Sanggyu Shin (p), Youngsung Lee

Alexandru Banica

In the knowledge-based economy era, innovation and entrepreneurship activities in advanced economies are being concentrated in tech clusters, particularly in the inner city of metropolitan areas. Recently, the startup ecosystem in the Seoul metropolitan area has been rapidly growing. Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether there is a geographical distribution of innovation and entrepreneurship in South Korea and the Seoul metropolitan area, similar to that of global tech clusters. In this study, the spatial distribution of innovation and entrepreneurship activities in South Korea was examined at macro and micro geographical levels, using regional and municipal units for the macro level and hot-spot analysis using Getis-Ord Gi* at the micro level. Using data on venture capital investments in 871 Korean firms in 2021, the authors discovered that the spatial distribution of innovation and entrepreneurship is highly concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan area, a global city with abundant talent, and is further concentrated in the Gangnam district, the inner city within Seoul. At the micro level, 14 innovation clusters were identified in the Seoul metropolitan area, each exhibiting spatial labor division according to the industry life cycle. In summary, this study demonstrates that the geography of innovation and entrepreneurship is a common phenomenon globally, and effective urban and regional policies should be formulated based on this understanding.

Alexandru Banica (p), Bogdan Ibănescu, Alexandra Gheorghiu, Gabriela-Carmen Pascariu

Sanggyu Shin

In a challenging and unpredictable world, cities face and produce significant issues, but they are also the engines of innovation and modernization. The environmental crisis and the digital divide are two main problems discussed in global, regional and local contexts. The green transition and digitalization are politically actionable solutions, but their implementation faces numerous obstacles. In European Union (EU) context, after the burst of the Coronavirus pandemic, the Next GenerationEU (NGEU) program and the consequent National Recovery and Resilience Strategies (NRRPs) were a reaction to support both these emerging domains. However, there are significant differences between EU countries. While many Western and Northern EU cities are advanced, the Central and Eastern European (CEE) need to catch up and have delays in implementing these new approaches. The present paper focuses on smart cities in former socialist countries, especially in the case of Romania, looking at their advances, especially in sustainability. The smart environment domain is one of the six dimensions of smart cities that we intend to analyze in the context of NRRPs opportunities by considering the projects that have been implemented (or are about to be implemented) in CEE cities. We look at the specificities of smart cities in relation to the implementation of innovative projects that could positively impact the urban environment. We assess the case of Romania more in-depth, looking at extensive data on cities and the digitalization process in relation to environmental performance. We use machine learning techniques to further test the relation between the two domains in the context of the sustainable urban development principles stated by the New Leipzig Charter (2020). The results show that the inconsistent and sectorial approaches are dominant as the project in different smart city areas needs a coherent strategic long-term perspective. However, they are isolated or based solely on random" good practices". However, some positive outcomes also emerge as the existence of intelligent infrastructure can have positive overall environmental outcomes and, more importantly, can" attract" other innovations. Meanwhile, being late in this "smart environmental digitalization" process can make CEE cities, especially Romanian cities, the beneficiaries of new and highly performing technologies, compared to other cities that started digitalization earlier. The conclusions also stress the importance of institutions and urban governance in taking advantage of opportunities, capitalizing on local capital and consistent plans and strategies for the green digitization of cities.