Search

The Regional Innovation System (RIS) is a popular concept for approaching research on geographies of innovation. Political research and innovation studies in emerging economies suggest that there are much different institutional preconditions for and far more types of innovation than hitherto considered. It is thus unlikely that the RIS model as derived from “best practice” cases in the Global North has sufficient explanatory power for regional innovation dynamics in less developed regions in China. From an empirical qualitative analysis on Chongqing, China, as a non-“best practice” case, we find that it is more appropriate to consider separate RIS within one region. The analysis shows that different RIS-frameworks matter for different actors, who engage in different types of innovation. These frameworks are exclusive and do not provide their functions equally to all innovation actors in place. The separation of RIS frameworks acknowledges the co-existence of different structures and trajectories, which is explicitly helpful for understanding regional innovation dynamics in China, where the national government currently aims to transform its innovation model from state-control to an open system of innovation. This paper further discusses how the notion of separate RIS is more appropriate for capturing regional innovation dynamics in the Chinese context in contrast to previous concepts of emerging RIS or fragmented regions.

In emerging economies such as China, marked by profound regional disparities in terms of socio-economic wealth and technology, different regions use not only different levels of inputs into the innovation process, but also produce different outputs with qualitative diversity that is seldom sufficiently acknowledged. This paper uses structured expert interviews (AHP) to provide insights into the innovation profiles of four selected Chinese regions: Beijing, Shanghai, Chongqing and Kunming. It combines information on drivers of innovation as well as innovation characteristics and objectives to establish and compare regional innovation profiles.

Empirical methods applied in Regional Innovation System (RIS) research have two shortcomings. First, they usually have difficulties when it comes to explaining the interplay and relative importance of the elements of a RIS. Second, they are not capable of showing whether specific RIS can indeed be attributed to a pre-defined region. We draw on four contrasting regions in China exhibiting strong disparities with regard to innovation resources to examine how the “Analytic Hierarchy Process” (AHP), a comparative method widely used in business and management studies, can help to address these methodological shortcomings. Results show that in combination with qualitative analyses, the AHP can support empirical RIS research to decide whether or not a particular pre-defined RIS model can adequately describe empirical reality: the AHP evaluates the relative importance of both quantitative and qualitative RIS elements contributing to innovation in a pre-defined area through comparative expert assessments. Also drawing on sensitivity checks, the AHP is capable of providing a critical evaluation of the importance of both factors and spatial delimitations affecting innovation. The method thus informs theoretical development on the elements and spatial boundaries of RIS and helps empirical innovation research to apply the RIS framework in a more fruitful manner.

This chapter intends to discuss the use of the concept of rural gentrification in order to give it stronger critical value, as well as a more precise meaning than the term "rural rebirth", as it is usually understood. Beyond the demographic revival of the countryside and the upgrading of rural landscapes and functions, which are easy to identify in the field, does social segregation actually occur in rural areas? On the basis of the examination of the current evolution of French rural areas, it will be suggested thanks to statistical analysis, selected case studies and complementary qualitative field interviews that real displacement processes of the poor are seldom encountered in French rural areas; however, some more invisible selective mechanisms, based on land prices or housing regulations, can be indirectly considered as a stronger and more critical validation of the concept of gentrification for rural areas., Ce chapitre vise à discuter les modalités d'utilisation du concept de gentrification rurale afin de lui conférer une plus forte portée critique, ainsi qu'un sens plus précis que ce que contient la notion de « renaissance rurale », à laquelle il est généralement associé. Par-delà la reprise démographique des campagnes, ainsi que l'amélioration qualitative des paysages et des fonctions rurales, faciles à mettre en évidence sur le terrain, se produit-il aussi une ségrégation sociale dans les espaces ruraux ? Sur la base d'un examen approfondi des évolutions en cours dans les espaces ruraux français, au moyen d'analyses statistiques, de plusieurs études de cas et d'entretiens complémentaires sur le terrain, on suggèrera que la gentrification provoque rarement des déplacements de population dans les campagnes françaises ; cependant, des mécanismes de sélection plus invisibles existent en fonction des prix du foncier et des règlements d'urbanisme, ce qui peut être considéré alors comme un critère plus solide et plus critique de validation du concept de gentrification en contexte rural.