Institutions and Innovation as Driving Forces Towards a Smart City and Sustainable Territorial Development

  • Sabrina AuciEmail author
  • Luigi MundulaEmail author
Part of the Studies on Entrepreneurship, Structural Change and Industrial Dynamics book series (ESID)


The aim of the chapter is the analysis of innovation and institution as key-elements for reaching a higher social welfare and for improving environmental quality. To determine a social optimum or a Pareto improvement, we consider the interaction between institution and firm in the short and in the medium/long run. Using a static comparative analysis, the interaction of these two agents, institution and market, is examined. Within the market an entrant and an incumbent firm are present, and the entrant firm radically innovates. Even if in the short run results show that the market alone is able to realize a Pareto improvement, an institution action through an innovation adoption is a preferable solution for gaining a higher social welfare equilibrium, both in the short and/or in the medium/long run. Our main results highlight that the strategic role of an innovating institution in each case considered consists in innovating towards green technology and in creating a competitive, attractive and environmentally sustainable milieu. From this point of view, technology innovation plays a central role in an economic and territorial development, orienting and optimizing the relationship between environmental and firm quality.


Innovation Institutions Competitiveness Smart and sustainable development 


  1. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2016). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). From online to ubiquitous cities: The technical transformation of virtual communities. In A. B. Sideridis & C. Z. Patrikakis (Eds.), Next generation society: Technological and legal issues (Proceedings of the third international conference, e-democracy 2009, Athens, Greece, Sep 23–25, 2009) (pp. 360–372). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Anthopoulos, L., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2005). The implementation model of a digital city. The case study of the digital city of Trikala, Greece: e-Trikala. Journal of E-Government, 2(2), 91–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengtsson, J., Angelstam, P., Elmqvist, T., Emanuelsson, U., Folke, C., Ihse, M., Moberg, F., & Nyström, M. (2003). Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 32(6), 389–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, C. R., & Glaeser, E. L. (2005). The divergence of human capital levels across cities. Papers in Regional Science, 84(3), 407–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blank, D. M., & Stigler, G. (1957). The demand and supply of scientific personnel. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, C. M. (1992). Exploring the limits of the technology S curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production and Operations Management, 1(4), 334–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law, and Economics, 3, l–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coccia, M. (2008). Investimento pubblico e privato in R&S: Complementarietà ed interazione con la crescita della produttività. Economia e Politica Industriale, 3, 127–154.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, A., & Schendel, D. (1976). Strategic responses to technological threats. Business Horizons, 19, 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elmqvist, T., Folke, C., Nyström, M., Peterson, G., Bengtsson, J., Walker, B., & Norberg, J. (2003). Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1(9), 488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Foster, R. (1986). Innovation: The attacker’s advantage, Summit Books. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Glaeser, E. L., & Redlick, C. (2009). Social capital and urban growth. International Regional Science Review, 32(3), 264–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hicks, J. R. (1939). Value and capital: An inquiry into some fundamental principles of economic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience versus ecological resilience. In P. C. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints (pp. 31–44). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  18. Levy, D., & Terleckyj, N. E. (1983). Effects of government R&D on private R&D investment and productivity: A macroeconomic analysis. Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 551–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lichtenberg, F. R. (1987). The effect of government funding on private industrial research and development: A re-assessment. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(1), 97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manca, A. R., Banczur, P., & Giovannini, E. (2017). Building a scientific narrative towards a more resilient EU society. Part 1: A conceptual framework. Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  21. Mazzucato, M. (2015). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London: Anthem Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on digital government research (pp. 282–291).Google Scholar
  23. Napolitano, M. R., & Riviezzo, A. (2008). The institutional education and training for entrepreneurship development in the Italian Universities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8(6), 665–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ng-Kruelle, G., Swatman, P., Hampe, F., & Rebne, D. (2002). Price of convenience: Dynamics of adoption attitudes and privacy sensitivity over time. CollECTeR, Melbourne, Australia, December, 1–2.Google Scholar
  25. Odendaal, N. (2003). Information and communication technology and local governance: Understanding the difference between cities in developed and emerging economies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(6), 585–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paine, R. T., Tegner, M. J., & Johnson, E. A. (1998). Compounded perturbations yield ecological surprises. Ecosystems, 1(6), 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Porter, M. E. (1998a). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, M. E. (1998b). On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  31. Samuelson, P. A. (1947). Enlarged ed., 1983. Foundations of economic analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage. Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Smit, A. J. (2010). The competitive advantage of nations: is Porter’s Diamond Framework a new theory that explains the international competitiveness of countries. Southern African Business Review, 14(1), 105–130.Google Scholar
  34. Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Penguin Random House.Google Scholar
  36. Varian, H. R. (2003). Analisi Microeconomica, trad. it. (ed. by) Ventura L., Venezia: Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
  37. Yigitcanlar, T., & McCartney, R. (2010). Strategising knowledge-based urban development: Knowledge city transformations of Brisbane, Australia. In Proceedings of the 14th International Planning History Society (IPHS) conference (pp. 12–15).Google Scholar
  38. Yovanof, G. S., & Hazapis, G. N. (2009). An architectural framework and enabling wireless technologies for digital cities & intelligent urban environments. Wireless Personal Communications, 49(3), 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and International RelationsUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations