Geographical and temporal variation of regional development and innovation in Finland
Keywords:
innovation, regional development, education, Finland, local administrative unit, principal component analysisAbstract
Variations in regional development are basically carried forward by technological development together with spatial concentrations of production and finance. The main argument behind this paper is that innovation and regional development variables have temporal variations in a spatial context. Analysis was conducted using principal component indices from the years 1995–2007 to provide a temporal trend perspective of the most successful locations in innovation activity and regional development. Availability of an extensive workforce, income and higher education have steadily been the most “distinct” variables corresponding to regional development in Finland, whereas innovation occupies a stable middling position among explanative variables. Regional development and innovation activity is still concentrated in the core urban regions, but this tendency has lost at least some of its importance.
References
Agüeros M, Casares-Hontañón P, Coto-Millán P, De Castro P & Pesquera M 2013. A new approach to innovation and its application to the countries of the European Union. Quaestiones Geofraphicae 32: 2, 5–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2013-0009.
Ali-Yrkkö J & Hermans R 2004. Nokia: A giant in the Finnish innovation system. In Schienstock G (ed). Embracing the knowledge economy: The dynamic transformation of the Finnish innovation system, 106–127. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Antikainen J & Vartiainen P 2005. Polycentricity in Finland: From structure to strategy. Built Environment 31: 2, 143–152.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2148/benv.31.2.143.66257.
Asheim B & Gertler M 2005. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In Fagerberg J, Mowery D & Nelson R (eds). The Oxford handbook of innovation, 291–317. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Audretsch D & Feldman M 1996. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review 86: 3, 630–640.
Boschma R & Fornahl D 2011. Cluster evolution and a roadmap for future studies. Regional Studies 45: 10, 1295–1298.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.633253.
Capello R, Caragliu A & Lenzi C 2012. Is innovation in cities a matter of knowledge-intensive services: An empirical investigation. Innovation – European Journal of Social Science Research 25: 2, 151–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2012.660326.
Ceh B 2001. Regional innovation potential in the United States: Evidence of spatial transformation. Papers in Regional Science 80: 3, 297–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/PL00013634.
Copus A, Skuras D & Tsegenidi K 2008. Innovation and peripherality: An empirical comparative study of SMEs in six European Union member countries. Economic Geography 84: 1, 51–82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2008.tb00391.x.
Crescenzi R & Rodríguez-Pose A 2013. R&D, socio-economic conditions, and regional innovation in the U.S. Growth and Change 44: 2, 287–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/grow.12011.
Crescenzi R, Rodríguez-Pose A & Storper M 2007. The territorial dynamics of innovation: A Europe–United States comparative analysis. Journal of Economic Geography 7: 6, 673–709. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbm030.
Demšar U, Harris P, Brunsdon C, Fotheringham AS & McLoone S 2013. Principal component analysis on spatial data: An overview. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103: 1, 106–128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.689236.
Dicken P & Lloyd P 1991. Location in space: Theoretical perspectives in economic geography. Longman, London.
Doloreux D 2002. What we should know about regional systems of innovation. Technology in Society 24: 3, 243–263.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00007-6.
Ebersberger B & Lehtoranta O 2005. Patterns of innovative activities among Finnish firms. VTT, Espoo.
Fagerberg J 2005. Innovation: A guide to the literature. In Fagerberg J, Mowery D & Nelson R (eds). The Oxford handbook of innovation, 1–26. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Fagerberg J, Srholec M & Knell M 2007. The competitiveness of nations: Why some countries prosper while others fall behind? World Development 35: 10, 1595–1620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.01.004.
Florida R 2002. The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, New York.
Fritsch M 2004. Cooperation and the efficiency of regional R&D activities. Cambridge Journal of Economics 28: 6, 829–846.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cje/beh039.
Glaeser E 2000. The new economics of urban and regional growth. In Clark G, Feldman M & Gertler M (eds). The Oxford handbook of economic geography, 83–98. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Gössling T & Rutten R 2007. Innovation in regions. European Planning Studies 15: 2, 253–270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310601078788.
Greunz L 2005. Intra- and inter-regional knowledge spillovers: Evidence from European regions. European Planning Studies 13: 3, 449–473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500089746.
Hasan I & Tucci C 2010. The innovation–economic growth nexus: Global evidence. Research Policy 39: 10, 1264–1276.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.07.005.
Heikkilä E 2003. Differential urbanisation in Finland. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 94: 1, 49–63.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00236.
Hollanders H, Tarantola S & Loschky A 2009. Regional innovation scoreboard 2009. European Commission, Brussels.
Inkinen T 2005. European coherence and regional policy: A Finnish perspective on the observed and reported territorial impacts of EU research and development policies. European Planning Studies 13: 7, 1113–1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500242139.
Isard W, Azis I, Drennan M, Miller R, Saltzman S & Thorbecke E 1998. Methods of interregional and regional analysis. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Jaffe A, Trajtenberg M & Henderson R 1993. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics 108: 3, 577–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2118401.
Jauhiainen J 2008. Regional and innovation policies in Finland: Towards convergence and/or mismatch? Regional Studies 42: 7, 1031–1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543140.
Jolliffe I 2002. Principal component analysis. Springer, New York.
