Prof. Michael Wyrwich (p), Dr Jitse Duijsters

Dominant theories argue that innovative firms typically locate in large cities (metropolitan areas) and rely on the argument that large cities provide innovation-facilitating agglomeration advantages that are not present in peripheral regions such as a rich endowment of R&D facilities (e.g., universities), spatial proximity in large cities providing knowledge spillovers, abundant markets providing an efficient match of production factors, and a higher attractiveness than nonmetropolitan areas for creative people. Despite the lack of agglomeration advantages, there is case study evidence that there
can be conditions for successful innovation in the periphery. Examples are the Gnosjö region in Sweden, consisting of many different industries and known for its innovative spirit and the Valencia region in Spain, known for its biotechnology industry. Patent data across OECD countries confirm this picture, showing that it is possible for peripheral regions to be as innovative as metropolitan regions. How can the success of peripheral regions such as Gnosjö and Valencia be reproduced elsewhere? Previous research on innovation in peripheral regions identified that firms in peripheral regions reveal a stronger engagement in collaborative innovation to compensate for a lack of agglomeration advantages. One issue with previous research is that it mostly focussed on single regions or countries which make it difficult to draw general conclusions, while a systematic assessment of innovation networking in peripheral regions is missing. This lack of knowledge hampers effective strategies to support regional development. Further research is also necessary from a practitioner standpoint, because innovation-oriented policy initiatives like the EU smart specialization strategy and the Green Deal require a better understanding of innovation in peripheral places that fits empirical observations. Finally, many peripheral places are particularly vulnerable to structural change and subsequent economic decline. Therefore, understanding the determinants of innovation in peripheral regions is of utmost importance to combat the backlash that many peripheral regions are facing.

Cornille Dossou-Yovo, Dr. Mikael Akimowicz (p), Dr. Geoffroy Labrouche

Circular bioclusters appear to be territorialized organizational models capable of combining economic development and environmental preservation. However, their emergence remains uncertain, particularly in rural areas where cooperation around bioresources remains fragile. This article analyzes the social, symbolic, and institutional conditions that enable actors to start a collective action around a bioresource in order to initiate a circular biocluster. The goal is to focus on the often understudied emergence phase, during which collective dynamics remain informal and unstable.
The study draws on work on clusters (Porter), circular bioclusters (Labrouche et al.), the theory of the commons (Ostrom), communities in transition (Christiansen et al.), the economy of proximity (Boschma; Torre & Rallet), and multi-level governance (Bache & Flinders; Hooghe & Marks). It conceives emergence as a process of communalization articulating shared representations, coordinated actions, and feelings of belonging. Bioresources, viewed as malleable resources, may give rise to controversies or synergies depending on the socio-technical and institutional mediations at play.
The analysis is based on a comparative study of two forest bioresources in the Cévennes: the chestnut tree (Castanea sativa) and the maritime pine (Pinus pinaster). A qualitative approach was adopted. Based on 24 interviews (15 individual, 4 collective), we interviewed forest owners, professional organizations, public institutions, processing companies, and researchers. The thematic analysis combines deductive coding (three community dimensions) and inductive coding (proximities, governance) in order to identify the social and institutional mechanisms influencing the emergence of a biocluster.
The comparison reveals that similar structural configurations can produce divergent dynamics. The chestnut tree remains trapped in ambivalent representations—heritage, decline, or marginally ecological—that fail to stabilize into a common mobilizing narrative. Cooperation remains local and fragmented, without articulation towards an operational value chain. Geographical and identity proximities remain dormant, while poorly articulated multi-level governance maintains the dispersion of responsibilities.
Conversely, the maritime pine benefits from a stabilized productive narrative, supported by socio-technical demonstrators (resin experiments, local furniture) that transform representations into tangible evidence. These mediations activate existing proximities, strengthen trust, and structure visible interdependencies. The presence of key players and a functional link between local initiatives and institutional mechanisms thus enable the gradual emergence of a coherent collective dynamic.

Dr. Kenneth Castillo-Hidalgo (p)