| Sessions | Guidelines for presentations
You can also offer a paper outside the sessions mentioned here. More information about session themes can be obtained from the session chairs.
The main aim of this session is to discuss human agency in regional development studies. In regional studies recent studies have concentrated, among other targets of attention, on institutions, clusters, innovation systems, interaction between academia, science and business, and their roles in regional development. This line of research, however, has tended to neglect agency, as famously criticized by Ann Markusen. Particularly human agency, the individual level of analysis, has remained in the shadows. Human agency refers to individuals’ ability to intentionally pursue their own or collective interests, often in co-operation with other agents, and to have some effect on regional and local development. We believe that taking human agency under scrutiny may provide for us a promising way to better understand the endogenous processes of regional development.
The topics to be covered may include such issues as citizenship and social participation in regional and urban development, public-private partnerships, local/regional leadership and institutional entrepreneurship. The main aim is a) to discuss and develop conceptual frameworks for research focusing on human agency, especially leadership and institutional entrepreneurship, and b) to discuss the methodological possibilities in taking individual(s) as a unit of analysis in regional studies. Additionally, the session discusses the empirical findings of the impact of influential individuals and coalitions formed by them on local/regional development and related policies.
Session chair
Markku Sotarauta | University of Tampere, Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development Studies Sente | markku.sotarauta (at) uta.fi
The main aim of this session is to discuss the current state of regional innovation system (RIS) and regional innovation environments (RIE) approaches. There has been very vivid debate on RIS since the 1990s providing us with a great punch of both quantitative and qualitative empirical studies. Still, one could claim that the theoretical progress has not been satisfactory enough and the theories have neglected to some extent the emerging trends in firms’ innovation activities (e.g. open innovation, user-driven innovation), the structural changes of the western economies (e.g. the rise of service and experience economy), the rapid development of truly global economy (e.g. the role of MNCs and global companies) and the dynamic, entrepreneurial, and endogenous regional development paths. The debate on regional innovation environments has broadened the analysis of regional innovation activities, but has by no means covered the whole field.
This session calls for new insights on the RIS and RIE approaches. Which are the key characteristics of the regional activities that should be taken better into account in the research? What is the future of RISs and RIEs like? Which are the emerging, most promising concepts in the field? In addition to these theoretical approaches, both methodologically robust and more explorative empirical papers are welcome in order to trigger beneficial debate about the future of RIS and RIE approaches.
Session chair
Jari Kolehmainen | University of Tampere, Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development Studies Sente | jari.kolehmainen (at) uta.fi
Policies for constructing regional advantage cannot be based on one 'best practice' model, but should reflect the different conditions and problems of the respective regions. The session focuses on regional, national and international relationships, knowledge flows and policy settings stimulating learning and innovation in firms collaborating with other firms, intermediaries, universities and research organisations and other innovation intensive organisations. The session includes conceptual and empirical contributions dealing with topics of how differentiated regional conditions connected to firm agglomerations, clusters, “knowledge bases” and knowledge communities can influence regional innovation policies, and how such policies can be fine-tuned to better fit the changing institutional and organizational contexts. The regional conditions may vary between different types of regional innovation environments and wider national innovation systems, or between the dominant knowledge base of local industries, or between varying dynamism in the regional economic structure.
The session is especially calling up the analyses of the implications for regional innovation policy intended to enhance internationalization, regional competitiveness and space specific collaborative modes between branches, clusters and industry sectors. Topics to be covered in this session include but are not limited to:
Session chair
Kati-Jasmin Kosonen University of Tampere, Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development Studies Sente | kati-jasmin.kosonen (at) uta.fi
This session takes institutions as a point of departure and focuses on discussions around institutional change and dynamics in the field of regional studies.
Institutions form a central and vibrant area of research in regional studies. A variety of concepts have been developed to describe and analyze the relationship between institutions and regional development. Institutional approaches have proved their strength in explaining continuity and the significance of social structures in regional development. By turning the perspective of inquiries around, we can focus on collective and individual actions and institutional work that activate and establish institutional change.
The main aim is to understand the varying processes of institutional change and the mechanisms behind them in the field of regional development. Which actions, skills and actors are essential in the processes of institutionalization? What kind of theoretical frameworks we need to understand the complex, nonlinear and multi-level nature of these processes and what methodological approaches seem promising in researching them?
Track welcomes issues such as the different modes and phases of institutional change, regional trajectories and the roles of public policy, the possibilities of strategies and strategic action, regional institutional innovations, power and legitimacy of actors and different time horizons of institutional change and the means to coordinate them. The above indicated points of view, and possibly others, form a ground for papers and discussions that can be based on empirical or theoretical inquiries.
Session chair
Riina Pulkkinen | University of Tampere, Research Unit for Urban and Regional Development Studies Sente | riina.pulkkinen (at) uta.fi
Economic geographers have paid attention to the intertwinedness of economic and cultural processes. So called cultural turn has contributed that economic development of regions is reviewed as multifaceted processes based on cultural symbols and social interaction. A widespread view among the (new) economic geographers is that “non-economic” factors are crucial elements for regional growth and development. Even though there is criticism aimed at non-economic approaches, the success of the specific region is seen to be conditional on cultural factors such as human and social capital, interplay and learning between actors, or more recently, creativity.
Studies of creativity have sought to identify the causes of creativity on an individual level. However, there has been a growing interest on the effects and social nature of creativity. Since creativity has a major role in innovation processes, it has become one of the key elements of the regeneration of organizations and, consequently, it has been seen as a passport to regional performance. Recently, creativity has dominated the development of regions not least because of Florida’s famous theses of “creative class” and geography of creativity.
Despite the plethora of efforts to understand economic and cultural processes and development of regions, there still are gaps in understanding. This track discusses how cultural turn has contributed our understanding thus far and what the future in research and development will be. We invite both theoretical and empirical papers concerning regions’ economic development as an outcome of cultural processes. We also encourage attendees to send papers presenting the practical implications of development policies or tools aimed at the regeneration of regions by means of culture and creativity. Papers can be focused e.g. on the following issues:
Session chair
Timo Suutari | University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute | timo.m.suutari (at) helsinki.fi
The issues of peripherality will be approached from the specific angle of border regions.
Discussions based on theoretical, methodological and case-defined studies will be encouraged; the economic, political, social and cultural dimensions of peripheral border regions will be welcome applying both specific and comprehensive examples.
As a nexus of the discussion, we will focus on the geographical and functional dimensions of centre-peripheral issues on the basis of nation/state entities. We will also explore aspects of compensatory regimes emanating from the potential of cross-border relations and agreements. This should link into dialogues on regions which cross national boundaries. We will be interested in discussions in terms of opportunities and obstacles.
The catalytic effect of a national border fosters special dimensions of economic, political and social problems and practices. Therefore, efforts to document the characteristic straits of these regimes, culture, etc. are welcome and comparative dimensions even more encouraged.
Session chairs
Peter de Souza | Hedmark University College| peter.souza (at) hihm.no
Mike Danson | University of the West of Scotland | michael.danson (at) uws.ac.uk
Higher education institutions (HEIs) and their role in regional development have aroused new interest when the societies have obtained features of the knowledge economies. Information and knowledge are important production factors. It is widely understood that also remote centres and peripheral regions should have links to international knowledge production. Opinion about the measures varies quite a lot.
Obviously there are many different kinds of dimensions to the question. Local people, enterprises, higher education institutions and science policy makers at national level have their own view and preferences. Development policy at the regional level pays attention to the competitiveness of the region. On the other hand HEIs have their own challenges in developing their own functions. Structural reforms steered from the national level favour larger units in ever bigger cities. Possibilities to choose and the critical mass of people are some of the arguments behind this reform-work. Still, for example the accessibility of university services does matter, especially when the students are growingly adults, like in Finland. Combining education to the work and family life is easier when travelling times are convenient.
The interaction of the universities with the wider society represents the so called third mission of the academic organizations. These activities, in addition to research and education, create a mixture of functions. Persistent interaction, triple helix co-operation, has received popularity internationally. Interaction with the environment supports also the development of the academic organizations. Regional research can help to understand the potential of HEIs in regional development and goal setting in regional policy. This session likes to welcome very different aspects to higher education institutes and their role in regions: empirical experiences, model building, and conceptual analysis, to tribute to the topic.
Session chair
Juha Alarinta | University Consortium of Seinäjoki | University of Tampere | juha.alarinta (at) uta.fi
Urban-rural interaction is an idea which was developed in the late 1990s within regional policy to bring together the new challenges of regional development and to handle cities and the countryside as a whole. Adaptation to globalisation has been carried out by strengthening the urban centres. The common trend in regional policy is to emphasise urban development. The drawbacks of this trend have been the sparse network of prosperous cities and their weak spreading effects. This has hindered the comprehensive regional development and deepened the tensions between urban and rural areas. In this situation, the interaction policy could balance development. From this point of view, urban-rural interaction can be seen as a way of tackling the challenges of globalisation.
Urban - rural interaction can be grouped according to its principal functions. The content of interaction can be roughly divided into three categories; economic, social and political. In the economic interaction for example the business networks, supply and demands for services between urban and rural areas and work-related forms of collaboration such as the commuting have an important role. The interaction focused socially is often linked to people’s leisure time such as recreation, nature experiences, culture or family or friendship relations. The political interaction is focused on the disputes of the allocation of development resources between urban and rural areas. On the other hand, both rural and urban areas have a common interest to succeed in the interregional competition which is also an essential form of the political interaction.
This track invites papers that lighten the relations between the urban and the rural from economic, social, or political perspectives.
Session chairs
Antti Saartenoja | University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute| antti.saartenoja (at) helsinki.fi
Petri Kahila | Nordic Centre for Spatial Development Nordregio| petri.kahila (at) nordregio.se
Small businesses represent a major source of resources for local and regional development. That is why deepening the understanding of the embedded nature of small business operation can offer important tools for regional development. According to the idea of the embedded nature of the business activity, the development and success of specific regions or individual enterprises can be seen to be conditional on and interdependent with the patterns of social relations. Small businesses have often been characterized through/by the locally embedded nature of their business relations. According to some views, small businesses are considered to be strongly embedded in their local communities and their success is often related to their degree of legitimacy and approval from local actors, while others emphasize their disassociation from their local surroundings. There is however, a need to further study the formation and dynamics of the relationships between a small business and its local ties – how can these relationships contribute to local and regional development? This track aims to increase the understanding concerning the questions when locally embedded relations produce higher performance and how they are reflected in the local development.
We particularly invite contributions that focus on one or more of the following issues:
In exploring the issues indicated above, and possibly others, the track is open to any method that can be fruitfully applied.
Session chair
Merja Lähdesmäki | University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute | merja.lahdesmaki (at) helsinki.fi
All human actions are tied to physical spaces and structures. Yet, space does not condition social activities one-sidedly, but also creates unforeseen opportunities, if we want to. Regions and communities with their connective networks, milieus and urban designs can be seen as built environment full of hidden potential, waiting for recognition and release. How can we support firms and innovations, as well as new forms of work and everyday life, by developing our built environment? Meeting the challenges of near future requires integration of splintered cities and regions, multiscalar design and planning approaches, handling with complexity and hybrids, the synchronisation of top-down and grassroots production of space, and many other strategies.
Session chair
Ari Hynynen | Tampere University of Technology, School of Architecture | ari.hynynen (at) tut.fi
Private and public investments have effects on the economies of nations, regions, sub-regions and municipalities. The construction of mines, shopping malls, roads or a metro brings changes to the production potential, business structure, employment, income, consumption and investments of the regional economy. Newspapers daily report such projects and plans whose regional economic effects should be calculated. Knowing the numeric values of the effects improves the quality of decision making.
CGE (Computable General Equilibrium) simulation models are the best way to evaluate the short and long run regional economic effects of projects. Their main idea is that in the regional economy "everything affects everything". CGE modeling is very popular abroad and dissertations on it have been defended in many countries.
This Working Group welcome papers that are interested in the application of CGE simulation models or papers that represent CGE models in practice (e.g. experiences and results which have been obtained using these models).
Session chair
Hannu Törmä | University of Helsinki, Ruralia Institute | hannu.torma (at) helsinki.fi
There are 30 minutes for each presentation including discussion. This means 15 to 20 minutes for the presentation and 10-15 minutes for the discussion. Some sessions have also extra time for discussion in the end, depending on the number of presentations.
The conference rooms are equipped with standard audio-visual facilities including projector, PC-computer, and whiteboard. If you wish to use any special equipment, please contact the conference secretary.