Progress in Human Geography - Høgskolen i Bergen

Progress in Human Geographyhttp://phg.sagepub.com/The complexity of innovation: A relational turnArnt Fløysand and Stig-Erik JakobsenProg Hum Geogr 2011 35: 328 originally published online 20 August 2010DOI: 10.1177/0309132510376257The online version of this article can be found at:http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/3/328Published by:http://www.sagepublications.comAdditional services and information for Progress in Human Geography can be found at:Email Alerts: http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsSubscriptions: http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsReprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navPermissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navCitations: http://phg.sagepub.com/content/35/3/328.refs.htmlDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

ArticleThe complexity of innovation:A relational turnProgress in Human Geography35(3) 328–344ª The Author(s) 2010Reprints and permission:sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav10.1177/0309132510376257phg.sagepub.comArnt FløysandUniversity of Bergen, NorwayStig-Erik JakobsenUniversity of Oslo, NorwayAbstractRecent contributions within the system of innovation approach are marked by an instrumentalism that viewsinnovation as a predictable and standardized process that in most aspects counters theories and empiricalobservations stressing the multilevel, spontaneous and complex features of innovation. Informed by therelational turn within economic geography this paper develops an alternative analytical framework. Wedo this stepwise: first, by elaborating on how innovation was originally defined within the systems ofinnovation approach; second, by outlining a relational based analytical framework based on the concept ofsocial fields; and, finally, by demonstrating how it has been applied.Keywordsinformal knowledge, innovations, relational turn, rules of conduct, social fieldsI IntroductionLiberalization of trade and financial markets,together with technological advances (particularlyin information and communications technology)have reduced geographical and otherbarriers previously protecting domestic industriesagainst international trade competition. Firmsmust continually innovate to compete beyondregional borders in this new global reality. Thedevelopment of new knowledge, new ways ofdoing things and new products have been portrayedas the key factors in improving globalcompetitiveness for business sectors, places andregions.Several approaches, based on studies thatrange from applying the evolutionary ideas ofSchumpeter (Fagerberg, 2003) to recent contributionsbuilding on ideas of complexity thinking(Fonseca, 2002; Martin and Sunley, 2007), havebeen developed to understand why and howinnovation does (or does not) occur. Much of thewriting has been on the systems of innovationapproach (Cooke, 2001; Edquist, 1997; Lundvall,1992). This approach attained a hegemonic positionwithin the innovation literature during the1990s and 2000s. However, it has fostered ainstrumentalism that views innovation as a predictableand standardized process that in mostaspects counters theories and empirical observationsstressing the multilevel, spontaneous andcomplex features of innovation. Several bestCorresponding author:Arnt Fløysand, Department of Geography, University ofBergen, Fosswinckelsgt 6, N-5020 Bergen, NorwayEmail: arnt.floysand@geog.uib.no328Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 329innovation practice models have been developed,informed by empirical evidence from hot spotswithin the economy, making them less representativeof innovation practice within the newmultidimensional global economy. Strong linkagesbetween policy and research practice alsoseems to favour quick fixes and guidelinesanticipating that innovation practice can bereplicated and diffused as blueprints regardlessof the empirical context. Therefore, the aimof this paper is to develop an alternative analyticalframework emphasizing innovation as a relationalphenomenon.To think of innovation practice as relationalinvolves focusing on networks of actors, theflow of knowledge and assets within thesenetworks, and the interconnectivity of variousnetworks. It also involves acknowledging hegemonicpositions of certain actors within thesenetworks. The first publications on the innovationsystem approach strongly advocated suchan approach. They argued for an understandingof innovation as a dynamic, open and interactiveprocess that focused on learning and networking(Lundvall, 1992). Ironically, with the developmentof strong linkages between research andpolicy, the approach has been reconstructed as astandardized model for best innovation practiceand used instrumentally for adjusting system failureswithin national, regional and even local innovationsystems (see, for instance, Enright, 2003;Ffowcs-Williams, 2004; Sôlvell et al., 2003).Some studies have warned against this practicebecause it presupposes the innovationprocess to be a phenomenon that can be controlledand guided (Balzat and Hanusch,2004; Lundvall, 2007). Second, it very oftenpresupposes a geographical co-location of acomprehensive business milieu and an advancedknowledge infrastructure of universitiesand research institutions that are essential forinnovation (Cooke et al., 2004). This presuppositionrules out most rural contexts wherecertainly innovation can also be observed.Third, this practice seems to foster innovationpolicies prioritizing formal ‘know why’ knowledgeabove contextual and informal knowwhat/who/when/where and how knowledge,ignoring the claim that a combination of bothtypes of knowledge gives firms a competitiveedge in the market (Howells, 2002; Jensenet al., 2007; Lundvall, 1992).We argue that a spatial- and context-sensitiverelational turn is needed to avoid such contradictions.Within the relational turn literature ineconomic geography, economic practice is seenas an action with many goals, from meetingmaterial needs and making profits, to seekingsymbolic satisfaction, pleasure and power(Amin and Thrift, 2007; Yeung, 2005). However,it has not yet fostered a comprehensive andwell-defined analytical framework that is readyfor application in studies of innovation (Batheltand Glückler, 2003). As such, it has been accusedof lacking analytical guidelines (Sunley, 2008).We endorse this criticism.The essence of our analytical framework isthe concept of social field, capturing both theinterconnectivity and the time-spatial contextof innovation practice. Actors of all kinds, economicactors included, operate in time-spacesystems of more or less interrelated, but observablesocial fields – ie, dense patterns of socialrelations, marked by a particular time-spatialscale and knowledge production that constrainsand enables the agency of actors. Some socialfields may be local, while others may cut acrossgeographical boundaries of clusters, regions andnations. Practices in such fields are guided byfield-specific knowledge production that concernsboth formal and informal knowledge,ranging from rules of conduct and conventionsto discourses and narratives that may or may notsustain innovation practice. In a globalized setting,actors participate in several overlappingand interlinked social fields of different scales,with different types of actors, knowledge andrules of conduct. This implies that innovationpractices are multifield based, but normally withsome sort of field hegemony.Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011329

330 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)The lesson learned from such a relational turnis that innovation studies are not a question of atheory restricted to a limited part of reality. Onthe contrary, they are about three differentthings. First, innovation studies represent theoreticalapproaches thought to have a broad scope;therefore, they have to be fairly abstract. Second,they represent an empirical programme in divergentspatial environments and timescales. Third,studies of innovation start to represent politicalideologies when theories and empirical findingsare implemented in policy strategies.II Going back to the rootsOur search for a relational understanding ofinnovation echoes earlier arguments of KarlPolanyi, Mark Granovetter, Torstein Hägerstrandand Bengt Åke Lundvall. Polanyi (1944) demonstratedthat economic exchange relations wereenmeshed in culture. It is obvious that Polanyi’sthree systems of exchange – reciprocal, redistributiveand market exchange – correspond wellwith arguments within the relational turn that economicrelations are based on some kind of sharedknowledge such as rules of conduct, conventionsand discourses. Second, the focus on socialaspects within innovation theory is closelyaligned with Granovetter’s (1985) ideas of contextualizingall (economic) behaviour within systemsof social relations. His intention was toavoid both the undersocialized view of economicaction in neoclassical economics and theoversocialized views of classical sociology.Neither Polanyi nor Granovetter paid attentionto how territorial space affected economicaction. An early interest in spatial positioningof economic action can be linked to Hägerstrand’stime-geography that dealt with howterritorial time-space explains action (Hägerstrand,1970). Hägerstrand was concerned tomap the time-spatial dimensions of action bytransforming action into a geometrical form(Hägerstrand, 1970). However, this timegeographywas accused of failing to integrateinstitutional conditions.Much of the innovation literature has beenlinked to the systems of innovation approachpioneered especially by Bengt Åke Lundvall(1992). 1 Lundvall argued for an understandingof innovation as an open and dynamic processmarked by a certain uncertainty: ‘in practicallyall parts of the economy, and at all times, weexpect to find ongoing processes of learning,searching and exploring, which result in newproducts, new techniques, new forms of organizationand new markets’ (p. 8). Innovationappears not as a single event, but rather as aninteractive process, involving networking,learning and feedback loops among varioustypes of actors such as firms, research and developmentinstitutions, political authorities, andtraining centres. Lundvall also claimed that theprocess of innovation is uncertain and disruptive.He stressed how research and innovationfrom time to time produces ‘results which wereneither anticipated nor looked for’ (p. 12). Thisview on innovation as an interacting processhighlights the complexity of systems of innovation.The boundaries of a system of innovationcannot be sharply determined. The distinctionsamong local, regional, national and even internationalsystems of innovation will be blurredand overlapping: ‘a definition of the system ofinnovation must, to a certain degree, be keptopen and flexible regarding which subsystemsshould be included and which processes shouldbe studied’ (p. 13).Regardless of any uncertainties over theresults of innovation processes, some guidelinesare arguably relevant to organizing the innovationprocesses in firms and creating a wellfunctioninginnovation system. The literatureon regional innovation systems (RIS) exemplifiesthis through models and guidelines (Cooke,2001; Tödtling and Trippl, 2005). However,implementation of the systems of innovationapproach in an empirical programme seems tohave altered the original definition of innovation330Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 331as a dynamic and complex process marked byuncertainty, towards an understanding of innovationas a predictable and standardized process.Best-practice innovation studies have beendeveloped that combine concepts from the systemsof innovation approach and the terminologyof corporate benchmarking and policy-making(Balzat and Hanusch, 2004). 2 Benchmarkingwithin these studies usually follows a two-stepprocedure. First, various indicators for innovationand best practices are identified among thesystems that are being analysed. Second, basedon the results of these studies, policy recommendationsare developed, more or less regardlessof the dissimilarities between the variouscontexts that have been studied (Enright, 2003;Polt et al., 2001; Sölvell et al., 2003). Thesebest-practice studies have also resulted in thedevelopment of more standardized indicators forinnovation. Furman et al. (2002), for example,have developed the concept of national innovationcapacity, referring to a system’s ability toproduce and commercialize new technologies,the strength of the formal innovation infrastructure(such as research and education), thestrength of the industry sectors, and linkagesbetween research institutions and industry. Thisconcept has been applied by Porter and Stern(2002). Several stage or phase models for innovationsystems or clusters have also been developed,whereby a system is anticipated to movefrom one clearly defined phase to the next,either as a consequence of the dynamics of thesystem, or as a result of facilitation providedby political authorities (Ffowcs-Williams,2004). This development implies that ‘performancecomparisons across systems have graduallymoved towards the centre of attention,while less importance has been given to the considerationof systemic dissimilarities’ (Balzatand Hanusch, 2004: 198). Lundvall (2007) haswarned against this development, and stated thatpolicy-makers have interpreted the innovationsystem in a mechanistic and functionalistic way,with an assumption that such a system can beconstructed, governed and manipulated. Thisis supported by de Bruijn and Lagendijk(2005: 1155) stating that models for innovations,such as RIS, has been transformed into‘a kind of ideal model applicable to all regions,including less successful regions’. Uyarra(2010) suggests a need to be cautious aboutreproducing such ideal models, addressing theneed for more context-sensitive models.Treating Polanyi, Granovetter, Hägerstrandand Lundvall collectively, we argue that thereis a need for an empirical programme that, contraryto best-practice studies within the systemsof innovation approach, highlights the interplayof innovations with their cultural, social and territorialcontexts. A precondition of thisargument is that innovations are unpredictableand that they should be treated as part of a politicallyconstructed and dynamic processenmeshed in relational time-spatial contexts. Inrecent studies of innovation within relationaleconomic geography, such cultural, social andterritorial aspects have been approached in particularthrough a revised understanding of theconcept of embeddedness defined by Hess(2004) to evolve around territorial, societal andnetwork embeddedness. Different forms ofembeddedness are seen as overlapping relationalphenomena combining to constitute the spacetimecontext that is constraining and enablingeconomic innovation. Paraphrasing Yeung, whoargues for a time-spatial approach that is scale-,social- and knowledge-sensitive and that avoidsa static view of agency, we ‘must steer the fieldtowards an ‘‘ontological turn’’ in which dynamicand heterogeneous relations among actors areconceptualized as constituting the essentialfoundations of socio-spatial existence’ (cited inHess, 2004: 178). We will follow these lines ofthought by arguing for a relational turn in studiesof innovation based on the concept of socialfield. The novelty of our approach is not the celebrationof cultural, social or territorial spaces,but the aspirations of building a relationalapproach integrating the cultural, social andDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011331

