Grenoble–GIANT Territorial Innovation Models: Are investments in research infrastructures worthwhile?

Abstract

Over the past decades, the EU heavily invested in Research Infrastructures (RI). What are the expected returns of such investments? In the present article we address the question of returns on public funds/public infrastructures. We consider the role of RI and universities from an economic, social, and entrepreneurial perspective from various Territorial Innovation Models (TIMs): (1) Italian industrial districts, (2) innovative milieus, (3) regional innovation systems, (4) new industrial spaces, and (5) regional clusters. We conducted our empirical study on Grenoble Isère Alpes Nanotechnologies (GIANT), which is composed of large scientific instruments, universities, and engineering and management schools. Our microeconomic methodology measured the socioeconomic and entrepreneurial effects of GIANT with respect to budget, employment, and spin-off generation. We contribute to the existing body of knowledge on TIMs by (1) comparing the long-term investments to the generation of wealth, the creation of employment, and the development of start-ups; (2) adding new insights to the debate opposing positive and negative impacts empirical studies; and (3) offering recommendations for the use of public resources. In our discussion, we compare the GIANT model as a very localized RI-university club to the Grenoble model as localized cluster.

Czech Machinery Cluster and Its Role in Sustainable Development of Moravian-Silesian Enterprises during the Post-Transformation Era

“…For the purpose of our research, the questionnaire survey method focusing on the level of relations between the entities associated in the Czech Machinery Cluster was selected. In accordance with the reasons presented by Scaringella and Chanaron [16], this form of research seemed to be the most appropriate and the most affordable way for our analysis. Moreover, the questionnaire survey proved to be a practical and cost-effective method.…”

“…Several systematic literature reviews on the territorial approach exist, including Scaringella and Radziwon [12], Moulaert and Sekia [13], Bell et al [14], Crescenzi and Rodríguez-Pose [15], and Scaringella and Chanaron [16]. It seems that Alfred Marshall was the first author who characterised clusters as a concentration of specialised industries in particular localities, which he termed industrial districts [17].…”

Towards Knowledge Exchange for Effective Innovation Support

“…There are a number of innovation frameworks; those of immediate relevance to this research are diagnostic in nature and explicitly relevant to digital innovation, including: Barbieri & Teixeira Álvares, 2016;Berkhout & Duin, 2004;Binz & Trufer, 2017;BSi, 2008;Carayannis et al, 2018;Scaringella & Chanaron, 2016;Chen et al, 2018;Gkypali et al, 2018;İzadi et al, 2013;Nylén & Holmström, 2014;Silviana, 2018. Specifically, Berkhout & Duin (2004, BSi (2008), and Nylén & Holmström (2014) each present an interesting range of perspectives: technology-cyclic, innovation management, and components of digital innovation, respectively.…”

A Study of RI Clusters Based on Symbiosis Theory

“…They began to notice the synergy effect between RIs and their surrounding organizations instead of just concentrating on different RIs in a cluster. Scaringella and Chanaron [9] conducted an empirical study on GIANT (including RIs, universities, and engineering and management schools) from aneconomic, social and entrepreneurial perspective. Based on the territorial models proposed by such geographical economists as Porter [16,17], Cooke [18], etc., the authors summarized various Territorial Innovation Models (TIMs): Italian industrial districts, innovative milieus, regional innovation system, new industrial spaces and regional clusters.…”