Industrial Innovation Collaboration in a Capital Region Context

Abstract

Oslo, Capital region, Innovation collaboration, Urbanization economies, R11, R58, 018, 031,

Interaction for Innovation: Comparing Norwegian Regions

“…Longitudinal studies focusing upon representa!ve samples of small and large firms need to be provided. In line with previous studies (Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013;Herstad et al, 2011), this study focused on regional difference in terms of innova!on in the Norwegian context. Future studies need to monitor the income extracted from implementa!on of innova!ons, as well as a broad array of innova!on outcome measures, and not solely the narrow measure rela!ng to the implementa!on of different types of innova!on.…”

“…However, several studies of Norwegian firms using different types of data have failed to find any significant difference between the Oslo metropolitan area and other Norwegian regions in terms of innova!on ac!vity in general Strand and Leydesdorff, 2013). Herstad et al (2011) study was that they considered innova!on ac!vity of Norwegian firms in general, and an interes!ng follow-up is to see how different pa'erns of collabora!on affect different types of innova!on. Florida (2002) argues that in this context highly educated, entrepreneurially oriented and innova!ve employees are important for growth and innova!on.…”

“…It can be assumed that there are more informal mee!ng arenas in the small regions or more heterogeneous forms of social capital. The Oslo and Akershus region scores lower in terms of coopera!on than other regions in Herstad et al (2011). On the other hand, a later Norwegian inves!ga!on of knowledge-intensive business services, found to be important facilitators in collabora!ve networks, highlights the central role of the capital region and the weak contexts found in many smaller city-regions (Herstad and Ebersberger, 2013).…”

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

“…It has been argued that firms in rural and less urbanized areas are more involved in innovation collaboration and seem to have developed a more open innovation model than firms in urban areas (Teirlinck & Spithoven 2008). Herstad et al (2011) found that location in the capital region reduced the likelihood of firms to be engaged in collaboration, while other reports show that innovation collaboration rates increase with the decreasing regional size (Isaksen & Onsager 2010).…”

“…A possible explanation for the regional pattern is that urban areas provide firms with a range of complementary knowledge inputs, in addition to potential innovation partners, whereas these types of resources are scarcer in rural areas (Herstad et al 2011). Consequently, firms in rural areas and 'thinner' regions need to establish extra-regional linkages and draw on larger innovation systems in order to overcome local resources constraints (Doloreux & Shearmur 2012;Ebersberger et al 2014).…”