Between bonding and bridging: Regional differences in innovative collaboration in Norway

Abstract

The objective of the article is to investigate innovation collaboration among firms in different types of regions in Norway. Informed by literature on innovation network and regional development, the authors examine whether firms in some regions participate more frequently in innovation collaboration than firms in other regions. They also discuss regional differences in type of innovation collaboration. The analysis is based on data from the Sixth Norwegian Community Innovation Survey (CIS), collected by Statistics Norway in 2008, which provided both descriptive statistics and could be used for logistic regression analysis. Key findings are that the likelihood of innovation collaboration is inversely related to region size, and innovation collaboration is especially prevalent among firms in rural regions. A further finding is that firms in rural regions are more involved in bridging linkages (collaboration with different type of actors) than firms in the capital and metropolitan regions. These differences are attributed to the 'organizational thinness' of rural regions, which indicate as lack of specific resources in the regions and therefore creates a need for external collaborators.

Innovation in the periphery: Compensation and exploitation strategies

“…Furthermore, firms located in such regions do not necessarily have more international ties (Rodríguez-Pose & Fitjar, 2013). Still, there is evidence that peripheral firms focus on formal collaboration to compensate for the lack of spontaneous regional knowledge exchange and local spill-overs (Dubois, 2015;Grillitsch & Nilsson, 2015;Jakobsen & Lorentzen, 2015). Consequently, the significance of high-level internal competence and extra-regional knowledge networks as well as global and virtual buzz is evident and is considered to be crucial for innovative activities in the periphery.…”

Is culture-led redevelopment relevant for rural planners? The risk of adopting urban theories in rural settings

“…This is not only because 'in Norway, local government is highly autonomous' (Hanssen and Falleth 2014, p. 404), but also because rural areas are normally associated with 'organizational thinness' (Jakobsen and Lorentzen 2015): the lack of institutions conducting research and providing education, few specialized suppliers of commercial services, and undeveloped financial infrastructures. The dominant role that the municipality plays in the overall development of rural areas (Normann and Vasström 2012) presents a challenge when putting theory into practice: it is not only challenging to transform general theories into local contexts, but the consequences may even be dire.…”

Do general innovation policy tools fit all? Analysis of the regional impact of the Norwegian Skattefunn scheme

“…This may be due to the generally high educational level in Norway, and that many firms cooperate with the large national universities and R&D institutes in innovation projects (Jakobsen and Lorentzen 2015). Then, the regional educational level does not determine the amount of R&D and innovation activity.…”

“…These regions are coded according to a centre-periphery dimension in a similar way to several other empirical studies in Norway, e.g. (Jakobsen and Lorentzen, 2015). The capital region of Oslo is the first category of regions, the next three largest urban regions (Bergen, Stavanger and Trondheim) make up the second category, medium-sized cities the third, smaller city regions the fourth and peripheral regions the fifth category.…”