Skip to main content

Subsidiarity, Proximity, and Innovation

  • Chapter
Subsidiarity Governance
  • 75 Accesses

Abstract

The importance of developing regional innovation is prominent in the policy discourse throughout the European Union. Increasingly, how-ever, the notion of innovation that is used is too narrow: with a focus on R&D, high-technology manufacturing, and the commercialization of science (Christopherson et al., 2008). These are important parts of the innovation system but they are not a complete picture and often exclude wider forms of innovation. A more complete picture of innovation in a knowledge-based regional economy would include the development of innovative products and processes; innovation in business practices; innovation outside of the manufacturing sector including knowledge-intensive business services and the public and third (nonprofit) sectors; and the important role of universities and hospitals as regional economic actors and sources of knowledge. This broader notion of “total innovation” puts an emphasis on networks, cooperation, people interactions, and local governance. This indicates that Lombardy is well placed to increase its innovation performance building on its history of cooperation and local governance as portrayed and emphasized by subsidiarity. The future challenges are to extend and build new networks and to document and analyze the extent of “total innovation” in the region.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abreu, M., V. Grinevich, M. Kitson, and M. Savona (2007) Absorptive Capacity and Regional Patterns of Innovation (London: DIUS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Abreu, M., V. Grinevich, M. Kitson, and M. Savona (2010) “Policies to enhance the ‘hidden innovation’ in services: Evidences and lessons from the UK” in The Service Industries Journal, 30, 99–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brusco, S. (1982) “The Emilian model: Productive decentralisation and social integration” in Cambridge Journal of Economics, 6, 167–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From Technology (Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopherson, S., M. Kitson, and J. Michie. (2008) “Innovation, networks and knowledge exchange” in Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1, 165–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DIUS (2008) Innovation Nation (London: DIUS).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitson, M., J. Howells, R. Braham, and S. Westlake (2009) The Connected University: Driving Recovery and Growth in the UK Economy (London: NESTA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazersona, M. H., and G. Lorenzoni (1999) “The firms that feed industrial districts: a return to the Italian source” in Industrial and Corporate Change, 8, 235–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. K. (2005) “Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies: a summary report from the local innovation systems project—phase i” in MIT Industrial Performance Center Working Paper (Cambridge, MA: MIT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, A. (1890) Principles of ’Economics (London: Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Muscio, A. (2006) “Patterns of innovation in industrial districts: An empirical analysis” in Industry and Innovation, 13(3), 291–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piore, M. J., and C. F. Sabel (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity (New York: Basic Books).

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1998) On Competition (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. (2001) “Information technology and the recent productivity boom in the US” in Cambridge-MIT National Competitiveness Summit (Cambridge, UK.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Storper M., and A. J. Venables (2004) “Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy” in Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 351–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1988) The Sources of Innovation (New York: Oxford University Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicksteed, Segal Quince (1985) The Cambridge Phenomenon (Cambridge: Segal Quince Wicksteed).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Alessandro Colombo

Copyright information

© 2012 Alessandro Colombo

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kitson, M. (2012). Subsidiarity, Proximity, and Innovation. In: Colombo, A. (eds) Subsidiarity Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137012104_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics