https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6603-6370
ABSTRACT
The regional development studies community increasingly focuses on the significance of agency when investigating why some regions or cities develop better or worse than others. Undoubtedly, this line of research increases our understanding of the relations and interplay between human actions and socially produced structures. The articles in this special issue follow this research agenda by focusing on purposeful and meaningful efforts by human actors to promote regional development in their parts of the world. This editorial identifies the reasons for the increased body of literature on agency in regional development and introduces the main lessons of the special issue.
KEYWORDS:
JEL:
1. WHY FOCUS ON HUMAN AGENCY?
The regional development studies community increasingly considers the significance of agency when working to reveal the secrets of local and regional development. It is believed that by better linking actors to structural issues, we can illuminate why some regions develop better (or worse) than others. Of course, it would be an utter simplification to argue that agency has been completely neglected in a study of cities and regions. We should cherish, not forget the work of, for example, sociologists C. Wright Mills (Mills, Citation1956/2000), John Logan and Harvey Molotch (Logan & Molotch, Citation1987). or our colleagues, for example, Kevin Morgan (Morgan, Citation1997), Phillip Cooke and Morgan (Citation1998) and Michael Parkinson (Parkinson, Citation1985). However, the theories, policies and practices of the 2000s have led us to ask both old and new questions about agency to identify the variants and invariants of city and regional development. Furthermore, not forgetting the obvious, the interest in human agency differentiates the social sciences from the sciences.
Hassink et al. (Citation2019) summarise the emerging trend by arguing that we must take steps to better understand the critical roles actors play at different levels, acknowledging both local and non-local sources and influences on regional development. They also argue that we should examine how various actors’ expectations shape developmental paths instead of focusing on structures or path dependencies (p. 1637). Consequently, studies on human agency investigate the processes of acting and the related roles and positions of actors or their functions. Giddens (Citation1984/2007, p. 9) relates agency directly to an individual actor by saying, ‘[W]hatever happened would not have happened if that individual had not intervened.’ We do not push that far but are interested in the capacity of individuals, groups and organisations to act intentionally and meaningfully for their regions and the implications of their actions (Gregory et al., Citation2009). In the words of Garud et al. (Citation2010), we seek to identify ‘mindful deviations’ by actors and are interested in the causal power of human agency in explaining temporally sequenced events (Sotarauta & Grillitsch, Citation2023).
Regional development scholars have responded well to the call to integrate agency into contemporary targets of interest: Isaksen et al. (Citation2019) highlight system- and firm-level agency. Huggins and Thompson (2019) elaborate on the behavioural principles of agency. Benner (Citation2022) argue for more studies on agency-driven transformative episodes within evolving or stable structural contexts, and Jolly et al. (Citation2020) and Sotarauta et al. (Citation2022) analyse the changing roles of agency over time. Moulaert et al. (Citation2016) present a model that integrates agency, structures, institutions and discourse (ASID model). Beer et al. (Citation2023) combine the theory of the trinity of change agency constructed by Grillitsch et al. (2020), with Moulaert et al.’s (Citation2016) ASID model, producing a three-dimensional model of place-based industrial strategies and economic trajectories. Notably, a new generation of ‘agentic scholars’ is surfacing, prepared to challenge established theories and models (e.g., Bækkelund, Citation2021; Gong et al., Citation2022; Grootens, Citation2019; Kurikka, Citation2022; Miörner, Citation2022; Nieth, Citation2019).
Drawing on the literature and the eight articles published in this special issue, we identify four interrelated reasons for studying human agency in regional development:
We should construct theories reaching beyond idiosyncratic particularities of development trajectories, the sole purpose being to generate theories specifying the generic causes of structural changes in regions. Therefore, we need to connect human agency both theoretically and methodologically to structural changes.
We should reveal the similarities and differences in patterns of human agency in different places and times. Correspondingly, we should learn what actors do (or do not) for their cities and regions, that is, what happens beyond formal policies, in a particular policy context or mixes of them. In this way, we can reveal the unknown and to understand hidden processes that change structures.
