From 1.2.1 section is emerged that diffusion and absorption of knowledge depends on the presence of systemic cooperation among innovation actors.
As highlighted by OECD (2011), where there is an hub of competence at local level, namely knowledge accumulation in a location, other innovation actors move to the same place; so, it can be inferred that innovation goes toward location; obviously, the more it happens, the more the geographical proximity of innovation actors growths.
In addition to the critical role played by knowledge accumulation for territorial innovation, literature has also highlighted the significance of knowledge circulation around locations (OECD, 2010), i.e. within locations, from outside to inside locations and in the opposite way.
So, it can be inferred that innovation goes toward locations characterized by a networked hub of accumulated knowledge, with internal and external knowledge connections; in other words, it may be inferred that innovation goes towards “centers of attractiveness” of the knowledge accumulation and circulation. Obviousely, within this viewpoint the critical mass and the critical variety of competencies (relevant to explore and exploit the flow of technological opportunities) become key attributes for the innovation development.
Literature has also recognized the critical role played by local institutional conditions for their impact on the systemic development of innovation; indeed - according to Boschma R.A. (2005) idea that <<not only too little, but also too much proximity may be detrimental to interactive learning and innovation>> because <<proximity (in whatever form) have a positive impact (solving the problem of co- ordination) and also a negative impact on innovation (lock-in)>> - institutions are able to balance every form (cognitive, organizational, social, institutional, geographical) of proximity; more in general, as argued by several authors, institutions shape the behavior of actors and their relationships by means law, regulations, values, practices, routines (Trippl, 2006; Andersson and Carlssons 2006).
From the point of view of geographical dimension, <<innovation is most effectively addressed at regional level>> (European Union, 2007); indeed, <<the region is a key, necessary element in the “supply architecture’ for learning and innovation>> (Storper, 1995). Maskell and Malmberg, (1999) also suggested that forms of localized knowledge provide key competitive inputs in the globalized world. At date, it is recognized that the accumulation of technological processes occurs mainly on the regional level and that technological and knowledge spillovers tend to be geographically concentrated (Brenner and Grief, 2006. OECD, 2011). Cook and Memedovic (2003) also argued that <<regions, especially when they have developed clusters and appropriate administrative machinery for supporting innovative enterprise, represent more meaningful communities of economic interest, define genuine flows of economic activities and can take advantage of true linkages and synergies among economic actors.>>.
The smaller is a territory the bigger is the level of geographical proximity of innovation actors, and the bigger is a territory the higher is the number and variety of innovation actors; therefore, geographical proximity and critical mass/variety of innovation actors go in opposite way with respect to territorial dimension; so, according to abovementioned literature on regional dimension of innovation, it may be inferred that regional dimension represents the ideal intermediate dimension, between too small and too big territories - for balancing geographical proximity and critical mass/variety of innovation actors.
So, within this framework it can be stated that regional level works better - with respect to innovation - than national level or sub-regional level. As examples of empirical evidence, it is well known that there has been a polarization of innovation in certain regions around the world (i.e.: Silicon valley, Baden Wurttemberg).
Literature has showed two alternative ways to look at regional scale: the administrative region and the functional one: the administrative region is a territory, smaller than its sovereign state, possessing distinctive administrative power and aimed at governing actors and resources belonging to its geographical borders; as regional
innovation actors are often closely linked to networks at extra-regional spatial level (Pinto H., 2009), the administrative region hasn’t to be looked as a closed island.
On the other hand, according to Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006), the functional region may be defined <<as a territory in which the interaction between the market actors and flows of goods and services create a regional economic system whose borders are determined by the point at which the magnitude of these interactions and flows change from one direction to another>>(fig.1.1).
Fig.1.1: Demarcation of functional regions; source: Andersson M. and Karlsson C. (2006)
Although literature highlights that regional administrative boundaries often lack of economic meaning (Asheim B. T. et al, 2011), as this PhD thesis is aimed at developing a new theoretical framework useful for politically dealing with systemic character of innovation at regional scale, in the following we take into account the governmental aspect of regional innovation; so, this work adopts the concept of administrative region.
1.4 Conclusions
Systemic innovation is a key driving force for the long-term economic growth of a territory, and proximity (cognitive, organizational, social, institutional, geographical) among innovation actors is a key attribute of an innovative territory.
Literature has showed a rich array of theoretical frameworks on territorial systemic innovation; these framework are characterized by several common elements and by the evidence of a recurrent underlying reference for the emergence and self- sustainability concepts; scholars also highlighted the absence of a unified conceptual framework from which an universal model may emerge to guide research and policy (Doloreux D. and Parto S., 2004). So, literature analysis suggests the need of adopting common elements in an unified vision.
Moreover, scientific literature has achieved a large consensus on the fact that systemic innovation has to be viewed from a regional point of view and that it is strongly related to institutional condition and to the presence of intangible resources - such as culture, competence and knowledge - at regional level. So, in order to deal politically with systemic innovation, it can be inferred that regional government has a critical role for the development of regional systemic innovation.