332 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)territorial aspects of economic interaction intoone analytical concept.III Towards a relationalframework1 Social fields or networks?A relational turn implies a broadening of thecontent of studies of economic practice byincluding the social position of actors and theirvarious network relations on different and overlappingspatial scales. Recent contributionswithin the economic geography literature representan intention to develop a more context- andprocess-sensitive understanding of innovation(Bathelt and Glückler, 2003; Storper, 1997;Yeung, 2005). In these studies, it is argued thatthe innovative success of one firm or a localmilieu cannot be explained by referring to theirinternal capabilities or their ability to copy thesuccesses of other firms. Instead, innovative successneeds to be explained by performance inrelation to other firms and network – ie, theirrelational position in networks (Yeung, 2005).Such positions can range from hegemonic tosubservient. Second, it is argued that networksare not static and fixed in time and space, butconstantly changing and multispatial. Third, formaland informal knowledge in business andsocial relations are overlapping phenomena.Innovation strategies of firms are seen not onlyas being influenced by the market situation,political regulations and the strategies of rivals,but also as having historical legacies and culturallyinformed discourses, narratives and rulesof conduct produced within the social contextof where the innovations arise.Different concepts have been used to describesuch relational time-spatial interaction systems.Grønhaug (1974, 1978) introduced the conceptof a social field, defined as ‘a relatively boundedinterconnexion system of social relationsstretched out in socio-space’ (Grønhaug, 1978:118). A social field is an empirical phenomenonthat is identified by examining the persistence ofrelationships between actors and the specificknowledge production that is completed throughassociated practices. The main theorem is thatactors of all kinds, economic actors included,operate in time-spatial systems of more or lessinterrelated, but observable social fields – ie,dense patterns of social relations, marked by aparticular time-spatial scale and knowledge productionthat both constrains and enables theagency of actors. Some social fields may belocal, while others may cut across geographicalboundaries of clusters, regions and nations.The analytical framework based on the conceptof social field may appear similar tonetwork theory for analysing industries. Nohriaand Eccles (1992) define the network conceptas a ‘set of nodes (e.g., persons, organizations)linked by a set of social relationships (e.g.,friendship, transfer of funds, overlapping membership)of a specified type’ (Laumann et al.,1978: 458). This way of treating social relationsin network theory overlaps with the social fieldapproach in many respects. Both approachesfocus on the structure and the form of socialrelations (networks/social fields) and on howsocial relations constrain and, in turn, shape theactions of organizations/individuals. In a similarway, the conceptual underpinnings of theseapproaches also stress the social and culturalcomplexity of social relations and the overlappingcharacteristics of networks/social fields.The main difference between the network conceptand the concept of social fields is that thelatter pays attention to the time-spatial scale ofsocial relations emphasizing their historicaland geographical scope. This brings it moreinto line with the relational turn within economicgeography, which stresses the importanceof space-time contexts in constrainingand enabling economic innovation, as well asother related concepts paying specific attentionto time-spatial aspects. DiMaggio and Powell(1991), for instance, apply the concept of anorganizational field consisting of ‘those organizationsthat, in the aggregate, constitute a332Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 333recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers,resource and product consumers,regulatory agencies, and other organizationsthat produce similar service or products’(DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 64). In line withthis, Scott (1995: 56) states, ‘The notion offield connotes the existence of a communitythat partakes of a common meaning system andwhose participants interact more frequentlyand fatefully with one another than with actorsoutside of the field’. Within economic geography,the concept of community of practice hasattracted much attention (Amin and Roberts,2008), referring to ‘systems of relationshipsamong people, activities, and the world; developingwithtime,andinrelationstoothertangentialand overlapping communities ofpractice’ (Lave and Wenger, 1991: 98).There are several similarities between thesedifferent concepts. Still, we find the social fieldapproach more elastic in the way it deals withsocial practice and tacit knowledge in terms ofinformal rules of conduct. The homogenizationof practice is pivotal within the concept of organizationalfield (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991),while the concept of communities of practice hasbeen criticized for placing too much emphasison community (Amin and Roberts, 2008). Theconcept of social field allows for a strongerfocus on the structure-agency dynamics thatconstitute innovation. It also allows for a strongerconfrontation with the complexity of managerialand organizational practices.2 Social fields: social practice, (tacit)knowledge and scaleAs a starting point, we define social practice insocial fields as interaction between two or moreactors that is characterized by overlappingprocesses of transaction and signification orinterchange of ‘goods’ and ‘signs’. Recalling theexchange systems of Polanyi, interaction has tobe based on particular knowledge of what isappropriate role conduct, or on knowledge thatregulates how processes of transaction of ‘goods’should take place. The purpose of an interchangeof ‘goods’ and ‘signs’ in a social field can, forexample, be to confirm the actor’s identity (gender,place, profession, etc), his/her position(social, political, economic, etc) in a firm, placeand society, and how far he/she is motivated bythe pursuit of economic profit. We argue thatsuch intersubjective knowledge is produced bypractices within social fields that are often onlytacitly realized in the ‘doing’ of economic activities.In summary, interactions in social fields areguided by field-specific knowledge productionthat concerns both formal and informal knowledgeranging from rules of conduct and conventionsto discourses and narratives that may ormay not guide innovation practice. Accordingly,tacit knowledge becomes central to interpretationsof processes of interaction in social fields.From the literature on innovations, we knowthat (tacit) knowledge both constrains andenables innovation. The production of informalrules of conduct provides one example. Socialactors operate in status combinations, in whichthey construct, maintain and change the processesof interaction in line with the role conductthey can legitimate in a given field. A status is asocial position of rights and duties that functionas incentives and limitations on role conduct(Linton, 1936). This means that for a global statuscombination, such as employer-employee,there exist social roles that are legitimatedthrough the particular expectations of role conductin a social field. Such informal rules mayinclude shared expectations in a communityfield about firm management. Managers of firmsmay consider the needs of the community indeveloping their firm strategy, even if thisreduces profit. Such knowledge is often centralto the innovation capacity of a firm or industrialmilieu. It may play a key role in determiningwhat actions are appropriate, who is a legitimateparticipant in practice, and to what degreenorms, routines and conventions can be differentiallyinterpreted, transformed or ignored. TheDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011333

