Constructing advantage in the Cradle Coast region, Tasmania: knowledge partnering as a regional development platform approach

Abstract

The literature on regional innovation systems (RIS) highlights that the localized social and institutional contexts of knowledge production matter for economic success. For less‐advantaged regions, this raises a practical methodological challenge: how to construct platforms for regional innovation from the ground up? This paper discusses how a university working in a geographically and economically peripheral Australian region, the Cradle Coast region of Tasmania, has addressed this challenge, using insights from regional development platform method (RDPM). This work has demonstrated the difficulties of applying RDPM in a context where regional development actors lack strong structural, relational and cognitive ties. An approach called knowledge partnering has been used to overcome ‘connectivity deficits’ and bring regional actors together around issues of common concern. The local university has played a key role in this process. For policy‐makers, this process illustrates how universities can work with regions to catalyse regional development outcomes.

Social enterprises as local development actors

“…This article presents a case study of the Tasmanian social enterprise sector over the period October 2010–June 2012. It is based on the findings of the Tasmanian Social Enterprise Study (Eversole and Eastley, 2011) and action research accompanying the emerging Tasmanian social enterprise sector from the time of the publication of the study in May 2011 to June 2012. Overall, this work sought to understand whether ‘social enterprises’ were present in any number in the Tasmanian context and if so, their key characteristics, activities, and the roles they sought to play in addressing Tasmania’s social and economic issues.…”

“…A number of social enterprises derived more than 90% of their income from trade, while a few were not yet generating income; the majority were somewhere in between. Their markets were local, statewide, national, and in a few cases, international (Eversole and Eastley 2011: 21–38).…”

“…… Social enterprises in the Arts and Recreation Services industry ( n = 45) also serve young people (56%), people with disabilities (49%), families (44%), and remote or rural communities (44%). (Eversole and Eastley, 2011: 43–44)A further finding was that, even within a single Australian cultural and regulatory context, these social enterprises did not share any single organisational form or legal structure. Organisations calling themselves social enterprises, and meeting the definition of mission-led organisations that trade, included incorporated associations, companies limited by guarantee, sole proprietorships, cooperatives, and a number of other legal forms that are found across the broader Tasmanian context (Eversole and Eastley, 2011: 25).…”

“…(Eversole and Eastley, 2011: 43–44)A further finding was that, even within a single Australian cultural and regulatory context, these social enterprises did not share any single organisational form or legal structure. Organisations calling themselves social enterprises, and meeting the definition of mission-led organisations that trade, included incorporated associations, companies limited by guarantee, sole proprietorships, cooperatives, and a number of other legal forms that are found across the broader Tasmanian context (Eversole and Eastley, 2011: 25). As has been documented elsewhere (Barraket et al., 2010: 26, 37), legal structure is not a good predictor of social enterprise status in Australia; rather, the legal structures used by social enterprise overlap with those of private companies and of not-for-profit organisations.…”

“…Among the enterprises 60% had part-time paid employees, and 57% had volunteers. Some had only paid workers, some only volunteers, and some relied on a combination of both (Eversole and Eastley, 2011: 40–41).…”