We should provide additional knowledge on the many existing theories and policy models. It is elemental to provide a new lens to what is known.
Along with the endless stream of policy recommendations, we should provide policymakers with something more nuanced and specific. We can do this by improving our contribution by better answering ‘how’ questions alongside the ‘why’ and ‘what’ questions, thus improving regional development capacity at all levels.
The regional development studies community is well positioned to face the challenge outlined above. Next, drawing on the special issue’s eight articles, we briefly discuss the four reasons to study agency and show how they contribute to these issues.
2. WHAT DID WE LEARN?
2.1. Connections between agency and structures are to be searched for
Regional development studies relying on and developing structural explanations is well positioned to provide a distinctive contribution to the study of human agency by linking it theoretically and methodologically to structural changes – all with great sensitivity to the context with an ambition to reveal the general causal powers of human agency (causation) and its idiosyncratic patterns (formation) (Rutzou & Elder-Vass, Citation2019). A purely structural analysis would deal with how structures privilege some regions over others and see regional development outcomes as products of structures. A purely agency-oriented study would examine regions as constructed through a myriad of social practices and processes (Lagendijk, Citation2007, p. 1194). To improve our capacity to study the interactions between agency and structures, instead of selecting one above the other, we must take pains to clarify meta-theoretical commitments, elaborate middle-range theories and experiment with a variety of methods (Sotarauta & Grillitsch, Citation2023). All the articles in this special issue follow, in their own ways, these lines of thinking.
While the rapidly emerging literature on agency, including the articles of this special issue, has increased our understanding of what people do or fail to do for their regions, many scholars have faced challenges incorporating novel conceptual lenses in a discipline more accustomed to studying structures. The stream of studies focusing on agency has beyond any doubt paved the way to dig deeper on the complex relationship between structure and agency. Sotarauta and Grillitsch (Citation2023) remind us that the structures regional development scholars have studied are to quite large extent produced by people; they indeed are socially produced. For example, institutions, industries, global production networks, innovation systems or socio-technical systems, to name the most obvious suspects, are not emerging from thin air.
Weller and Beer (Citation2023, in this issue) analyse the distribution of actors’ capacities and powers, being defined by institutional arrangements, and show how the power of the state and organisational roles of actors limit actors’ choices and ways of influence. They conclude that regional studies have paid ‘insufficient attention to the limitations on agency arising from organisational positioning and the “top-down” assertion of state power’. Consequently, to better understand the place of agency in regional development, we need studies investigating bottom-up causation, consequences of human actions on socially produced structures. Equally, we need studies focusing on top-down causation revealing how structures condition patterns of agency. Furthermore, Hutchinson and Eversole (Citation2023, in this issue) introduce the concepts of ‘development logics’ and ‘room to manoeuvre’, which allow us to conceptualise ‘bottom-up’ path creation, thus serving well the reciprocal interaction dialogue between agency and structure. Drawing on their analysis in Australia, Weller and Beer (Citation2023, in this issue) emphasise the importance of ‘the strategy for restoring accumulation and institutional changes supporting it’. Crucially, they argue, ‘If the institutional changes offer no such promise, then their primary purpose lies more in legitimisation and the reproduction of state power than in the reinvigoration of the local economy.’ Hutchinson and Eversole (Citation2023, in this issue) point out that actors external to a locality or a region may enable but, in practice, often limit the local activities to leverage the assets they know and possess for boosting such forms of development they value.
Kurikka et al. (Citation2022, in this issue) search for ways to understand how structural factors condition how actors construct, perceive and exploit opportunities. By identifying the dimensions of social filters, which guide actors’ behaviour, they elaborate the concept of opportunity space, which, according to them, conceptually connects not only structure and agency but also the past and the future. Grillitsch et al. (Citation2023, in this issue) continue in these lines and investigate the interplay between structure and agency, using the qualitative comparative analysis method (QCA). They identify five routes along which industries evolve amidst structural preconditions and agency.
2.2. Hidden processes and mechanisms are to be unrevealed
The somewhat elusive nature of agency in regional development does not indicate low significance for it but rather its invisibility behind structures (Sydow et al., Citation2011). Therefore, one motivation among others in studying agency is to uncover hidden or concealed ways to influence the course of events and identify the development patterns not visible to a naked eye. Moreover, Hutchinson and Eversole (Citation2023, in this issue) underline the importance of revealing ‘the concealed whys of such influence’, the varying rationales and logics of development efforts. All the papers in this special issue accentuate processual analyses to investigate ‘hows’, ‘whos’ and ‘whys’ of regional development activities. Huggins & Thompson (Citation2023, in this issue) aim to provide policymakers and practitioners with insights to better understand whether ‘they possess hidden human behavioural strengths’. Furthermore, as Blažek and Květoň (Citation2023, in this issue) observe, the soft factors – for example, leadership capabilities and roles of various actors and their visions – have not been paid adequate attention. These have often remained ‘hidden’ beneath structures, formal institutions and policies.
Crucially, as argued above, we should not take the independence of actor identities and interests for granted, as it would underplay the extent to which formal institutions frame and shape capacity to act and influence, strategies and tactics available to actors are limited (Weller & Beer, Citation2023, in this issue). One of the main purposes to study the hidden processes is to reveal what is the space for local/regional voluntaristic action in different times and places. It is safe to assume the room to manoeuvre varies from place to place (Hutchinson & Eversole, Citation2023, in this issue; Blažek & Květoň, Citation2023, in this issue). Suitner et al. (Citation2023, in this issue) argue that agency and social innovations are important for energy transitions. Empirically, they draw on two experiences in Austrian non-core regions and demonstrate how resources, relationships and reflexivity enable actors to promote social innovation for sustaining energy transition. In a way, by identifying the local development logics and actions, Hutchinson and Eversole (Citation2023, in this issue) also reveal both the formal and fairly invisible mechanisms through which a place creates new paths or reinforces old ones. They also discuss how innovative entrepreneurs ‘create air’, thus widening their room to manoeuvre in response to forces that are beyond local control. Spaces with no air – defined by institutional constraints – are expressions of powerful agency.
2.3. New lenses to reconceptualise what is known are needed
Kurikka et al. (Citation2022, in this issue) show how it is possible to open a new lens for the investigation of known issues. They bring up the concept of an opportunity space and perceive it as a conceptual device bridging structure and agency. They end up concluding that we should not assume that opportunities are the same across places and time, while only agency and structures differ. Indeed, ‘to achieve long-term growth, a region must constantly seek new opportunities, without opportunities, there is no development’ (Kurikka et al., Citation2022, in this issue).
Another issue calling for additional analytical effort is the many roles of individual actors. It has been observed that the roles adopted by actors, the multiple positions they hold and their mobility between positions (across organisations and operational levels) are central targets of attention in understanding agency (Grillitsch, Citation2018; Suvinen, Citation2014). Wearing many hats and playing several roles, actors may pursue different types of agency. In this way actors aim to widen their space to manoeuvre (Hutchinson & Eversole, Citation2023, in this issue) and shift from organisational level to system level, and influence accordingly (Blažek & Květoň, Citation2023, in this issue). It may well be that various types of agency are best studied through analysing the influence of differing actor roles, instead of focusing on types of organisations of levels of agency. Importantly, as Weller & Beer (Citation2023, in this issue) remind us, we should not restrict our efforts to study agency only to those forms of agency we know and have studied previously. It might undermine our capacity to understand the complex interrelationship between agency and structure.
2.4. Local and regional development capacity is to be strengthened
Huggins & Thompson (Citation2023, in this issue) argue that human agency and networks may compensate for limited regional capacity when managing the economic complexity of innovation associated with new development paths. All the articles in this special issue, each in its own way, pave the way for strengthening local and regional capacity to act. This is central for policy formulation and implementation but also for identifying how to act on public policies or to find ways to promote development without a strong policy domain. Moreover, they show that the development capacity is based on a collective agency, strategically embracing and managing complexity (Huggins & Thompson, Citation2023, in this issue). This relevant for governments seeking to mobilise local and regional capacity by stimulating interaction between public and private actors (Horlings & Padt, Citation2011). Furthermore, related opportunity spaces appear different depending on the social positioning of actors, their room to manoeuvre shaping their operations (Hutchinson & Eversole, Citation2023, in this issue).
Regional leaders, side by side with other actors, are required to learn to steer and guide mixes of agents, networks and systems (Huggins & Thompson, Citation2023, in this issue), filled with people wearing multiple hats. All this reminds us of the importance of learning more about deliberate attempts to address socio-economic and ecological challenges (Suitner et al., Citation2023, in this issue) – the nature of key agents is central in identifying and strengthening the potential for transition.
3. A DISTINCT FORM OF AGENCY
Social scientists have extensively studied everything regarding human agency. On their part, regional development scholars are keen on studying highly networked and multi-scalar forms of agency, instead of primarily adopting single organisations as units of analyses. Castells (Citation2009, p. 13) describes our context by saying regions are ‘contradictory social structures enacted in conflicts and negotiations among diverse and often opposing social actors’. We need to continue elaborating the distinct nature of regional development agency in relation to many other disciplinary fields (e.g., business and political studies). Regional development studies relying on and developing structural explanations is well positioned to contribute to social sciences with a distinctive contribution by linking agency theoretically and methodologically to structural changes – all with great sensitivity to the context with an ambition to reveal the general causal powers of human agency (causation) and its idiosyncratic patterns (formation) (Rutzou & Elder-Vass, Citation2019). As Rekers and Stihl (Citation2021) argue, we still have plenty to do:
We think we know what a region needs to have, but we know far too little about how change processes to achieve these structural pre-conditions are initiated and implemented, and by whom. Why do some regions manage to change their development path, while others appear stuck in their story? There is a growing body of literature suggesting that the role of agency might hold answers to these questions.
(p. 89)
The special issue aims to raise the bar higher for future studies on agency. The articles show that actors bearing an influence on regional development may come from variety of directions. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the main issue is how to mobilise and align a heterogenous sets of actors. Working collectively for a locality or a region is not self-evident and mobilising the troops not a joyride, institutional arrangements framing agency in many ways. As the articles show, unlocking new regional development paths calls for institutional changes supporting it. Actors push for regional development and related institutional changes or navigate through the myriad of local and external influences. The need to scrutinise how to widen the room for action is as strong as ever. Perceiving, constructing and exploiting opportunity spaces may be dependent on these efforts. Finding solutions to tackle with climate change or speed energy transitions call for improved capacity to act. For these, and many other reasons it is of utmost importance to reveal the mechanisms and processes shaping interrelationships between agency and structures. We have not reached the end of the road yet. We need to build on existing typologies of agency but reach beyond their simplified messages. The time might be ripe to analyse more complex patterns of agency. In-depth empirical studies on agency have the potential to create nuanced understanding of societal change, reaching beyond structural or technological explanations. Regional development is strongly related to the visions, ambitions and capabilities of influential actors, significantly shaping regional development, and organisations being among the factors providing actors with adequate social positions.
Weller and Beer (Citation2023, in this issue) kick off the special issue by showing the limits of regional agency. They analyse the distribution of regional actors’ capacities and powers among regional actors, which are defined by the power of the state and the organisational roles of the actors. They compared two peripherally located, coal-dependent localities in Australia. They conclude by arguing that regional studies have paid ‘insufficient attention to the limitations on agency arising from organisational positioning and the “top-down” assertion of state power’. For their part, Huggins & Thompson (Citation2023, in this issue) argue that human agency and networks may compensate for limited regional capacity when managing the economic complexity of innovation associated with new development paths. Correspondingly, they introduced a behavioural framework to study human agency.
Grillitsch et al. (Citation2023, in this issue) draw on the theory of the trinity of change agency and extensive empirical data from Finland, Norway and Sweden and identify the combinations of agency types and context conditions enabling economic upgrading or diversification in less-favoured regions. Using the qualitative comparative analysis method (QCA), they identify five routes along which industries evolve. Blažek and Květoň (Citation2023, in this issue) integrate three conceptual frameworks to empirically study the evolutionary trajectories of two coal regions in Czechia. They reveal how development dynamics differ immensely, showing that agentic capacity may diverge notably in a relatively small country. Steen et al. (Citation2023, in this issue) show how the state enabled and directed path development in two of Norway’s defence-oriented high-tech manufacturing regions. The State of Norway shaped the localised asset modification and the strategic coupling of those assets with extra-regional defence-related and civilian markets.
Hutchinson and Eversole (Citation2023, in this issue) use the anthropology of development studies for research on the socio-cultural context of regional path development in a peripheral rural region, focusing on local agency. They draw on a qualitative case study of the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania, Australia. By identifying the regional development logics and actions in a particular context, they reveal the mechanisms through which a region creates new paths or reinforces old ones. Suitner et al. (Citation2023, in this issue) argue that social innovation is important for energy transitions. They scrutinise it from an agentic perspective. Empirically, they draw on two experiences of Austrian non-core regions and demonstrate how resources, relationships and reflexivity enabled actors to promote social innovation for sustaining energy transition. Kurikka et al. (Citation2022, in this issue) bring up the concept of an opportunity space and connect it with agency by maintaining that individual actors or groups of actors construct, perceive and utilise opportunity spaces. They perceive opportunity spaces as conceptual devices bridging structure and agency. They highlight their conceptual framework by drawing on six comparative case studies from Finland, Norway and Sweden.
Research on human agency in regional development undoubtedly increases our understanding of the relations and interplay between human actions and socially produced structures. This line of enquiry is built on the conviction that human agency is necessary to reproduce and transform structures. The articles published in the special issue follow this appreciation by focusing on purposeful and meaningful actions performed by human actors to promote regional development in their parts of the world. The growing body of work on the relationships between human agency and structures is an exciting ontological, theoretical and methodological programme in the making.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Funding
REFERENCES
- Bækkelund, N. (2021). Change agency and reproductive agency in the course of industrial path evolution. Regional Studies, 55(4), 757–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1893291
- Beer, A., Barnes, T., & Horne, S. (2023). Place-based industrial strategy and economic trajectory: Advancing agency-based approaches. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1947485
- Benner, M. (2022). Revisiting path-as-process: Agency in a discontinuity-development model. European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2061309
- Blažek, J., & Kveton, V. (2023). Towards an integrated framework of agency in regional development: The case of old industrial regions. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2054976
- Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
- Collinge, C., Gibney, J., & Mabey, C. (Eds.). (2010). Placing leadership Policy Studies, 31(4), 365–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442871003723226
- Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The associational economy: Firms, regions, and innovation. Oxford University Press.
- 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
- Giddens, A. (2007 [1984]). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press.
- Gong, H., Binz, C., Hassink, R., & Trippl, M. (2022). Emerging industries: Institutions, legitimacy and system-level agency. Regional Studies, 56(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2033199
- Gregory, D., Johnston, R., Pratt, G., Watts, M., & Wathmore, S. (2009). The dictionary of human geography. Wiley-Blackwell.
- Grillitsch, M. (2018). Following or breaking regional development paths: On the role and capability of the innovative entrepreneur. Regional Studies, 53(5), 681–691. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2018.1463436
- Grillitsch, M., Sotarauta, M., Asheim, B., Fitjar, R. D., Haus-Reve, S., Kolehmainen, J., Kurikka, H., Lundquist, K.-J., Martynovich, M., Monteilhet, S., Nielsen, H., Nilsson, M., Rekers, J., Sopanen, S., & Stihl, L. (2023). Agency and economic change in regions: Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to identify routes to new path development. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2053095
- Grootens, G. M. (2019). Leadership of peripheral places: A comparative study of leadership processes in Estonian and Dutch peripheral places (Dissertationes Rerum Oeconomicarum Universitatis Tartuensis 65). Tartu University.
- Hassink, R., Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2019). Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies, 53(11), 1636–1645. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1566704
- Horlings, M., & Padt, F. (2011). Leadership for sustainable regional development in rural areas: Bridging personal and institutional aspects. Sustainable Development, 21(6), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.526
- Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2023). Human agency, network dynamics and regional development: The behavioural principles of new path creation. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2060958
- Hutchinson, R., & Eversole, R. (2023). Local agency and development trajectories in a rural region. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2108543
- 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
- Jolly, S., Grillitsch, M., & Hansen, T. (2020). Agency and actors in regional industrial path development. A framework and longitudinal analysis. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences, 111, 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.02.013
- Kurikka, H. (2022). Alueet ahdingossa: Aluetaloudellinen resilienssi suomessa. Tampere University Doctoral Dissertations, 546.
- Kurikka, H., Kolehmainen, J., Sotarauta, M., Nielsen, H., & Nilsson, M. (2022). Regional opportunity spaces – observations from Nordic regions. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2107630
- Lagendijk, A. (2007). The accident of the region: A strategic relational perspective on the construction of the region's significance. Regional Studies, 41(9), 1193–1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701675579
- Logan, J., & Molotch, H. (1987). Urban fortunes: The political economy of the place. University of California Press.
- Méndez-Picazo, M.-T., Galindo-Martin, M.-A., & Ribeiro-Soriani, D. (2012). Governance, entrepreneurship and economic growth. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10), 865–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.742323
- Mills, C. W. (2000 [1956]). The sociological imaginations. The 40th anniversary edition. Oxford University Press.
- Miörner, J. (2022). Contextualizing agency in new path development: How system selectivity shapes regional reconfiguration capacity. Regional Studies, 56(4), 592–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1854713
- Morgan, K. (1997). The regional animateur: Taking stock of the Welsh development agency. Regional and Federal Studies, 7(2), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597569708421006
- Moulaert, F., Jessop, B., & Mehmood, A. (2016). Agency, structure, institutions and discourse (ASID) in urban and regional development. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 20(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2016.1182054
- Nieth, L. (2019). Understanding the strategic ‘black hole’ in regional innovation coalitions: Reflections from the Twente region, eastern Netherlands. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2019.1578259
- Parkinson, M. (1985). Liverpool on the brink: One city’s struggle against government cuts. Policy Journals.
- Perkmann, M. (2007). Policy entrepreneurship and multilevel governance: A comparative study of European cross-border regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6), 861–879. https://doi.org/10.1068/c60m
- Rekers, J. V., & Stihl, L. (2021). One crisis, one region, two municipalities: The geography of institutions and change agency in regional development paths. Geoforum, 124, 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.05.012
- Rutzou, T., & Elder-Vass, D. (2019). On assemblages and things: Fluidity, stability, causation stories, and formation stories. Sociological Theory, 37(4), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275119888250
- Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
- Sotarauta, M., & Grillitsch, M. (2023). Path tracing in the study of agency and structures: Methodological considerations. Progress in Human Geography, 47(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325221145590
- Sotarauta, M., Kurikka, H., & Kolehmainen, J. (2022). Change agency and path development in peripheral regions: From pulp production towards eco-industry in Lapland. European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2054659
- Sotarauta, M., & Pulkkinen, R. (2011). Institutional entrepreneurship for knowledge regions: In search of a fresh set of questions for regional innovation studies. Environment & Planning C: Government and Policy, 29(1), 96–112. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1066r
- Steen, M., Lund, H. B., & Karlsen, A. (2023). The role of state agency in path development: A longitudinal study of two Norwegian manufacturing regions. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2023.2195880
- Suitner, J., Haider, W., & Philipp, S. (2023). Social innovation for regional energy transition? An agency perspective on transformative change in non-core regions. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2053096
- Suvinen, N. (2014). Individual actors building an innovation network. In R. Rutten, P. Benneworth, D. Irawati, & F. Boekema (Eds.), The social dynamics of innovation networks (pp. 140–156). Routledge.
- Sydow, J., Lerch, F., Huxham, C., & Hibbert, P. (2011). A silent cry for leadership: Organizing for leading (in) clusters. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(2), 328–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.02.008
- Weller, S., & Beer, A. (2023). State structures and the limits of agency: Governing the transformation from coal in Australia. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2047918