Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views

Abstract

How new regional growth paths emerge and what policy concepts are most adequate for nurturing their evolution constitute recurring themes in regional innovation and development studies. New industrial paths are often portrayed as the result of market-driven processes and Schumpeterian entrepreneurial efforts. This view goes along with a neoliberal policy approach that restricts the role of public interventions to setting up a suitable regulatory frame and supporting an entrepreneurial climate. The theoretical underpinnings and policy perspectives of this approach have been challenged by the innovation system literature, which offers a systemic view on the rise of new growth paths and advocates a more proactive role of public policy. This paper investigates the role of policy models beyond these traditional ones. We contrast different variants of systemic and multi-scalar policy concepts for new regional industrial path development. Our literature-based study shows that more recent models go beyond new path development and growth per se, paying more attention to the direction of innovation and change, and to policy approaches for achieving more sustainable forms of development. We scrutinize the theoretical and empirical bases of these new policy models and discuss why they are superior to neoliberal and older systemic ones. ARTICLE HISTORY

Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value

“…A normative turn in regional innovation policy discourses has equally been motivated by perceived limitations of regional innovation system approaches to address the challenges of regional economic restructuring (Tödtling & Trippl, 2018). Much of the regional innovation policy literature has been seen as too focussed on technological innovation (Jeannerat & Crevoisier, 2016) and biased towards successful agglomerations (Eder, 2018), implicitly assuming that innovation and diversification are positive per se (Phelps, Atienza, & Arias, 2018).…”

“…Scholars have also tried to address the lack of directionality in traditional approaches to regional innovation policy by looking to transitions studies and transformative innovation policy approaches (Frenken, 2017). The benefit of these perspectives is, according to Tödtling and Trippl (2018) that they better reflect the complex mix of policy actors that need to be aligned, coordinated and engaged to give policies a direction that is beneficial for the whole society. But despite the accommodation to complexity, the transitions literature has not sufficiently discussed how geography shapes the context and outcomes of transformative innovation policies .…”

“…These principles or dimensions have proven attractive to a range of policy-makers and academics, including innovation scholars that propose more normative policy perspectives (e.g. Schlaile et al, 2017;Tödtling & Trippl, 2018). To date, they have not been however articulated in the context of regional innovation policy (although see Fitjar, Benneworth, & Asheim, 2018).…”

“…This has motivated recent advocates of a greater or improved challenge orientation in innovation policy (Mazzucato, 2013;Schot & Steinmueller, 2018) and the use of targeted policies to articulate societal needs on the 'demand side' (Boon & Edler, 2018). Regional innovation policy scholars have also reacted and argued for greater focus in scholarly debates on the direction of innovation and change in order to address problems of economic restructuring and territorial disparities (Tödtling & Trippl, 2018). This backdrop requires regional innovation scholars to redefine the function of the public sector away from market-based rationales and towards an investment logic that understands economic development as 'the expansion of capacities that contribute to the advancement of society' (Feldman, Hadjimichael, Lanahan, & Kemeny, 2016, p. 8).…”

“…Of particular concern to the RRI agenda is how to ensure innovation is aligned with societal needs and responds to pressing societal challenges. Much of the work around RRI has been focussed on publicly funded R&D, but the concept is being increasingly recognized and alluded to by the innovation policy community (Schlaile et al, 2017;Tödtling & Trippl, 2018). In this paper, we position RRI as a basis for developing more spatially sensitive and responsive approaches to implementing innovation policy at a regional level.…”