Kehitysalueiden neuvottelukunta 1973. Vyöhykejaon tutkimusryhmän raportti: Selvitys kehittyneisyyden alueellisista eroista ja aluejakovaihtoehdoista aluepolitiikassa. Valtioneuvoston Kanslian Julkaisuja 1973: 2.
Lehtonen O & Tykkyläinen M 2010. Self-reinforcing spatial clusters of migration and socio-economic conditions in Finland 1998–2006. Journal of Rural Studies 26: 4, 361–373.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.02.003.
Lehtonen O & Tykkyläinen M 2011. Spatial divergence in living standards during an economic growth phase in the periphery: A case study of North Karelia. Fennia – International Journal of Geography 189: 2, 47–62.
Loikkanen H & Susiluoto I 2012. Suurimpien seutukuntien kokonaistaloudellinen kehitys 1975–2008. Helsingin Kaupungin Tietokeskus, Helsinki.
Makkonen T 2011. Innovation and socio-economic development: evidence from the Finnish local administrative units. Bulletin of Geography – Socio-economic Series 15: 1, 27–42.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10089-011-0002-0.
Makkonen T & Inkinen T 2013. Innovative capacity, educational attainment and economic development in the European Union: Causal relations and geographical variations. European Planning Studies 21: 12, 1958–1976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2012.722968.
Makkonen T & van der Have RP 2013. Benchmarking regional innovation performance: Composite measures and direct innovation counts. Scientometrics 94: 1, 247–262.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0753-2.
Miettinen R 2002. National innovation system: Scientific concept or political rhetoric? Edita, Helsinki.
Mikkonen K 2002. The competitive advantage of regions and small economic areas: The case of Finland. Fennia – International Journal of Geography 180: 2, 191–198.
Myrdal G 1969. Ekonomisk teori och underutvecklade regioner. Tidens Förlag, Stockholm.
Monchuk D & Miranowski J 2010. The impact of local innovation and innovative spillovers on employment and population growth in the U.S. Midwest. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy 40: 1, 61–70.
Nonaka I & Takeuchi H 1995. The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Oinas P 2005. Finland: A success story? European Planning Studies 13: 8, 1227–1244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310500336618.
Piekkola H 2006. Knowledge and innovation subsidies as engines of growth: The competitiveness of Finnish regions. ETLA, Helsinki.
Pike A, Rodríguez-Pose A & Tomaney J 2007. What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Regional Studies 41: 9, 1253–1269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400701543355.
Rantala O 2001. Regional economic development in Finland in the 1990s and the outlook to 2005. Finnish Economy and Society 2001: 2, 64–70.
Rodríguez-Pose A 1999. Innovation prone and innovation averse societies: Economic performance in Europe. Growth and Change 30: 1, 75–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0017-4815.00105.
Romanainen J 2001. The cluster approach in Finnish technology policy. In den Hertog P, Remoe S, Bergman E & Charles D (eds). Innovative clusters: Drivers of national innovation systems, 377–388. OECD, Paris.
Shearmur R 2011. Innovation, regions and proximity: From neo-regionalism to spatial analysis. Regional Studies 45: 9, 1225–1243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.484416.
Siirilä S, Hautamäki L, Kuittinen J & Keski-Petäjä T 1990. Regional well-being variations in Finland. Fennia – International Journal of Geography 168: 2, 179–200.
Siirilä S, Vaattovaara M & Viljanen V 2002. Well-being in Finland: A comparison of municipalities and residential differentiation in two cities. Fennia – International Journal of Geography 180: 2, 141–149.
Simonen J & McCann P 2010. Knowledge transfer and innovations: The role of the labour markets R&D co-operation between agents and institutions. Papers in Regional Science 89: 2, 295–309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00299.x.
Sotarauta M & Kautonen M 2007. Co-evolution of the Finnish national and local innovation policy approach. Regional Studies 41: 8, 1085–1098. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400701292284.
Sternberg R 2009. Innovation. In Kitchin R & Thrift N (eds). International encyclopedia of human geography, 481–490. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Sternberg R & Arndt O 2001. The firm or region: What determines the innovation behaviour of European firms? Economic Geography 77: 4, 364–382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2001.tb00170.x.
Tabachnick B & Fidell L 2007. Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education, Boston.
Tervo H 2005. Regional policy lessons from Finland. In Felsenstein D & Portnov B (eds). Regional disparities in small countries, 267–282. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Tödtling F & Trippl M 2005. One size fits all: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34: 8, 1203–1219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018.
Valovirta V, Pesonen P, Halonen M, van der Have RP & Ahlqvist T 2009. Suomalaisten innovaatioiden maantiede. Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriö, Helsinki.
van Oort F 2002. Innovation and agglomeration economies in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 93: 3, 344–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00207.
Varga A 2000. Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity. Journal of Regional Science 40: 2, 289–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4146.00175.
Webster F 2002. Theories of information society. Routledge, London.
Yli-Jokipii P 2005. Suomen alueellinen kehittyneisyys ja aluepolitiikka maantieteen tutkimuskohteena. In Moisio S (ed). Maantiede mun silmäni avaa, maapalloa katselemaan, 9–21. Turun yliopisto, Turku.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with Fennia agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. The license of the published metadata is Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0).
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a doctoral dissertation or book compilation), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
.png)



