Structural innovations: Towards a unified perspective?

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 157-167

  Howells, Jeremy ^a,b   Edler, Jakob ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^c Innovation Policy and Strategy at MIoIR ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISE; INNOVATION; NETWORKING; POLICY ANALYSIS;

GERMANY; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 79955424847     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/030234211X12924093660598     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Ahuja, G 2000a. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455.
2. Ahuja, G 2000b. The duality of collaboration: inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 317-343.
3. Allen, T J, J M Piepmeier and S Cooney 1970. Technology transfer to developing countries: the international technological gatekeeper. Sloan School of Management Working Paper, No. 479-70, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
4. Anderson, J C, H Håkansson and J Johanson 1994. Dyadic business relationships within a business network context. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1-15.
5. Arnold, E 2004. Evaluation research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation, 13(1), April, 3-17.
6. Balthasar, A, C Battig and B Wilhelm 2000. Developers: key actors of the innovation process. Technovation, 20(10), 523-538.
7. Bapista, R and P Swann 1998. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 27, 525-540.
8. Bell, G G 2005. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287-295.
9. Bray, M J and J N Lee 2000. University revenues from technology transfer: licensing fees v. equity positions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 385-392.
10. Breschi, S and F Malerba 1997. Sectoral innovation systems: technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics, and spatial boundaries perspective. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, ed. C Edquist, pp. 130-156. London: Pinter.
11. Brook, R et al. eds 1999. Forschungsförderung in Deutschland. Bericht der internationalen Kommission zur Systemevaluation der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft und der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Hanover: Volkswagen-Stiftung.
12. Burt, R S 1992. Structural Holes: the Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13. Burt, R S 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339-365.
14. Carlsson, B and S Jacobsson 1997. Diversity creation and technological systems: a technology perspective.' In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, ed. C Edquist, pp. 226-294. London: Pinter.
15. Charles, D and C Conway 2001. Final Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Bristol: HEFCE.
16. Contractor, F J and P Lorange 1988. Cooperative Strategies in International Business. MA: Lexington Books.
17. Cosh, A and A Hughes 2010. Never mind the quality feel the width: university-industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high-technology businesses in the UK and USA. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 66-91.
18. Edler, J 2000. Institutionalisierung europäischer Politik. Die Genese des Forschungsprogramms BRITE als reflexiver sozialer Prozeß (Institutionalisation of European Policy. The genesis of BRITE-EURAM as a social-reflexive process). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
19. Edler, J and S Kuhlmann 2008. Co-ordination within fragmentation: governance in knowledge policy in the German federal system. Science and Public Policy, 35, May, 265-276.
20. Edquist, D 1997. Systems of innovation approaches: their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, ed. D Edquist, pp. 1-33. London: Pinter.
21. Elton, L 2000. The UK Research Assessment Exercise: unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly, 54(3), July, 274-283.
22. Frederickson, H G and K B Smith 2003. The Public Administration Theory Primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
23. Geels, F W and J Schot 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399-417.
24. Gnyawali, D R and R Madhavan 2001. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: a structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 431-445.
25. Goyal, S and F Vega-Redondo 2007. Structural holes in social networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 137, 460-492.
26. Granovetter, M 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.
27. Granovetter, M 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481-510.
28. Grupp, H, I Dominguez-Lacasa and M Friedrich-Nishio 2002. Das deutsche Innovations-system seit der Reichsgründung: Indikatoren einer nationalen Wissenschafts-und Technikgeschichte in unterschiedlichen Regierungs-und Gebietsstrukturen. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
29. Gulan, R, D Lane and H Singh 2009. The nature of partnering and the gains from alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1213-1233.
30. Häkansson, H and J Johanson 1988. Formal and informal cooperation strategies in international industrial networks. In Cooperative Strategies in International Business, eds F J Contractor and P Lorange, pp. 369-378. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
31. Håkansson, H and I Snehota 2006. No business is an island: the network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 22, 256-270.
32. Hall, P and D Soskice 2001. An introduction to varieties of capitalism. In Varieties of Capitalism: the Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, eds P Hall and D Soskice, pp. 1-71. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Halsey, A 1995. The Decline of Donnish Domination: the British Academic Professions in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
34. Harris, L, A-M Coles and K Dickson 2000. Building innovation networks: issues of strategy and expertise. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 12, 229-241.
35. Hauser, H 2010. The Current and Future Role of Technology and Innovation Centres in the UK. Report for the Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London. Available at , last 7 August 2009.
36. Heinze, T and S Kuhlmann 2008. Across institutional boundaries? Research collaboration in German public sector nanoscience. Research Policy, 37, 888-899.
37. Henderson, R M and K B Clark 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 9-30.
38. Howells, J 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715-728.
39. Howells, J 2010. The nature, role and type of actors within innovation systems. Mimeo. Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.
40. Howells, J, M Nedeva and L Georghiou 1998. Industry-Academic Links in the UK. Final Report to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Bristol: HEFCE.
