IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joevec/v30y2020i3d10.1007_s00191-018-0602-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualizing evolutionary governance routines: governance at the interface of science and technology with knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship

Author

Listed:
  • Maureen McKelvey

    (University of Gothenburg)

  • Olof Zaring

    (University of Gothenburg)

  • Stefan Szücs

    (University of Gothenburg)

Abstract

The two main purposes of this article are: 1) To propose a conceptual model for governance at the interface of science and technology with knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship and 2) To develop propositions and propose a future research agenda on evolutionary governance routines. Our proposed conceptualization of governance depends upon an understanding of how different ways of developing rules and norms to interact and make decisions collectively are created and maintained, including two sub-processes. One process is to develop advanced knowledge and the second process is where entrepreneurs transform that knowledge developed as the public good and privatize it through value creation. We propose that a main task for this type of entrepreneur is to manage their engagement in the overall governance in such a way as to be perceived by others as continuing to contribute to the collective action problem. The article provides definitions and propositions in relation to the conceptualization, as well as interesting trajectories for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Maureen McKelvey & Olof Zaring & Stefan Szücs, 2020. "Conceptualizing evolutionary governance routines: governance at the interface of science and technology with knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 591-608, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-018-0602-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s00191-018-0602-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00191-018-0602-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00191-018-0602-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Markus Perkmann & Maureen McKelvey & Nelson Phillips, 2019. "Protecting Scientists from Gordon Gekko: How Organizations Use Hybrid Spaces to Engage with Multiple Institutional Logics," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 298-318, March.
    2. Foster, John & Metcalfe, J. Stan, 2012. "Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 420-432.
    3. Gächter, Simon & von Krogh, Georg & Haefliger, Stefan, 2010. "Initiating private-collective innovation: The fragility of knowledge sharing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 893-906, September.
    4. Nathalie Lazaric & Alain Raybaut, 2005. "Knowledge, hierarchy and the selection of routines: an interpretative model with group interactions," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 393-421, October.
    5. Guido Buenstorf, 2007. "Creation and Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Opportunities: An Evolutionary Economics Perspective," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 28(4), pages 323-337, April.
    6. J. Stan Metcalfe & John Foster & Ronnie Ramlogan, 2006. "Adaptive economic growth," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 30(1), pages 7-32, January.
    7. Bo Carlsson & Pontus Braunerhjelm & Maureen McKelvey & Christer Olofsson & Lars Persson & Håkan Ylinenpää, 2013. "The evolving domain of entrepreneurship research," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 913-930, December.
    8. Susana Borrás & Jakob Edler (ed.), 2014. "The Governance of Socio-Technical Systems," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16034.
    9. Richard Langlois & Giampaolo Garzarelli, 2008. "Of Hackers and Hairdressers: Modularity and the Organizational Economics of Open-source Collaboration," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 125-143.
    10. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    11. Ammon J. Salter & Maureen McKelvey, 2016. "Evolutionary analysis of innovation and entrepreneurship: Sidney G. Winter—recipient of the 2015 Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 1-14, June.
    12. Etzkowitz, Henry & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2000. "The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and "Mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 109-123, February.
    13. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines: a review of the literature," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(4), pages 643-678, August.
    14. Lazaric, Nathalie, 2011. "Organizational routines and cognition: an introduction to empirical and analytical contributions," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 147-156, June.
    15. Howard Aldrich & Tiantian Yang, 2014. "How do entrepreneurs know what to do? learning and organizing in new ventures," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 59-82, January.
    16. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    17. Murray, Fiona & Stern, Scott, 2007. "Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge?: An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 648-687, August.
    18. Fiona E. Murray & Scott Stern, 2007. "Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge?: An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis," NBER Chapters, in: Academic Science and Entrepreneurship: Dual Engines of Growth, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Sidney G. Winter, 2016. "The place of entrepreneurship in “The Economics that Might Have Been”," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 15-34, June.
