Salma Mhamed Hichri (p), Hanene Ben Ouada Jamoussi (p)

Ugo Finardi

As a component of economic development and urban regeneration strategies, the use of cultural policy is increasingly uncontested. However, this consensus masks serious dilemmas regarding the policy choices and implementation of economic and cultural development. Indeed, policymakers have traditionally viewed the cultural economy either as an appendage of the knowledge or creative economy or as a means to increase consumption (Evans, 2009), implying that art and culture are consumer goods that enhance the attractiveness and image of the city. This has led to an increasing polarization and bifurcation of cities culturally and economically around knowledge industries.

While these policies, overly focused on knowledge-based industries, seek to rid cities of the legacy of manufacturing and land use, there is a real resurgence of interest in custom manufacturing, artisanal production, and additive manufacturing (Jakob, 2012; Thomas et al., 2013; Luckman, 2013; 2015; Anderson, 2012 ).

This gives the productive economy a major role, especially for developing countries. In this paper, we argue that cities can develop in a more equitable and sustainable way if they take into account and recognize their industrial and cultural heritage in their cultural and urban policy.

To do so, we start with an exploratory study to inventory the potentialities and specificities of the selected cities in a sample of developing countries, and then we resort to a series of "supervised and unsupervised" learning processes that will provide us with a typology of cities according to their industrial heritage endowments. The results obtained will be confirmed by the use of a "hierarchical" and "multi-level" model integrating the hierarchy in the decision of the various actors and the associated modes of governance. This approach will make it possible to identify the profile of a productive city. Repeated observation over targeted periods will allow to highlight and evaluate the learning process of cities in their evolution towards sustainability.

Yanli Zhang (p)

Hanene Jamoussi Ben Ouada

As different economic, social and environmental challenges continue arising globally, it is common sense that we must urgently take action to reach sustainability globally. However, we also face different and complex tasks in different world spaces. For example, while most countries in the global north face challenges from consuming and focusing on being more energy efficient and clean energy sources, most areas in the global south still struggle to make enough social and environmental resources for everyone. Unlike twenty years ago when the discussion about sustainability/sustainable development between the global north and south was whether we should focus more on "sustainable" or "development", now there is common sense about our common future.
Nevertheless, the current challenges are more about how to change towards sustainability, namely, sustainability transformation. But the focuses and tasks of the global south are still different from the global north. Most discussions in this field only discussed the global north or south. Thus, I think it is essential to talk about urban sustainability at each place with a worldwide view. This paper discusses the sustainability transition of RBCs in China from the perspective of international background and the understanding of the sustainable development of RBCs at the city and country levels. Policies about sustainability transition for RBCs are analyzed, and possible gaps are detected.
The findings in this paper tell us that sharing sustainable urban development experiences from the global north to the global south is not only about the economic transition and technological learning but also about the local social perspective and how to localize the successful experience. What's more, we should know that global north experiences also have their limit; More work should be done to understand where our cities are in the sustainability transition path and to know how to narrate the term sustainable development in the related policies.

Ugo Finardi (p), Federica Rossi

Yanli Zhang

The paper is based on the analysis of a specific case study relative to Italian research hospitals classified as IRCCSs, Scientific Hospitalization and Treatment Institutions. This is a set of more than 50 hospitals, either public or private, recognized as such according to a specific legislation evaluating their prominent scientific features. Aim of the paper is responding to a specific research question: which research model favors diversification of research collaboration and fosters cooperation with developing countries? To this end the research collects a large dataset mixing data of different type: scientific production, administrative data, as well as other specific features of the institutions. Data are analyzed through a series of fixed effect panel regressions, also distinguishing between different geographic areas. Results show that different organizational and governance models lead to different features of international collaboration. A greater rate of international collaboration depends mainly by participation in formal consortia and large research collaborations, as well as diverse leadership in research. More diversification, thus leading also to collaboration with developing areas, is obtained through participation in collaborations driven by individual initiative. Those IRCCS having more international co-authorships tend to have them with fewer geographical areas, typically concentrated in high income countries, while IRCCS that have more geographically diverse collaborations tend to involve low- and middle-income countries to a greater extent. Hence, the two governance approaches (formal research collaborations supported by external funding vs more informal collaborations based on personal networks) seem to map onto different patterns of internationalization of clinical research. These facts should drive policy maker choices on where to point when designing policies for top medical research institutions.