Innovation in the Periphery: A Critical Survey and Research Agenda

Abstract

Scholars of the geography of innovation have produced an impressive body of literature over the last decades. However, until recently this research focused on successful core regions, implicitly assuming that there is no innovation in peripheral areas. This view is being increasingly questioned, which is reflected by a rising number of papers, special issues, and edited volumes on innovation outside of agglomerations. Hence, this rapidly emerging field calls for a critical survey. In order to identify a future research agenda, this article conducts a systematic literature review of the work on innovation in the periphery (1960-2016). As such, it explores the recurring themes and key issues of the field and discusses the various periphery concepts applied, ranging from a geographic to a functional perspective on various scales. In doing so, it outlines options for policy makers and suggests avenues for future research: first, the periphery concept needs more refinement. Second, future studies should include systematic comparisons of regions. Third, an evolutionary perspective might provide new insights. Fourth, future work could explore the benefits peripheries offer for certain kinds of innovation. Fifth, urban-rural linkages might be of higher relevance than assumed. Sixth, research should go beyond the well-known examples. Finally, the analysis could be extended by applying a broader understanding of innovation.

Diverse diversities—Open innovation in small towns and rural areas

“…Borrowing from Phelps (2012), Shearmur (2017), Eder (2018) and others, we suggest that innovation can, and does, occur in many different types of places, and, in particular, in places that do not benefit from the diversity and density usually understood as prerequisites for local innovation processes to emerge (Florida et al, 2017;Jacobs, 1969). Borrowing from Phelps (2012), Shearmur (2017), Eder (2018) and others, we suggest that innovation can, and does, occur in many different types of places, and, in particular, in places that do not benefit from the diversity and density usually understood as prerequisites for local innovation processes to emerge (Florida et al, 2017;Jacobs, 1969).…”

“…In the light of this bias, the way innovation processes are conceived-as they relate to geographic space-requires rethinking. Borrowing from Phelps (2012), Shearmur (2017), Eder (2018) and others, we suggest that innovation can, and does, occur in many different types of places, and, in particular, in places that do not benefit from the diversity and density usually understood as prerequisites for local innovation processes to emerge (Florida et al, 2017;Jacobs, 1969). For this suggestion to be compatible with the literature that documents urban processes of innovation, it follows that innovation processes must vary according to location, and that some do not call upon local density and diversity in the way that is observed in dense urban cores.…”

“…It has recently been argued, however, that this tendency now amounts to a bias (Shearmur, 2017). The existence of this bias does not mean that processes associated with density and buzz do not occur: rather, it means that the way innovation processes have been portrayed and understood from a geographic perspective has systematically emphasized the role of urban cores and has, by omission (see, e.g., Florida et al, 2017), suggested they do not occur in peri-urban, small town, and rural contexts (Eder, 2018;Fitjar & Rodríguez-Pose, 2017;Phelps, 2012;Shearmur, 2017).…”

Innovation in the periphery: Compensation and exploitation strategies

“…Scholarly work on the geography of innovation has tended to focus on core regions, clusters, and the virtues of agglomeration for many decades (Shearmur, ). Over the past few years, an emerging body of literature has begun to challenge this geographic bias by analysing innovation processes in peripheral regions on different scales (for a recent review see Eder, ; Isaksen & Karlsen, ; Shearmur, ). There is a growing awareness that firms in a peripheral setting also innovate, albeit that their innovation processes are diverse and differ from those of their urban counterparts (Isaksen, ; Rodríguez‐Pose & Wilkie, ; Shearmur, ).…”

The geography of socio‐technical transitions: Transition–periphery dynamics

“…These advantages have been discussed by Grabher () where peripherality is noted as being a “deliberate choice” in the context of an architectural movement in Austria that used its peripherality as a shield mechanism for creativity from external “mainstream pressures.” Although peripheries are often considered to be categorised as having a lack of innovation, and therefore being likely not to be a location for niches to protect radical innovations, a literature review by Eder () on innovation in peripheries found this categorisation of lack of innovation to be the case simply because the focus had been on “successful” core areas. However, there have been a number of recent papers that focus on different types of innovation in peripheral settings, and the preconditions for this activity (Eder, ; Shearmur, ). Shearmur () argues that the study of innovation's geography has been dominated by empirical evidence that has had an urban bias, which in turn corroborates theory that is also urban biased.…”