The Role of Anchor Companies in Thin Regional Innovation Systems Lessons from Norway
- PDF / 163,894 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 104 Downloads / 127 Views
The Role of Anchor Companies in Thin Regional Innovation Systems Lessons from Norway James Karlsen
Published online: 29 November 2012 Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract Anchor companies and their interaction with other companies matter in thin regional innovation systems. They matter if, on the one hand, they have access to national and international knowledge sources and markets, and on the other hand are engaged in knowledge sharing and innovation processes in the cluster and in the region they are part of. It is companies and their interaction with knowledge organisations and policy makers that is the foundation for regional development in a long-term basis. The empirical test bed for the discussion is the oil and gas equipment supplier industry in Agder, Norway, which in the last 4–5 years has grown to a world leading position with deliveries to the oil and gas off-shore industry. Keywords Anchor companies Thin regional innovation systems Innovation Oil and gas industry
Introduction There has been an increased attention among policy makers and academics about innovation, regional clusters and Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) in the last few decades (Asheim et al. 2011; Martin and Sunley 2003). This increased interest in the RIS approach has grown ‘‘partly because of advances in theoretical analysis, partly by the growing interest in innovation as a source of competitive advantage, and partly by the need for new policies to address regional inequalities and divergence’’ (Asheim et al. 2011: 876). The theoretical foundations for the RIS approach are within the Innovation Systems (IS) approach, the work on clusters and innovative milieu and the industrial district literature. There have been some limitations addressed with the approach. One stream of the critique is that much of the focus in RIS studies has been on successful regional economies in metropolitan regions and on innovation in high-technology sectors (Benner 2003; Doloreux and Dionnez 2008). The argument is that there is a lack of studies from ‘‘less successful’’ systems and of J. Karlsen (&) Agderforskning, Kristiansand, Norway e-mail: [email protected]
123
90
Syst Pract Action Res (2013) 26:89–98
innovation in more traditional industries (Asheim et al. 2011: 881) and in non-metropolitan regions (Doloreux et al. 2012; Doloreux and Dionne, 2008). The consequence of this limitation is that the approach seems to fit better for more well off regions. Another stream of critique is focused on theoretical shortcomings (for example see Asheim et al. 2011). One of the theoretical shortcomings is the system concept, which makes the agents, which can be companies, knowledge organisations, networks, and public policy making organisations to passive components, rather than active and purposive agents (Uyarra 2010; Uyarra and Flanagan 2010). The approach, with its focus on the production and knowledge subsystems and the interaction between them, seems to have the consequence that the system with its agents or actors’
Data Loading...
