. She notes that universities are widely viewed as sources of knowledge and
10
However, different knowledge transfer axes between academia and society can be identified. The education and training function impact upon market labour (see e.g. C. Lucas, 1998 and Rosenberg and Nelson, 1996), the spin-offs from university research; (see H-J. Braczik et al , 1998; M. Klofsten et al, 1998 and H. Etzkowitz, 1997, 1993)8, the role of formal cooperation in the R&D between academic and industry as a way to capitalise the scientific and technological knowledge according to the industry needs (Audretsch and Stephan, 1996). Schaettgen and Werp (1996) stress the success of the exchange of personnel between the university and industry and the guarantee of highly specialised assistance services which support the reception of technology transfer in the industrial company. Another interesting point is the question of knowledge transfer through publication in open scientific literature versus translation of knowledge into intellectual property. There is a strong controversy about its effects; despite its increasing and stimulating role to overcome the financial needs of the university (see Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998). This problem could be partly supplemented through the role of Technology Transfer Organisations (TTOs). Several studies sustain the importance of their intermediation functions and their strategic and functional autonomy regarding the university, but work very closely with it and the market. (F. Veloso, 1998; Dasgpusta and David, 1994 and A. Webster, 1994). Other formal and informal mechanisms such as faculty consulting, seminars, scholarly journal and publications, industrial associated programmes and local professional associations of scientists are considered as significant channels of knowledge transfer and construction of territorial innovation systems (see e.g. H-J. Braczik et al , 1998; A. Varga, 1997 and A, Saxenian, 1994). Finally, the performance and capacity for self-generated change showed by successful cases of territorial innovation systems have influenced the implementation of
information for their regional economies. However, since World War II, Stanford University has been, in a singular manner, actively engaged in the promotion of local technology start-ups. 8
As Schaettgen and Werp (1996) argue, in general the creation of spin-offs is highly independent from other technology transfer activities of the university. This means that even if a university does not provide another technology transfer services, it is possible to successfully support the foundation of spin-offs. M Gulbrandsen, (1997) underline the importance of university spin-offs within context where the outputs of university research groups are not adjusted to the needs of existing local industrial clusters. In this case the university and regional authorities try often to develop new local industrial clusters.
11
Science and Technological Parks and other organisational developments. The aim is to increase the articulation and synergies of scientific, technological, industrial and structural policies on local and regional bases. In other words, to increase the scientific and technological potential and the local and regional ability to convert knowledge outputs into industrial, commercial and social innovation success. A strategic role is recognised to the university. There is an institutional conviction about its engine capacity to generate the expected and dynamic changes required to reinforce the regional competitiveness and wealth creation. This means that within the emergent context of the knowledge society, the university is regarded as a vital economic actor or, on a wider perspective, as an important development actor (educational, scientific, technological, economic, social and cultural). It is a very difficult task for the university. Its performance and capacity as a development incubator is strongly influenced by its ability of self-regeneration and the involvement in the long trajectory of the experience and learning of the other relevant private and public actors. The foundations of success appear to be associated with a set basic conditions (see e.g. H-J. Braczik et al , 1998;. M. Luger, 1996; L. Tsipouri; 1996; A. Saxenian, 1994, J. L. Gaffard, 1994 and H. Etzkowitz, 1993): -
The level of government decentralisation, experience and regional consensus;
-
Strong collective identities, trust and good public/private cooperation;
-
Visionary leadership with strategic perspective and capacity of mobilisation;
-
High territorial concentration of economic activities and industrial structure;
-
Existing universities of research laboratories, which have a high level of excellence in at least one scientific or technological field;
-
A critical number of multinational high-tech companies with closer links to indigenous SMEs;
-
A marketing and development strategy, predominantly oriented to the valorisation of endogenous resources;
-
Strengthen access to wider networks with a global contact;
-
Guaranteed continuous investment funding, public or private, during more or less ten years and
-
A long time horizon.
