The many roles of change agency in the game of green path development in the North

Abstract

The rapidly expanding stream of path development studies recognises that translating observations from past paths to conscious path creation requires conceptually linking agency to path development frameworks. Actors frame issues about and for the future, coordinate their actions in the present and make sense of what may have transpired in the past. The main objective of the paper is to explore the roles that actors play in green path development by answering the following main research questions: (a) Who are the core actors in green path development in the Nordic regions, ie. in industrial development around products, solutions or technologies that make regional economies more sustainable? (b) What are their main roles in relation to other actors? (c) What are the differences and similarities between the regions in terms of agency? The paper explores whether similar actors take on different roles in different regions and whether different actors may assume similar roles. For the empirical analysis, we identified seven roles in change agency. The empirical results showed that institutional entrepreneurship was the core of change agency in conjunction with innovative entrepreneurship and place-based leadership. The other four roles supported path development efforts. The results also show that institutional entrepreneurship is not a solo activity but a collective form of agency and that well-functioning shared institutional entrepreneurship may have a chance to change institutions for green path development.

Unlocking inclusive growth by linking micro assets to anchor institutions: The case of skilled overseas migrants and refugees and hospital jobs

“…This case study highlights that several policies need to be in place to catalyse links between micro assets and a macro asset (in this case the hospital), if the latter is to realise its full potential as an anchor institution. The evidence suggests that three components linked to different forms of entrepreneurship and leadership are needed, chiming with Sotarauta et al's (2021) investigation of the role different actors play as agents of change in the rather different context of green path development. The first component in the USE-IT!…”

“…This may be considered as institutional leadership. The second component is what Sotarauta et al (2021) refer to as innovative entrepreneurship, which provides the delegated responsibility (with investment) for implementation. Here, an important feature in the USE-IT!…”

Motorsport Valley revisited: Cluster evolution, strategic cluster coupling and resilience

“…This broadens the concept of strategic coupling beyond GPNs and transplantation, based on the understanding that path creation depends on the matching of regional assets to a number of mechanisms that connect different actors, including local small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and institutions that may not be active within GPNs, to broader processes of uneven economic development. (Mackinnon et al, 2019: 121) Secondly, and building on this pluralistic geographical political economy, is the expanding focus on the 'change agency' of different types of actors within the process of regional change more broadly and strategic coupling in particular (Hassink et al, 2019;MacKinnon et al, 2019;Sotarauta et al, 2021). Neffke et al (2018), for example, have argued for the need to identify the most significant actors and the roles that they play, utilising a resource-based view of the region to identify these actors, their roles and the 'most efficient' agents of change in regional transformation.…”

“…Critically, much of this synthesis has been advanced by the incorporation of sociological and institutional perspectives to support the explanation of key regional path moments, including placing much greater weight on the importance of studying the evolution of noneconomic systems and factors. Focus is placed on the role of institutional elements, conditions and dynamics in the process of path development that leads to both a multi-actor and multi-scalar approach and that directs attention to critical roles such as institutions, agency and leadership at different scales in the formation of new regional industrial paths (Sotarauta et al, 2021). Thus, the work by Mackinnon et al (2019) on regional path creation in which they argue too that an especially underplayed aspect in understanding path development is that of the role of (often) non-firm and knowledgeable (institutional) actors, operating within multi-scalar institutional environments connected to the broader dynamics and relations of uneven development.…”

“…Based upon distinct theoretical roots they describe three types of agency: Innovative Entrepreneurship driven by the Schumpeterian drive for innovation; Institutional Entrepreneurship that recognises both the role of institutions in regional change processes and whether or not they act in a risk-taking and opportunity-driven manner; and Place Leadership, whereby certain individuals use their power and resources to orchestrate actions to benefit both their individual objectives and those of the region. In turn, Sotarauta et al (2021) further developed the typology of the trinity of change agency, identifying a further four roles: Visionary, Support, Mentor and Critic (see Table 1,p. 5).…”