    20. Foss, Nicolai & Mahnke, Volker (ed.), 2000. "Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198297178.
    21. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    22. Markus C. Becker, 2004. "Organizational routines : a review of the literature," Post-Print hal-00279010, HAL.
    23. Markus C. Becker & Thorbjørn Knudsen & James G. March, 2006. "Schumpeter, Winter, and the sources of novelty," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 15(2), pages 353-371, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Robert Charles Sheldon & Eric Michael Laviolette & Fabien Geuser, 2020. "Explaining the process and effects of new routine introduction with a notion of micro-level entrepreneurship," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 609-642, July.
    2. Franco Malerba & Maureen McKelvey, 2020. "Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship integrating Schumpeter, evolutionary economics, and innovation systems," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 503-522, February.
    3. Niels Stijn & Frank J. Rijnsoever & Martine Veelen, 2018. "Exploring the motives and practices of university–start-up interaction: evidence from Route 128," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(3), pages 674-713, June.
    4. Sánchez-Barrioluengo, Mabel, 2014. "Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1760-1773.
    5. Matthias Brauer & Tomi Laamanen, 2014. "Workforce Downsizing and Firm Performance: An Organizational Routine Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(8), pages 1311-1333, December.
    6. Abramo, Giovanni & D'Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Di Costa, Flavia, 2021. "The scholarly impact of private sector research: A multivariate analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. De Moortel, Kevin & Crispeels, Thomas, 2018. "International university-university technology transfer: Strategic management framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 145-155.
    8. Aldo Geuna & Alessandro Muscio, 2008. "The governance of University knowledge transfer," SPRU Working Paper Series 173, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Fabiano, Gianluca & Marcellusi, Andrea & Favato, Giampiero, 2021. "R versus D, from knowledge creation to value appropriation: Ownership of patents filed by European biotechnology founders," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    10. Rahmeyer Fritz, 2013. "Schumpeter, Marshall, and Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Economics: A Critical Stocktaking," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(1), pages 39-64, February.
    11. Stefan Houweling & Sven Wolff, 2020. "The influence of scientific prestige and peer effects on the intention to create university spin-offs," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(5), pages 1432-1450, October.
    12. Laurent R Bergé & Thorsten Doherr & Katrin Hussinger, 2023. "How patent rights affect university science," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(3), pages 673-699.
    13. Roberto Grandinetti, 2022. "A Routine-Based Theory of Routine Replication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    14. Michaël Bikard & Keyvan Vakili & Florenta Teodoridis, 2019. "When Collaboration Bridges Institutions: The Impact of University–Industry Collaboration on Academic Productivity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 426-445, March.
    15. Perkmann, Markus & Schildt, Henri, 2015. "Open data partnerships between firms and universities: The role of boundary organizations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(5), pages 1133-1143.
    16. Thomas, V.J. & Bliemel, Martin & Shippam, Cynthia & Maine, Elicia, 2020. "Endowing university spin-offs pre-formation: Entrepreneurial capabilities for scientist-entrepreneurs," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    17. Christos Kalantaridis, 2019. "Is university ownership a sub-optimal property rights regime for commercialisation? Information conditions and entrepreneurship in Greater Manchester, England," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 231-249, February.
    18. Lee, Kyootai & Jung, Hyun Ju, 2021. "Does TTO capability matter in commercializing university technology? Evidence from longitudinal data in South Korea," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    19. Xia Fan & Xiaowan Yang & Zhou Yu, 2021. "Effect of basic research and applied research on the universities’ innovation capabilities: the moderating role of private research funding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5387-5411, July.
    20. Kalantaridis, Christos & Küttim, Merle & Govind, Madhav & Sousa, Cristina, 2017. "How to commercialise university-generated knowledge internationally? A comparative analysis of contingent institutional conditions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 35-44.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Science; Technology; Innovation; Governance; Routines; Knowledge-intensive innovative entrepreneurship;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joevec:v:30:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s00191-018-0602-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.