12
This set of basic conditions reveals the need of involvement of some kind of the factors to ensure that the university initiatives could increase the regional knowledge base and foster competitive advantage. However, they do not point out anything about the relative importance of the different components as well as the nature and impact of synergetic effects. Despite the considerable research efforts some crucial aspects have not yet been clarified satisfactorily. One of the most important respects to the critical mass of the local characteristics necessary to successfully implement universities to foster the regional innovation potential. Research findings of literature give way different views regarding the relationship between territorial agglomeration and local university effects. For example, A. Varga (1997) suggests that university knowledge transfers are strongly affected by agglomeration of economic activities, by the concentration of economic activities in the space. Based on his main research findings, he argues that it is in the metropolitan areas where the university knowledge impacts are significant. The author argues that university based development policy alone would seem to be suited only in areas with population around 1 million inhabitants. We are aware that 1 million is only a proxy, but it has been used to support the classical argument of regional economics that territorial agglomeration provides the best context for innovation dynamics. The concept of agglomeration economies is closely related with concept of external economies (localisation and urbanisation economies) 9. To assess the sources of competitive advantage of the individual firms as well as the regions conventional regional economics theories have largely used it. The findings tend to highlight the geographical proximity, importance of timeliness, face-to-face communication, accessibility, concentration of activities and presence of externalities as factors that provide a powerful influence on knowledge flows and innovation. The emphasis on these conditions suggests an earlier question. Can any university at any location foster a knowledge-intensive economy? We don't find in regional development literature a clear response to this question. For example, New York presents
9
The concept of the agglomeration economies includes scale internal economies, localisation and urbanisation economies. The first are internal to the companies. Localisation economies are internal to the firm, but external to the sector (technical skill, specialised suppliers, and venture capital). Urbanisation economies are external to the sector, but internal to the region (e.g. infrastructures, hard and soft, spillovers of knowledge connected with the proximity to universities and informal information flows)
13
high level concentration of economic activities and research resources. However, as Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, (1998) recognise, its relative performance rests behind others US regions such as Silicon Valley, New England, Austin. In the same way, we observe in Europe similar trends, the emergence of the winner regions as e.g. Cambridge, Toulouse, Grenoble and Baden-Wurttemberg and smaller regions as Linköping Twente and Bergen. As A. Saxenian (1994) stresses the concepts of agglomeration and external economies cannot explain why high level of concentration activities produces a selfreinforcing innovative dynamic. She adds that the simple fact of spatial proximity reveals little about the local ability to respond to the fast changing that characterise international competition, because the agglomeration centred perspective tends to overlook the complex of institutional and social relationships. Following their arguments, the broadest interpretations of technological external economies recognise that actors learn from one another through flows of information, ideas and know-how. They are not isolated; on the contrary, actors are embedded in a social and institutional setting that shapes and is shaped by their strategies and structures. This position rejects the structural perspective and highlights the structural effects of the actor strategic actions. The interaction structure-actors become the regulatory element of the territorial performance, the ability to perform within the context of international competitiveness and the self-reinforcement process of the local innovative dynamics. The focus on intangible aspects of the agglomeration economies seems to be suited and convergent with the nature of the emergent innovative environment noted earlier. We think that the increasing importance of the qualitative aspects brings out new insights and demands a new understanding of the agglomeration effects matter. As J.L.Gaffard et al (1994) put it, the problem consists on taking an ex ante view and underlining how increasing returns or external economies are achieved. This means that the analysis must not be centred in the process of allocation resources, but creation resources. An important assumption is that the regional performance depends not on their clustering process and spatial concentration of the activities, but on their internal consistency and even on the ability to take advantage of external relations Considering all this, it seems that the current innovative dynamics offers a landscape of opportunities favourable to the emergence of the knowledge intensive process phenomena at lower levels of spatial aggregation.
14
4. Concluding Remarks
We think that, actually, there is a lack of knowledge concerning the nature of the internal and external dynamics that promotes the construction of local systems of innovation based on engine role of the university, namely in what concerns Low Density Regions. More attention has been paid to the factors that explain the success or failure of the High Density Regions or to Metropolitan Areas experiences, which share significant agglomeration effects. This fact makes the study of the conditions and different experiences about the ability of the Low Density Regions pertinent to embrace a development trajectory sustained on the construction of knowledge base through the proactive role of the strategic actors the regions are provided with, particularly the university. An important aspect that comes out of the research that has already been carried out is the high diversity of trajectories, which makes us think that there are multiple development patterns. This diversity stresses the specificity and the non-isomorphic nature of the role of the university as an engine innovation-based regional development.
References Abramovitz, M. and David, P., 1996. "Technological change and rise of intangible investment: the US Economy's growth-path in the Twentieth Century, in Employment and Growth in Knowledge-based Economy, OECD, Paris. Asheim, Bjorn, 1998. "Interactive learning, innovation systems and SME policy", in Conference on Small and Medium Sized Enterprises in Changing World, Sevilla, 24-28 August. Audretsch, D. and Stephan, P., 1996. "Company-scientists locational links: the case of biotechnology", American Economic Review, 86: 641-652 Bleaney, M. et al , 1992. "What does a university add to its local economy", Applied Economic, 42: 305311. Braczik, Hans-Joachim, Cooke, Philip and Heidenreich, Martin, (eds.), 1998. Regional Innovation Systems, London:UCL Press Limited. Breschi, Stefano and Malerba, Franco, 1997. "Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries", in C. Edquist. (ed.), Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organisations,. London: Pinter: 130-156. Caraça, J. Conceição, P, and Heitor, M., 1996. "Uma perspectiva sobre a missão das universidades", Análise Social, XXXI (139) (5º): 1201-1233. Carlsson, Bo, 1996. "Innovation and success in Sweden: Technological systems", in J. Mothe and G. Paquet (eds.), Evolutionary Economics and the New International Political Economy, New York, Pinter: 257-276.
15
Conceição, P., Gibson, D. and Shariq, S., 1997. "Towards a research agenda for knowledge policies and management", Journal of Knowledge Management, 1(2): 129-141. Cooke; Philip, 1998. "Introduction: origins of the concept." in H. Braczik, P. Cooke and M. Heidenreich (eds.), Regional Innovation Systems,. London:UCL Press Limited: 2-25. Dasgpusta, P. and David, P. A., 1994. "Towards a new economic science", Research Policy, 23: 487-521. David, P. and Foray, D., 1995. "Accessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge based", STI Review, 16, OECD, Paris. David, P., 1997. "A survey of universities - the knowledge factory", The Economist, October 4. Edquist, Charles, 1997. "Systems of innovation approaches - Their emergence and characteristics." in C. Edquist. (ed.), Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organisations,. London: Pinter: 1-35. Etzkowitz, Henry, 1993. "Enterprises from science: the origins of science-based regional economic development." Minerva, 31 (3), Autumn,: 326-60. Florax, R., 1992. The University: a Regional Booster? Economic Impacts of Academic Knowledge Infrastructure, Avebury, Aldershot. Freeman, Chris, 1987. Technological Policy and Economic Performance, London, Pinter. Gaffard, J. L. Bruno, S., Longhi, C. and Quéré, M., 1994. Coherence and Diversity of Innovation Systems in Europe, Synthesis Report, European Commission, DG XII, FAST DOSSIER, Vol. 19. Garmise, Sheri and Rees, Gareth, 1997. "The role of institutional networks in local economic development - a new model of governance", The Journal of the Local Economy Policy Unit, 12 (2). Gibbons, et al, 1994. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London. Gibson, David, 1998. "Global networked entrepreneurship: emerging roles of micro-multinationals in regional economic development", in 2nd International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, Lisbon, 3-5 August. Green, Ken, Hull, Richard, Mcmeekin, Andrew and Walsh, Vivien, 1998. "The construction of the techno-economic:networks vs paradigms", in Triple Helix II Conference: The Future Location of Research. New York City/Purchase, 7-10 January. Gulbrandsen, Magnus, 1997. "Universities and industrial competitive advantage" in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds.), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry -Government Relations, London: Cassell Publishers: 121-131. Hodgson, Bob, 1998. "Creative interventions through European science parks and incubators", in 2nd International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, Lisbon, 3-5 August. Johnson, Bjorn, 1992. "Institutional Learning" in B-A Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning.. London: Pinter: 23-44. Jones-Evans, Dylan, 1997. "Entrepreneurial universities - policies, strategy and practice", in 1st International Conference on Technology Policy and Innovation, Macau, 2-4 July. Klofsten, Magnus, Scharberg, Carina and Jones-Evans, Dylan, 1998. "Growing a technopole - a longitudinal study of entrepreneurship and industrial development in Sweden", in Triple Helix II Conference: The Future Location of Research. New York City/Purchase, 7-10 January. Leydesdorff, Loet and Etzkowitz, Henry, 1998. The Triple Helix as a Model for Innovation Studies, http: // www.chem.uva..nl/ sts/ loet / th2/ spp..htm. Leydesdorff, Loet. and Etzkowitz, Henry, 1997. "A triple helix of university-industry-government relations." in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds.), Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University-Industry -Government Relations, London, Cassell Publishers: 155-62. Lucas, C., 1998. Rethinking Higher Education in America, St Martin's Press, New York.
