The role of regions in low carbon transitions dynamics: the ‘Greening’ of Puglia Region
Carla De Laurentis, Kevin Morgan and Malcolm Eames1
Paper prepared for the 'Greening of Regional Innovation Policy' session, at the 9th
international conference on Regional Innovation Policies, held by the University of Stavanger,
October 16-17th 2014
Abstract
Recent contributions have provided theoretical enhancement and empirical evidence that a
spatial perspective on sustainability transitions is meaningful (for a review HANSEN and
COENEN (2013). Two related problems remain unaddressed. Firstly, there is an insufficient
elaboration of coupling structures between national/regional innovation systems and
sustainability transitions research; secondly, there is a lack of understanding of the
importance of the regional context – understood in terms of the physical geography of
resource occurrence and the natural environment as a source of competitive regional
advantage and path dependence. The paper presents an analytical framework that seeks to
address these deficiencies drawing from the theoretical foundations of the Regional
Innovation System approach. Taking the regional level as a starting point, the paper argues
that while there is a need to address a more relational account of scale in innovation, too
much emphasis on network relationships risks undermining the importance of the physical
geography of natural resource occurrence and its impact on network relationships. It is the
set of relations, processes, practices in low carbon innovation that affect and are affected by
the regional context in which they operate. The physical properties of a resource influence
the innovation process within which the resource becomes embedded. Such material
differences become significant as they enable or constrain the social, political and economic
relations necessary for resource production and innovation. The politics of regional
innovation policy, then, need to be given far more prominence in the transition literature.
1
Carla De Laurentis, Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff University; Professor Kevin Morgan, School of Planning
and Geography, Cardiff University and Professor Malcolm Eames, Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff
University.
1
The greening of the region of Puglia in Italy is presented as a case study to test these
propositions.
1. Introduction
There is a growing consensus that sustainability transitions need to be conceptualised at
different spatial scales as neglecting the importance of a spatial perspective may hinder the
explanatory power of transition studies. Studies of socio-technical transitions have been
criticised for adopting a pervasive ‘methodological nationalism’ (SPÄTH and ROHRACHER,
2012). In particular, transition analysis has been criticised for overlooking where transitions
takes place and the socio-spatial relations and dynamics within which transitions evolve
(COENEN et al., 2012). Such criticism has generated an increased interest and a recent
research agenda has emerged aimed at investigating the role of geography thinking and
perspectives in sustainability transitions. Recent contributions have sought to provide
theoretical enhancement, empirical evidence and illustrations that a spatial perspective on
sustainability transitions is meaningful (for a review on recent research on the geography of
transitions see for instance (HANSEN and COENEN, 2013).
It is increasingly accepted, therefore, that if the prospect of change in systems of energy
provision is to be fully understood, then it is vital to understand how ‘energy systems are
constituted spatially’ (BRIDGE et al., 2013). In addressing this quest for elaborating a more
spatially sensitive conceptualisation of transition studies, this research focuses upon the role
of regions in transition processes.
The reason for focussing on the regional level builds upon the renewed interest, witnessed in
recent years, in the spatial transformation of the state [(MORGAN, 2004), (GIBBS and JONAS,
2000), (BULKELEY, 2005), (WHILE et al., 2010)]. This debate, predominately in the fields of
economic geography and regional development, has put the region as an emerging politicaleconomic unit, with increasing autonomy of action both at national and international levels
[(SCOTT, 1998), (MORGAN, 1997), (STORPER, 1997), (COOKE and MORGAN, 1998), (ASHEIM
and GERTLER, 2005), (GERTLER, 2003)]. While economic geographers, regional and innovation
theorists have argued that the sub-national level of governance of regions is an ideal
2
territorial scale of economic organisation and political intervention, some scholars have
started to criticise the narrow focus of the discourse of competitiveness and economic metrics
vis-à-vis regional productivity performance [(SMITH et al., 2003), (MORGAN, 2004),
(BRISTOW, 2005), (BRISTOW, 2010)]. Besides, the pressures associated with tackling climate
change and reducing carbon emissions have given rise to a rescaling of environmental
governance in which the regional level is of growing significance, not so much in terms of
redistributed formal powers, but because this sub-national level represents the governance
scale where environmental responsibilities and a wide array of policies are actually
implemented and realised [(MORGAN, 2004), (GIBBS and JONAS, 2000), (WHILE et al., 2010)].
We contend that despite several attempts to bring a stronger geographical perspective to
sustainability transitions research, two related problems remain unaddressed. On the one
hand, there is an insufficient elaboration of coupling structures between national/regional
innovation systems and sustainability transition research, on the other, the absence of an
effective conceptualisation of space is coupled with a lack of understanding of the importance
of the regional context - understood, more broadly, in terms of the physical geography of
resource occurrence and the natural and built environment as a source of competitive
regional advantage and path dependence - for sustainability, and in particular low carbon
transitions.
The paper presents a conceptual and analytical framework that seeks to address these
deficiencies. Taking the regional level as a starting point, the framework builds directly from
recent literature that seeks to clarify and integrate emerging streams of work and theoretical
perspectives that links different scales. The paper argues that while there is a need to address
a more relational account of scale in innovation, there is often too much emphasis on network
relationships and connectivity among actors. Such emphasis risks undermining the
importance of the physical geography of resource occurrence and the natural and built
environment and their impact on network relationships. The paper, drawing from research
on materiality (BAKKER and BRIDGE, 2006) argues that it is the set of relations, processes,
practices in low carbon innovation that affect and are affected by the regional context in
which they operate. The physical properties of a resource (whether it is ubiquitous or
localised, whether it requires the mobilisation of significant amounts of energy/capital and
supporting infrastructures and so on) influence the innovation process within which the
3
resource becomes embedded and such material differences become significant because they
might enable and constrain the social, political and economic relations necessary for resource
production and innovation. This brings to the fore the structure of regional governance and
regional policy and the way in which this is the result of processes that take place at and
across various scales. Such regional processes are entwined, constructed and networked to
other places and people beyond any given jurisdictional territory (GOODWIN, 2013).
