Search

ABSTRACT By drawing on the Schumpeterian distinction between invention (i.e., new ideas and knowledge creation) and commercialization of new ideas (i.e., innovation), this paper shows that knowledge and innovation are both important drivers of economic growth, but have heterogeneous spatial impacts. In particular, the growth benefits accruing from knowledge seem rather selective and concentrated across space whereas the growth benefits generated by innovation seem more diffusive, and regions innovating in the absence of a strong local knowledge base can be as successful as more knowledge-intensive regions in turning innovation into a higher growth rate, possibly by exploiting local informal knowledge and/or knowledge spillovers. These results are of great importance for the design of research and innovation policies within the frame of the Europe 2020 strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article presents comments of authors on the article "Commercialization and Commiditization: A Dialogue Between Perspective," by Peter Vandergeest. Peter Vandergeest extends his critique to document in more detail the similarities, differences and analytical shortcomings of the 1960s commercialization literature and the recent commoditization perspective on agrarian development. He aims not only to expose the inadequacies of these two contrasting theoretical approaches, but also to stimulate a dialogue between them so that researchers might move beyond the current impasse in neo-Marxist development sociology. Vandergeest's paper is one of the first systematic analytical comparisons of these two bodies of literature and offers fresh insight into both old and new theoretical and practical problems. One way in which one can take up these cultural dimensions is through the study of agricultural knowledge systems. This work should draw upon the sociology of knowledge and cognitive anthropology to analyze how farmers or other actors generate, reproduce and transmit knowledge that is relevant to agricultural practice.