16
Luger, Michael, 1996. "The appropriateness of STPs models for regions with different economic development capacities and needs:" In . G. Gaetano and H. Logue (eds.), RTD Potential in the Mezzogiorno of Italy: The Role of Science Parks in a European Perspective, Brussels: European Commission, DG XII: 87-101. Lundvall B.-A., 1992. "Introduction." in B-A Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning.. London: Pinter:1-22. Miller, Riel, 1995. Territorial Development and Human Capital in the Knowledge Economy: Towards a policy Framework, OECD, Paris. Nelson, Richard. and Rosenberg, Nathan, 1993. “Technical innovation and national systems.” in R. Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems. New York, Oxford University Press: 3-21. Niosi, Jorge and Bellon, Bertrand, 1996. "The globalisation of national innovation systems", in in J. Mothe and G. Paquet (eds.), Evolutionary Economics and the New International Political Economy, New York, Pinter:138-159. OECD, 1996. Employment and Growth in Knowledge-based Economy, Paris. Porter, Michael, 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan. Reigado Marques, 1998. "A universidade no desenvolvimento regional: da pedagogia à ética de relacionamento", in V Encontro Nacional da APDR, Coimbra, 18-20 de Junho. Reigado Marques, 1993. "Universidade, Inovação e Desenvolvimento", in Seminário Investigação Científica, Inovação e Desenvolvimento Regional, Coimbra, Setembro, CCRC. Rip, Arie and Meulen, Baren van der, 1996. " The pos-modern research system", Science and Public Policy, 23(6):343-352. Romer, P. 1996. "Why, indeed, in America? Theory, history and the origins of modern economic growth", American Economic Review, 86 (1):202-206. Rosenberg, N. and Nelson, R., 1996. "The roles of the universities in advance of industrial technology", in R. S. Rosenbloom and W. J. Spencer (eds.), Engines of Innovation, Havard Business School Press, Cambreidge, M.A. Saviotti, Pier, 1996. Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy, Edward Elgar, UK. Saxenian, Annalee, 1994. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Schaettgen, Martin and Werp, Rudiger, 1996. Good Practice in the Transfer of University Technology to Industry, European Commission, EIMS Publication, 26 (2). Smith, Keith, 1997."Economic infrastructures and innovation systems", in C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Institutions and Organisations,. London, Pinter: 1-35. Tsipouri, Lena, 1996. "Experiences from science parks in the less favoured regions of Europe." In RTD Potential in the Mezzogiorno of Italy: The Role of Science Parks in a European Perspective eds. G. Gaetano and H. Logue. Brussels, European Commission, DG XII: 61-67. Varga, Attila, 1997. Regional Economic Effects of University Research: A Spatial Economic Perspective, PhD. Dissertation, West Virginia University, UMI microform edition. Veloso, Francisco, 1998. "Infraestruturas tecnológicas: para além da intrface universidade-indústria", in P. Conceição, D. Durão, M. Heitor and F. Santos (eds.), Novas Ideias para a Universidade, Lisboa , IST Press. Webster, A., 1994. "international evaluation of academic-industry relations: contexts of analysis", Science and Public Policy, 21(2): 72-78.
17
