No abstract

PostprintThis is the accepted version of a paper published in Environment and planning A. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.Citation for the original published paper (version of record):Jansson, J., Waxell, A. (2011) Quality and regional competitiveness. Environment and planning AbstractRecent literature on competitiveness has focused on innovation and industrial dynamics. In this paper it is argued that innovation is not enough when competing on global markets, at least in certain types of industries where performance, standards, and perceptions of the product are at the forefront. In addition to existing theory we focus on the role of 'quality' in creating and sustaining regional competitive advantage. A theoretical framework for identifying and analyzing processes creating and re-recreating understandings, perceptions and experiences of quality, i.e. a quality promise, is presented. In the framework, the quality process is divided into three dimensions, labelled performance, projection, and protection.Regional competitiveness is arguably achieved when: a) a good or a service is well represented in one or more of the quality dimensions; b) quality perception and knowledge permeate all actors and their activities and are inherent throughout the value chain; and c) space is an integral part of these processes in that it facilitates i) localized learning/localization economies and ii) place-based branding. It is argued that quality should be viewed as deeply embedded in space and that quality processes have both homogeneous and heterogeneous characteristics.

No abstract

ABSTRACT

This article contributes to the ongoing debate on the role of university research for innovation and economic growth, a debate highly influenced by concepts such as Mode 2 and regional innovation systems and clusters. A prominent trend in many EU and OECD countries is to direct research funding towards so-called Centres of Excellence (CoEs) in order to stimulate the industrial output of scientific research. The implementation of the CoE approach is viewed as an attempt to bridge research and innovation policy. By using Sweden as an example and providing an overview and critical discussion concerning Swedish research policy during the period 2001 to 2007 we show that the rhetoric within research policy has changed and become increasingly intertwined with innovation policy. In practice, however, this is not as evident. The study draws on (a) an analysis of policy literature pointing out regulatory and organizational changes concerning the increasing emphasis on linking research to competitive industrial milieus, and (b) a comprehensive database including 110 CoEs, presenting a detailed picture of university-industry collaboration, cross-disciplinarity, and prioritized sectors. We find that the CoEs account for a relatively small share of government funding, but may however have a strengthening impact on particular research milieus and industries, especially in the life sciences. Additionally, although contemporary policy rhetoric appears to highlight steering funding to geographically-concentrated milieus, thereby linking leading university research to regional industrial clusters, this has only been manifested in a few cases -notably in the Vinnväxt programme run by Vinnova, the national agency promoting innovation systems.