The paper first reviews a number of key theoretical frameworks providing important insights
into the geography of transition. Building upon recent work in the field of geography and
innovation studies the paper then proposes a framework that explores both the relational,
territorial and physical geographies of low carbon innovation systems. The framework not
only stresses the importance of the institutional, economic and governance dimensions at
different spatial scales (as stated in much recent research in both innovation and transition
studies) but seeks to emphasise that while innovation processes become intertwined at
different spatial levels, those spatial scales, and their material and territorial differences,
influence the social, political and economic relations of resource production and innovation.
These propositions are then tested on the regional innovation processes that characterised
renewable energy innovation in the Puglia region of Italy. The paper concludes with some
reflections on the opportunities and constraints that such framework provide and further
research directions.
2. Of space and scale in innovation: what role for territoriality and materiality
As COENEN et al. (2012) note two conceptual frameworks, Technological Innovations Systems
(TIS) and the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP), have provided the dominant analytical heuristics
shaping research into the dynamics of sustainability transitions. In broad terms, whilst TIS
analysis focuses upon the emerging actors, networks and institutional structures supporting
new (sustainable) socio-technical configurations [(CARLSSON and STAINKIEWICZ, 1991),
(BERGEK et al., 2008)], the MLP draws particular attention to the role of niches in fostering
(sustainable) innovation and the dynamics of competition between emerging niches and
incumbent socio-technical regimes in the context of a changing landscape [(GEELS, 2002),
4
(GEELS, 2004a, b), (GEELS, 2011), (RIP and KEMP, 1998), (KEMP and ROTMANS, 2005), (SMITH
et al., 2010)]. Both heuristics share a systemic perspective on innovation and technological
change and stress the importance of networks of organisations, something that is also in
common with territorial innovation systems (national, regional and global innovation
systems). However, in recent years, both approaches have been criticised for lacking an
adequate conceptualisation of space and place. As argued a number of researchers are
increasingly paying more attention to the geography of transition, appreciating the role and
importance of introducing a spatial dimension to analysing processes of transitions and
engaging more broadly with geographical aspects of transition.
Within the current MLP literature, it is argued, path breaking innovation often occurs across
located socio-technical experiments (GEELS and RAVEN, 2006) and dedicated intermediating
work at other spatial level is needed for interactive learning to take place, expectations to
develop and supportive networks to build [(RAVEN et al., 2008), (SMITH, 2007)]. Although
there are references to the ‘global’ and ‘local’ processes, these are however, considered
highly abstract and used in a spatially decontextualised sense (TRUFFER and COENEN, 2012).
While HODSON and MARVIN (2009) emphasise that, often, the importance of geography is
confined to ‘some sort of bounded experimental local context’ at niche level, BRIDGE et al.
(2013) argue that concepts such as the local-global dialectic and landscapes are often
mistaken for having a quite specific geographical meaning.
On the other hand, while the technological innovation systems approach has dominated the
analysis of industry and innovation dynamics in renewable energy technology, the a-spatial
perspective of TISs and the functions oriented approach run the risk of insufficiently
considering the spatial contexts in which a TIS is embedded. More recently attention has been
given to understand the spatial characteristics of the TIS approach with emphasis on the
global and multi-scalar nature of TISs and the importance of actors and institutions at the
local and regional level in TISs [(BINZ and TRUFFER, 2011), (BINZ et al., 2014), (DEWALD and
TRUFFER, 2012)]. Nevertheless, such contributions rest upon the influence of relational
economic geography studies that emphasise network relationships and, often, (in our view)
focus too much on the issue of connectivity among actors and networks while
underestimating the importance that the spatial context can exert and its impact on network
relationships.
5
Contrariwise, the notion of scale is used recurrently in innovation studies2. ARCHIBUGI and
MICHIE (1997) (pg.2, emphasises added) convey that in order ‘to understand technological
change, it is crucial to identify the economic, social, political and geographical context in
which innovation is generated and disseminated’. Furthermore, it is argued that knowledge
creation is cumulative and evolutionary in nature, leading towards different development
paths and specialisation processes between regions and national states. In other words, the
concrete socio-spatial contexts in which innovation processes are embedded play an
important role. Nevertheless, the relationship between firms and territories is exceedingly
complex (DICKEN and MALMBERG, 2001). Whilst much innovation systems research utilises
three key scales based on the territorial boundaries of the global space, the nation and the
region, other emerging strands of research focus on the complex networks and interactions
operating across and between these scales, providing a more fluid relational account of (scale
in) innovation processes. It has been argued that much innovation research has been
excessively focussed on these three discrete (global, national and regional) scales (COE and
BUNNELL, 2003). As it has become apparent that systems of innovation are increasingly multiscale and complex (HOTZ-HART, 2000), some authors have started to analyse the
relationships that occurs across and between these levels. Here a local-global dialectic is seen
as providing a more fluid relational account of scale in innovation processes.
Recent literature on economic agglomeration and clustering processes, for example, offers
important insights on the role of global-local networks and institutions that cut across and
link different geographical scales (BATHELT et al., 2004; MAILLAT, 1998; SCOTT, 1998). Both
OINAS (1999) and BATHELT et al. (2004) argue that the creation of new knowledge is best
viewed as a result of a ‘combination’ of close and distant interactions. BATHELT et al. (2004)
refer to these external linkages as ‘global pipeline’ whereas ’local buzz’ implies the knowledge
generated and shared locally). Whilst economic success often then has local roots, it also
crucially depends on combining local and trans-local or global linkages (ASHEIM and GERTLER,
2005; BATHELT and GLÜCKLER, 2011; BATHELT et al., 2004)3.
2
Our focus here is necessarily selective, given that our goal is not to survey the literature in its entirety but rather
to introduce some key discussion points that will be reappraised later in the paper
3
In the context of this paper it should be noted that Bathelt and Glückler (2011) also called for attention to be
paid to natural resources through their suggested relational economic geography perspective.
6
This relational approach also has much in common with the heuristic framework of global
production network (GPN). In which, it is argued, the complexity of the global economy,
especially its geographical complexity, is better understood using the concept of a network
(BUNNELL and COE, 2001; COE et al., 2008). In this context, the work undertaken by Bulkeley
and colleagues (BULKELEY, 2005; BULKELEY and BETSILL, 2005; BULKELEY and BETSILL, 2013),
for instance, suggests that multi-level governance perspectives might be fruitful in capturing
the processes that are in place to govern climate change at urban level. Resources,
competencies and powers are distributed both ‘vertically’ between different levels of
government and ‘horizontally’ through multiple overlapping and interconnected spheres of
authority (HOOGHE and MARKS, 2001). Such work on the politics of scale has provided
significant insights into the socially and politically constructed nature of scale, and the ways
in which processes of scaling and rescaling are intertwined, regulated and contested between
different actors and networks.
The arguments presented above emphasise that spatial scale in innovation - and
environmental governance - cannot be treated in hierarchical and discrete terms.
Accordingly, treating the global, the national and the regional scales simply as nested spatial
containers, undermines the complexity of innovation and environmental processes and
overlooks the relationship that occurs between the national, the regional and the global levels
((BULKELEY, 2005; WHILE et al., 2010).
Agreeing with JONAS (2012), however, one of the main limitations of relational thinking is the
propensity to neglect the analysis of territorial politics and how social and political power are
organised and exercised over space. HARRISON (2013) goes as far as claiming that relational
approaches are at their most convincing when analysing cross-border economic flows, but
are often less suitable to analyse acts of political mobilisation and cultural identity which are
often ‘territorially articulated’ (JONES and MACLEOD, 2004). On the one hand, as
MACKINNON et al. (2002) argue that while national states have certainly become less selfcontained as a result of economic globalisation, they retain key powers both over their own
territories and in their relations with the wider world economy and continue to regulate a
range of important policy such as energy. On the other hand, MORGAN (2007) suggests that
political space is bounded and porous: bounded because politicians are held accountable
through ‘the territorially defined ballot box’ and porous because people have multiple
7
identities and are part of ‘spawning communities of relational connectivity’ that outstrip
territorial boundaries. These debates are of particular relevance in studying renewable energy
and low carbon transition.
Moreover, innovation studies have, conventionally, tended to concentrate on high
technology or knowledge intensive industries, since the surge of interest in the knowledge
economy and the increasing role and significance of knowledge as an input to economic
processes (SMITH, 2000). One of the key components, it is argued, within the knowledge
economy, is that there is a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities and that the role of
knowledge (as compared with natural recourse) has become more important (OECD, 1999).
However, we argue that it is important to understand low carbon innovation based on
renewable energy resources as a combination of natural-resource based activities with
knowledge intensive-assets. It follows that low carbon, renewable energy innovations will be
embedded in a particular territory (where the natural resource occurs) but also be spatially
distributed (as knowledge flows across multiple-scale). Such remark highlights the need to
bring to the fore the importance that the spatial context and the local natural resource
endowment can exert on low carbon innovation processes.
Whilst the materiality and physical geography of energy systems receives relatively little
attention within the MLP and TIS literature, such concerns have long been foregrounded
within the broader geography literature. HANSEN and COENEN (2013) highlight that a
relatively few contributions deal explicitly with the importance of natural resource
endowment. Some authors have started providing evidence of the importance of natural
resources endowment and the influence that they may exert on innovation processes such as
the success of Brazil’s ethanol production (GOLDEMBERG, 2007; SOLOMON and KRISHNA,
2011); biodiesel and regional production of soya crops in Curtiba (Brazil) by CARVALHO et al.
(2012); the abundance of wooden biomass in the Murau region (SPÄTH and ROHRACHER,
2010, 2012); a recent study by MURPHY and SMITH (2013) that analyses wind energy projects
of the island of Lewis in the north west of Scotland and the growing appreciation of the scale
of offshore wind (JAY, 2009), marine and tidal energy sources available to the UK (ABPMER,
2008).
8
Coupled with these recent studies, the natural environment, historically, has often been seen
as a source of regional comparative advantage. Within the human geography literature,
resource extraction (mining, oil and gas, etc.) is underpinned by the classical theory of
comparative advantage in international trade as an agent of regional development (GUNTON,
2003; WATKINS, 1963). Although empirical evidences have brought in considerable
controversy in stressing that resource-led growth is a high risk strategy that cannot provide
sustained growth (among others: INNIS (1956), AUTY (2001), SACHS and WARNER (1999),
MACKINTOSH (1964)), in common with GUNTON (2003), we argue that physical geography of
resource occurrence represents an important factor in economic development. Moreover,
BRIDGE (2008) brings an increased attentiveness to the materiality of production networks.
Bridge’s work follows from a criticism that too much of the production network literature
pays little attention to the institutional and geographical environments within which
networks operate and are formed and shaped. He highlights, with an example form the oil
industry, the influence that materiality exerts on industrial organisations arguing that the
production chain of extractive industries is territorially embedded at different points along its
length and the materiality of extractive industries emphasises that dependency on natural
production, location relative to markets and the existing infrastructure limits the spatial
flexibility of the network.
These criticisms spur from the fact that, according to BAKKER and BRIDGE (2006), resource
and environmental geographers have predominantly conceptualised nature in physical terms,
traditionally focussing on improving the flow of resources ‘from’ nature ‘to’ society through
the design of institutional and territorial frameworks for procuring and managing
environmental goods and services4. BAKKER and BRIDGE (2006) suggest that what counts as
a resource depends on the interaction between the physical quality and condition (eg. the
variable grade/ quality of mineral resources, for example) and social institutions. Referencing
the material, they contend (2006: 17), is to acknowledge that ‘things other than humans make
a difference in the way social relations unfold’.
4
This stands in contrast with much work on the field of political ecology (for a review Neumann (2009) and
Bulkeley (2005) and the production of nature thesis in which, the mutual production of ‘society- nature’ relations
has been central to research and analysis.
9
In this sense, materiality helps us explaining the way in which natural resources are both
naturally endowed (the influence that they exert vis-à-vis their physical properties and their
geographical recurrence) and socially induced (e.g. recognising how a diversity of actors can
construct and manipulate nature). KAUP (2008) draws a similar conclusion indicating that the
‘material difficulties of natural gas extraction and transport have shaped the structure of
Bolivia’s natural gas industry as they require large amount of fixed capital and technological
innovation in extraction processes and separation processes, pipeline construction and LNG
and GTL conversion. The requirements of such large amounts of capital have shaped the
relationships between transnational extraction firms and the people and places in which
natural gas is extracted’.
