Expanding Analyses of Path Creation: Interconnections between Territory and Technology

Abstract

Theoretically and conceptually, evolutionary economic geography has paid little attention to technological characteristics when explaining the emergence of new industries. Building on the literature on technological innovation systems, the article develops a framework for investigating interconnections between territorial dynamics and technological characteristics in path creation processes. The theoretical argument is operationalized in an analytical framework that is applied in empirical investigation of two green technologies and their linkages to the region of southwestern Norway, namely, carbon capture and storage and maritime battery technology. As illustrated by the empirical investigation, territorial dynamics or technological characteristics alone do not explain path creation. Rather, interconnections between the two and how interconnections play out in time and space are considered focal.

Policy-relevant insights for regional renewable energy deployment

“…While the geography of energy transitions continues to mature [20,21], a variety of contributions have emphasised the role that local and regional institutional settings play in influencing the pace and scope of sustainability transitions [22][23][24][25]. Also, a substantial body of literature has focussed on innovation and local/regional capabilities for developing new growth paths [26,27], in which regions emerge as significant sites for innovation and experimentation [28][29][30][31][32], where objectives other than climate change, such as employment, may be achieved [33]. And it has been shown how differing regional industrial specialisations, natural resource endowments and local/regional institutional set-ups can promote differences in approaches to and outcomes of energy transitions and the policies that affect them [34,35].…”

Place-based industrial strategy and economic trajectory: advancing agency-based approaches

“…Baumgartinger-Seiringer et al (2021) noted critiques of EEG-based explanations, especially their silence on the role of agents other than firms. These alternative actors include potentially powerful forces including institutions such as universities (Njøs et al, 2020). Moreover, EEG provides few insights into how planning for the future reshapes local industry and awards little priority to the purposive action of governments or communities (Hassink et al, 2019).…”

Industry legitimacy: bright and dark phases in regional industry path development

“…However, as suggested by Binz et al (2016b), knowledge is not the only resource that matters for path development processes: markets, financial investments and legitimacy are also considered key resources for the development of new industrial paths. While formation processes leading to the development of these resources may be interconnected (Njøs et al, 2020), our analysis focuses on legitimacy. The next section focusses on the role of industry legitimacy for emerging industrial paths and proposes a framework for understanding developments in industry legitimacy, which adds to our understanding of negative path development processes for emerging industries.…”