A comprehensive perspective of transformative regional development is pertinent considering complex present and future challenges such as the climate crisis. Particularly in face of ecological boundaries which manifest themselves in limited resources and result in social disputes, a realistic grip on transformative regional development is of utmost importance. To advance this field, we propose a research agenda that draws on the debates on regional industrial path development and sustainability transitions. We define two core dimensions: interrelations between several industrial paths and interrelations between regions and between spatial scales. We argue that both dimensions need to be considered against ecological boundaries and as embedded in social dynamics. We combine specific questions on these interrelations into a research agenda.
AfewerkiSKarlsenA (2021) Policy mixes for just sustainable development in regions specialized in carbon-intensive industries: The case of two Norwegian petro-maritime regions. European Planning Studies64(5): 1–20.
2.
BallandP-ABoschmaR (2021) Complementary interregional linkages and smart specialisation: An empirical study on European regions. Regional Studies55(6): 1059–1070.
3.
BarcaFMcCannPRodríguez-PoseA (2012) The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches*. Journal of Regional Science52(1): 134–152.
4.
BauerFFünfschillingL (2019) Local initiatives and global regimes – multi-scalar transition dynamics in the chemical industry. Journal of Cleaner Production216(4): 172–183.
5.
BennerM (2022) An institutionalist perspective on smart specialization: Towards a political economy of regional innovation policy. Science and Public Policy 2002: scac035. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scac035.
6.
BenthamJBowmanALa CuestaM de, et al. (2013) Manifesto for the foundational economy. Manchester: Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change.
7.
BinzCCoenenLMurphyJT, et al. (2020) Geographies of transition—from topical concerns to theoretical engagement: A commentary on the transitions research agenda. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions34: 1–3.
8.
BinzCTrufferBCoenenL (2014) Why space matters in technological innovation systems: Mapping global knowledge dynamics of membrane bioreactor technology. Research Policy43(1): 138–155.
9.
BlažekJKvětoňVBaumgartinger-SeiringerS, et al. (2020) The dark side of regional industrial path development: Towards a typology of trajectories of decline. European Planning Studies28(8): 1455–1473.
10.
BoschmaRCoenenLFrenkenK, et al. (2017) Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies51(1): 31–45.
11.
BreulMHulkeCKalvelageL (2021) Path formation and reformation: Studying the variegated consequences of path creation for regional development. Economic Geography97(3): 213–234.
12.
CapassoMHansenTHeibergJ, et al. (2019) Green growth – A synthesis of scientific findings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change146(7–8): 390–402.
13.
CarvalhoLValeM (2018) Biotech by bricolage? Agency, institutional relatedness and new path development in peripheral regions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society11(2): 275–295.
14.
ChlebnaCSimmieJ (2018) New technological path creation and the role of institutions in different geo-political spaces. European Planning Studies26(5): 969–987.
15.
CoenenLBenneworthPTrufferB (2012) Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions: Special section on sustainability transitions. Research Policy41(6): 968–979.
16.
CoenenLHansenTGlasmeierA, et al. (2021) Regional foundations of energy transitions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society74: 25.
17.
DearingJAWangRZhangK, et al. (2014) Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Change28: 227–238.
18.
DorlingD (2018) Inequality in advanced economies. In: ClarkGLFeldmanMPGertlerMSWójcikDDorlingD (eds) The New Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 39–62.
19.
EriksenELIsaksenA (2021) The emergence of new industries at the regional level: Alignment of organizational and regional industrial culture. Regional Studies, Regional Science8(1): 387–401.
20.
FanningALO’NeillDWHickelJ, et al. (2022) The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations. Nature Sustainability5(1): 26–36.
21.
FastenrathSBraunB (2018) Lost in transition? Directions for an economic geography of urban sustainability transitions. Sustainability10(7): 1–17.
22.
FeolaG (2020) Capitalism in sustainability transitions research: Time for a critical turn?Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions35: 241–250.
FoxonTJ (2018) Linking sustainability transitions to debates in evolutionary, institutional and ecological economics.