334 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)scale of a social field is empirically defined byreferring to the number of actors, their relationsin a particular social field, and how these relationsare distributed in time and space. Somefields may be local, while others have a widersociospatial scale. Interaction in given socialrelations turns into a social field only when a patternof interaction has the strength to influencethe social formation of the actors and societyas a whole (Grønhaug, 1978). Thus, only repercussiveinteraction of a certain historic durationresults in construction of social fields.The social field concept reflects a system idea(Grønhaug, 1978). For example, an approachbased on the concept of social fields impliesthat economic actors simultaneously take partin various fields (family relations, communityrelations, economic relations, political relations,etc) on different scales. In a globalized setting,actors participate in several social fields ofdifferent scale and with different types of actors,knowledge and rules of conduct, all of which areto varying degrees connected. This normallyimplies that innovation practice is multifieldbased. Some innovations may be embedded inlocal social fields constituted by local specializedsuppliers, while others depend on globalfields of customers and non-specializedsuppliers.The final step concerns the question of powerand hegemony. In a system of social fields ‘eachfield is in itself a system of dominating and dominatedelements, but the more complex questionconcerns the relative dominance of one (ormore) of the several fields comprising society’(Grønhaug, 1978: 119). Thus, power is relatedto how actors are empowered and disempoweredin a particular field and to the processes andevents that make some fields in a field systemmore hegemonic than others. In the former case,it becomes a question of who is determining theformal and informal knowledge production andinteraction in a field. In the latter case, poweris related to how particular social fields are interrelatedand how practice in a particular fieldguides the flow of knowledge and materialresources in a field system. There is an agreementin the literature that innovation processesin firms are based on knowledge sources and(power) linkages from both intrafirm and extrafirmdynamics at both local and global levels.Hence, both intrafield and interfield powerdynamics are of interest for innovation studies.In our studies, we have been focusing on interfieldpower dynamics. Globalization very oftenimplies a fragmentation of established territorialpatterns of relations (Giddens, 1991). The resultis a form of recasting of socio-economicprocesses both ‘upwards’ and ‘downwards’ ina scale that enables the development of newdominant modes of organizing and new dominantspatial patterns of relations (Jakobsen et al., 2009;Swyngedouw, 2004). In the case of innovations,they may be embedded in global fields that leavelittle room for establishing relations with localfields, or rooted in local fields as argued in muchof cluster theory.3 Social field systems in timesof globalizationAt present, globalization – in terms of timespacecompression – interferes with developmentthrough multifield processes of integration.The global economy is characterized by a growingorganizational and geographical complexity(Coe et al., 2008). We would expect that actorsare becoming more integrated in wider timespacesthan before, or that social practice takesplace in social fields on a wider sociospatialscale. We would also expect increasing numbersof linkages in an actor’s field systems, becausetime-space compression implies involvementin a greater number of overlapping fields. Someof the generic features of such complex socialfield structures in a globalizing economy wouldbe openness (it is difficult to determine theboundaries of the system), non-linear dynamics(various complex feedback and mutually selfreinforcinginteractions among participants) and334Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 335ActorEthnic fieldCommunityfieldNeighborhoodfieldField ofemploymentFieldof ?HouseholdfieldNeighborhoodfieldEthnicfieldField ofeducationHouseholdfieldCommunityfieldSimple fieldsystemComplexfield systemFigure 1. Examples of simple and complex social field structuresself-organization (some of the dynamics of thesocial field system emerge spontaneously andin a disruptive way) (Martin and Sunley, 2007).Figure 1 illustrates the difference between asimple social field structure and a complexsocial field structure. Each dot in the figurerepresents an actor. The ellipses indicatesocial fields of different scale. In a complexsocial field situation, actors participate inseveral social fields of different scale andwith different types of actors, knowledge andrules of conduct, that to varying degrees areconnected. The illustrations in Figure 1 shouldnot be read literally. The scale and the knowledgeproduction in social fields influencingeconomic practice of a given firm or industry,as well as the interrelations between fields,are an empirical question. The number of socialfields and their distribution in time-space,cultural context and relative power need to beempirically investigated.IV The analytical frameworkas an empirical programme1 The case of EllingsøyThe analytical framework has been developedand refined through several case studies in ruralNorway. 3 To exemplify this framework and toconfront the theoretical discussion, we willdraw on a case study of Ellingsøy to analyseprocesses of innovation in the fish-processingindustry in Norway (Fløysand and Jakobsen,2002). Our selected case is quite different fromthe empirical studies within most of thebest-practice orientated innovation literature.These studies emphasizes the hot spots ofthe economy and the importance of formal335Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

336 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)research-based knowledge. By selecting arural case, we draw specific attention to theimportance of informal knowledge, socialnetworking and rules of conduct for innovationpractice. Such features are included withinthe mainstream innovation literature (Cooke,2001; Lundvall, 1992), but to lesser extentoperationalized. We agree that they are important,but, regardless of the empirical settingfor the study, they should be analysed moreprofoundly.A study applying the social field frameworkneeds to produce an overview of the social fieldsystem in which economic actors take part,actors are interlinked and intangible resourcesappear. Normally, this means that severaltechniques for data collection are combined(Peck, 2003). An analysis of the developmentof social fields and their scale, types of actors,knowledge, rules of conduct, etc, begins withan overview of the industrial history of the siteor milieu under study, and how the industry hasevolved over time. It involves interpreting statisticsand secondary data from research on theplace and publications on the history of the placeand its institutions. Survey data mapping thegeographical scale of the social, political andbusiness relations of the given firms/industryas they are stretched out in space are also important.However, as exemplified in the next section,in-depth case studies activating differentqualitative techniques (participant observation,fieldwork conversations and semi-structuredinterviews) are needed to grasp the social fieldconstellations, the cultural content of thesefields, and the dynamics between practices andprocesses in different fields. Such timeconsumingcase studies should be selected basedon their explanatory power, focusing on thesocial fields of firm managers and their relationalpractices.By the beginning of the twenty-first century,12 fish-processing firms were located inEllingsøy, a small island in the western part ofNorway with a population of 1700. In total, thesefirms were employing approximately 20% of thelocal workforce or the equivalent of 300 manyears.All but one firm was established before1970. Further, they were all locally controlledfamily businesses. Eight of the firms had fewerthan 20 man-years, while the rest had between20 and 70. The firms were highly specializedin producing dried salted fish (bacalao). About90% of the internationally traded dried saltedfish is exported from Norway, while Brazil andPortugal represent the main market with approximately80% of total consumption. During the1990s, Ellingsøy strengthened its position inthe Norwegian fish-processing industry underincreased national and international competitioncaused by deregulation of the sector. In thisperiod, the production of the Ellingsøy industrytripled. The industry was also innovative. Theyinvested heavily in new equipment to make theproduction process more efficient, and reorganizedpart of their input and output relations.Through this, the firms were able to increasetheir access to new markets for raw fish to securetheir input relation. The majority of the firmsorganized output relations by obtaining theirown export licences. In short, Ellingsøy exemplifieda small innovative local milieu with astrong market position. The question was why.Cooperation among local firms and links touniversities and research institutions were negligible.Such cooperation is heightened withinanalyses inspired by the system of innovationapproach. Thus, an alternative explanation hadto be sought. As part of this effort, we mappedthe social field system in which the fishingindustry and its managers took part, the knowledgeand rules of conduct found in these socialfields, and how the interplay in and between thesocial fields could explain the capabilities ofinnovation. The study demonstrated the existenceof three main fields: the bacalao, familyfirm and community fields. In these fields, practiceswere guided by field-specific knowledge ofproduction that particularly concerned informalknowledge, and where the multilevel, complex336Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 337and unique dynamics of the field system in questionhad considerable impact on the innovativenessof the industry. The outcome of thesedynamics is mainly incremental, small-stepinnovations facilitated by informal knowledgeproduction and field-specific rules of conduct.2 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the bacalao fieldIn Ellingsøy, informal knowledge was found inthe international bacalao field. The key actorsof this field were the bacalao producers inNorway and the middlemen or agents in themarkets of bacalao, especially in Brazil. Thehistory of the field went back several generationsand a certain type of knowledge and cultural capitalwas needed to become a member. Through ahistorical process and deepening specialization,the actors of the fish-processing industry ofEllingsøy had developed comprehensive informalcompetence and experience about theproduction of bacalao. The production processcould be divided into three phases: salting, dryingand classification. The first phase, the productionof salted fish, was conventional with standardizedtechnologies and practices. The drying phase wasmore complicated. It was based on local capabilitiesshared by the members of the bacalao field:It is almost an ‘art’ to get the perfect result when youare drying. It is hard to know precisely how long to drythe fish. It varies a lot with the shape and the weight ofthe fish. You almost have to ‘live with it’ before youcan say that you master it. (Local manager)If the fish were dried incorrectly, the quality waspoor and the market value of the fish fell. Forexample, if the fish were dried for too long theylost weight and volume. Consequently, incomewas reduced. Instruments were used to measurethe humidity of the fish, but a manual process ofsqueezing the fish was also used. In this process,the inspectors were using their capabilities todetermine when the fish were perfect. Key membersof the firms, such as the owner, the manageror the production leader performed the role ofinspectors. They had been socialized into thebacalao field and obtained the tacit knowledgethat existed within the field.In the third phase, the salted dried fish wereclassified according to size, humidity andquality. This was done manually and by membersof the staff with specific competence. Theproducers had to follow a set of formal rules.Customers in the bacalao field, for instancein Brazil, would complain if they received aproduct that was not produced according tothese rules. Actors unfamiliar with the capabilitiesof the bacalao field will easily fail in theclassification procedure. If such errors wererepeated, the producer would lose trust andposition in the market.The members of the bacalao field have alsodeveloped specific knowledge for operating inthe market of bacalao. During the postwar period,most of the firms at Ellingsøy obtained their ownexport licences. This enabled them to avoidNorwegian exporters as middlemen in overseastrade relations. Another effect of export licenceswas closer contact with the art of trade/marketing.As mentioned, Brazil has been the most importantmarket for dried salted fish from Norway.The export to Brazil was organized throughmiddlemen or agents in the Brazilian market.The agents received a portion of their sales asincome, and were performing all the practicalexport procedures. Most of the agents were eitherBrazilian or European emigrantslivinginBrazil.Over time, the producers at Ellingsøy had establishedclose relations with Brazilian agents:We started to use an Italian emigrant just after theSecondWorldWar.Whenhediedacoupleofyears ago, his son, who is now our official agent,took over. He has been involved in the firm ‘sincethe day he could walk’ and knows all about fishtrading. They always keep their word and we knowwe can trust them. Since we have worked withthem for such a long time, we also believe thatwe have helped them in developing their agency.(Local manager)Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011337