41. Hughes, A 2007. University-industry links and UK science and innovation policy. In How Universities Promote Economic Growth, eds S Yusuf and K Nabeshima, pp. 71-90. Washington, DC: World Bank.
42. Jack, S 2005. The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analyses. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1233-1258.
43. Johnson, B and B Gregersen 1994. Systems of innovation and economic integration. Journal of Industry Studies, 2, 1-18.
44. Kaiser, R and H Prange 2004. The reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems: the example of German biotechnology. Research Policy, 33, 395-408.
45. Kitschelt, F H 1991. Industrial governance structures, innovation strategies, and the case of Japan. International Organisation, 45, 453-493.
46. Leenders, R T and S M Gabbay eds 1999. Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Boston: Kluwer.
47. Levine, S and P E White 1961. Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6, 583-601.
48. Link, A and D S Siegel 2005. Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organisational incentives on university-industry technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11, 169-181.
49. Lockett, A and M Wright 2005. Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies. Research Policy, 34, 1043-1057.
50. Luukkonen, T 2005. Variability in organisational forms in biotechnology firms. Research Policy, 34, 555-570.
51. Lynn, L H, N M Reddy and J D Aram 1996. Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy, 25, 91-106.
52. Markard, J and B Truffer 2008. Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Research Policy, 37(4), 596-615.
53. McEvily, B and A Zaheer 1999. Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133-1156.
54. Metcalfe, J S 1995. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 25-46.
55. Mina, A, D Connell and A Hughes 2009. Models of technology development in intermediate research organisations. Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. 396. Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
56. Morgan, K 2004. Sustainable regions: governance, innovation and scale. European Planning Studies, 12, 871-888.
57. Mowery, D C and B N Sampat 2005. Universities in national innovation systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, eds J Fagerberg, D C Mowery and R R Nelson, pp. 209-239. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Nightingale, P 2010. Servant firms in the UK pharmaceutical industry: an overlooked project based organisational form. Mimeo. SPRU, University of Sussex.
59. North, D C 1987. Institutions, transaction costs and economic growth, Economic Inquiry, 25, 419-428.
60. North, D C 1991. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61. North, D C 1992. Institutions and economic theory. American Economist, 36(1), 3-6.
62. North, D C 1993. Towards a theory of institutional change. Economic Inquiry, 25, 419-428.
63. Nowotny, H, P Scott and M Gibbons 2003. 'Mode 2' revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179-194.
64. Pålsson, C M, B Göransson and C Brundenius 2009. Vitalizing the Swedish university system: implementation of the 'third mission'. Science and Public Policy, 36, March, 145-150.
65. Pennings, J M and F Harianto 1992. Technological networking and innovation implementation. Organisation Science, 3, 356-382.
66. Perry, B 2007. The multi-level governance of science policy in England. Regional Studies, 41, 1051-1067.
67. Polt, W, M Berger, P Boekholt, K Cremers, J Egeln, H Gassler, R Hofer and C Rammer 2009. Das deutsche Forschungs-und Innovationssystem. Ein internationaler Systemvergleich zur Rolle von Wissenschaft, Interaktionen und Governance für die technologische Leistungsfähigkeit. Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem Nr. 11-2010. Wien/Brighton/Amsterdam/ Mannheim, Oktober.
68. Pouder, R and C St John 1996. Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of firms and innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1192-1225.
69. Powell, W W, K W Koput and L Smith-Doerr 1996. Interorganisational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116-145.
70. Rammer, C 2006. Trend in innovation policies: an international comparison. In National Systems of Innovation in Comparison: Structure and Performance Indicators for Knowledge Societies, eds U Schmoch, C Rammer and H Legler, pp. 265-286. Dordrecht: Springer.
71. Rowley, T J and J A C Baum 2008. The dynamics of network strategies and positions. Network Strategy: Advances in Strategic Management, 25, 641-671.
72. Rowley, T J, D Behrens and D Krackhardt 2000. Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 369-386.
73. Schmoch, U 2008. The role of universities in economic growth-the German situation. Lund University. UniDev Discussion Paper Series Paper no. 1. University of Lund.
74. Siegel, D S, D Waldman and A Link 2003. Assessing the impact of organisational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27-48.
75. Smith, K 1997. Economic infrastructures and innovation systems. In Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations, ed. D Edquist, pp. 86-106. London: Pinter.
76. Smith, K 1999. Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. In A New Economic Paradigm? Innovation-Based Evolutionary Systems, eds K Bryant and A Wells, pp. 10-47. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Science and Technology Policy Branch.
77. Soskice, D 1997. German technology policy, innovation, and national institutional frameworks. Industry and Innovation, 4, 75-96.
78. Sunley, P 1992. Marshallian industrial districts: the case of the Lancashire cotton industry in the inter-war years. Transactions Institute of British Geographers, N.S. 17, 306-320.
79. Sytch, M, A Tatarynowicz and R Gulati 2010. Where do bridging ties come from? Mimeo. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.
80. Taylor, R L 1975. The technological gatekeeper. R&D Management, 5, 239-242.
81. Tiwana, A 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 251-272.
82. Tsai, W 2002. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004.
83. United Nations Economic and Social Council 2006. Definition of basic concepts and terminologies in governance and public administration. Note by the Secretariat of the Committee of Experts on Public Administration, 06-20194 (E). New York: United Nations.
84. Woolthuis, R K, M Lankhuizen and V Gilsing 2005. A systems failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25, 609-619.
85. Yoshikawa, T, L S Tsui-Auch and J McGuire 2007. Corporate governance reform as institutional innovation: the case of Japan. Organisation Science, 18, 973-988.
86. Yuchtman, E and S E Seashore 1967. A system resource approach to organisational effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 32(6), 891-903.
87. Zaheer, A and G G Bell 2005. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 809-825.