Institutional Entrepreneurship for Knowledge Regions: In Search of a Fresh Set of Questions for Regional Innovation Studies

By Markku Sotarauta, Riina Pulkkinen. 2011

167 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management of Technology and Innovation, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, Urban Studies

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e802a1870730fb74e7d87aac7fc7182a6dce5fa3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Management of Technology and Innovation

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

In Urban Studies

Citations in the corpus

Agency and actors in regional industrial path development. A framework and longitudinal analysis (2020, background): “trepreneurship usually engages multiple actors, with potential incongruous visions and aims, who work together to transform dominant institutional arrangements (Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011; Sotarauta, 2016; Sotarauta and Suvinen, 2018).”
Rethinking Path Creation: A Geographical Political Economy Approach (2019, background): “In general, the process of institutional change is best understood as one of gradual transformation rather than abrupt dislocation as institutional entrepreneurs adapt and recombine existing institutional arrangements and mould them into new configurations in support of particular path creation agen”
A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda (2017, background): “…and so forth), as radical entrepreneurship depends on the mobilization of resources and the creation or transformation of institutions at various spatial scales (Binz, Truffer, & Coenen, 2016; Garud, Jain, & Kumaraswamy, 2002; Marquis & Raynard, 2015; Sotarauta & Pulkkinen, 2011; Strambach, 2010).”
Agents of Structural Change: The Role of Firms and Entrepreneurs in Regional Diversification (2018, background): “…by firms, other authors have highlighted how the way to the structural change we have described is paved by local agents (private and public) who transform institutions through collective action that mobilizes knowledge, resources, and public opinion (Strambach 2010; Sotarauta and Pulkkinen 2011).”
Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: a research agenda (2017, unknown): “…in collective action to mobilize knowledge, resources and public opinion, as to build legitimacy and create new institutions or shape existing institutions at various spatial scales to enable new industry formation in regions (Marquis & Raynard, 2015; Sotarauta & Pulkkinen, 2011; Strambach, 2010).”
Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation (2017, background): “…broader than a neoliberal agenda and it resonates with what regional scholars have called “institutional entrepreneurship”, which highlights how actors broadly defined can act as purposive agents to transform the institutional settings in which they are embedded (Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011).”
Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces (2020, background): “…in and beyond specific path development processes, and (c) the system perspective focuses on the institutional embeddedness of actors at the regional, national, and global scale that frame path development as well as forms of agency (cf. Sotarauta, 2016; Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011).”
Strategic agency and institutional change: investigating the role of universities in regional innovation systems (RISs) (2017, background): “Institutional entrepreneurs mobilize resources and actionable knowledge to create/transform ‘institutions’ (Karlsen, Larrea, Aranguren, & Wilson, 2012; Livi, Crevosier, & Jeannerrat, 2014; Sotarauta, 2011) to address RIS inefficiencies.”
Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development (2019, background): “…Boxenbaum, 2009), which direct attention to a broad range of different actors (policy-makers, politicians, university leaders, firm managers, etc.) who ‘mobilize resources, competence, and power to create new institutions or to transform existing institutions’ (Sotarauta & Pulkkinen, 2011, p. 98).”
The ineffectiveness of entrepreneurship policy: is policy formulation to blame? (2014, background): “…up the ‘black box’ of formulating enterprise policy without having to add on layers of complexity in explanations at an individual level (Linder and Peters 1990), but it also enables the exploration of the interaction between actors and their institutional setting (Sotarauta and Pulkkinen 2011).”