338 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)The close ties within the international bacalaofield imply that transactions in most cases werepractised without contracts. Thus, the transactionarrangements were based on trust. Throughclose social relations, the producers in Ellingsøyobtained important information about the market.By participating in interactive learning processes,the producers developed innovativecapabilities that enable them to present a productin tune with market demand.3 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the family firm fieldOther informal knowledge affecting thecompetitiveness of the firms was found in thefamily firm field. At Ellingsøy, family memberscontrolled the majority of shares and occupiedmost of the key positions in the enterprises. Allthe managers were, for instance, members of afamily controlling a firm. Further, with oneexception, at least two generations of the familywere involved in the firms. Thus, the milieu atEllingsøy represented a strong form of familybusinesses where informal rules, norms and roleexpectations governed conduct and influencedeconomic practices and innovativeness of thefirms. In general, the family institution has animportant role in socializing new members intosociety, but when a firm is a part of the family’sproject such socializing will also include accumulationof knowledge about production:I have been walking around at my father’s and myuncles’ factories since I was a little kid. When Igrew up I spent all my holidays at the factory helpingout with different things and learning about theproduction. You can say that I have always‘worked’ down at the plant. When my father wantedto step down, it was only natural that I succeededhim. (Local manager)This kind of education, where tacit knowledge istransferred from one generation to another, gavethe firms competitive advantages, especiallywhen new leaders combined informal withformal education. Another institutionalized rulewas that members of the family had to be loyal tothe family and the firm. For example, it wasexpected that members of the next generationwere willing to take over as leaders and make thenecessary sacrifices:I went to the capital to study law. It was importantfor me to get an education. But I could not fulfilmy ambition, because my father died. I had to gohome to my family and sort things out. I was the onewho had to succeed my father as manager. I wantedto practise as a lawyer but it did not turn out thatway. (Local manager)Nevertheless, some of the firms experiencedproblems in cases where members of the nextgeneration were not willing to take over asleaders, or they did not have the required capabilities.There had also been some dispute whenownership stakes were transferred from one generationto the next. To handle such generationshift is a major challenge for all family firms,even those located at Ellingsøy.4 Informal knowledge and rules ofconduct in the community fieldAnother field with informal knowledge ofimportance for the innovativeness of the industryof Ellingsøy was the community field. Itincluded all fish-processing firms at Ellingsøyand other important actors in the local productionsystem (producers of inputs, agents, importers,retail dealers), as well as in the localcommunity in general (local political authorities,neighbours and families). Not surprisingly,informal rules, norms and role expectations regulatinginteractions among the members of thecommunity field had been developed. For example,there were institutionalized role expectationsin the community field affecting workethics on the management level:I spend an awful lot of time down at the factory.I almost never have time off. That is only when I getaway from Ellingsøy. Otherwise, I have to be338Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 339available at almost every hour. I have to check thedrying process in the evening, and take care of boatsbringing raw fish or picking up dried salted fish forexport. (Local manager)If the managers and the firms followed theserules for work ethics, they accumulated whatBourdieu (1977: 41) defines as symbolic capitalor ‘collectively recognized credit’. This symboliccapital could be converted into economiccapital. Firms with high local prestige met fewproblems in recruiting workers. Such firms alsoachieved trust in the bacalao field, since knowledgeof which firms are operating in a fair way,and which firms are not, becomes common.However, the dynamics of the field is of specialinterest, because it had a positive influence onthe information flow among the firms and thework ethic within the firms. Economic activityin the fish-processing industry of Ellingsøy wascharacterized by strong competition among theproducers:When I saw that the manager and the staff of thefirm next to us were working late, I always feltthat we also had to put in extra hours. And whenI realized that they had expanded and invested innew equipment, I felt that we had to do the same.We did not want to be left behind. (Localmanager)In general, it was important for a producer tocollect information about other firms to confirmand, if necessary, amend their own methodsand strategies. However, informal rulesgoverning competition among the fishprocessingfirms of Ellingsøy prevented actorsfrom collecting information through visits orother types of direct contact. Instead, the producerscollected information through a formof ‘monitoring’ by participating in the communityfield:There is a kind of hidden monitoring taking place.You talk to suppliers and other people in the area(community) and you get a grip on what is goingon. Everybody is doing this, so it’s not hidden, literallyspeaking. (Local manager)Figure 2. The social field system of the fishprocessingindustry of Ellingsøy5 The interfield dynamicsThe social field system of the fish-processingindustry of Ellingsøy is illustrated in Figure 2.Each of the 12 dots in the figure represents a firm.The white ellipse surrounding the dots illustratesindividual family firm field. The largest whiteellipse illustrates the bacalao field.Itincludesthefirms of Ellingsøy, but the majority of its agentsare found outside the local community. Theshaded ellipse illustrates the community field.The shading indicates that the rules of conductfor this social field coordinate the system.In the previous section, it was stressed that ina globalizing economy the social field situationis characterized by complexity, where actorsparticipate in several social fields of differentscale and with various type of actors, knowledgeand rules of conduct. The three main social fieldsof the Ellingsøy have been present for a longtime. Still, the numbers of relations and flowof knowledge in each of these fields showincreased complexity. New linkages to providersof raw fish and technology have beenestablished and their international market relationshave been intensified. On the level of firmmanagement, globalization is challenging theDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011339

340 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)system. Many present members of the familieslack the required motivation. Globalization hasopen new spaces and carrier possibilities andmade the next generation less willing to takeover as leaders of the family firms.The practices of these fields are influenced byevents and processes in micro- as well as macroscalefields accelerated by current time-spacecompression. The Ellingsøy case demonstratesthe development of knowledge and rules of conductin several overlapping fields. The industryis part of and plays an important role in an internationalbacalao field characterized by specialcodified knowledge and rules of conductgoverning the production and trade of bacalao.Second, informal knowledge affecting thecompetitiveness of the industry is found in thefamily firm field. Third, membership and practicesin a local community field regulate theinformation flow among the firms and the workethic that characterizes the milieu.A closer look at the interfield dynamics of theindustry indicates that the community field is the‘glue’ and the hegemonic field of the system.Despite a lack of direct contact and cooperationamong firms, there is an ongoing diffusion ofknowledge among the firms involved in thecommunity field. It takes place through informalor social relations among key persons in differentfirms, through communication among workersin different firms, through sellers of inputfactors who have several of the local producersas customers, when people employed in one firmmove to another firm, and simply by the fact thatkey persons in different firms participate in thesocial life of the community. There is a reciprocalinterdependency among local firms, andthe maintenance of this balance is critical forknowledge accumulation and innovation practicewithin these firms.6 Evidence from other case studiesThe analytical framework based on the conceptof