These arguments emphasise the extent to which natural resources and their geographical
recurrence should also be considered as important features in low carbon transitions. The
spatial distribution of physical and material resources is an important aspect to bear in mind
when researching low carbon transitions: geographical recurrence and knowledge flows of
natural resources, together with the built environment as a source of competitive advantage
(and constraints) are expected to be territorially embedded at different points in the value
chains. In other words, what constitutes renewable natural resources will be contained within
a particular physical territory but also be socially and politically constructed as such within
and between various networks of actors at different scales. The implications of this in studying
low carbon innovations are highlighted in the next section.
3. A framework to study low carbon innovation
The discussion proposed above has highlighted two sets of issues. Following the view that
scale is a fluid, relative and socially constructed concept (BUNNELL and COE, 2001), we
contend that low carbon innovation and knowledge interactions in renewable energy
innovations are intertwined across a range of scales and spheres of governance that call for a
better understanding of the role of actors, networks and institutions as they operate
simultaneously across multiple scales.
10
Nevertheless, as highlighted, such a fluid relational account of scale in innovation runs the
risk of undermining the importance of how social and political power are organised and
exercised over space (JONAS, 2012) and neglecting the role that local natural resource
endowment can exert and their impact on network relationships. Following BAKKER and
BRIDGE (2006), the physical properties of a resource (whether it is ubiquitous or localised,
whether it requires the mobilisation of significant amounts of energy/capital and supporting
infrastructures and so on) influence the political-economic relations within which the
resource becomes embedded. Such material differences become significant because they
might enable and constrain the social, political and economic relations necessary for resource
production and innovation. Researching low carbon innovation, therefore, requires a more
focussed attention on the role that geographical location and the materiality of renewable
resources play.
These considerations imply that there is a need to synthetize and enrich current conceptual
frameworks in order to offer a better understanding of the role that the combination of the
broader and multi-level institutional, economic and governance dimensions, and the physical
geography of the natural resources play in transitions processes.
The argument here is that any analysis of the geography of low carbon innovation transition
should build upon and combine insights from recent literature that has sought to clarify and
integrate emerging streams of work and theoretical perspectives that link different scales,
such as those reviewed in the previous sections, enhanced by foregrounding the discussion
on materiality. This will require i) a renewed attention on natural resources occurrence and
their influence on innovation processes and ii) a consideration of the role that the regional,
global and national spaces play in shaping the contours (e.g. the nature and the strengths) of
the relationships and networks of actors that occur across spatial boundaries in innovation
processes. In other words, it is important to understand the influence that regional, national
and global contexts, and natural resource occurrence, exert on such relational geography.
Adopting a geographical lens to study low carbon innovation, revives the attention on the role
of regions in innovation processes. Focussing as a starting point of the framework on the
regional scale offers a means to start unpacking the role that the region’s natural resources
play in innovation. Defining and understanding low carbon innovation based on renewable
11
energy resources as a combination of natural-resource based activities with knowledge
intensive assets allows the identification, within the region, of the broad spectrum of
renewable energy systems that might co-exist. Within a region, there will be the co-existence
of different competing and synergistic low carbon innovation systems (e.g. wind, nuclear,
solar PV, solar thermal, bioenergy, CCS) influenced by the opportunities and constraints
offered by the different regional context and materiality. To clarify with an example, regions
that display a well-developed grid system and port infrastructure (which are deemed to be
important characteristics for the commercial success of offshore renewables), with
favourable local weather conditions and local geography (e.g. accessible onshore areas
suitable for assembly and maintenance) could play a determinant role in the extent to which
these resources become utilised (MURPHY et al., 2011).
However, the variability of regional renewable energy capabilities and sufficient or
insufficient infrastructure cannot simply explain the degree of unevenness in the way
transitions unfold in one place and not another. The literature on regional innovation systems,
thus, could offer useful insights. In particular, drawing from the emphasis that such
theoretical framework puts on the role that place and territory specific features, at regional
level, play in nurturing and enhancing innovation. At the core of the RIS approach the focus is
on economic and social interactions between agents, spanning the public and private sectors
to engender and diffuse innovation.
RIS scholars argue that it is often the institutional embeddedness of technological
development processes and the regional institutional infrastructure within particular regions
that explain different innovation paths. Such emphasis on the role that regions and the
regional institutional infrastructure play in innovation allows for unfolding the institutional
contexts in which cooperative practices emerge and take place and provides a better
understanding of the entrepreneurial capacity, the governance and financial resources that
are distinguishable at regional level. Agreeing with KAUP (2008), innovative firms and
organisations ‘must not only account for the material difficulties of the resource and the
physical constraints of the place, they must also negotiate the socio-political dynamics of the
people in the places in which the resource is extracted from and transported through’. In
other words, physical characteristics of natural resources provide opportunities and/or
constraints to the capability of energy innovation networks to generate and capture value.
12
Central to this is therefore the understanding of the issues of territoriality and territorial
politics [(BRIDGE et al., 2013) (JONAS, 2012)]. This goes beyond the investigation of the deep
structural trends and drivers (as emphasised by the landscape concept in the multi-level
perspective) and encompasses the regional institutional contexts in which cooperative
practices emerge (such as that proposed by regional innovation system scholars). It highlights
the structure of the social and political power that govern renewable energy systems and the
way in which this is organised and distributed at regional levels (in terms of regional
governance and regional innovation policy) and entwined to other places and people beyond
any given jurisdictional territory (GOODWIN, 2013).
The next section will seek to test these propositions in the discussion of the case of the Puglia
Region5, part of the Italian South ‘Mezzogiorno’. Under focus is the peculiarity of the greening
of its regional innovation system and renewable energy policy.
4. The greening of regional innovation policy in Puglia
The conventional image of the Italian South – the Mezzogiorno – is of a group of chronically
poor regions mired in deep developmental problems, particularly with respect to
unemployment, emigration of economically active people, inefficient public administrations,
clientelistic political systems and a burgeoning black economy. The region of Puglia, in the
south eastern heel of Italy, has endeavoured to shed this conventional image by building a
reputation for itself as a region that sets a high premium on good governance, efficient public
administration and regional development policies that give equal weight to innovation and
sustainability, twin goals that come together in the regional strategy for renewable energy
(the Regional Environmental and Energy Plan, PEAR). A major political commitment was made
to the energy sector when Nichi Vendola’s government assumed office in Puglia in 2005. Since
2005, the Puglia region has begun specialising in the production of renewable energy6: Puglia
5
This research is primarily based on secondary sources. A field based research to gather further evidence will
be conducted in spring 2015.
6
In the Italian electricity sector, the 20-20-20 target has already almost been met (~93 TWh produced at the
end of 2012 and 102 TWh considering normalised hydroelectric production compared to the 2020 target of 100
TWh). This can be explained by the strong increase in installations in recent years, most notably photovoltaics:
from 2010 Italy has increased the installed capacity of about 13 GW, reaching a total of around 17 GW (second
only to Germany, at a global level). The main reason for this rapid growth is the very generous incentive system
in force in the past years which has not always taken into account the rapid fall in technology-related costs
(photovoltaic technology costs have fallen by about 70% from 2008 to 2012), which has translated into very high
profitability and incentives exceeding those of the other European countries. In January 2012, Italian incentives
13
generates 27.1% of Italy’s wind energy production, 24.4 % of Italy’s photovoltaic energy and
11.8 % of Italy’s energy overall from biomass, solid urban biodegradable waste, biogas and
bioliquids (GSE, 2012). Puglia has now outperformed the rest of the Italian regions in terms
of PV installed power and wind energy and is third in bioenergy production as detailed in the
figures 1 and 2 that follow.
This leading position is attributable to a combination of factors: favourable climate and
natural resource endowments; political will and priority given to energy parks and renewable
energy installations on roofs of public buildings and strong networks of firms, including the
presence of local firm Italgest and of the Italian factory of the Danish (wind turbine)
multinational Vestas, together with firms with significant industrial and manufacturing
capabilities. We examine these in turn.
Solar radiation in the region is above the national average in large part of Puglia’s territory.
Overall, it has a yearly sun irradiation of 1 679 kWh/ m2 (the highest level of solar irradiation
in Europe, ARTI (2008)) and its wind resources are also good, although much more spatially
sensitive than solar radiation. Wind resources are concentrated in the north of Puglia, in the
northern mountainous area in the province of Foggia, where the wind speed averages 6/7
meters per second (OECD, 2012). Puglia is mainly an agricultural region (85% of its land is
classified as “rural”) and this specialisation provides substantial residues that can be used as
a feedstock for biomass and energy production. The region has also a large amount of land
available for dedicated crops deriving from the withdrawal of some traditional crops (tomato,
sugarbeet) or from areas opened up by the introduction of short-rotation food crops and
associated residues (such as from olive and grape processing) (ARTI, 2008).
per photovoltaic unit were double or triple the levels in Germany or France, and those for wind about 50% higher
(Italy’s National Energy strategy, 2013)
14
Figure: 1 Percentage of RE power (PV, wind and bioenergy) in Italy by Region
Percentage of PV installed power in Italy by Region
Percentage of wind power in Italy by Region
Source: GSE (2012)
15
Figure 2: Percentage of bioenergy power production in Italy by Region
Source: GSE (2012)
16
Although sub-national governments in Italy have had limited economic traction, the regional
government of Puglia has been pro-active and imaginative in the way it has promoted
renewable energy in the region7. One of the first political initiatives of the regional
government was to approve the Regional Plan for Energy and he Environment (PEAR)(PEAR,
2007), which featured a major survey of the energy consumption needs as well as an
assessment of the regional potential for the production of renewable energy. The PEAR also
contained an explicit commitment to the sustainability dimension of the energy strategy. It is
worth noting that Puglia’s CO2 emissions are second only to Lombardy’s, the most
industrialised region in Italy and tackling this problem has topped the regional government’s
agenda since 2005. The PEAR plan of Puglia identified ambitious targets and, in particular,
aspired at (i) halving, between 2004 and 2016, the growth trend of regional energy
consumption with respect to the preceding fifteen years (from +19.3% to +9.9%)8 and (ii)
increasing the contribution of renewable energy as a percentage of the total regional
production from 3% in 2004 to 18% in 2016. The renewable energy strategy became an iconic
document that stated the political commitment of the ecologically conscious political
administration and it was seen as an opportunity for a poor Mediterranean region to assume
a leadership role in the renewable energy stakes.
Secondly, the Puglia government was successful in channelling EUR 210 million from EU
convergence funding (ERDF) (OECD, 2012) to support solar energy, biomass and energy
efficiency initiatives co-funded by the national government. Puglia has also displayed a good
deal of political virtuosity in exploiting national incentives for renewable energy (feed in tariff
and Certificati Verdi), so much so that it has shown itself to be a lot more agile than many
other regions in Italy, both in the north and south. What was most significant was the way in
which the regional government assumed the role of an “entrepreneurial state” by influencing
the whole process of implementation by simplifying and accelerating the bureaucratic
procedures of license concessions. In 2008, in fact, the regional government created a fast
7
The process of giving the Regions normative and regulatory functions in the energy field began with Law 10/91,
in which the regions were given the task of formulating Regional Energy Plans, aimed at managing the system
of incentives with regional applicability for initiatives to reduce energy consumption and support renewable
sources. Reform of Title V of the Constitution, implemented with the Constitutional Law 3/2001, placed energy
among the subjects of concurrent legislative power between State and the Regions (Arti, 2008)
8
It worth nothing that Puglia’s CO2 emissions are second only to Lombardy’s, the most industrialised region in
Italy and has topped the regional government’s agenda since 2005.
17
track approval and a simplified licensing system that helped streamlining the authorisation
process for renewable energy installation. Political priority was also given to the realisation
of energy parks and PV installations on the roofs of public buildings. The direct deployment
of renewable energy technologies by the public sector played an important role in boosting
demand and in maximising the benefits of the generous national feed-in tariff programme
during its first and second rounds (2005-2010), when the regional government decided to
exploit the incentives to the full by financing almost exclusively the two larger classes of panel
power (20-50 Kw and 50-1000 Kw). Puglia was, then, in a very short time, able to re-sell
electricity to the national grid and achieve grid parity.
Moreover, the regional government of Puglia has also been pro-active in the way it has sought
to upgrade its enterprise support repertoire under the banner of clusterisation. A study
commissioned by the Permanent Observatory of Innovation in 2008, a team coordinated by
ARTI (Agenzia Regionale per la Tecnologia e l’Innovazione), the regional development agency
of Puglia, started the implementation of an energy cluster project, with the aim to evaluate
and select some technological options in the sector of renewable energies and energy
efficiency, adequate for the region. The study identified that the region presents strong firms
and research capabilities in Renewable Energy, in particular wind, solar, bioenergy and energy
efficiency. This Nuova Energia (New Energy) cluster accounts for an approximate number of
392 organisations: 334 firms, ranging from large to medium-small sized firms, some of which
are regional and some others extra-regional (national and multinational companies). They
operate in energy production, manufacturing and upstream the various solar, wind and
bioenergy supply chains. Many small firms and spin offs of larger companies are also present,
a sign of, as Arti argues, entrepreneurial vitality. Firms also present in the cluster are firms
that are diversifying from other related industrial sectors (construction, automotive, etc.).
Research within the cluster is often conducted in collaboration with a number of public and
private research institutions and academic departments in the region: the four public
universities in Puglia (the university of Bari, the Polytechnic of Bari, the University of Foggia
and the University of Salento) the both public and private research centre of among others
Enel, Fiat and Ansaldo) and public research centres like the ENEA centre in Brindisi and the
Bari office of the Institute of Construction Technologies of the CNR (National Centre of
Research). Research areas are bioenergy, solar energy, in particular solar thermal energy for
heating and cooling, energy efficiency in the construction sector, environmental monitoring
18
of the cycles of renewable sources and technologies for measuring air speed. There are also
about 13 consortia from outside the region (“Romagna Energia” consortium, for example)
that have offices in Puglia.
Although it is not territorially bounded, most of the renewable energy firms are located in the
province of Bari. The province of Foggia and Lecce shows significant concentration of firms in
bioenergy and solar energy, respectively. Wind energy, on the contrary is clustered around
the Taranto province, as shown in figure 3
Figure 3: territorial distribution of firms in Renewable energy in Puglia
Source: ARTI (2008)
Discussion and concluding remarks
The purpose of this paper has been to theoretically speculate about how a deeper
engagement with the geographical concepts of materiality and the regional level could prove
to be useful in exploring low carbon innovation systems and to test such discussion on an
empirical case study, the region of Puglia. The main argument presented earlier in the paper
is that there is a need to foreground the physical geography and physical attributes in
19
innovation processes as these are deemed significant, as a diversity of actors, at different
spatial levels, can influence and materially manipulate the physical processes and properties
of nature, shaping technological and organisational structures. This section will now turn to
highlight to what extent the issues of physical geography and resource endowment might
have shaped and influenced network relationships and processes of innovation that occur
across a range of scales in the region of Puglia.
The favourable climate and the natural resource endowments such as wind, solar and
agricultural land have played a pivotal role in the greening of the regional innovation policy
of Puglia. It was made clear since the onset of the Regional Energy Plan that such abundance
of resources could provide a means to overcome the current patterns of uneven
development. Capitalising on favourable geographical conditions meant that renewable
energy developments could provide opportunities to alter patterns of economic growth and
development. Breaking the old trajectory of path dependence in the region was therefore a
major goal of regional energy policy in which the public sector – through a combination of
green public procurement, more permissive planning regulations and the deployment of EU
funds – was attempting to revolutionise the regional productive structure. In other words,
the regional government hoped and believed that the rapid adoption of renewable energy
would trigger a productive dividend for the region through a diversification into new sectors,
such as photovoltaic panels production (that is currently bought from Japan, China and the
US), monitoring and experimentation (the Polytechnic of Bari offers accredited courses for PV
innovation), eco-tourism, and low carbon transport.
The plentiful resources, generous national incentives and the availability of European funding
all contributed towards a regional innovation policy for renewables that was characterised by
an emphasis on large installations. To fulfil the ambition of the regional leader and his
government and to tap and harness the potential low carbon resources in the region, national
rules were relaxed and deployment was heavily dependent on large foreign firms (like Silken
and the Chinese Suntech). The regional government, to some extent, took advantage of `the
messiness’ that surrounds devolution of power in terms of energy. The shared competence
and overlapping mandates, where policy responsibility is vague, leaving ample scope for
passing the blame that characterise regional devolution in Italy, translated in opportunities
for the regional government to relax and simplify the licence approval process. Such simplified
20
regime, however, designed for small scale installations (for example from 20 to 200 Kw) were
also applied to installations up to 1MW. At national level, there have been many plaudits for
the regional capacity to inspire a “green turn” by calibrating the activities of large foreign
firms with pro-active public sector bodies. Nevertheless, the issue and easiness in the way
authorisations have been dispended has been controversial. It is argued that some parts of
the national energy policy provisions process (from the simple communication to the local
authority to the much more time-consuming authorisation procedure) have been applied in
Puglia in a somewhat “unscrupulous” manner.
This caused pressures from local groups, local communities and local authorities to promote
a more sustainable form of harnessing natural resources and to protect the natural
‘geographical landscape’ of the region. The already strong and connected regional innovation
system for renewable energy was then re-directed towards micro-scale energy developments
with a primary involvement of residential households and regional firms. A move also
signalled by a new policy approach in the current regional government. Furthermore, in 2010
the Apulian firm Italgest (one of the key players in the PV boom between 2006-2009), sold its
PV division to Chinese investors and practically withdrew itself from any renewable energy
project in the region due to controversy and delays in the implementation of the ‘Italgest
Integrated Energy Pole’, one of the largest integrated energy poles in the world, requiring a
total investment of more than 450 million euros spread over three years (2007-2009) and
over 280 MW of installed power. This, as many believe, represented a turning point in
renewable energy policy in the Puglia region, to one that is characterised by an emphasis on
rooting renewable energy sources at community level and to foster micro-entrepreneurship.
The need expressed by several players to reinforce and develop concerted actions involving
the local area, required the involvement of different actors, such as Fortore Energia, a
company partly owned by local authorities in the region. The company manages two wind
farms for a total of over 30 MW of installed power capacity and other wind farms in the
province of Foggia. The energy produced is distributed to the firms belonging to the
consortium, who in turn sell the surplus energy to the local authorities.
In light of this, it could be argued that the renewable energy system of the Puglia region and
the policy approach adopted by its regional government has been shaped by the need to
foster a more resilient regional economy that builds upon the opportunities offered by the
21
region’s natural resources. However, such opportunities are now based on the belief (and the
hope) that the widespread diffusion of renewable energy know-how would stimulate the
creation of new paths for economic development, new skill sets and shorter energy supply
chains within the region.
