Evolving geographies of innovation: existing paradigms, critiques and possible alternatives

ABSTRACT

Theory development on the geographies of innovation has been very successful in incorporating the changing patterns of knowledge dynamics due to globalization, lifting the gaze beyond processes of localized learning and increasingly acknowledging the multilevel, multiscalar governance of innovation. Arguably less attention has been directed to the changing qualities and impacts of innovation as a result of globalization, notably in view of social polarization and climate change. The aim of the article is to provide suggestions for how research on the geography of innovation can be improved by engaging with a more capacious understanding of innovation and territorial development. The authors explore how socio-ecological innovation can be introduced in contemporary discussions and practices of place-based smart specialization policy. They conclude by suggesting that future research should address and interrogate (1) the rise of the foundational economy as an expression of place-based innovation, which entails new forms of co-governance, and (2) the challenge of experimentalism in the public sector, a sector that looms large in lagging regions and the places that were deemed not to matter until they took their revenge on the mainstream political system.

KEYWORDS:

• experimentalism
• foundational economy
• innovation
• smart specialization

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for comments from two reviewers, Guest Editor Jan Hesselberg, Editor-in-Chief Kerstin Potthoff, Bjørn Asheim, Robert Hassink, Brendan Gleeson, and Teis Hansen. Lars Coenen gratefully acknowledges financial support from the City of Melbourne and the Department of Jobs, Precincts and Regions, State of Victoria, Australia.

Notes

1 Related to this discussion, the traditional geography of innovation literature, until fairly recently and not withstanding an early warning by Lundvall (1996) has been more or less quiet on the uneven distribution of costs and benefits of innovation (e.g. Dahl 2011; Breau et al. 2014; Florida & Mellander 2016).