social field has been developed and refinedthrough several case studies in rural Norway(Fløysand and Jakobsen, 2002, 2007; Fløysandand Lindkvist, 2001; Fløysand and Sjøholt,2007). From these case studies, we have learnedthat innovative practice can be placed in severalsocial fields and that this practice embraces productionof meaning comprising conventions,narratives and rules of conduct that the fieldmembers use to interpret, maintain and generatenew meaning and innovative practices. We havefound that in some areas the ability of industry totake advantage of globalization and innovationhas been remarkably strong, while other areasare lacking the capacity to adjust and innovate.We have also observed that innovation often canbe the outcome of self-organizing strategiesemerging through day-to-day practice andface-to-face contact. Our studies also indicatethat it is important for economic actors to participatein social fields of different geographicalscales and knowledge production if viable localmilieux are to be developed. The most innovativeenvironments have expanded their relationsin the direction of a multiscale field system.External influences have come from wideningthe fields of trade and crossing into internationalmarkets. The integration in these fields has madethe industries multiscaled in their embeddedness.This has had a positive influence on therestructuring of industry activities. However, theglue in the field systems has, in most cases, beenthe community field. Since it serves as an arenain which knowledge, experiences and ideas fromexternal and local fields are merged, this field isvery often characterized by informal networking,and the interweaving of individuals, firmsand networks of different scales.A study informed by the system of innovationapproach would have highlighted territorialaspects and the need for formal linkages amongsubsystems within RIS. Social network theorywould have focused on the social and culturalaspects underlying networking and innovations.The strength and novelty of the social fieldapproach is that it integrates informal knowledge340Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 341and rules of conduct (cultural aspects), multipletypes of relational practice (social aspects) andgeographical scale (territorial aspects) of innovationpractice into one analytical framework.The approach has also been developed torecognize other blind spots in the innovation literature,eg, its failure to treat gender seriously.The approach was applied to study how processesof globalization influenced the gendereddivision of labour in a fishery community inSpain. It examined how effects were reflectedin narratives, social fields and constructions ofgender, and how this could inform the relationsamong globalization, the construction of genderrelations and economic performance (Fløysandand Sæther, 2007). The study revealed thattime-space compression caused new field constellationsand field dynamics, changing the narrativesand conduct of women and men in theregional innovation system linked to fisheriesin a marginalizing way for the women. However,additional studies are needed to furtherelaborate our approach and form more solidconclusions on the gendered complexity ofinnovation practice.V Innovation studies as arelational phenomenonIn this paper, we have argued for a relationalturn within innovation studies. We have donethis stepwise: first, by going back to roots to elaborateon how innovation was originally definedwithin the systems of innovation approach (sectionII): second, by outlining a relational-basedanalytical framework based on the concept ofsocial fields (section III); and, finally, by demonstratinghow it has been applied (section IV).The discussion has revealed that at the core ofinnovation system theory stands the recognitionthat innovation needs to be defined as an uncertainprocess of reflexive and dynamic interactingactors operating in a given time-spatial context.We find this definition to be reasonable, andhave consequently been critical towards bestpracticeinnovation studies operating with morefixed and standardized understanding of innovation(Enright, 2003; Sôlvell et al.; 2003). Tomatch a definition of innovation as a relationalphenomenon and an open-ended process, wehave introduced an analytical framework basedon the concept of social field. In this framework,it is believed that actors of all kinds, economicactors included, play out their economicpractice in time-spatial relational systems ofmore or less interrelated, but observable socialfields. Broadly stated, practices in such fieldsreflect field-specific knowledge held withinfirms, industries, places, communities andregions. A social field system is an empiricalphenomenon. Thus, operation of the frameworkassumes examining relationships among actorsto explore how economic practice is embeddedculturally, socially and territorially in differentsocial fields.Innovation system theory defines learningand knowledge creation as a key driver for entrepreneurshipand innovation. Again we agree, butfindings and conclusions of innovation studieswill be influenced by their empirical programmes.The best-practice innovation studiesseem to be linked to an empirical programmeassuming the geographical co-location of a comprehensivebusiness milieu and an advancedknowledge infrastructure of universities andresearch institutions. A majority of these studies,inspired by the system of innovation approach,are thus based on empirical evidence fromhighly advanced metropolitan areas or studiesof high-tech industries. Consequently, they tendto prioritize formal knowledge of universitiesand research institutions over the informal andpractical knowledge of individual firms andmilieux. The relational framework for innovationstudies suggested in this paper has beendeveloped and refined through several casestudies in rural Norway, one of which we havepresented to exemplify its operation. Thisempirical focus has revealed that most innovativepractices are influenced by tacit knowledgeDownloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011341

342 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)and dynamics characterized by a strong corporateresponsibility or commitment to the localcommunity. The field dynamics in rural areasseem to motivate economic actors to maximizesocial capital in addition to profit, in the processstimulating hybrid forms of capitalism that balanceinternal and external resources (people,knowledge and economic capital). The result isa ‘local buzz’ coexisting with ‘global pipelines’facilitating or constraining innovation (Batheltet al., 2004). The findings in our studies in manyways contradict the dynamics stressed in thebest-practice innovation studies. This can bepartly explained by the reality of divergingempirical programmes. However, it can beargued that the hegemony of best-practiceinnovation studies, characterized by combiningideas from the systems of innovation approachand the terminology of corporate, benchmarkingand policy-making, reflects a certain neoliberalbias within the innovation literature. It is aboutpicking winners, facilitating growth in dynamicregions and copying successful models. Weinstead argue for studies that facilitate the developmentof context-sensitive policy tools that balancethe promotion of dynamic milieux andregions with tailor-made incentives for areaslagging behind (see also Tödtling and Trippl,2005). Thus, our final point is that a relationalturn within innovation studies also encouragesus to reflect on the ideologies and networksbehind innovation studies and innovation policyin a broader sense.AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful for valuable comments andsuggestions from the editors and three anonymousreferees. The research was made possible by a grantfrom the Norwegian Research Council.Notes1. The system of innovation approach was developed duringthe 1980s and 1990s. It is closely linked to the conceptof National Innovation System (NIS), and issometimes referred to as the NIS-approach (Lundvall,1992). However, in line with the writings of Edquist(1997), we opt for the term ‘systems of innovation’.2. Balzat and Hanusch (2004) use the term ‘policyorientatedstudies’ to describe these new contributionsto the system of innovation approach. We prefer theterm ‘best-practice innovation studies’, because it highlightsan orientation towards benchmarking and quickfixes within the innovation literature.3. See, for instance, Fløysand and Jakobsen (2002, 2007);Fløysand and Lindkvist (2001); Fløysand and Sjøholt(2007).ReferencesAmin A and Roberts J (2008) Knowing in action: Beyondcommunities of practice. Research Policy 37: 353–369.Amin A and Thrift N (2007) Cultural-economy and cities.Progress in Human Geography 31: 143–61.Balzat M and Hanusch H (2004) Recent trends in theresearch on national innovation systems. Journal ofEvolutionary Economics 14: 197–210.Bathelt H and Glückler J (2003) Toward a relational economicgeography. Journal of Economic Geography 3:117–44.Bathelt H, Malmberg A, and Maskell P (2004) Clustersand knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and theprocess of knowledge creation. Progress in HumanGeography 28: 31–56.Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Coe NM, Dicken P, and Hess M (2008) Global productionnetworks: Realizing the potential. Journal of EconomicGeography 8: 271–95.Cooke P (2001) Regional innovation systems, clusters andthe knowledge economy. Industrial and CorporateChange 10: 945–74.Cooke P, Heidenreich M, and Braczyk HJ (2004) RegionalInnovation System: The Role of Governances in aGlobalized World. London: Routledge.de Bruijn P and Lagendijk A (2005) Regional innovationsystems in the Lisbon strategy. European PlanningStudies 13: 1153–1172.DiMaggio PJ and Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationalityin organizational fields. In Powell WW and DiMaggioPJ (eds) The New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 63–82.Edquist C (1997) Systems of innovation approaches: Theiremergence and characteristics. In Edquist C (ed.)342Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011

Fløysand and Jakobsen 343Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions andOrganisations. London: Pinter, 1–35.Enright M (2003) Regional clusters: What we know andwhat we should know. In Bröcker J, Dohse D, andSoltwedel R (eds) Innovation Clusters and InterregionalCompetition. Berlin: Springer, 99–129.Fagerberg J (2003) Schumpeter and the revival ofevolutionary economics: An appraisal of the literature.Journal of Evolutionary Economics 13: 125–59.Ffowcs-Williams I (2004) Cluster development: Redlight and green light. Paper prepared for ANZRSAI’s‘Sustaining Regions’, 24 May.Fløysand A and Jakobsen S-E (2002) Clusters, social fieldsand capabilities: Rules and restructuring in Norwegianfish processing clusters. International Studies inManagement and Organisation 31: 35–55.Fløysand A and Jakobsen S-E (2007) Commodificationof rural places: A narrative of social fields, rural development,and football. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 206–21.Fløysand A and Lindkvist KB (2001) Globalisation, localcapitalism and fishery communities in change. MarinePolicy 25: 113–21.Fløysand A and Sæther A (2007) Globalización, comunidadespesqueras y construcción de género: El caso deMuros (Galicia). Boletín de la Asociacion de GeograficosEspañoles 45: 31–48.Fløysand A and Sjøholt P (2007) Rural development andembeddedness: The importance of human relations forindustrial restructuring in rural areas. Sociologia Ruralis47: 205–27.Fonseca J (2002) Complexity and Innovation in Organizations.London: Routledge.Furman JL, Porter ME, and Stern S (2002) The determinantsof national innovation capacity. Research Policy31: 899–933.Giddens A (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self andSociety in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journalof Sociology 91: 481–510.Grønhaug R (1974) Micro-macro relations: Social organizationin Antalya, Southern Turkey. Occasional Paper7, Department of Social Anthropology, University ofBergen, Norway.Grønhaug R (1978) Scale as a variable in analysis: Field insocial organisation in Herat, northwest Afghanistan. InBarth F (ed.) Scale and Social Organisation. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,78–121.Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science?Papers of the Regional Science Association 24: 7–21.Hess M (2004) ‘Spatial’ relationships? Towards a reconceptualizationof embeddedness. Progress in HumanGeography 28: 165–86.Howells JRL (2002) Tacit knowledge, innovation and economicgeography. Urban Studies 39: 871–84.Jakobsen SE, Gammelsæter H, and Fløysand A (2009) Thespatial embeddedness of professional football clubs inNorway. Soccer and Society 10: 261–79.Jensen MB, Johnson B, Lorenz E, and Lundvall BÅ (2007)Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation.Research Policy 36: 680–693.Laumann EO, Galskeiwicz L, and Marsden PV (1978)Community structures as interorganizational linkages.Annual Review of Sociology 4: 455–484.Lave J and Wenger E (1991) Situated Learning:Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Linton R (1936) The Study of Man: An Introduction. NewYork: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Lundvall BÅ (1992) Introduction. In Lundvall BÅ (ed.)Systems of Innovations. London: Pinter, 1–19.Lundvall BÅ (2007) National innovation systems –analytical concept and development tool. Industry andInnovation 14(1): 95–119.Martin R and Sunley P (2007): Complexity thinking andevolutionary economic geography. Journal of EconomicGeography 7: 573–601.Nohria N and Eccles RG (1992) Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form, and Action. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.Peck J (2003) Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen.Regional Studies 37: 729–40.Polanyi K (1944) The Great Transformation. The Politicaland Economic Origins of Our Time. Boston, MA:Beacon Press.Polt W, Rammer C, Gassler H, Schibany A, andSchartinger D (2001) Benchmarking industry–sciencerelations: The role of framework conditions. Scienceand Public Policy 28: 247–58.Porter ME and Stern S (2002) National innovation capacity.In Porter ME, Sachs JD, Cornelius PK, McArthurJW, and Schwab K (eds) World Economic Forum. TheGlobal Competitiveness Report 2001–2002. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 102–119.Scott WR (1995) Institutions and Organizations.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011343

344 Progress in Human Geography 35(3)Sölvell Ö, Lindqvist G, and Ketels C (2003) The ClusterInitiative Greenbook. Stockholm: Bromma Tryck.Storper M (1997) The Regional World. Territorial Developmentin a Global Economy. New York: Guilford.Sunley P (2008) Relational economic geography: A partialunderstanding or a new paradigm? Economic Geography84: 1–26.Swyngedouw E (2004) Globalisation or ‘glocalisation’?Networks, territories and rescaling. Cambridge Reviewof International Affairs 17: 25–48.Tödtling F and Trippl M (2005) One size fits all? Towardsa differentiated regional innovation policy approach.Research Policy 34: 1203–1219.Uyarra E (2010) What is evolutionary about ‘regionalsystems of innovation’? Implications for regionalpolicy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 20: 115–137.Yeung HW (2005) Rethinking relational economicgeography. Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers 30: 37–51.344Downloaded from phg.sagepub.com at Høgskolen i Bergen on May 25, 2011