What this initial discussion has shown is that an appreciation of spatial differentials in natural
resources occurrence of energy, and renewable energy in particular, provides fruitful insight
in explaining processes of low carbon innovation and transitions. The paper focussed on
particular on the way natural resources have provided opportunities, but also constraints
(such as the trade-off between resources appropriability and protection of the natural
landscape of the region) on energy development within the region and the way it has changed
energy policy within the region. Innovative firms, organisations and government within the
region have been influenced by the material characteristics of the resources but also by the
socio-political dynamics of the people in the places in which the resources are harnessed.
Thus affecting, as displayed in the case of the region of Puglia, the networks of actors and
how they are distributed at the global, national and regional spaces. The discussion presented
above also raises the issue as to whether good governance can make a difference to low
carbon transition. The work of Anders Rodriguez-Pose and colleagues suggests that the
quality of good governance is most important in the context of poor regions because rich
regions have the corporate capacity to compensate for weak governance (RODRÍGUEZ-POSE
and DI CATALDO, 2014).
Further empirical work will need to provide a more encompassing account of the role that the
geography of resource occurrence plays in shaping relationships across scales and the way it
provides opportunities and/or constraints to the capability of energy innovation networks to
generate and capture value.
List of references
ABPMER (2008) Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy Resources Report to the Department
for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR). ABP Marine Environmental Research
Limited, London.
22
ARCHIBUGI and MICHIE (1997) Technological globalisation and national systems of
innovation: An introduction, in ARCHIBUGI D., & MICHIE, J. (Ed) Technology, Globalisation and
Economic Performance, pp. 1-23. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
ARTI (2008) Le energie rinnovabili in Puglia,
tecnologia e l'innovazione, Bari.
Quaderni Arti. Agenzia Regionale per la
ASHEIM B. T. and GERTLER M. (2005) The geography of Innovation, Regional Innovation
Systems, in FANGERBERG J., MOWERY, D., NELSON, R (Ed) the Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
Oxford University Press, New York.
AUTY R., M., (2001) Resource Abundance and Economic Development. Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
BAKKER K. and BRIDGE G. (2006) Material worlds? Resource Geographies and the 'matter of
nature', Progress in Human Geography 30, 5-27.
BATHELT H. and GLÜCKLER J. (2011) The Relational Economy. Geographies of Knowing and
Learning. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
BATHELT H., MALMBERG A. and MASKELL P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global
pipelines and the process of knowledge creation, Progress in Human Geography 28, 31-56.
BERGEK A., JACOBSSON S., CARLSSON B., LINDMARK S. and RICKNE A. (2008) Analyzing the
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis, Research
Policy 37, 407-29.
BINZ C. and TRUFFER B. (2011) Technological Innovation Systems in multiscalar space,
Analyzing an emerging water recycling industry with social network analysis Geographica
Helvetica 66, 254-60.
BINZ C., TRUFFER B. and COENEN L. (2014) Why space matters in technological innovation
systems-Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology, Research
Policy 43, 138-55.
BRIDGE G. (2008) Global Production Networks and the Extractive sector: Governing
Resources-Based Development, Journal of Economic Geography 8, 389-419.
BRIDGE G., BOUZAROVSKI S., BRADSHAW M. and EYRE N. (2013) Geographies of energy
transition: Space, place and the low-carbon economy, Energy Policy 53, 331-40.
BRISTOW G. (2005) Everyone’s a ‘winner’: problematising the discourse of regional
competitiveness, Journal of Economic Geography 5, 285-304.
BRISTOW G. (2010) Critical Reflections on Regional Competitiveness: Theory, Policy and
Practice. Routledge, London.
BULKELEY H. (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: Towards a politics of scales and
networks, Political Geography 24, 875-902.
23
BULKELEY H. and BETSILL M. (2005) Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and
the 'Urban' Politics of Climate Change, Environmental Politics 14, 42-63.
BULKELEY H. and BETSILL M. M. (2013) Revisiting the urban politics of climate change,
Environmental Politics 22, 136-54.
BUNNELL T. G. and COE N., M., (2001) Spaces and Scales of Innovation, Progress in Human
Geography 25, 569-89.
CARLSSON B. and STAINKIEWICZ R. (1991) On the Nature, Function, and Composition of
Technological Systems, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1, 93-118.
CARVALHO L., MINGARDO G. and VAN HAAREN J. (2012) Green Urban Transport Policies and
Cleantech Innovations: Evidence from Curitiba, Goteborg and Hamburg, European Planning
Studies 20, 375-96.
COE N., M., and BUNNELL T. G. (2003) Spatialising knowledge communities: towards a
conceptualisation of transnational innovation networks, Global Networks 3, 437-56.
COE N. M., DICKEN P. and HESS M. (2008) Global production networks: debates and
challenges, Journal of Economic Geography 8, 267-9.
COENEN L., BENNEWORTH P. and TRUFFER B. (2012) Toward a Spatial Perspective on
Sustainability Transitions, Research Policy 41, 968-79.
COOKE P. and MORGAN K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DEWALD U. and TRUFFER B. (2012) The Local Sources of Market Formation: Explaining
Regional Growth Differentials in German Photovoltaic Markets, European Planning Studies
20, 397-420.
DICKEN P. and MALMBERG A. (2001) Firms in territories: a Relational perspective, Economic
Geography 77, 345-63.
GEELS F. (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a case-study, Research Policy 31, 1257-74.
GEELS F. (2004a) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights
about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research Policy 33, 897920.
GEELS F. (2004b) Understanding Systems Innovations: a critical literature review and
conceptual synthesis, in ELZEN B. G., W & GREEN K (Ed) Systems Innovation and the Transition
to Sustainability. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
GEELS F. (2011) The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: Responses to seven
criticisms, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1, 24-40.
24
GEELS F. and RAVEN R. (2006) Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development
trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973–2003), Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management 18, 375-92.
GERTLER M. (2003) Local Knowledge: Tacit Knowledge and the Economic Geography of
context, or the Undefinable tacitness of being (there), Journal of Economic Geography 3, 7599.
GIBBS D. and JONAS A. E. G. (2000) Governance and regulation in local environmental policy:
the utility of a regime approach, Geoforum 31, 299-313.
GOLDEMBERG J. (2007) Ethanol for a sustainable energy future, Science and Public Policy 315,
808-10.
GOODWIN M. (2013) Regions, Territories and Relationality: Exploring the Regional
Dimensions of Political Practice, Regional Studies 47, 1181-90.
GSE (2012) Rapporto Statistico 2012 Impianti a fonti rinnovabili, Settore Elettrico. Gestore
Servizi Elettrici, Roma.
GUNTON T. (2003) Natural Resources and Regional Development: An Assessment of
Dependency and Comparative Advantage Paradigms, Economic Geography 79, 67-94.
HANSEN T. and COENEN L. (2013) The Geography of Sustainability Transitions: A literature
review, pp. 1-24. Centre for Innovation, Research and Competence in the Learning Economy,
Lund University, Lund.
HARRISON J. (2013) Configuring the New Regional World': On being Caught between Territory
and Networks, Regional Studies 47, 55-74.
HODSON M. and MARVIN S. (2009) Cities Mediating Technological Transitions: Understanding
Visions, Intermediation and Consequences, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 21,
515-34.
HOOGHE L. and MARKS G. (2001) Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Maryland.
HOTZ-HART B. (2000) Innovation Networks, Regions, and Globalization, in CLARK G.,
FELDMAN, M., AND GERTLER, M. (Ed) The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, pp. 43250. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
INNIS H., A., (1956) The fur trade in Canada, An Introduction to Canadian Economic Industry.
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
JAY S. (2009) Mobilising for Marine wind Energy in the United Kingdom, Energy Policy 39,
4125-33.
JONAS A. E. G. (2012) Region and place: Regionalism in question, Progress in Human
Geography 36, 263-72.
25
JONES M. and MACLEOD G. (2004) Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent
politics and the English question, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 29, 43352.
KAUP B., Z. (2008) Negotiating through nature: the resistant materiality and materiality of
resistance in Bolivia's natural gas sector, Geoforum 39, 1734-42.
KEMP R. and ROTMANS J. (2005) The Management of the Co-Evolution of Technical,
Environmental and Social Systems, in WEBER M., HEMMELSKAMP, J., (Ed) Towards
Environmental Innovation Systems, pp. 33-55. Springer, Berlin.
MACKINNON D., CUMBERS A. and CHAPMAN K. (2002) Learning, innovation and regional
development: a critical appraisal of recent debate, Progress in Human Geography 26, 293311.
MACKINTOSH W. A. (1964) The Economic Background of Dominion- Provincial relations.
McClelland and Stewart, Toronto.
MAILLAT D. (1998) Innovative Milieux and new generations of regional policies,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 10, 1-16.
MORGAN K. (1997) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal,
Regional Studies 31, 491-503.
MORGAN K. (2004) Sustainable regions: governance, innovation and scale, European Planning
Studies 12, 871-89.
MORGAN K. (2007) The Polycentric State: New Spaces of Empowerment and Engagement?,
Regional Studies 41, 1237-51.
MURPHY J., LYNCH K., SERRI L., AIRDOLDI D. and LOPES M. (2011) Site Selection Analysis For
Offshore Combined Resource Projects in Europe, Offshore Renewable Energy Conversion Co-ordinated Action, . ORECCA, Brussels.
MURPHY J. and SMITH A. (2013) Understanding transition–periphery dynamics: renewable
energy in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Environment and Planning A 45, 691-709.
OECD (1999) The Knowledge Based Economy: A set of facts and figures. OECD, Paris.
OECD (2012) Puglia, Italy. OECD Publishing.
OINAS P. (1999) Voices and silences: the problem of access to embeddedness, Geoforum 30,
351-61.
PEAR (2007) Regional Plan for Energy and Environment (PEAR) Regione Puglia. Regione Puglia,
Bari.
RAVEN R. P. J. M., HEISKANEN E., LOVIO R., HODSON M. and BROHMANN B. (2008) The
contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in
26
emerging (niche) technologies: meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe, Bulletin of
Science Technology and Society 28, 464-77.
RIP A. and KEMP R. (1998) Technological change, in RAYNER S. M. E. L. (Ed) Human choice and
Climate Change, pp. 327–99. Battelle Press, Washington.
RODRÍGUEZ-POSE A. and DI CATALDO M. (2014) Quality of government and innovative
performance in the regions of Europe, Journal of Economic Geography.
SACHS J. and WARNER A. (1999) The Big Push, Natural Resources Booms and Growth, Journal
of Development Economies 59, 43-76.
SCOTT A. (1998) Regions and the World Economy: The Coming Shape of World Production,
Competition, and Political Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.
SMITH A. (2007) Translating sustainabilities between green niches and sociotechnical
regimes, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19, 427-50.
SMITH A., VOß J. P. and GRIN J. (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The
allure of the multilevel perspective and its challenges, Research Policy 39, 435-48.
SMITH H. L., TRACEY P. and CLARK G. L. (2003) European policy and the regions: a review and
analysis of tensions, European Planning Studies 11, 859-73.
SMITH K. (2000) What is the ‘knowledge economy’? Knowledge intensive industries and
distributed knowledge bases, Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy. European
Commission, STEP Group, Oslo.
SOLOMON B., D., and KRISHNA L. (2011) The Coming sustainable energy transition: history,
strategies and outlook, Energy Policy 39, 7422-31.
SPÄTH P. and ROHRACHER H. (2010) ‘Energy regions’: The transformative power of regional
discourses on socio-technical futures, Research Policy 39, 449-58.
SPÄTH P. and ROHRACHER H. (2012) Local demonstrations for global transitions - Dynamics
across governance levels, Fostering socio-technical regime change towards sustainability,
European Planning Studies 20, 461-79.
STORPER M. (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Developmetn in a Global Economy. The
Guilford Press, New York.
TRUFFER B. and COENEN L. (2012) Environmental Innovation and Sustainability Transitions in
Regional Studies, Regional Studies 46, 1-21.
WATKINS M., H., (1963) A Staple Theory of Economic Growth, Canadian Journal of Economics
and Political Sciences 29, 141-58.
WHILE A., JONAS A. E. G. and GIBBS D. (2010) From sustainable development to carbon
control: eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development,
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35, 76-93.
27
28