Exogenous sources of regional industrial change

By Michaela Trippl, Markus Grillitsch, Arne Isaksen. 2018

371 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ca6e6b95f10ec7a1efb912dd81b5295bba0d5c0b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces (2020, background): “…composition (Boschma et al., 2017; Grillitsch and Asheim, 2018), the possibilities to tap knowledge and resources from extra-regional sources (Trippl et al., 2017), the support structure for innovation and entrepreneurship (Mason and Brown, 2014; Asheim and Gertler, 2005), as well as the…”
Complementary interregional linkages and Smart Specialisation: an empirical study on European regions (2020, background): “Also, the path development literature pays little attention to the role of inter-regional linkages for new path creation (Trippl et al. 2018).”
Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development (2019, methodology): “In line with this work, we see it as vital to employ a multi-actor perspective (e.g., Trippl et al., 2018) and to take account of other activities than the recombination of knowledge by firms to grasp the complexity of how new industrial paths come into being and develop over time.”
New directions for RIS studies and policies in the face of grand societal challenges (2021, background): “…that regions show varying endowments of key elements of RISs (see, for instance, Isaksen & Trippl, 2017) and that regions and their innovation systems differ markedly in the ways in which they are inserted into global production and innovation linkages (MacKinnon, 2012; Trippl et al., 2018).”
Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views (2018, background): “Isaksen and Trippl (2016) and Trippl et al. (2017) suggest that regions vary in their preconditions and capacities to develop new industrial paths due to pronounced differences in endogenous potentials and different abilities to attract and absorb exogenous resources: Metropo-litan regions are seen…”
Regional worlds: from related variety in regional diversification to strategic coupling in global production networks (2020, background): “…incumbent firms acting as knowledgetransfer channels and building both production and nonproduction connections to firms and industries at higher geographical scales, for example, national or global scales (see also Bathelt & Li, 2020; Henn& Bathelt, 2018; Trippl et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2017).”
Universities and open innovation: the determinants of network centrality (2019, background): “This phased transition is necessitated by the risk that organisations become rigid and outdated when local networks fail to keep abreast of knowledge emerging outside of their respective region (Camagni 1991; Izushi 1997; Bathelt et al. 2004; de Noronha Vaz and Nijkamp 2009; Ter Wal and Boschma 2011”
The dark side of regional industrial path development: towards a typology of trajectories of decline (2019, background): “Protagonists of this approach have provided a differentiated view on how such processes unfold, distinguishing between path renewal, diversification, importation and creation (Tödtling and Trippl, 2013; Isaksen, 2015; Grillitsch et al., 2018; Trippl et al., 2018).”