ermis ciapetti

Comune di Cesena
Local Innovation systems after the global crisis….
Knowledge in place: is that a sufficient condition for
innovation and development?
A bottom up view from Emilia Romagna and ForlìCesena Province
ERMIS, 22 April 2010
Lorenzo Ciapetti,
Ciapetti, ANTARES, University of Bologna, Forlì
Forlì campus, Italy
Knowledge in
place: is that a
sufficient
condition for
innovation and
development?
Evolutionary economic geography
Knowledge transmission
Knowledge distribution
“How knowledge is transmitted,
transmitted, among whom,
whom, at
what distance and on the basis of which
codebooks”
Breschi, Lissoni,
Lissoni, 2001)
codebooks” (Breschi,
Flat world VS Spiky world (Feiock,
Feiock, 2009): Issue of
distribution of knowledge across space and the
landscape (Malecki,
Malecki, 2009)
Knowledge bases
Knowledge flows through forms with advanced
absortive capacities (Giuliani, 2005); Some firms act
as gatekeepers (Morrison, 2004); Role of pipelines
(Bathelt et al., 2002); Knowledge bases
Knowledge hubs
Triple helix (Etzkowitz H., L. Leydesdorff,
Leydesdorff, 2000)
Case of mechatronic district in Emilia Romagna (Antares 2007; Ciapetti,
Ciapetti, 2010)
FORTHCOMING (October 2010): KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER AND TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION, edited by
Paul L. Robertson and David Jacobson
Transition from the manufacture of traditional machinery in the district to the production of
mechatronic devices. The design and production of mechatronic devices is based on the integration of
two knowledge bases (KBs
).
(KBs).
- how the district’s leading medium-tech firms absorb and diffuse knowledge;
- how they translate knowledge into innovative products and react to market pressures;
- how they maintain or discard local inter-firm linkages during the globalization of the
economy;
- how these strategies impact the district’s evolutionary trajectory.
Confirmation of Hypothesis 1: Leading firms tend to protect externally
absorbed strategic knowledge and organize their inter-firm
production organization accordingly.
Partial confirmation of Hypothesis 2: Absorbed knowledge translates
into new products that help maintain and expand market shares.
Partial confirmation of Hypothesis 3: The new knowledge base of leader
firms introduces a relative cognitive distance.
Local
Innovation
system (LIS) as
a governance
approach
LIS: need to avoid same problem of RIS, that is no adequate
understanding of multilevel dynamics (Uyarra,
Uyarra, 2010)
top down dimension: institutional framework, university-industry strategy
(today fragmented approaches in Italy on this!)
LIS has a bottom up dimension: dynamics stemming from agglomeration
of firms in territories, localised patterns of communication, search and
scanning processes invention and learning patterns (Howells,
Howells, 1999; Uyarra,
Uyarra, 2010)
The evolutionary approach should integrate macro and micro view (Boschma
and Frenken,
Frenken, 2006)
Key
dimensions in
Emilia
Romagna,
Forlì-Cesena
N. of requested patents, 2005 (per million inhabitants)
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Trentino - Alto Adige
Piemonte
Veneto
Lombardia
2. High level of
codified
knowledge
1. Manufacturing base:
polarisation between
advanced and traditional
knowledge bases
Emilia Romagna
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Cotec
120,0
3. “Third mission”
mission”
of University
100,0
80,0
United States
France
60,0
30
Germany
Italy
25
Spain
40,0
United Kingdom
20
20,0
15
0,0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
10
180
5
Manufacturing employment
Forlì-Cesena
160
140
0
120
Governo centrale
Manufacturing
employment Emilia
Romagna
100
80
40
20
Netval
0
1981
1991
2001
Regioni e enti
locali
media italiana
60
1971
Fondi propri
d'ateneo
2006
Unione Europea
Contratti di
ricerca finanziati
da terzi e servizi
Università di Bologna
altro
160
A “bottom up”
view of
Territorial
determinants of
innovation
Emilia Romagna and Forlì
Forlì-Cesena
- relative dede-industrialisation
- polarised manufacturing systems (Medium firms VS small firms)
firms)
- new challenge of Technopoles
Territory of Cesena
- relative increase of highhigh-tech firms but still problems with knowledge bases in small firms
- success of the “third mission”
mission” of University of Bologna (?)
KEY CHALLENGES
- Universities as knowledge hubs (Youtie,
Youtie, Shapira,
Shapira, 2007); problems with midrange localities
(Wright, 2008; Ciapetti,
Ciapetti, 2009)
- Communication between knowledge bases (Camuffo et al., 2005)
- Complimentary assets (Teece,
Teece, 1985)
- Local collective competition goods (Crouch et al., 2004)
- Green economy mutation (Cooke,
Cooke, 2009) and innovation