KNOWLEDGE INFRASTRUCTURE, INNOVATION DYNAMICS, AND KNOWLEDGE CREATION/DIFFUSION/ACCUMULATION PROCESSES

Abstract

Abstract Building on the main results from the TSER reports reviewed in the VALICORES project, this survey article focuses on the Knowledge Infrastructure (KI) and on the institutional-spatial dynamics that characterize innovation and knowledge creation/accumulation/diffusion processes within the developing knowledge-based economy and society. Its aim is threefold. Firstly, the paper seeks to disentangle some crucial issues linked to the nature of the KI and the various agents it involves, their patterns of behaviour and forms of interaction, and their roles in knowledge and innovation processes. The second aim is to determine the extent to which institutional and spatial configurations shape knowledge and innovation dynamics in the European context. Finally, the article advances an analytical framework which could help the understanding of the dynamic interplay of institutions, strategies and spatial scales in the structuring and the deployment of the KI. Notes 1. See the list of research projects reviewed (referred to as the 'projects' hereafter) at the end of the paper. We are also grateful to the participants of the two VALICORES Workshops held in Brussels (29–30 March and 28–29 June 2004). Their valuable comments and suggestions helped us greatly to improve a preliminary version of this paper. Most of their remarks have been clearly taken into account. Nevertheless, as this paper tries to capture the most important and (at least partly) 'shared' views of knowledge and innovation dynamics across the projects, it cannot reasonably reflect all the richness and the specific approach and contribution of each project. 2. Hence, our objective is not to provide a new survey of the literature but rather to emphasize the real value-added of the TSER projects reviewed, especially as to the analysis of the knowledge infrastructure and the institutional practices of innovative agents—which constitute two crucial dimensions not often addressed in the literature. References to the general literature should then be only occasional. 3. 'Innovation' is considered here from a broad (Schumpeterian) perspective: it corresponds to any change or improvement in the economy that translates into an economic and/or social value (creation of wealth; saving in costs; improvement of quality; enhancement of social cohesion and quality of life). It then comprises all technological, organizational, social, institutional and commercial aspects of novelty embodied in new goods, services, processes, markets, organizations and modes of agents' interactions (for a detailed analysis of some of these dimensions see Hamdouch, 2004 Hamdouch , A. (2004) 'Innovation', Article Corpus , Encyclopædia Universalis , Version 10, DVD-ROM . [Google Scholar]). 4. Of course, this general statement must be nuanced. As Jacqueline Senker has pointed out in her comments on a preliminary version of the paper, the need for 'supportive institutions' is variable depending on the size of the firms and on the nature of knowledge areas (speculative or more routine-like) they are concerned with. 5. This argument is elaborated in a number of theoretical works. Among others, see Arrow (1986 Arrow, K. J. 1986. 'Rationality of self and others in an economic system'. Journal of Business, 59(5): 5385–5399. [Google Scholar]); Simon (1991 Simon, H. A. 1991. 'Organizations and markets'. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(2): 25–44. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]); Hodgson (1998 Hodgson , G. M. (1998) 'The approach of institutional economics' , Journal of Economic Literature , vol. XXXVI , March , pp. 166 – 192 . [Google Scholar]); Hamdouch (2005 Hamdouch, A. 2005. 'Emergence et légitimité des institutions, coordination économique et nature de la rationalité des agents'. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 18(2): 227–259. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]). 6. But, as David Charles points out in his comments on a preliminary version of this paper, these intermediary institutions: (i) are not systematically needed; (ii) have no generic role; and (iii) are costly without guaranteeing real value-added for the agents. Jacqueline Senker shares this point of view, whereas others (especially Caroline Lanciano-Morandat, Hiroatsu Nohara and Eric Verdier) stress the need for these institutions in particular because of their important coordination role. 7. In their comment to the paper, Caroline Lanciano-Morandat(and Hiroatsu Nohara insisted on the fact that 'human resources are extremely important for bridging the [cognitive, institutional and organizational] gap between the actors, especially through the professional mobility and the career opportunities in the various institutions'. This role is one taken by engineers and doctoral students in particular. 8. See, among others, Amable et al. (1997 Amable , B. , Barré , R. & Boyer , R. (1997) Les Systèmes d'innovation à l'heure de la mondialisation , Economica, Paris . [Google Scholar]); Lundvall and Borrás (1997 Lundvall , B.-Å. & Borrás , S. (1997) The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications for Innovation Policy , TSER Programme, Science, Research and Development Studies DG XII, Brussels, Dec . [Google Scholar]); Dosi et al. (2000 Dosi , G. , Nelson , R. R. & Winter , S. G. (eds) (2000) The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities , Oxford University Press , Oxford and New York . [Google Scholar]); Foray (2000 Foray, D. 2000. L'Economie de la connaissance, Paris: La Découverte. [Google Scholar]); Foray and Mairesse (2000 Foray , D. & Mairesse , J. (eds) (2000) Innovations et performances , Editions de l'EHESS , Paris . [Google Scholar]). 9. See, in particular, Hauknes (1998, ch. 4); Wood (1998, ch. 4); Senker (1999, chs 1, 4); Dosi (2000, esp. pp. 78–86); Charles (2001, ch. 9); Verdier (2001, esp. ch. 6). 10. See, in particular, Hauknes (1998, chs 4, 5); Jones-Evans (1998, ch. 3); Wood (1998, ch. 2); Senker (1999, pp. 5–6); Charles (2001, pp. 11–14 and ch. 9); Pohoryles (2001, ch. 3); Van Waarden (2001, ch. 3); Verdier (2001, ch. 4). 11. On this observation, see especially Senker (1999, pp. 5, 16); Dosi (2000, pp. 87–91); Charles (2001, pp. 59, 62, 78–79, 81, 93); Engwall (2001, pp. 12–13); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 6–7, 11). 12. At least a part of these conflicts seems to be rooted in the growing 'blurring of missions' of public-sector research organizations (universities, research institutes and government laboratories, sectoral institutes) which, in many countries, are nowadays all meant to support industrial innovation—'with the demand to support industrial innovation (and constraints on knowledge diffusion) being at odds with traditional academic values' (Jacqueline Senker, comment). 13. See especially Charles (2001); Pohoryles (2001); Verdier (2001); Van Waarden (2001). 14. More detailed arguments and illustrations can be found in the reports of almost all the projects, and especially in Charles (2001, ch. 7); Pohoryles (2001, ch. 4); Verdier (2001, ch. 8). 15. This is not to say that policy makers and public actors are more 'rational' than decentralized agents and would benefit from extreme clear-sightedness. Public decision makers may obviously prove as myopic and rationally bounded as decentralized/private agents, as is asserted by the impressive collection of data provided by numerous research works—including the projects reviewed here—on cases of inefficient innovation/education/industrial policies (see, for example, Hamdouch, 1989 Hamdouch, A. 1989. L'Etat d'influence, Paris: Presses du CNRS. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar], on the case of France). But, on the other hand, when there is a total absence of public policies or regulations, the decentralized/private agents and their market/contractual procedures do not lead very systematically to efficient collective outcomes regarding innovation and knowledge dynamics. See, for example, Charles (2001, p. 63); Verdier (2001, p. 263). 16. See, for example, Charles (2001, ch. 9); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 6–7); Verdier (2001, pp. 13, 22, 24 and ch. 9). 17. See, for example, Charles (2001, ch. 7); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 11–12, 23–24). 18. See, in particular, Pohoryles (2001, pp. 1–2, 20–22). 19. On these aspects see, in particular, Wood (1998, ch. 5); Senker (1999, pp. 15–16); Dosi (2000, ch. 4); Charles (2001, pp. 16–17); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 38–56); Verdier (2001, pp. 139–142 and ch. 3). 20. See sections above; this feature is also very well documented in most of the projects; among others see Preissl (2000, pp. 19–20); Charles (2001, ch. 9); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 13–14); Verdier (2001, ch. 4). 21. See, among others, Pohoryles (2001) and Verdier (2001) on the role of networks; and Jones-Evans (1998) on the role of liaison offices in academic spin-offs and the structuring of the links between universities and industrial firms. 22. See, among others, Wood (1998, ch. 2); Senker (1999); Charles (2001); Engwall (2001). 23. Senker (1999), Dosi (2000, esp. pp. 84–86), Charles (2001, esp. ch. 7) and Pohoryles (2001), among others, provide a series of analyses, arguments and illustrations of this feature. 24. On this, see especially Senker (1999); Charles (2001); Pohoryles (2001); Verdier (2001). 25. On this, see also Pohoryles (2001, pp. 5–7). 26. See, in particular, Hauknes (1998, pp. 59–64); Senker (1999, pp. 9–16); Charles (2001, pp. 56–59); Engwall (2001, pp. 10–12); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 23–24); Verdier (2001, pp. 139–146). 27. See, in particular, Senker (1999, ch. 1); Wood (1999, ch. 4); Charles (2001, chs 6, 9); Pohoryles (2001, ch. 1); Verdier (2001, chs 4, 8). 28. On this trend of decentralization and its effects see, in particular, Senker (1999, pp. 5–6); Charles (2001, pp. 50–60); Pohoryles (2001, pp. 14–15); Verdier (2001, pp. 21–22). 29. At the empirical level, most of the projects highlight the importance of this trend; see, in particular, Senker (1999, pp. 6, 15); Charles (2001, pp. 83–88). For a theoretical analysis and formalization of the clustering processes of complementary agents within rapidly reconfiguring industries, cf. Hamdouch (2002 Hamdouch, A. 2002. 'Complémentarités inter-firmes, préemption de partenaires et rendements croissants de coalition: une formalisation des logiques de rapprochement entre firmes face aux nouvelles technologies et à la globalisation'. Région et Développement, 16: 161–189. [Google Scholar]); Hamdouch and Depret (2002 Hamdouch, A. and Depret, M.-H. 2002. 'Coalitions et réseaux de firmes: les nouvelles stratégies concurrentielles dans la globalisation'. Gestion 2000—Management & Prospective, 18(1): 35–53. [Google Scholar]). 30. As suggested by Brigitte Preissl in her comment on the paper, the interconnection and interplay between different spatial levels can be related to institutional dynamics through two additional channels. The first one concerns the 'institutional dependencies' across spatial levels through 'regulatory rules, funding mechanisms and sovereignty of control over institutions'. The second channel 'derives from a market perspective where MNCs and/or franchising enterprises serve as links between spatial dimensions and integrate innovation styles at various spatial levels. From a knowledge transfer perspective the level of recruitment of qualified personnel (local, regional, national and European) might be an important category, along with the geographical scope of service clients for knowledge generating organizations.' 31. On the concept of 'systemic rationality' and its implications for coordination and institutional change processes, see March (1978 March, J. G. 1978. 'Bounded rationality, ambiguity and the engineering of choice'. Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2): 587–608. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]); Moulaert and Hamdouch (2003 Moulaert , F. & Hamdouch , A. (2003) New Views of Innovation Systems: Agents, Rationales, Networks and the Role of Spatial Scales , Valicores Position Paper, European Commission—DG Research, Fifth Framework Programme—Specific Programme: 'Improving the Human Research Potential and the Socio-economic Knowledge Base'—Accompanying Measure 1, Project no. HPHA-CT-2000-00025: 'Valorising Linkages between Private Consulting and Public Research and the Role of Universities (VALICORES)', Jan., 32 pp . [Google Scholar]); Hamdouch (2005); Moulaert and Hamdouch (2006 Moulaert, F. and Hamdouch, A. 2006. 'New views of innovation systems: agents, rationales, networks and spatial scales in the knowledge infrastructure'. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 19(1): 11–24. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar], this issue). 32. Many arguments and examples illustrating these trends can be drawn from almost all the projects: Hauknes (1998 Hauknes , J. (1998) Services in Innovation—Innovation in Services (SI4S) , TSER Final Report , Jul. , 85 pp . [Google Scholar], pp. 22–32); Jones-Evans (1998 Jones-Evans , D. (1998) Universities, Technology Transfer and Spin-off Activities: Academic Entrepreneurship and the Periphery of Europe , TSER Final Report , Apr. , 100 pp . [Google Scholar], esp. ch. 3); Senker (1999, esp. ch. 3); Wood (1999, esp. ch. 4); Dosi (2000, esp. pp. 43–63); Preissl (2000 Preissl , B. (2000) Research and Technology Institutes and the Service Economy—a Functional Perspective on Innovation Related Services , Synthesis Report, Work package 2 of the RISE project , Dec. , 131 pp . [Google Scholar], esp. ch. 5); Charles (2001, ch. 9); Engwall (2001 Engwall , L. (2001) The Creation of European Management Practice (CEMP) , TSER Final Report , Dec. , 127 pp . [Google Scholar], ch. 3, esp. pp. 55–64); Pohoryles (2001, esp. ch. 3 section 5); Van Waarden (2001—all the project); Verdier (2001, ch. 8).