Innovation networks and green restructuring: Which path development can EU Framework Programmes stimulate in Norway?

Abstract

With combined insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies, the article examines the engagement of different regions in Norway in the innovation networks created within the European Union's environmental programmes. The aim is to explore the programmes' potential for supporting green economy and economic restructuring through branching and new path creation. The authors assess which regions participate in the programmes, which international networks they build, and which organisations participate in different regions. They compare three regions with different restructuring needs and research capacitythe counties of Rogaland, Hordaland, and Sør-Trøndelag (now part of the county of Trøndelag). They find that overall, Norwegian organisations participate relatively frequently in the programmes, but private firms play a marginal role. Their partners are mainly in core EU regions. Regional participation in the programmes is a function of research capacity as well as oil dependence. The authors conclude that in research-oriented regions, research establishments tend to dominate participation, creating potential for restructuring mainly through path creation. In oil-dependent regions, private firms account for a higher share of participants, enhancing the potential for branching. As the former regions participate more, the programme can mainly stimulate path creation.

Less-advanced regions in EU innovation networks: Could nanotechnology represent a possible trigger for path upgrading?

“…Despite such openly declared objectives, however, the research and innovation networks created and fostered by the EU FPs are characterized traditionally by evident core-periphery dynamics [51,52], in which a clear and stable core of countries, regions and organizations can be identified throughout the various EU FPs [53]. In particular, the most central and developed regions tend to be more or better connected, thereby holding key positions in the network core (e.g., [54,55]), with the less-developed regions playing only a marginal role and linking themselves primarily to core regions and countries [44,56].…”

Better connected, more reputable? On the association between node centrality and academic reputation in the European Union research and innovation networks

“…Although economic geographers have traditionally dealt with localized knowledge circulation, recent contributions to the field stress the importance of multi-scalar innovation networks (e.g., Calignano, Fitjar, & Hjertvikrem, 2019). In fact, the importance of international sources of knowledge and long-distance ties, in alternative to or in combination with local connections (Bathelt, Malmberg, & Maskell, 2004), is clearly demonstrated by a multitude of empirical analyses, some of which have been carried out in the context of the EU FPs (e.g., Calignano & Hassink, 2016;Scherngell & Barber, 2009).…”

“…As mentioned earlier, the FPs are considered the most important R&I policy implemented by the EU and represent, more now than ever (Schulze-Krogh & Calignano, 2019), a vital funding source for academic and research institutions located in the EU, as well as in most of the associated countries (e.g., Switzerland, Israel, and Norway). Many studies offer in-depth analyses of the R&I networks created within the EU FPs and provide detailed information on the spatial and relational characteristics of the knowledge flows created and fostered by the organizations involved (e.g., Calignano et al, 2019;Dotti & Spithoven, 2018).…”

Geographies of green industries: The interplay of firms, technologies, and the environment

“…With the growing salience of global climate change, resource depletion and many other environmental challenges to human survival, calls for green development are more urgent than ever (Calignano et al, 2019). Accordingly, we have witnessed a boom in so-called “green economy” projects that promise to remedy ecological crises while simultaneously being “pro-growth, pro-jobs, and pro-poor” (Gibbs and O’Neill, 2014: 201).…”