Search

The Global Innovation Clusters' Initiative (GIC) is an innovation program launched in Canada. This article aims to describe the policy, in particular its key similarities and differences with the Europe's Smart Specialisation (S3) policy initiative, and critically explore the logic behind its inception. The article reveals that although policy implementation practices are bespoke and context-specific, the need to increase coordination between different levels and sectors of policy making is acknowledged to be important for achieving both innovation and local economic development objectives. L'Initiative des Grappes d'innovation mondiales (GIC) est un programme d'innovation lance au Canada. Le but de cet article est de decrire ses politiques--particulierement ses principales similitudes et differences avec l'initiative politique de specialisation intelligente de l'Europe (S3)--ainsi que d'examiner d'un oeil critique la logique derriere sa creation. En conclusion, quoique les pratiques de mise en oeuvre des politiques soient sur mesure et contextuelles, la necessite d'accroitre la coordination entre les differents niveaux et secteurs de l'elaboration des politiques est reconnue comme importante pour atteindre a la fois les objectifs d'innovation et de developpement economique local., INTRODUCTION Growing sustainability trends and political ambitions for more inclusive and smart economic development have once again focused discussion on 'the underlying logic, the mechanics and the intended outcomes' of [...]

Local development, especially in outlying or declining regions, is a perennial issue. "Neolocalism," a combined marketing and community-building approach, draws upon and strengthens local identity and culture to create unique products, to bolster tourism and place branding, but also as ends in themselves. Craft breweries are often associated with neolocalism. In this paper, which focuses on peripheral regions of Québec, we first explore how brewers perceive their connection with local areas: whilst marketing is part of the story, local development and community revitalization are also important to them. We then assess the degree to which local development aspirations are reflected at a wide scale, using a quantitative approach. Whilst there is evidence that local breweries in peripheral areas are associated with a wider tourist economy—comprising hospitality and cultural sectors—there is no evidence that breweries are associated with higher incomes or economic vitality. This contrasts with regions closer to metropolitan areas, where there is less evidence of local tourist economies in the vicinity of craft breweries, but where breweries tend to locate in more prosperous and economically dynamic areas, likely for reasons of market access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the late 1980s, there has been no explicit regional policy in Canada. Indirectly, though, equalization payments, industrial policies, as well as regional agencies encouraging the adoption of federal industrial and innovation policies, impact regional economies. In 2017, the federal government appeared to alter its approach: the Supercluster initiative was announced, drawing upon the idea that localized networks of interrelated firms can generate innovation and local development. In this paper, we discuss the mechanisms through which spatially focused industrial innovation policy can lead to regional development. We then focus on Canada's Ocean Supercluster initiative. The question we address is as follows: to what extent can this initiative (and, more widely, Canada's Supercluster policy) be understood as a regional development strategy driven by a coherent rationale for regional intervention? Apart from the fact that each Supercluster focuses on a pre‐existing core of firms located within a region, there is little evidence that the Supercluster initiative has regional development objectives or impacts. Key messages: In 2018, Canada's federal government implemented the Supercluster policy. Five regionally focussed clusters were selected for support for business‐led innovation initiatives.Superclusters were presented as a means both to develop regional economies and to enhance Canada's global innovation impact, in a manner similar to Europe's smart specialization.Despite the initial regional dimension, Superclusters are geared towards national, not regional, objectives and do not focus upon regional development processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing number of researchers suggest that there is no necessary connection between local firm-level innovation and local development. There are two connected arguments: first, many analysts suggest local innovation should be understood as a social and institutional process: from this perspective, just focusing on firms is too narrow. Second, regional economists view firms – especially innovative ones – as geographically mobile, tending to move away from regions which don't offer them adequate support or resources. In this paper, we consider this second approach, exploring the degree to which innovators in peripheral regions purchase local services and scale-up their operations locally – two mechanisms that should connect firm-level innovation to local development. We find that peripheral innovators are more likely to use non-local services; their external expansion is also more likely to occur non-locally. If these results, obtained from cross-sectional analysis of a sparse data-set, are indicative of persistent processes, then they shed light on why firm-level innovation is disconnected from regional development in peripheral regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]