25.
FrangenheimA (2022) Regional preconditions to shape interpath relations across regions: Two cases from the Austrian food sector. European Planning Studies. published online ahead. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2022.2053661.
26.
FrangenheimATripplMChlebnaC (2020) Beyond the ‘single path view’: Inter-path dynamics in regional contexts. Economic Geography96: 31–51.
27.
FrenkenKBoschmaRA (2007) A theoretical framework for evolutionary economic geography: Industrial dynamics and urban growth as a branching process. Journal of Economic Geography7(5): 635–649.
28.
FrenkenKvan OortFVerburgT (2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies41(5): 685–697.
29.
GeelsFW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy33(6–7): 897–920.
30.
GeelsFW (2014) Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary triple embeddedness framework. Research Policy43(2): 261–277.
31.
GongHHassinkR (2019) Co-evolution in contemporary economic geography: Towards a theoretical framework. Regional Studies53(9): 1344–1355.
32.
GrillitschMRekersJV (2016) How does multi-scalar institutional change affect localized learning processes? A case study of the med-tech sector in Southern Sweden. Environment and Planning A48(1): 154–171.
33.
GrillitschMSotarautaM (2019) Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces. Progress in Human Geography9: 030913251985387.
34.
HallPASoskiceDW (eds) (2013) Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
HansenT (2021) The foundational economy and regional development. Regional Studies29(0): 1–10.
36.
HansmeierHKoschatzkyKZenkerA, et al. (2022) Regional perspectives on socio-technical transitions. Combining Research Insights from Geography of Innovation and Transition Studies. Available at:http://hdl.handle.net/10419/261002(accessed 13 September 2022).
37.
HassinkRHülzM (2010) Editorial: Debating the dilemmas of interregional institutional learning processes. Regional Studies44(4): 495–498.
38.
HassinkRIsaksenATripplM (2019) Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Regional Studies4(1): 1–10.
39.
HeCHeSMuE, et al. (2022) Environmental economic geography: Recent advances and innovative development. Geography and Sustainability3(2): 152–163.
40.
HelneTHirvilammiT (2015) Wellbeing and sustainability: A relational approach. Sustainable Development23(3): 167–175.
41.
HeslopJMorganKTomaneyJ (2019) Debating the foundational economy. Renewal: A journal of social democracy27: 5–12.
42.
HoornwegDHosseiniMKennedyC, et al. (2016) An urban approach to planetary boundaries. AMBIO45(5): 567–580.
43.
Isaksen A (2001) Building regional innovation systems: is endogenous industrial development possible in the global economy? Canadian Journal of Regional Science 24(1): 101–120.
44.
Isaksen A, Jakobsen SE, Njøs R, et al. (2019) Regional industrial restructuring resulting from individual and system agency. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 32(1): 48–65.
45.
IsaksenATripplMMayerH (2022) Regional innovation systems in an era of grand societal challenges: Reorientation versus transformation. European Planning Studies30(11): 2125–2138.
46.
KangerL (2022) The spatial dynamics of deep transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions44: 145–162.
47.
LoewenB (2022) Revitalizing varieties of capitalism for sustainability transitions research: Review, critique and way forward. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews162: 112432.
48.
LoorbachDWittmayerJAvelinoF, et al. (2020) Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions35(5): 251–260.
49.
MacKinnonDDawleySPikeA, et al. (2019) Rethinking path creation: A geographical political economy approach. Economic Geography95(2): 113–135.
50.
MadsenSHJ (2022) A constructivist approach to the spatial organization of transformative innovation policy. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions42: 340–351.
51.
MarkardJRavenRTrufferB (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy41(6): 955–967.
52.
MartinR (2021a) Putting the case for a pluralistic economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography21(1): 1–28.
53.
MartinR (2021b) Rebuilding the economy from the COVID crisis: Time to rethink regional studies?Regional Studies, Regional Science8(1): 143–161.
54.
MartinRSunleyP (2006) Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography6(4): 395–437.
