This paper assesses legitimation as a crucial dimension of industry emergence, addressing the neglect of institutional and political aspects of path creation in economic geography. It investigates how the legitimacy of emerging industries is built up over time and examines differences in legitimation across space. The paper focuses on the evolution of legitimation narratives in the context of national and regional differences in institutions, actors and assets. Based on a cross-national study of the offshore wind industry, the paper argues that cost reduction and value creation have made important contributions to legitimation in addition to climate change and energy security.
Global aquaculture production has grown very rapidly in recent decades. This is largely due to a number of innovations that has increased the control with the production process and competitiveness. These innovations come in a number of forms from radical new concepts to knowledge adaption from the terrestrial food production system. While there exist a number of studies investigating the impact
The authors employ global production network (GPN) approach to analyse the development of the renewable energy sector. Through a case study of the development of a Hywind floating offshore wind project (Hywind) across two oil and gas economies, namely Norway and Scotland, the paper sheds light on the key drivers and role of core GPN actors. Methodologically, the authors investigate the process from both 'inside-out' and 'outside-in' perspectives, referring to the efforts of firms expanding into overseas markets and the efforts of host countries to attract investment from outside their territories. The analysis shows how the configuration of extractive production networks is shaped by the interactions between the network development practices of firms and the market development strategies of host states. The authors conclude that the distinct materiality of floating wind power technology shapes the territorial configuration of the 2 production network by enabling its spatial extension across a range of locations. By contrast, existing research on other extractive sectors has emphasized the spatially constraining effects of materiality (Bridge 2008).
The Global production networks (GPN) framework has been influential in the analysis of globally coordinated economic arrangements. However, research on GPNs tend to focus on a well-established industries and their existing governance structures with a very little attention to the temporality and changes in these networks and their governance structures. Specifically, despite the central role of 'lead-firms' in GPNs, the literature lacks a clear depiction of their competitive and evolutionary trajectory. In response, this paper is concerned with (re)opening the 'black-box' of firms and showing how lead-firms' strategies and practices shape the evolutionary dynamics of GPNs. The paper argues that changing lead firm strategies play a crucial role in shaping the evolution of GPNs, reflecting changes in the industrial and/or business and institutional environments. The paper investigates the Danish, multinational energy company, Ørsted, and discusses the importance of accounting for firm dynamic capabilities, i.e. intra-firm practices and extrafirm (evolutionary) dynamic drivers, in analytical frameworks that analyse GPN dynamics and industries. Lead-firm strategies are shaped by firm-specific capabilities, industryspecific competitive dynamics, and institutions. Accordingly, GPNs' evolutionary process can be understood as an adapting and/or response mechanism by lead-firms to changes in local and international business as well as multi-scalar institutional environments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.