Embedding Stand-Alone, ‘Local Buzz’ and ‘Global Pipeline’ Firms; a Plea for a Less Traditional Regional Innovation Policy (original) (raw)

2006, ERSA conference papers

This paper deals with regional innovation policy. After Porter (1990), this type of policy usually focuses on creating clusters of innovative firms. Many regions do not have clusters, however, let alone vibrant ones based on the co-evolution of business and institutional practices oriented towards innovation. Evidence from the Utrecht, Gooi en Eemland region in the Netherlands (Atzema and Visser 2005b) indicates that it is not necessary to have clusters to stimulate regional innovation. This is interesting from the point of view of other European regions lacking clusters and/or suffering from an 'innovation paradox', as is the case for the region under review. The Utrecht, Gooi and Eemland region region lodges large numbers of 'creative' people (cf. Florida 2002) but simultaneously underperforms in traditional innovation measurements. It has no clear 'face' in terms of innovation, due to a series of factors: the embryonic state of clustering in but a few subsectors, the mostly social and informal nature of network ties between entrepreneurs and other actors at the regional level, the international level at which much innovation-oriented networking takes place, the lack of connections between these networks at different spatial scales, the type of innovation (client-oriented, creative, non-technical and combined forms of innovation, translated into change management and new practices of client firms), and the innovation strategies of firms, which fit with the three channels explained by Bathelt et al. (2004): seeking and combining international knowledge with one's own (constructing 'global pipelines'), strengthening regional ties, contact and identity ('local buzz'), and relying on one's own resources for innovation ('stand aloners'). From a viewpoint of regional innovation policy, the challenge is to connect these three categories of firm strategies. Such can be done in several ways. One is to use the abundant social capital in the region, strengthening the economic relevance of existing regional networks by constructing national and in some cases indeed 'global pipelines'. The second is to display leadership and to formulate a 'community argument' for innovation, dealing with three sub questions: why must I innovate, interact, and do so at different spatial scales? This is to steer the available 'local buzz' towards innovation and enhance its economic relevance. The third is to correct for the policy myopia on clusters. The price we pay for the Porterian approach to competitiveness and innovation is that a significant number of firms individually engaging in innovation efforts tend to be neglected. As they do not participate in 'global pipeline' and 'local buzz' processes, they do not enrich nor benefit from these processes, may relatively easily leave the region once required, and may be less effective in terms of the speed and effectiveness of innovation. A more inclusive regional innovation policy may prevent this to happen.