Characteristics of Innovation Geography

  • Tan YigitcanlarEmail author
  • Tommi Inkinen


Global geography and the organisation of human activities on earth are fundamentally managed by governments of different nations. Each sovereign country has their own legislations and interest governing economic activity within their boundaries. Governments have numerous roles in the economic activity. Conceptually ‘government’ refers here to a set of public sector organisations that are responsible for governing the specific areas and spatial scales. As an example, municipalities are interested on the local scale and activities that impact their specific vicinities where as regional or national governments or bodies are focusing on larger spatial scales. The nation state may be considered as the fundamental level of regulation as the states have the right to conduct taxation of its inhabitants. This is the reason why international economy is governed with trade and commercial treaties and is based on international agreements. This chapter elaborates the key characteristics of innovation geography.


Innovation geography Nations Planning Governance Government E-government Smart city Knowledge city 


  1. Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bovaird, T. (2003). E-Government and e-governance: Organisational implications, options and dilemmas. Public Policy and Administration, 18(2), 37–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dicken, P. (2007). Global shift. Mapping the changing contours of the world economy (5th ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Dicken, P., & Lloyd, P. F. (1990). Location in space. Theoretical perspectives in economic geography (3rd ed.). New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  6. Gauld, R., Graya, A., & McComba, S. (2009). How responsive is e-government? Evidence from Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gemünden, H. G., Salomo, S., & Hölze, K. (2007). Role models for radical innovations in times of open innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 408–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Inkinen, T. (2010). Urban travel information and wireless technologies in Helsinki, Finland. Journal of Urban Technology, 17(2), 57–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Inkinen, T., Merisalo, M., & Makkonen, T. (2018). Variations in the adoption and willingness to use e-services in three differentiated urban areas. European Planning Studies, 26(5), 950–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inkinen, T., & Suorsa, K. (2010). Intermediaries in regional innovation systems: high-technology enterprise survey from Northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jauhiainen, J. S., & Suorsa, K. (2008). Triple helix in the periphery: The case of multipolis in northern Finland. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(2), 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kellerman, A. (2002). The internet on earth. A geography of information. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Laranja, M. (2004). Innovation systems as regional policy frameworks: The case of Lisbon and Tagus Valley. Science and Public Policy, 31(4), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nemet, G. (2009). Demand-pull, technology-push and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Research Policy, 38, 700–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2005). Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? Regional Studies, 39(1), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pullen, A., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fischer, O. (2012). SME network characteristics versus product innovativeness: How to achieve high innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pullen, A., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., Song, M., & Fischer, O. (2009). Successful patterns of internal SME characteristics leading to high overall innovation performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 209–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wimmer, M., & Traunmuller, R. (2000). Trends in electronic government: Managing distributed knowledge. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Maritime Studies, Brahea CentreUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations