Advertisement

Evolutionary Complexity Geography and the Future of Regional Innovation and Growth Policies

  • Philip CookeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

This chapter reviews some key conceptual and practical barriers that have hampered territorial economic development prospects in most advanced countries for some time. It is argued in the paper that influential development thinkers and policy organisations, supranational (UNIDO; World Bank; EU) as well as national and regional became wedded in an unholy alliance of neoclassical economic dogma and neoliberal policy ideology during the period from approximately 1980 to the 2008 global financial crash and beyond to the time of writing (2015). In outline, neoclassical dogma stressed the virtues of spatial ‘specialisation’ as an economic development virtue. The heart of this perspective with its claimed inheritance from Marshall to Arrow to Romer coalesced in the nowadays nearly ubiquitous spatial policy image if not always the reality of “clusters”. The neoliberal accompaniment was that “efficient markets” were superior allocation mechanisms to markets shaped by policies to overcome “market failure”, “adverse selection”, and so-called “agency” problems. The great escape from such cognitive and policy “lock-in” involves demonstration in conceptual and many comparative empirical studies that regional knowledge and innovation flows were no longer, if they ever had been, vertical, linear and cumulative but horizontal, variegated and combinative. In this brief review evolutionary economic geography (EEG) is refashioned as evolutionary complexity geography (ECG) which, with acknowledgement to recent resilience issues, is grounded by reference to exemplars of transversality, which is the name for innovation and knowledge flows policy that overcomes the cognitive and policy lock-ins described above.

Keywords

Evolutionary economic geography (EEG) Complexity geography (ECG) Resilience Transversality Specialisation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The following colleagues assisted me with background information and advice in composing this chapter. In Sweden, Lennart Svenssen, Arne Eriksson, Carin Dahl, Helina Nilsson. In Italy, Marco Marchese, Jonathan Potter. In Portugal, Vitor Corrado Simoes, Artur da Rosa Pires, Ana Rita Cruz, Hugo Pinto Antonio Ramos Teresa Jorge, Alexandra Rodrigues, Jorge Brandão, Alexandre Almeida and Rui Montero. All are thanked and the usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Arthur, B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, B. (2009). The nature of technology. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., & Orsenigo, L. (2010). In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy, 39, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapain, C., Cooke, P., De Propris, L., MacNeill, S., & Mateos-Garcia, J. (2010). Creative clusters and innovation: Putting creativity on the map. London: NESTA.Google Scholar
  5. Cooke, P. (2012). Relatedness, transversality and public policy in innovative regions. European Planning Studies, 20(11), 1889–1907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke, P. (Ed.). (2013). Reframing regional development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Cooke, P. (2016). Four minutes to four years: The advantage of recombinant over specialised innovation – RIS3 versus “smartspec”. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1494–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooke, P., & Schwartz, D. (2008). Regional knowledge economies: An UK-EU and Israel perspective. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 99, 178–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke, P., De Laurentis, C., MacNeill, S., & Collinge, C. (2010). Platforms of innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. David, P. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  11. Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S., & Venkataranam, S. (2004). The economic implications of exaptation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FCT. (2013). An analysis of the Portuguese research and innovation system: Challenges, strengths and weaknesses towards 2020. Lisbon: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia/National Research Council.Google Scholar
  13. Felsenstein, D. (2011). Human capital and labour mobility determinants of regional innovation. In P. Cooke, B. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D. Schwartz, & F. Tödtling (Eds.), The handbook of regional innovation & growth (pp. 119–131). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analysis. Global Environmental Change, 16, 253–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frenken, K. (2006). Innovation, evolution & complexity theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 1–38). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Geels, F. (2007). Analysing the breakthrough of rock ‘n’ roll (1930–1970): Multi-regime interaction and reconfiguration in the multi-level perspective. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 74, 1411–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grabher, G. (Ed.). (1993). The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gunderson, L., & Holling, C. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hughes, T. (1977). Edison’s method. In W. Pickett (Ed.), Technology at the turning point (pp. 5–22). San Francisco: San Francisco Press Inc.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, J. (1961). The death & life of great American cities. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  22. Janowicz-Panjaitan, M., & Noorderhaven, N. (2009). Trust, calculation and interorganizational learning of tacit knowledge: An organizational roles perspective. Organization Studies, 30, 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, M. (2010a). Seizing the white space. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, S. (2010b). Where good ideas come from. New York: Riverhead.Google Scholar
  26. Kauffman, S. (2008). Reinventing the sacred. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  27. Kline, S., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy (pp. 275–305). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kroll, H. (2015). Efforts to implement smart specialization in practice – Leading unlike horses to the water. European Planning Studies.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2014.1003036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krugman, P. (1991). Cities in space: Three simple models (NBER working paper 3607). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  30. Krugman, P. (1995). Development, geography & economic theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, R. (2010). The Roepke lecture in economic geography – Rethinking regional path dependence: Beyond lock-in to evolution. Economic Geography, 86, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6, 395–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2010). The place of path dependence in an evolutionary perspective on the economic landscape. In R. Boschma & R. L. Martin (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary economic geography (pp. 62–92). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory & underdeveloped regions. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  36. Nunes, S., & Lopes, R. (2015). Firm performance, innovation modes and territorial embeddedness. European Planning Studies, 23(9).  https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1021666 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nystrom, G., Razaq, A., Strømme, M., Nyholm, L., & Mihranya, A. (2009). Ultrafast, all-polymer, paper-based batteries. Nano Letters, 9, 3635–3639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Page, S. (2007). The difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pisano, G., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 86, 78–86.Google Scholar
  40. Rosenstein-Rodan, P. (1943). Problems of industrialisation of eastern and south-eastern Europe. Economic Journal, 53, 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schumpeter, J. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Scott, A. J. (2008). Social economy of the metropolis: Cognitive-cultural capitalism and the global resurgence of cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shirky, C. (2010). Here comes everybody. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  44. Strambach, S. (2010). Knowledge-intensive business services. In P. Cooke et al. (Eds.), Platforms of innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  45. Veblen, T. (1898). Why is economics not an evolutionary science. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 12, 373–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Villani, M., & Ansaloni, L. (2010). A theory-based dynamical model of exaptive innovation processes. In P. Ahrweiler (Ed.), Innovation in complex social systems. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  47. Vrba, E., & Gould, S. (1982). Exaptation – A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mohn Centre for Innovation & Regional DevelopmentWestern Norway University of Applied SciencesBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations