Which region to choose for an industrial policy? A research path to highlight restructuring opportunities

References

• Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis (Vols. 135). New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Antonelli, C., Patrucco, P. P., & Quatraro, F. (2011). Productivity growth and pecuniary knowledge externalities: An empirical analysis of agglomeration economies in European regions. Economic Geography, 87(1), 23–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2010.01104.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balassa, B. (1965). Trade liberalisation and “revealed” comparative advantage. The Manchester School, 33(2), 99–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.1965.tb00050.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. L. (2018). Smart specialization policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. (2014). Constructing regional advantage and smart specialisation: Comparison of two European policy concepts. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 51–68. doi: 10.3280/SCRE2014-001004
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2016.1254767
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2012). Technological relatedness and regional branching. In H. Bathelt, M. P. Feldman, & D. F. Kogler (Eds.), Beyond territory. Dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion and innovation (pp. 64–81). Milton Park: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Gianelle, C. (2014). Regional branching and smart specialization policy. Publications office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Iammarino, S. (2009). Related variety, trade linkages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85(3), 289–311. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01034.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015). Innovation policy for grand challenges. An economic geography perspective. Geography Compass, 9(9), 483–496. doi: 10.1111/gec3.12231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dietzenbacher, E., & Los, B. (2002). Externalities of R&D Expenditures. Economic Systems Research, 14(4), 407–425. doi: 10.1080/0953531022000024860
   Google Scholar
• Fagerberg, J., Verspagen, B., & von Tunzelmann, G. N. (1994). The dynamics of technology, trade and growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Fitjar, R. D., & Timmermans, B. (2017). Regional skill relatedness: Towards a new measure of regional related diversification. European Planning Studies, 25(3), 516–538. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2016.1244515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation–the concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, 9(85), 100.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy, 41(10), 1697–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40, 35–41. doi: 10.2307/3033543
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, L. C., Borgatti, S. P., & White, D. R. (1991). Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13(2), 141–154. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(91)90017-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies, 41(5), 685–697. doi: 10.1080/00343400601120296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126. doi: 10.2307/270949
   Google Scholar
• Haig, R. M. (1927). Regional survey of New York and its environs. New York: Regional Planning Committee. (U.S.A.).
   Google Scholar
• Hoyt, H. (1961). The utility of the economic base method in calculating urban growth. Land Economics, 37(1), 51–58. doi: 10.2307/3159349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1969). The economy of cities. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Juvkam, D. (2002). Inndeling i bo- og arbeidsmarkedsregioner. Oslo: NIBR - Norsk institutt for by- og region-forskning. Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/kilde/krd/red/2004/0024/ddd/pdfv/176119-nibrrapport200220baregioner.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609–619. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klitkou, A., & Coenen, L. (2013). The emergence of the Norwegian solar photovoltaic industry in a regional perspective. European Planning Studies, 21(11), 1796–1819. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2012.753691
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, R. (2017). Cumulative causation, endogenous growth, and regional development. In International encyclopedia of geography: People, the earth, environment and technology (pp. 1–13). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781118786352.wbieg0702
   Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: A new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140–156. doi: 10.1080/13662716.2016.1146124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montresor, S., & Marzetti, G. V. (2009). Applying social network analysis to input-output based innovation matrices: An illustrative application to six OECD technological systems for the middle 1990s. Economic Systems Research, 21(2), 129–149. doi: 10.1080/09535310902940228
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., & Martin, B. R. (2010). Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Research Policy, 39(8), 1011–1023. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neffke, F., & Henning, M. (2013). Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 34(3), 297–316. doi: 10.1002/smj.2014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1-2), 69–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1009941416749
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2013). Innovation driven-growth in regions: The role of smart specialisation. Paris: OECD Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Pinheiro, F. L., Alshamsi, A., Hartmann, D., Boschma, R., & Hidalgo, C. J. (2018). Shooting low or high: Do countries benefit from entering unrelated activities?
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554–1567. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Norway. (2017a). External trade data (2004–2015) [database]. Oslo: Statistics Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics Norway. (2017b). Firm-linked AA-data: Full count register data of employees at all Norwegian firms (2008–2014) [database]. Oslo: Statistics Norway.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, A. N. (2014). Regional branching reconsidered: Emergence of the fuel cell industry in European regions. Economic Geography, 90(4), 403–427. doi: 10.1111/ecge.12055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New York: United Nations, Division for Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=2125&menu=1515
   Google Scholar
• Wanzenböck, I., & Frenken, K. (2018). The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head.
   Google Scholar
• Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change – combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037–1047. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar