News from the IPL
INTRODUCTION
This newsletter is published by The Innovation Policy Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, and sponsored by the Ministry of Research and Innovation. The views and ideas expressed in this newsletter do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ontario Government.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Brookings Institution and JPMorgan Chase Launch the Global Cities Initiative
Bruce Katz, The Brookings Institution
This article introduces the new Global Cities Initiative at the Brookings Institution. The objective of the program is to help American leaders become more globally fluent by unveiling the economic starting point of their communities on such issues as exports, advanced manufacturing, foreign direct investment, freight flow and immigration.
Harper Government Announces Investments in Artic Science Infrastructure
The new Nunavut Research Institute was recently celebrated its Grand Opening. The Government of Canada invested $10.4 million to build a larger, more modern and more energy efficient facility that will enable the institute to expand its current research activities in the areas of health, natural, and social sciences. Through Canada’s Economic Action Plan (CEAP) in Budget 2009, $85 million was allocated to upgrade key existing Arctic research facilities.
Spurring innovation and entrepreneurship in ways that encourage the growth of advanced manufacturing industries is critical to a state’s economic development. To assist states in developing and implementing successful economic development strategies, the National Governors Association (NGA) recently announced seven states selected to participate in the Policy Academy on “Making” our Future: Encouraging Growth Opportunities in Manufacturing through Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Investment. The Academy will help each state develop a plan, or overcome barriers to putting a plan into action, that would improve the general environment for innovation and align state research and development investments, workforce development and education systems with the current and future needs of the state’s advanced manufacturing industries. Funding for the Academy is provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program (MEP) and the U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (EDA).
Editor's Pick
Growing Innovation Clusters for American Prosperity
Charles W. Wessner
Responding to the challenges of fostering regional growth and employment in an increasingly competitive global economy, many U.S. states and regions have developed programs to attract and grow companies as well as attract the talent and resources necessary to develop innovation clusters. These state and regionally based initiatives have a broad range of goals and increasingly include significant resources, often with a sectoral focus and often in partnership with foundations and universities. These are being joined by recent initiatives to coordinate and concentrate investments from a variety of federal agencies that provide significant resources to develop regional centers of innovation, business incubators, and other strategies to encourage entrepreneurship and high-tech development. This has led to renewed interest in understanding the nature of innovation clusters and public policies associated with successful cluster development. The Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), conducted a symposium which brought together state and federal government officials, leading analysts, congressional staff, and other stakeholders to explore the role of clusters in promoting economic growth, the government’s role in stimulating clusters, and the role of universities and foundations in their development.This report captures the presentations and discussions of the 2009 STEP symposium on innovation clusters. It includes an overview highlighting key issues raised at the meeting and a summary of the meeting’s presentations. This report has been prepared by the workshop rapporteur as a factual summary of what occurred at the workshop.
Innovation Policy
Public Research Institutions: Mapping Sector Trends
OECD
This publication provides new information on public research institutions (PRIs) and government strategies. Public research institutions are crucial for innovation due to their role in knowledge creation and diffusion. While absolute real expenditure on R&D in this sector has risen, it now accounts for a smaller share of total R&D spending by OECD countries and of OECD GDP. The targets and focus of many PRIs have evolved in recent years. Changing activities, new policy challenges and wider economic and political developments have driven change in missions and mandates and linkages have become focal points for many. Internationalization has also increased and relationships are frequently collaborative. PRIs sources of income are diverse but funding has become increasingly competitive. Funding instruments need to balance short-and long-term goals to uphold research quality and ensure the sustainability of PRI activities.
A Manufacturing Renaissance: Four Goals for Economic Growth
National Association of Manufacturers
This report outlines a four-point plan focused on attracting investment, increasing trade, developing a skilled workforce and spurring innovation in the U.S. manufacturing sector: Goal 1: The U.S. must become “the best place in the world to manufacture and attract foreign direct investment”; Goal 2: The U.S. must expand access to global markets to enable manufacturers to reach the 95% of consumers who live outside its borders; Goal 3: Manufacturers in the U.S. must have the workforce that the 21st-century economy requires; and, Goal 4: Manufacturers in the U.S must be the world’s leading innovators. The authors highlight specific activities and policy prescriptions under each goal to achieve the intended results. Specific policy recommendations include: Embracing an “all of the above” approach to energy production; Modernizing and investing in infrastructure to help manufacturers in the United States more efficiently move people, products and idea; Boosting exports through improved export promotion programs and export credit assistance for both small and large manufacturers; Developing a more productive workforce and encouraging innovation through education reforms and improvements; Attracting the best and brightest to the United States; Strengthening and making permanent the R&D tax credit; and, Supporting federal research agencies and public- and private-sector research. According to the authors, the priorities and policy recommendations focus on increasing short-term and long-term competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers.
Technology Transfer and Commercialization Landscape of the Federal Laboratories
Science and Technology Policy Institute
Federal laboratories have been a source of innovation in the United States since the establishment of the first laboratory, the Smithsonian Institution, in 1846. The Stevenson Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-480) stated that technology transfer, consistent with mission responsibilities, is a responsibility of each laboratory science and engineering professional. The act mandated the creation of an Office of Research and Technology Applications at major laboratories to facilitate transfers of technology from the laboratories. Since then, interest in increasing the intensity and effectiveness of technology transfer has focused on activities that accelerate commercialization to benefit the economy and society. This study began with a literature review that informed the approach to discussions with technology transfer personnel at federal agencies and laboratories. These discussions, the primary mode of data collection, were held with representatives from 13 agencies and subagencies, 26 laboratories, and 33 other organizations.These discussions provided an understanding of technology transfer and commercialization activities at the laboratories, identified perceived barriers to technology transfer, and uncovered strategies with potential for overcoming these barriers. They also revealed factors that affect the speed and dissemination of technologies from the laboratories.
Magnus Nilsson and Jerker Moodysson, CIRCLE, Lund University
The framework of regional innovation systems highlights the systemic nature of economic development and the importance of coordination of policy activities. Such coordination presupposes an understanding of the underlying problems and how they can be addressed. Generic problems in innovation systems refer to issues of lack of resources, negative lock-in, and structural or functional fragmentation. In spite of this, there are few good examples of systematic analyses of innovation systems that take into account both structural and functional properties of the system. This paper addresses this issue by offering a framework for analyzing innovation system problems, functions, activities, and actors and, based on this, offers insights with regard to the role of regional actors as coordinators of innovation system activities.
Technology and the Innovation Economy
Darrel M. West, The Brookings Institution
Innovation and entrepreneurship are crucial for long-term economic development. Over the years, America’s well-being has been furthered by science and technology. Fears set off by the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of its Sputnik satellite initiated a wave of U.S. investment in science, engineering, aerospace, and technology. Both public and private sector investment created jobs, built industries, fueled innovation, and propelled the U.S. to leadership in a number of different fields. This paper focuses on ways technology enables innovation and creates economic prosperity. It reviews the range of new advances in education, health care, and communications, and make policy recommendations designed to encourage an innovation economy. By adopting policies such as a permanent research and development tax credit, more effective university knowledge commercialization, improving STEM worker training, reasonable immigration reform, and regional economic clusters, the United States can build an innovation economy and sustain its long-term prosperity.
Cities, Clusters & Regions
SUNY Levin Institute
In the era of globalization – no other state has benefitted more and suffered worse than New York. The impact of the global economy on New York State has forever changed the way its residents live and do business. The changes cut across our state and across the different sectors of the economy in ways that are not evident. New York is a microcosm of the challenges facing the nation as a whole. This is the first comprehensive report documenting globalization’s impact on New York State and City, to inform decisions on meeting today’s global economic challenges.
24 Proofs of Cluster Excellence: Successfuly Stories from Clusters in Northern Europe
Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation
Clusters and innovation networks can create value for companies in many ways. They offer tailor made services and entrepreneurs and provide new ways of collaboration and knowledge sharing among cluster members. Clusters may also assist in developing education and training courses according to the needs of companies just as they are able to facilitate new R&D collaboration. Furthermore, many clusters are active on the international scene, linking cluster companies to international collaboration partners, new export markets and branding the cluster on the global scene. This case collection presents 24 best practice cases from some of the most successful clusters and innovation networks in Germany, Poland, and the Nordic Countries. Collectively, the cases illustrate the variety of ways clusters can create added value for their member companies.
Peterborough’s Creative Economy
Mike Kalisz and Jordan Berger, The Martin Prosperity Institute
This Research paper is the culmination of the findings regarding the creative class model of economic development related to the Peterborough area. The exploration of empirical research proves that Peterborough can become stronger economically by increasing the draw and retention of the creative class. For this area to maximize innovation, develop vibrant culture and to become economically sustainable, the recommendations within this paper must be implemented. Moreover the most important element for future development is the creation of an area niche, which would increase the symbolic representation of the area. This paper demonstrates that Peterborough is comparable to many other cities and must constantly be developing with the environment, or face the strong possibility of losing its competitive advantage. However, by embracing the creative class model, Peterborough could truly become a place were technology, talent and tolerance thrive.
The Rise of Skills: Human Capital, the Creative Class and Regional Development
Charlotta Mellander and Richard Florida, The Martin Prosperity Institute
The past couple of decades have seen what amounts to skills revolution in urban and regional economic research. From industrial location theory and Alfred Marshall’s concern for agglomeration to more recent research on high-tech districts and industrial clusters firms and industries has been the dominant unit of analysis. But since the 1990s there has been a growing focus on skills. This broad research thrust includes studies of human capital; the creative class and occupational class more broadly; and physical, cognitive and social skills, among others. This research highlights the growing geographic divergence of skills across cities and metros and their effects on regional innovation, wages, incomes and development broadly. A growing literature notes the growing importance of place in organizing and mobilizing these skills. Studies have focused on the role of amenities, universities, diversity and other place-related factor in accounting for the growing divergence of skills across locations. This article summarizes the key lines of research that constitute the skills revolution in urban and regional research
Statistics & Indicators
Employment in Silicon Valley Tech Businesses, 2000-2009
Bureau of Labor Statistics
In the year 2000, a cohort consisting of about 2,600 high-tech businesses born in Silicon Valley added over 27,000 jobs to the local economy of the area centered in and around San Jose, California. This report analyses employment trends in the tech industry and draws some conclusions about business survival and growth in the region.
Policy Digest
Canada has a solid foundation on which to build success as a leader in the knowledge economy of tomorrow. It has a strong financial sector and attractive corporate tax rates. It has a diverse, well-educatedworkforce and significant natural resource endowments. It has institutions that safeguard the rights of individuals and encourage initiative. Yet, despite these notable strengths, challenges remain.
Studies have repeatedly documented that business innovation in Canada lags behind other highly developed countries. This gap is of vital concern because innovation is the ultimate source of the long-term competitiveness of businesses and the quality of life of Canadians. The ability to conjure up new products and services, to find novel uses for existing products and to develop new markets – these fruits of innovation are the tools that will ensure Canada’s success in the twenty-firstcentury.
Recognizing that innovation is paramount to continued prosperity, Budget 2010, Leading the Way on Jobs and Growth, announced a comprehensive review of support for research and development (R&D) in order to optimize the contributions of the Government of Canada to innovation and related economic opportunities for business. This Panel was appointed in October 2010 and was mandated by the Minister of State (Science and Technology) to conduct the review announced in the Budget.
This report records its advice to the government on how federal programs that support business and commercially oriented R&Dcan make an even stronger contribution to a more innovative and prosperous Canada.
Recommendations
Program Effectiveness
The first question in the Panel’s mandate asks: What federal initiatives are most effective in increasing business R&D and facilitating commercially relevant R&D partnerships?
The government regularly evaluates individual programs against the stated objectives of each program. But these objectives vary widely among programs in terms of the outcomes being targeted, and the evaluation data collected for individual programs have generally not been designed to enable assessment of the comparative effectiveness of programs. Our advice in respect of program effectiveness is therefore based not only on available data regarding the 60 programs we reviewed but also, and more particularly, on our consultations and related research.
From what we heard and learned, there is a need to improve the business expertise of program delivery staff and to achieve greater scale and efficiency in program implementation. We have concluded that SMEs need enhanced access to services and small grant or voucher-based funding to assist their innovation activities. We found that the bewildering array of innovation support programs (at both the federal and provincial levels) made it difficult for companies to navigate the landscape to locate the right programs for their purposes.
Our survey of R&D-performing firms demonstrated that client awareness of most programs is low (with the exception of the SR&ED program and IRAP). We also found that the current suite of programs to develop and deploy the talent needed to meet the needs of innovative businesses is a patchwork of largely subscale initiatives. More generally, we found that there are opportunities to improve program efficiency and flexibility by combining smaller initiatives with similar objectives. Finally, we concluded that adequate tools do not exist to comparatively assess relative program effectiveness. Therefore, the evidence base is lacking for a regular and systematic reallocation of resources among programs to achieve the most cost-effective support for business innovation.
Based on these findings, as detailed in Chapter 5 of our main report, we make the following recommendations.
Recommendation 1
Create an Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC), with a clear business innovation mandate (including delivery of business-facing innovation programs, development of a business innovation talent strategy, and other duties over time), and enhance the impact of programs through consolidation and improvedwhole-of-government evaluation.
1.1 Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC) – Create an arm’s-lengthfunding and delivery agency – IRIC – with a clear and sharply focussed mission to support business innovation. IRIC should become the common service platform for all appropriate federal business innovation support programs. Over time, it should take on at least the following industry-facing activities, as further elaborated in Recommendations 1.2 through 1.4:
- delivery of the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) and a commercialization vouchers pilot program (1.2)
- delivery of a national concierge service and related web portal (1.3)
- development of a federal business innovation talent strategy (1.4).
1.2 Resources for IRAP and commercialization vouchers – Increase IRAP’s budget to enable it to build on its proven track record of facilitating innovation by SMEs throughout Canada, and create a national commercialization vouchers pilot program, delivered within the suite of existing support mechanisms offered through IRAP, to help SMEs connect with approved providers of commercialization services in post-secondary, government,non-profit and private organizations.
1.3 Innovation concierge service – Establish a national “concierge” service and associated comprehensive web portal to provide companies with high-quality, timely advice to help identify and access the most appropriate business innovation assistance and programs for the individual firm.
1.4 Talent – IRIC should lead the development of a federal business innovation talent strategy, working closely with the provinces and relevant federal departments and agencies, focussed on increasing business access to, and use of, highly qualified and skilled personnel.
1.5 Program consolidation – Over time, consolidate business innovation programs focussed on similar outcome areas into a smaller number of larger, more flexible programs open to a broader range of applicants and approaches.
1.6 Program evaluation – Build a federal capacity to assess the effectiveness of new and existing business innovation programs to enable comparative performance evaluation and to guide resource allocation going forward.
Program Mix and Design
The second question in the Panel’s mandate asks: Is the current mix and design of tax incentives and direct support for business R&D and business-focussed R&D appropriate?
The SR&ED tax credit – which currently provides approximately $3.5 billion annually toward the cost of business R&D – is the flagship of federal support for business innovation. The program lowers the cost of R&D for firms, promotes greater investment inR&D, and makes Canada a more attractive place to locate R&D activity. It allows almost 24 000 firms across all economic sectors and regions of the country to make individual,market-driven decisions about the R&D they need to compete and succeed. It is essential that this highly valued program be made simpler, more predictable and more cost effective in promoting business innovation.
However, the heavy reliance on the program implies that federal support for innovation may be overweighted toward subsidizing the cost of business R&D rather than other important aspects of innovation. For this reason, we believe that the government should rebalance the mix of direct and indirect funding by decreasing spending through theSR&ED program and directing the savings to complementary initiatives outlined in our other recommendations.
For the reasons outlined above, as detailed in Chapter 6 of our main report, we make the following recommendations.
Recommendation 2
Simplify the SR&ED program by basing the tax credit for SMEs on labour-relatedcosts. Redeploy funds from the tax credit to a more complete set of direct support initiatives to help SMEs grow into larger, competitive firms.
2.1 Simpler compliance and administration – The tax credit benefiting small andmedium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations (CCPCs) should be based onlabour-related costs in order to reduce compliance and administration costs. Because the credit would be calculated on a smaller cost base than at present, its rate would be increased. Over time, the government should also consider extending this newlabour-based approach to all firms, provided it is able to concurrently provide compensatory assistance to offset the negative impacts of this approach on large firms with high non-labour R&D costs.
2.2 More predictable qualification – Improve the Canada Revenue Agency’s preclaim project review service to provide firms with pre-approval of their eligibility for the credit.
2.3 More cost effective – Reduce the amount of SR&ED tax credit assistance by introducing incentives that encourage the growth and profitability of small andmedium-sized enterprises (SMEs) while decreasing the refundable portion of the credit over time. Redeploy the savings to fund new and/or enhanced support for innovation bySMEs, as proposed in the Panel’s other recommendations.
2.4 More accountable – Provide data on the performance of the SR&ED tax credit on a regular basis to permit evaluation of its cost-effectiveness in stimulating R&D, innovation and productivity growth.
2.5 Phased implementation and consultation – Adopt the proposed changes through a phased-in approach to give the business sector time to plan and adjust smoothly. There should be early consultations with the provinces on the proposed changes, given that they may want to consider adopting the same base as the federal government.
Program Gaps
The third question in the Panel’s mandate asks: What, if any, gaps are evident in the current suite of programming, and what might be done to fill these gaps?
Based on our consultations, the identification by the OECD of gaps in Canada’s innovation system, and the findings of panels before us – namely, the Competition Policy Review Panel and the Expert Panel on Commercialization – we concluded that three gaps were most significant:
- the strategic use of public sector procurement to foster innovation,
- the enhanced use of large-scale research collaboration and
- the availability of risk capital to finance the development and growth of innovative businesses.
The following three recommendations, as detailed in Chapter 7 of our main report, address each of these gaps in turn.
Public Sector Procurement
We concluded from our consultations and research that government support for business innovation needs to employ more “demand-pull” measures to complement the more traditional suite of “research-push” measures. To this end, public sector procurement and related programming should be used to create opportunity and demand for leading-edgegoods, services and technologies from Canadian suppliers. This will foster the development of innovative and globally competitive Canadian companies while also stimulating innovation and greater productivity in the delivery of public sector goods and services.
Recommendation 3
Make business innovation one of the core objectives of procurement, with the supporting initiatives to achieve this objective.
3.1 Innovation as an objective – Make the encouragement of innovation in the Canadian economy a stated objective of procurement policies and programs.
3.2 Scope for innovative proposals – Wherever feasible and appropriate, base procurement requests for proposals on a description of the needs to be met or problems to be solved, rather than on detailed technical specifications that leave too little opportunity for innovative proposals.
3.3 Demand-pull – Establish targets for departments and agencies for contracting outR&D expenditures, including a subtarget for SMEs, and evolve the current pilot phase of the Canadian Innovation Commercialization Program (CICP) into a permanent, larger program that solicits and funds the development of solutions to specific departmental needs so that the government stimulates demand for, and becomes a first-time user of, innovative products and technologies.
3.4 Globally competitive capabilities – Plan and design major Crown procurements to provide opportunities for Canadian companies to become globally competitive subcontractors.
3.5 Working collaboratively – Explore avenues of collaboration with provincial and municipal governments regarding the use of procurement to support innovation by Canadian suppliers and to foster governments’ adoption of innovative products that will help reduce the cost and improve the quality of public services.
Public–Private Research Collaboration
We believe that public–private research consortia in Canada lack the scale needed to have significant impact on the development of globally competitive Canadian companies. Consequently, Canada needs a fundamentally new approach to building such collaborations in areas of strategic importance and opportunity for the economy. The existing institutes of the NRC are a unique asset in terms of infrastructure, talent and sectoral and regional coverage. Consistent with the new direction being taken by NRCmanagement, we believe that several of the institutes should be evolved to become a core national constellation of R&D and technology institutes mandated to collaborate closely with business in key sectors. The appropriate individual institutes could become focal points for the development of R&D and innovation strategies for key sectors, for major enabling technologies and for regional clusters of innovative firms and supporting services.
Recommendation 4
Transform the institutes of the National Research Council (NRC) into a constellation of large-scale, sectoral collaborative R&D centres involving business, the university sector and the provinces, while transferring NRC publicpolicy-related research activity to the appropriate federal agencies.
4.1 Evolution of the NRC – Charge the NRC to develop a plan for each of its existing institutes and major business units that would require their evolution over the next five years into one of the following:
- an industry-oriented non-profit research organization mandated to undertake collaborative R&D and commercialization projects and services, funded by amounts drawn against existing NRC appropriations together with revenue earned from collaborative activities
- an institute engaged in basic research to be affiliated with one or more universities and funded by an amount drawn against existing NRC appropriations together with contributions from university and/or provincial partners
- a part of a non-profit organization mandated to manage what are currently NRCmajor science initiatives and potentially other such research infrastructure in Canada
- an institute or unit providing services in support of a public policy mandate and to be incorporated within the relevant federal department or agency.
4.2 IRAP – Transfer the Industrial Research Assistance Program to the proposed Industrial Research and Innovation Council (IRIC).
4.3 Structure and oversight – Institutes could be established as independent non-profitcorporations, with the federal government’s share of funding managed and overseen by the proposed IRIC for industry-oriented institutes in category (a) above, and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) or Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for categories (b) and (c) above. (Apart from functions in category (d), any residual activities of NRC, or institutes that are unable to secure adequate funding, would be wound down according to an appropriate transition plan.)
Financing Growth of Innovative Businesses
We heard repeatedly that too many innovative firms with high growth potential have difficulty attracting sufficient risk capital to finance the path from an initially promising idea through to commercial viability. Similar observations have been made by earlier panels that have addressed the issue. Data demonstrate that the supply of risk capital for innovation-based businesses is comparatively much smaller in Canada than in the US. Consequently, Canadian start-ups are less likely to get the capital they need to achieve commercial viability. In addition, the preponderance of foreign (mostly US-based) investors in late-stage venture capital and buyouts of Canadian firms means that the intellectual property is likely to be exploited primarily outside Canada.
Recommendation 5
Help high-growth innovative firms access the risk capital they need through the establishment of new funds where gaps exist.
5.1 Start-up stage – Direct the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) to allocate a larger proportion of its portfolio to start-up stage financing, preferably in the form of a “sidecar” fund with angel investor groups.
5.2 Late stage – Provide the BDC with new capital to support the development oflarger-scale, later-stage venture capital funds and growth equity funds in support of the private venture capital and equity industry. These funds would specialize in deal sizes of $10 million and above that are managed by the private sector and subject to appropriate governance practices.
Whole-of-Government Leadership
Innovation is the principal source of productivity growth in the long run, and thus lies at the heart of Canada’s future prosperity. But innovation far transcends just the application of science and technology and R&D. A responsibility to foster innovation cuts across many functions of government and therefore requires a system-wide perspective andwhole-of-government priority. This will require restructuring the governance of the government’s business innovation agenda, while developing a shared and cooperative approach with provincial and business leaders.
Recommendation 6
Establish a clear federal voice for innovation, and engage in a dialogue with the provinces to improve coordination and impact.
6.1 Assign responsibility – Identify a lead minister responsible for innovation in the Government of Canada together with a stated mandate to put business innovation at the centre of the government’s strategy for improving Canada’s economic performance.
6.2 Whole-of-government advice – Transform the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) to become the government’s external Innovation Advisory Committee (IAC), with a mandate to provide whole-of-government advice on key goals, measurement and evaluation of policy and program effectiveness, the requirement for new initiatives responding to evolving needs and priorities going forward, and all other matters requiring a focussed external perspective on the government’s innovation agenda. The IAC should act though through two standing subcommittees: a Business Innovation Committee (BIC) and a Science and Research Committee (SRC).
6.3 National dialogue on innovation – Through the minister responsible for innovation, engage provincial and business leaders in an ongoing national dialogue to promote better business innovation outcomes through more effective collaboration and coordination in respect of program delivery, talent deployment, sectoral initiatives, public sector procurement, appropriate tax credit levels and the availability of risk capital.
Events
SSTI 15th Annual Conference: Innovative Economies – Creating Our Future
Columbus, OH, 8-9 November, 2011
No longer limited to a niche group of practitioners, promoting growth through innovation and technology has achieved widespread acceptance as the key to our economic prosperity. You’ll find it in blog posts and opinion pages from across the political spectrum, and in virtually every corporate or civic dialogue today on revitalizing America’s economy. Meanwhile, most state and local governments — where the majority of funding for technology-based economic development (TBED) comes from — are experiencing a fiscal crisis that won’t go away anytime soon. Also, activities funded directly by universities are feeling the pinch. Then there’s the federal budget situation.This conference brings together leaders in the field to share best practices and lessons learned, so you walk away with practical tips and new ideas to apply, including those that can have an impact even with a limited budget. And we’ll also look at the latest developments in the field and when they make sense for your area.
INNOVATION 2011: Canada’s R&D Partnership Conference
Montreal, 20-22 November, 2011
INNOVATION 2011 is a networking and professional development conference that draws from the global community of technology transfer and industry engagement practitioners from academia, industry and government as well as venture investors and other managers of Canada’s intellectual assets. Partnerships with local, regional and national industry associations and others will enrich the program significantly. In addition to professional development, opportunities for networking, marketing and building relationships with key individuals and organizations in Canada’s Innovation Ecosystem are key cornerstones of the Conference.
Contested Regions: Territorial Politics and Policy 
London, UK, 25 November, 2011
There has been discussion through the last two decades about the role of the region as a primary spatial scale at which political and economic agendas are contested and resolved. Disputes have often centred on complex constructions of identity, sovereignty, borders, legitimacy and democracy. We are now seeing a growing appreciation of an alternative set of territorial politics, one which is leading researchers to focus on new forms of disparity and disputes such as the implications of changing patterns of migration, emergence of new states, promotion of inter‐governmentality and regional collaboration by the European Commission as well as challenges to existing models of democracy and representation through a growth in localism. Globalisation also appears to be fuelling claims of the resurgence of cities as drivers of competitiveness resulting in challenges to existing urban economic infrastructures and urban regional governance. The pace of change has left these pivotal societal and political‐economic formations reliant on increasingly outdated and inadequate institutional structures, infrastructures, territorialities, statutory frameworks and supports. And herein rests the tension: as the demand for more ‘appropriate’, widely understood to mean more flexible, networked and smart forms of urban and regional planning and governance arrangements increases, new loci and/or expressions of territorial cooperation and conflict are emerging. This conference on Contested Regions presents an opportunity to discuss and debate these
important issues, to establish the need and nature of future research imperatives in this field, and to address the concerns, and
challenges confronting practitioners and policymakers.
Multi-level Governance and Partnership in EU Cohesion Policy
Vienna, Austria, 29-30 November, 2011
The first workshop will tackle the issues of multi-level governance and partnership in EU cohesion policy. The imposition of multi-level and horizontal cooperation in implementation of cohesion funding challenged the established patterns of interaction between the levels of government and the actors involved in regional policy delivery. The partnership principle has also been praised for its positive impact in terms of improvement of administrative capacity and favouring learning across organizational boundaries. In addition, effective multi-level governance mechanisms and horizontal partnership are also considered as crucial for purposeful and strategic use of the Structural Funds. Thus, EU cohesion policy is expected to become more results-oriented in 2014-2020 thanks to, among other measures, an emphasis on a place-based approach, a concept closely linked with multi-level governance and partnership. However, there are major barriers for the functioning of multi-level governance, such as reluctance of some national governments to allow the sub-national actors to play a more important role; or lack of capacity at the regional level to actively take part in shaping and implementation of EU cohesion policy, particularly in countries with centralized and hierarchical administration systems. Likewise, as the ex-post evaluations of 2000-2006 period and the academic research to date suggest, the application of horizontal partnership varies considerably across the Member States and can remain superficial and ‘formal.’
Innovation in a Sustainable Supply Chain: A Global Challenge
Montreal, 5-6 December, 2011
Aéro Montréal, the Québec Aerospace Cluster, in collaboration with CRIAQ, is organizing the third forum entirely dedicated to aerospace innovation. More than 500 participants and renowned speakers from the aerospace industry from Québec, Canada and abroad. The program includes conferences, workshops, B2B technology meetings and innovation exhibits.
The Strategic Management of Places
San Diego, CA, 12-13 December, 2011
his Conference will bring together thought leaders on the policies that cities, regions, states and communities can pursue to improve their economic performance. In particular, the conference will focus on thestrategic management of a place. A place can be a city, region, state, or even a greater geographic and political unit. We are drawing on the experience and insights of highly accomplished leaders spanning a broad spectrum of disciplines in academia, a wide range of contexts in business, and diverse range of public policy leadership roles in a series of panels to identify what matters in shaping the economic performance of a place, why it matters, and how policy can influence those outcomes.
CALL FOR PAPERS – DRUID Academy Conference 2012
Cambridge, UK, 19-21 January, 2012
The conference is open for all PhD students working within the broad field of economics, entrepreneurship and management of innovation and organizational change. We invite papers aiming at enhancing our understanding of the dynamics of technological, structural and institutional change at the level of firms, industries, regions and nations. DRUID is the node for an open international network – new partners are most welcome (we of course encourage DRUID Academy PhD students and students previously connected DRUID conferences to submit an abstract as well). Do not hesitate to apply even if you have not been in contact with DRUID previously.
Saint-Etienne, France, 26-28 January, 2012
Public and corporate actors are faced with pressing questions concerning innovation policy and the return of R&D investment. To answer these questions, new perspectives are necessary to overthrow received wisdom. This first European seminar on “Geography of Innovation” invites scholars from all disciplines to present their work on local and global processes of innovation, on the interaction between science, technology and policy, on clusters, entrepreneurship and competitiveness, and on green growth and sustainability. To further our understanding of innovation processes, the seminar intends to bring together a variety of disciplines including economic geography, regional science, economics of innovation, network theory and management science. We further welcome new contributions to the establishment of (European) databases as well as new analytical tools, including spatial econometrics, network analysis, (interactive) visualization, bibliometrics and policy evaluation tools.
The Governance of Innovation and Socio-Technical Systems: Theorizing and Explaining Change
Copenhagen, Denmark, 1-2 March, 2012
‘Governance’ is a notion that has gained increasing currency the past years in the field of (sectoral) innovation systems and socio-technical systems’ studies. Generally speaking, it refers to the ability of a society to solve collective action problems in issues that involve science, technology and innovation. However, there continues to be a considerable level of indeterminacy in the literature. Firstly, because the empirical literature on systems exhibits multiple understanding of change, and hence about how governance processes take place. This diversity has not been properly spelled out, obscuring the way in which change is linked to specific forms of (effective) governance. And secondly, because these empirical studies tend to use the notion ‘governance’ in rather loose conceptual terms and sometimes even only implicitly. This tends to underestimate or ignore the coordination aspect embedded in any form of systemic change. For these two reasons, the actual explanatory capacity of the notion ‘governance’ when studying systems’ change remains limited. This workshop aims at addressing this gap in the literature, asking how do agents and institutions coordinate in the process of generating change in complex socio-technical and (sectoral) innovation systems.
Subscriptions & Comments
Please forward this newsletter to anyone you think will find it of value. We look forward to collaborating with you on this initiative. If you would like to comment on, or contribute to, the content, subscribe or unsubscribe, please contact us at ipl.munkschool@utoronto.ca.
This newsletter is prepared by Jen Nelles.
Project manager is David A. Wolfe.