55.
MazzucatoM (2018) Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change27(5): 803–815.
56.
McCannPSoeteL (2020) Place-based innovation for sustainability.
57.
NelsonR (1994) The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. Industrial and Corporate Change3(1): 47–63.
58.
NewellPMulvaneyD (2013) The political economy of the ‘just transition’. The Geographical Journal179(2): 132–140.
59.
NjøsRSjøtunSGJakobsenS-E, et al. (2020) Expanding analyses of path creation: Interconnections between territory and technology. Economic Geography96(3): 266–288.
60.
PatchellJHayterR (2013) Environmental and evolutionary economic geography: Time for EEG2?Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography95(2): 111–130.
61.
PhelpsNAAtienzaMAriasM (2018) An invitation to the dark side of economic geography. Environment and Planning A50(1): 236–244.
62.
RaworthK (2012) A safe and just space for humanity – Can we live within the doughnut?
63.
RaworthK (2017) Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
64.
RekersJVStihlL (2021) One crisis, one region, two municipalities: The geography of institutions and change agency in regional development paths. Geoforum; Journal of Physical, Human, and Regional Geosciences124(1): 89–98.
65.
RockströmJSteffenWNooneK, et al. (2009) Planetary boundaries: Exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society14(2): 32.
66.
SchlaileMUrmetzerSBlokV, et al. (2017) Innovation systems for transformations towards sustainability? Taking the normative dimension seriously. Sustainability9(12): 2253.
67.
SchotJSteinmuellerWE (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy47(9): 1554–1567.
68.
SchulzCBaileyI (2014) The green economy and post-growth regimes: Opportunities and challenges for economic geography. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography96(3): 277–291.
69.
SimmieJ (2012) Path dependence and new technological path creation in the Danish wind power industry. European Planning Studies20(5): 753–772.
70.
SjøtunSGNjøsR (2019) Green reorientation of clusters and the role of policy: ‘the normative’ and ‘the neutral’ route. European Planning Studies27(12): 2411–2430.
71.
SkjølsvoldTMCoenenL (2021) Are rapid and inclusive energy and climate transitions oxymorons? Towards principles of responsible acceleration. Energy Research & Social Science79. Article ID: 102164.
72.
SotarautaMSuvinenN (2018) Institutional agency and path creation. In: IsaksenAMartinRTripplM (eds) New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems – Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 85–104.
73.
SovacoolBKHookAMartiskainenM, et al. (2019) The whole systems energy injustice of four European low-carbon transitions. Global Environmental Change58: 101958.
74.
StihlL (2022) Challenging the set mining path: Agency and diversification in the case of Kiruna. The Extractive Industries and Society 11. Article ID: 101064.
75.
TannerAN (2014) Regional branching reconsidered: Emergence of the fuel cell industry in European regions. Economic Geography90(4): 403–427.
76.
TödtlingFTripplM (2018) Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views. European Planning Studies26(9): 1779–1795.
77.
TödtlingFTripplMDeschV (2022) New directions for RIS studies and policies in the face of grand societal challenges. European Planning Studies30(11): 2139–2156.
78.
TödtlingFTripplMFrangenheimA (2021) Policy options for green regional development: Adopting a production and application perspective. Science and Public Policy47(6): 865–875.
79.
TripplMGrillitschMIsaksenA (2018) Exogenous sources of regional industrial change. Progress in Human Geography42(5): 687–705.
80.
TrufferB (2008) Society, technology, and region: Contributions from the social study of technology to economic geography. Environment and Planning A40(4): 966–985.
81.
TurnheimBSovacoolBK (2020) Exploring the role of failure in socio-technical transitions research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions37: 267–289.
82.
UyarraERibeiroBDale-CloughL (2019) Exploring the normative turn in regional innovation policy: Responsibility and the quest for public value. European Planning Studies27(12): 2359–2375.
83.
WanzenböckIFrenkenK (2020) The subsidiarity principle in innovation policy for societal challenges. Global Transitions2: 51–59.
