SPACE AND LEARNING INKNOWLEDGE ECONOMY 2.0

Dr. Roel RuttenTilburg University

ICID Conference, The Hague, The Netherlands, 12-14 September 2013

MAPPING KNOWLEDGE AND LEARNING

Innovation Scoreboard 2012© Eurostat

R&D expenditure as % of GDP (2011); EU 27 = 2.01< 0.50

0.50 – 1.00

1.00 – 2.00

2.00 – 3.00

> 3.00

not available© Eurostat

SPACE AND LEARNING• Main question

– Why are some regions better at innovation than others?– Differences in regional economic development

• Territorial Innovation Models (TIM) literature– Dominant since early 1990s– Endogenous regional development

• Regional knowledge base• Regional innovation networks• Regional social capital• Regional labour market• Regional supply of venture capital• Regional innovation policy

• However, since early 1990s– Economy has changed– Conceptual understanding of economy has changed

• Objective of SDIN– Develop more sophisticated understanding of relation space and learning

NOORD BRABANT EXAMPLE

CHANGES IN ECONOMY

Knowledge Economy 1.0 Knowledge Economy 2.0

Mobile phones, Email, Internet Connected divices

Global firms Global individuals

Emerging markets Global economy, various economic ‘blocs’

Technological innovation CreativityMorphing of manufacturing and servicesDigitization production of goods, services

Production systems of flexible regional networks

Global value chains

Welfare state Knowledge haves – Knowledge have nots

EVOLUTIONAND

INSTITUTIONS

EMBEDDEDNESSAND

SOCIAL CAPITAL

THE LEARNINGORGANIZATION

NETWORKS ANDRESOURCE

DEPENDENCY

INDUSTRIALDISTRICTS

tacitness of knowledge

organizational characteristics affect learning

social interaction,customs, routines

mobilizing internal and external

resources

knowledge as critical resource

learning as organized process

agglomeration economies

shared norms and values; strong and

weak ties

institutions facilitating innovation

social and institutional

proximity

overlapping regional social and

professional networks

regional institutions

path dependent development

regional knowledge base

premium on localized learning

localbuzz

INNOVATION AND LEARNING IN INTER-FIRM NETWORKS

governancechoices

CONCEPTUAL PROGRESS (I)

• Tacitness of knowledge– Knowledge is context dependent rather than tacit/ codified– Tacit knowledge conflates contextuality and complexity

• Learning organization– Learning as bottom-up process in communities of individuals

rather than formally organized in organizations– From firm to individual as principal agent of learning

• Networks and resource dependence– From dependency on regional knowledge base to spatially

much more complex network configurations– Local buzz and global pipelines (Bathelt et al. 2004)

CONCEPTUAL PROGRESS (II)

• Institutions and evolution– Institutions affect innovation in networks– Whose institutions? Why are they local?

• Embeddedness and social capital– Different social capital in different networks, no regional social

capital (Malecki 2012)• Industrial districts

– From regions as bounded territory to places as spaces of opportunity

• Recent developments– Relational turn: agents and their relations rather than regions

as bounded territory with particular attributes as object of analysis

CHANGED CONCEPTUALIZATION

Knowledge Economy 1.0 Knowledge Economy 2.0

Knowledge Tacit and codified Contextual

Agent of learning Firms Individuals

Process of learning Hierarchically organized in firms

Bottom-up in communities of individuals

Proximity Spatial proximity, co-location of firms

Relational and cognitive proximity of indivuduals

Social context Regional-based social capital

Community-based social capital, places host multiple communities

Space Bounded territory, regional production systems

Places of opportunity in global space

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

• Who are the agents that are referred to in the observation that agents and their relations are the object of analysis?

• How are these agents and their relations connected to space?

• How are the institutions, social capital and norms and values shaping these relations connected to space?

AN INDIVIDUAL PERSPECTIVE

• Individuals as agents of innovation– Innovation (KE 2.0) a function of the number of ‘conversations’ that are

going on– Conversation: exchange of ideas and knowledge creation within and

between professional and social communities of individuals

• Individuals are spatially sticky to where they live and work– Spatially sticky: connected but not confined to a particular place– Most professional and social interactions in ‘home region’

• Spatially sticky individuals– Have spatially sticky relations– Are shaped by spatially sticky institutions, social capital, norms and

values– Are part of multiple and overlapping professional and social

communities– Communities on various spatial scales

FUNCTION OF PLACE (I)

• Space of opportunities– Enable individuals to engage in multiple ‘conversations’– Attract, bind and connect people, offer diversity

• ‘Traditional’ amenities– (Digital) infrastructure for global connection– Host knowledge centres as entry points of ‘global

pipelines’– Offer interesting job/ career opportunities

FUNCTION OF PLACE (II)

• Jacobs/Florida amenities– Cultural amenities: meeting point of professional and social

communities– Environmental amenities: quality of life– Architectural amenities: draw in a diversity of people, invite them

to meet– Socio-cultural diversity: contributes to the number of

‘conversations’ and encourages openness for new ideas

• Host diverse professional and social communities– More opportunities for ‘conversations’– Exposure to diverse institutions, social capital and norms and

values of different communities equips individuals with ‘social language’ and ‘relational skills’ to engage in ‘conversations’ within and beyond home region.

IMPLICATIONS• Why are some places (rather than regions) better at innovation

than others?

• Combination of traditional (R&D) and social factors

• Different combinations of amenities may attract and bind people– No “one size fits all”– Uniqueness, authentic experience

• Global mosaic of places rather than hierarchy of regions

• Connectedness matters– Physical, digital, social– Increasing overlap