Desktop version

Home arrow Geography arrow Regions and innovation collaborating across borders

Notes

I. See Puga (2010) and cited articles for a literature overview on this issue.

  • 2 The English economist Alfred Marshall noted back in the 1890s that clustering of firms and workers resulted in productivity benefits arising from these three factors. These ideas have since developed and spawned a large and growing literature attempting to understand these benefits of agglomeration.
  • 3. Large OECD regions are the TL2 level, the first sub-national level. The statistic refers to 26 OECD countries with sub-national R&D data (2010 data).
  • 4. Small OECD regions are the TL3 level, the second sub-national level (2008-10 avg.).
  • 5. It is 25.4% for employees in high-tech manufacturing sectors and 24.2% for employees in knowledge-intensive services sectors in TL2 regions (2008 data).
  • 6. Codified knowledge is that which is recorded for others to use, in a form that is easily transferable, such as patents, books or scientific articles. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that must be obtained through interaction with other people, and that is not physically stored after the interactions have happened, such as the oral discussion during a conference or a meeting.
  • 7. In understanding the barriers to cross-border collaboration between research centres in Ireland and Northern Ireland, it was found that “responding centres have only a general idea of where opportunities lie among academic organisations in the other jurisdiction” (InterTradeIreland, 2008).
  • 8. The Nordic Council was formed in 1952, the Nordic Council of Ministers in 1971.
  • 9. Studying the (lack of) structural and official cross-border relationships in the US-Canadian Detroit-Windsor region, with a cross-border automotive cluster, Nelles states that: “This is not a case of North American exceptionalism. Clarke (2001 & 2002) and others (Scott, 1999) have identified a distinctive configuration of regional cross-border networks in the Cascadia region that had formed from the bottom-up, are more likely to be sector specific and driven by the private sector” (Nelles, 2011).
  • 10. Inter-state or inter-province partnerships are also developing respectively in Canada and the United States. It should be noted that in some cases, these cross-state relationships are stronger among private and non-profit sector actors than public actors (OECD, 2012b).

II. Examples include: the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) gathering the US states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington; and the western Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Yukon and Northwest Territories; and the Conference of Border Governors for four US and six Mexican, committed to promoting economic growth on both sides of the border.

  • 12. The AEBR study proposes three sets of objectives for developing such cross-border partnerships in the region (AEBR, 2010): 1) defining short-term objectives: concrete projects, need of decentralised co-operation, establishment of partnerships, informal structures for cross-border in general; 2) defining mid-term objectives: to increase local/regional/national capacities for sustainable cross-border co-operation, to elaborate joint strategies/programmes and projects, as well as strengthening cross-border institutions; and 3) defining long-term objectives: with a view to the regional integration process throughout Latin America.
  • 13. The per capita national income of Singapore (USD 12 890 in 1991) was about 25 times higher than that of Batam in Indonesia (USD 500) and approximately quadruple in comparison to Johor in Malaysia (USD 3 600) (Kivikari, 2001).
  • 14. These three types of collaborations have been supported by different strands of European Territorial Co-operation, commonly referred to as Interreg. The list refers to strands A, B and C respectively.
  • 15. These two macro-regional strategies are: the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, adopted in October 2009; and the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, for which implementation began in June 2011.
  • 16. The IPA Adriatic Cross-border Cooperation Programme is noteworthy for its strong emphasis on innovation. This macro-regional effort includes seven, possibly eight in the future, countries. Its first priority is “strengthening research and innovation in order to contribute to competitiveness and increasing the development of the Adriatic area through economic, social and institutional cooperation.” For example, Italian projects funded by this measure include: Caps2 (Strengthening of Centres for Aquaculture production and Safety surveillance in the Adriatic); the Cluster Club (a range of cluster development and cross-border co-operation efforts, with the involvement of Chambers of Commerce, including a focus on the nautical sector and its supply chain), as well as other projects supporting miniaturisation technology, collaboration research and technology platforms, and boosting research and innovation potential more generally.
  • 17. Such as the former European “Regions of Knowledge” programme.
  • 18. Per two recent OECD Territorial Reviews examining collaboration opportunities in macro regions: the Arctic regions of Greenland, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Northern Norway (OECD, 2011c) and the Pan Yellow Sea region in Asia covering parts of northern China, southwest Japan and western/southern Korea (OECD, 2009).
  • 19. For further information on these initiatives, see the full case studies (Nauwelaers et al., 2013d and 2013e).
  • 20. Cantons correspond to the TL3 level in the OECD classification of regions, and “Grandes Regions” to TL2 level (the same as German Lander or French regions).
  • 21. Region Lemanique in the west and Ticino in the south show distinctly different co-patenting patterns: the former has more partner regions with French regions, in particular with Rhone-Alpes, whereas the co-patent links of Ticino are dominated by the German region of Bavaria, with limited relations with other regions.
  • 22. Patents, while measuring inventive activity only, are often used as a proxy for innovation outputs. However, this indicator only tends to capture certain S&T-related innovation activities. It does not measure marketing, organisational or other forms of non-technological innovations. Moreover, patenting is not necessarily linked to successful commercial exploitation, due notably to strategic patenting behaviour.
 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >