from learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context

This article was downloaded by: [University of Wisconsin - Madison]On: 10 September 2014, At: 16:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Regional StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

From Learning Region to Learning in a Socio-spatialContextRoel Rutten a & Frans Boekema ba Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences and Newcastle University BusinessSchool , Tilburg University , PO Box 90153, NL-5000 , LE , Tilburg , the Netherlandsb Nijmegen School of Management , Radboud University Nijmegen , PO Box 9108,NL-6500 , HK , Nijmegen , the Netherlands E-mail:Published online: 28 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Roel Rutten & Frans Boekema (2012) From Learning Region to Learning in a Socio-spatial Context,Regional Studies, 46:8, 981-992, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2012.712679

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.712679

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00343404.2012.712679

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.712679

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

From Learning Region to Learning in aSocio-spatial Context

ROEL RUTTEN* and FRANS BOEKEMA†*Tilburg School of Social and Behavioural Sciences and Newcastle University Business School, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153,

NL-5000 LE Tilburg, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]†Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, NL-6500 HK Nijmegen,

the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]

(Received May 2012: in revised form July 2012)

RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context, Regional Studies. Conceptuallyambiguous and too intimately connected to regional innovation policy, the ‘learning region’ failed to develop into a matureconcept. This paper and the special issue it introduces take stock of advances in the learning region literature of the pasttwenty years. It then suggests a different approach to conceptualizing the relation between space and learning. Based on an under-standing of learning as social interaction among individuals, the paper and special issue suggest a relational approach to explaininglearning in a socio-spatial context. This approach augments the Territorial Innovation Models literature that too often reducesrelational concepts, such as social capital, to stylized regional characteristics.

Learning region Space Innovation Social context Relational approach

RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F.从学习型区域到在社会－空间脉络中学习，区域研究。由于“学习型区域”在概念上过于模糊，且与区域创新政策过度紧密相连，因此无法发展为成熟完臻的概念。本论文与其所引介的特刊主题，评估过去二十年来学习型区域文献的进展，并提出概念化空间与学习关系的另一取径。本文与此特刊主题根据对于学习做为人际间的社会互动之理解，主张以关系性的取径解释在社会－空间脉络中的学习。此一取径扩充经常窄化如社会资本的关系性概念之地域创新模式文献，藉以格式化区域之特征。

学习型区域空间创新社会脉络关系性取径

RUTTEN R. et BOEKEMA F. D’une région d’apprentissage à l’apprentissage dans un contexte socio-géographique, Regional Studies.Trop floue d’un point de vue concepuel et trop étroitement liée à la politique régionale en faveur de l’innovation, la ‘régiond’apprentissage’ n’a pas réussi à se transformer en un concept qui est arrivé à la maturité. Cet article et le numéro spécial qu’il intro-duit font le bilan des progrès de la documentation sur la région d’apprentissage pendant les vingt dernières années. On propose uneautre façon de conceptualiser le rapport entre l’espace et l’apprentissage. Fondée sur une compréhension de l’apprentissage en tantqu’une interaction sociale parmi les individus, le présent article et le numéro spécial laissent supposer une façon relationnelle pourexpliquer l’apprentissage dans un contexte socio-géographique. Cette façon augmente la documentation sur les Modèles d’Innova-tion Territoriale qui réduit souvent les concepts relationnels, tels que le capital social, à des caractéristiques régionales stylisées.

Région d’apprentissage Espace Innovation Contexte social Façon relationnelle

RUTTEN R. und BOEKEMA F. Von der Lernregion zum Lernen in einem sozioräumlichen Kontext, Regional Studies. Die‘Lernregion’ – konzeptuell verschwommen und zu eng mit der regionalen Innovationspolitik verknüpft – hat sich nicht zueinem ausgereiften Konzept entwickelt. Dieser Beitrag und die mit ihm eingeleitete Sonderausgabe enthalten eine Bestandsauf-nahme der Fortschritte in der Literatur über die Lernregion der letzten zwanzig Jahre. Anschließend wird ein alternativer Ansatzzur Konzeptualisierung der Beziehung zwischen Raum und Lernen vorgeschlagen. Ausgehend von einem Verständnis desLernens als sozialer Interaktion zwischen Einzelpersonen wird in diesem Beitrag und dieser Sonderausgabe ein relationalerAnsatz zur Erklärung des Lernens im sozioräumlichen Kontext vorgeschlagen. Dieser Ansatz dient zur Ergänzung der Literaturüber territoriale Innovationsmodelle, in der relationale Konzepte wie z. B. das Sozialkapital zu oft zu stilisierten regionalenMerkmalen reduziert werden.

Lernregion Raum Innovation Sozialer Kontext Relationaler Ansatz

RUTTEN R. y BOEKEMA F. De la región de aprendizaje al aprendizaje en un contexto socioespacial, Regional Studies. La ‘región deaprendizaje’ – conceptualmente ambigua y demasiado íntimamente conectada a la política de innovación regional – no ha logradoconvertirse en un concepto maduro. En este artículo y en el número especial que introduce se hace balance de los progresos en la

Regional Studies, Vol. 46.8, pp. 981–992, September 2012

0034-3404 print/1360-0591 online/12/080981-12 © 2012 Regional Studies Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2012.712679http://www.regionalstudies.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

bibliografía sobre las regiones de aprendizaje en los últimos veinte años. Se sugiere una perspectiva diferente para conceptualizar larelación entre espacio y aprendizaje. Basándonos en la comprensión del aprendizaje como interacción social entre individuos, eneste artículo y el número especial sugerimos un enfoque relacional para explicar el aprendizaje en un contexto socioespacial. Esteenfoque sirve para ampliar la bibliografía sobre los Modelos de Innovación Territorial que demasiadas veces reduce los conceptosrelacionales, tales como el capital social, a características regionales estilizadas.

Región de aprendizaje Espacio Innovación Contexto social Enfoque relacional

JEL classifications: O18, O30, R1

INTRODUCTION

Some twenty years ago, the learning region promised todevelop a knowledge-based explanation of regionaldevelopment by connecting the networks and inno-vation and the economic geography literatures.Against the background of a largely a-spatial mainstreamnetworks and innovation literature and an economicgeography literature that treated the process of learningand innovation largely as a black box, the learningregion was a promising step forward (COOKE andMORGAN, 1998; OINAS, 2000). For much of thistime, the learning region has been advocated as itrightly focused on learning and knowledge creation asthe principal drivers of regional development.However, the learning region ran into two key pro-blems that prevented it from maturing into a credibleconcept for empirical research. In the first place, it con-flated networks and regions by unrealistically assumingthat intra-regional networks are the principal instrumentfor regional learning. Secondly, its intimate connectionto regional innovation policy made the learning regionan unfortunate mixture of conceptual and policyelements which further added to its conceptual ambigu-ity. While the relation between space and learningremains as exiting and conceptually unsolved a topic asbefore, important theoretical advancements have beenmade that are difficult to connect to the key premisesunderlying the learning region. Consequently, wenow distance ourselves from the learning region andsuggest a relational perspective to conceptualize therelation between space and learning. This special issuecontributes to developing that perspective.

Why did the learning region, and we, get it wrong? Asargued, part of the answer is easy; one need only to referto the much emphasized conceptual fuzziness of thelearning region and its uncomfortably intimate relation-ship with regional innovation policy (HASSINK, 2007;MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003). These flaws were clearfrom the beginning and subsequent attempts to developthe concept, including those of our own (BOEKEMA

et al., 2000; RUTTEN and BOEKEMA, 2005, 2007a,2007c), were never sufficient to establish the learningregion as a credible member of the family of territorialinnovation models (TIMs). In our view, the conflatingof networks and regions is the fundamental conceptualflaw of the learning region as it produced the erroneous

belief that learning networks should be intra-regionalnetworks. Nonetheless, the learning region debate wasworth having as it brought a deeper understanding ofthe complexities regarding the relation between spaceand learning. Particularly the insight in the role playedby norms and values and other forms of social capital inthe relation between space and learning is an importantoutcome of this debate. Additionally, the debate enrichedthe economic geography literature with a more realisticunderstanding of the nature of knowledge and learning.Moreover, the learning region debate confrontedmainstream economic thinking with the limitations ofits a-spatial nature. The ambition of the learning region –to conceptualize the relation between space and learn-ing by marrying the networks and innovation and theeconomic geography literatures – may thus be arguedto have been achieved in some way. However, as willbe argued below, the changed understanding of thenature of the economy makes it necessary to reconsiderthe relation between space and learning.

AIM AND STRUCTURE OF THE SPECIALISSUE

This special issue contributes to the literature on thelearning region and the wider literature on the relationbetween space and learning. Acknowledging both theshortcomings of and the advances made in this literature,a more sophisticated conceptualization of the relationbetween space and learning is suggested than the oneoffered by the learning region. Connecting to a moregeneral shift in the TIM literature towards more rela-tional concepts, such as local buzz and regional embedd-edness, the special issue moves away from regions asbounded territories and towards agents and theirrelations. That is, it moves from learning regions tolearning in socio-spatial context. The special issue doesthis by taking four steps:

. To build a critique of the learning region thataddresses both its strengths and its weaknesses.

. To discuss the relevant theoretical developments withregards to the relation between knowledge, learningand economic development.

. To discuss relevant developments from the literatureon the process of learning and its connection to space.

982 Roel Rutten and Frans Boekema

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

. To discuss relevant literature on the socio-spatialcontext of learning, in particular social capital.

Benefitting from these insights, this special issue suggestsa relational perspective on the relation between spaceand learning.

The papers in this special issue contribute to its aimsas follows (Table 1). This introductory paper builds theconceptual background for the remaining papers andintroduces many of the concepts that their authors elab-orate. In order to so, it goes through all four of the abovesteps. In the next paper, Asheim also addresses all foursteps in order to build a broader background for theremaining papers. The following three papers eachhighlight two of the steps in particular, although thepapers have their individual agendas as well. Knobenand Oerlemans focus on the relation between learningand space and on the role of knowledge in economicdevelopment. Malecki elaborates on the relationbetween space and learning and on the socio-spatialcontext of learning. Healy and Morgan build a critiqueof the learning region and address the socio-spatialcontext of learning. In the final paper, Hassink andKlaerding suggest a new approach to the learningregion and to learning as an interactive process insocio-spatial context. They elaborate all four steps butthis time in the style of a conclusion paper. This way acollection of papers, each with its own focus, graduallybuilds a case for a conceptualization of the relation ofspace and learning that goes beyond the learningregion, based on learning as a process of interaction ina socio-spatial context.

In more detail, the remaining papers address thefollowing issues. In ‘The changing role of learningregions in the globalizing knowledge economy’,Asheim highlights key theoretical developments charac-terizing the knowledge economy where he stresseslearning as a contextualized process. Asheim elaboratesseveral of the themes introduced in the present paperand emphasizes how the social and cultural aspectsof regions may facilitate collective action. Asheim alsodiscusses the regional innovation policy aspect of thelearning region from a socio-cultural perspective. In‘Configuration of inter-organizational knowledgelinks: does spatial embeddedness still matter?’, Knobenand Oerlemans conduct an empirical analysis of inter-organizational learning. Their paper offers more than

most other papers in this fashion by distinguishingbetween types of actors, tie characteristics and the geo-graphical scope of relations. They find that geographicalproximity matters little for knowledge links and arguethat empirical analysis to spatial embeddedness maybenefit from more micro-level research. In ‘Regionalsocial capital: why it matters’, Malecki discusses socialcapital as a culture of social interaction among individ-uals. In doing so, this paper covers one of the keythemes of this special issue. Malecki explains howsocial capital shapes the way in which collective learningtakes place and how social capital is connected to regionsthrough interaction among individuals. In ‘Spaces ofinnovation: learning, proximity and the ecologicalturn’, Healy and Morgan elaborate on the socio-spatialcontext of learning. Building on the dialogue betweeninnovation theorists and economic geographers theyargue that learning is a social process. Furthermore,they explain that geographic proximity must not beconflated with co-location. In their ecological turnthey include social and environmental concernsaffecting learning and regional development. In thefinal paper on ‘The end of the learning region as weknow it: towards a cultural and relational perspectiveon learning in space’, Hassink and Klaerding apply a cul-tural and relational perspective to explaining the organ-ization of learning and its links to regional economicdevelopment. From their understanding of culture asvalue-based practices influencing interactions betweenindividuals, they argue for a conceptual shift from thelearning region view of studying regions as places tostudying culture-based learning processes in relationsor networks.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.As a first step in the argument for a different approachto the relation between space and learning, the nextsection on Knowledge Economy 2.0 explains howchanges in the nature of the economy challengeseveral of the key assumptions underlying the learningregion. The connection between the learning regionand regional innovation policy, and how this compro-mised the maturing of the learning region as aconcept, is explained in the subsequent section. Basedon recent advances in the learning literature, the nextsection argues that individuals rather than firms shouldbe seen as principal agents of learning. The followingsections explain how these insights suggest that a

Table 1. Structure of the special issue

Rutten andBoekema Asheim

Knoben andOerlemans Malecki

Healy andMorgan

Hassink andKlaerding

Critique of the learning region × × × ×Knowledge, learning and economic

development× × × ×

Process of learning and spatialdimension

× × × × ×

Socio-spatial context of learning × × × × ×

From Learning Region to Learning in a Socio-spatial Context 983

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

relational perspective to understanding the relationbetween space and learning may be more productivethan the territory-focused approach of the learningregion. This section connects to a wider relationalturn in economic geography. The final section presentsthe conclusions of this paper.

KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY 2.0

The learning region captures the transition of the post-Fordist industrial economy to a knowledge economy.In The Second Industrial Divide, PIORE and SABEL (1984)explained how new, flexible production technologieswere transforming Big Business into a networkedproduction system. BEST (1990), and to a lesserdegree PORTER (1990), explained how such flexibleproduction networks could take the form of flexibleterritorial production systems. Classic examples of terri-torial production systems, such as Boston’s Route 128,Silicon Valley and the Third Italy (BEST, 1990;STORPER, 1993), where regional networks are the locifor learning and innovation, became models for knowl-edge-based regional economic development the worldover. The idea of a knowledge economy and its impli-cations for the organization of production and learningin inter-firm networks, as well as its spatial implications,quickly became accepted in mainstream economicgeography thinking (BATHELT et al., 2004; COOKE

and MORGAN, 1998; MALMBERG and MASKELL,2002; STORPER, 1993). The knowledge economydiffers from the post-Fordist industrial economy in thatknowledge is the most strategic resource and learningthe most important process (BEST, 1990). The knowl-edge economy is also a network economy; given theincreasing complexity and sophistication of knowledgeand technology, no single company can possess allknowledge necessary for new product development(COOKE and MORGAN, 1998). The learning region isbuilt on this idea by suggesting that regional knowledgeeconomies be developed as territorial production systemswhere intra-regional production networks capitalize onindigenous knowledge (ASHEIM, 1996; MORGAN,1997). However, this understanding of the knowledgeeconomy, it is argued here, is no longer valid for two

principal reasons. In the first place, the nature of theeconomy itself has changed profoundly; and, second,conceptual understanding of knowledge and learninghas become more sophisticated. To capture thesechanges and to consider their effect on the (under-standing of the) relation between space and learning,Knowledge Economy 2.0 is now introduced (Table 2).

In the knowledge economy of the early 1990s, orKnowledge Economy 1.0, innovation was performedchiefly in the manufacturing industries and a limitednumber of service industries. In the knowledgeeconomy of the twenty-first century, or KnowledgeEconomy 2.0, this picture has reversed (DOLOREUX

et al., 2010). Value creation in Knowledge Economy1.0 came in the form of new production technologiesand flexible production (BEST, 1990), whereas inKnowledge Economy 2.0 it comes from new knowl-edge as such (MALECKI, 2010). Moreover, asNew York Times journalist Thomas Friedman argued,globalization has proliferated much further since theearly 1990s. In today’s world not only are countriesand firms going global, but also individuals (FRIEDMAN,2005). Aided by new technologies, social media andbudget airlines, individuals can communicate globallyvery easily, which has dramatically widened the spatialreach of their social and professional networks, andconsequently their learning. While communication inKnowledge Economy 1.0 benefited from email,mobile phones and the Internet, all of those functions,and many more, are now integrated in web-basedcommunication devices such as smart phones andtablet computers. Finally, economic liberalization andglobalization had transformed the world economyfrom a collection of developed and emerging economiesin Knowledge Economy 1.0 to an emerging globaleconomy in Knowledge Economy 2.0.

Additional to the changes in the economy, theoreticalunderstanding of knowledge and learning has become farmore sophisticated since the early 1990s. However, themainstream economic geography literature is only nowbeginning to benefit from these advances (ASHEIM,2012; BATHELT et al., 2004; HASSINK and KLAERDING,2012; SHEARMUR, 2011). Knowledge Economy 1.0distinguished between tacit and codified knowledge,whereas in Knowledge Economy 2.0 this distinction is

Table 2. Understanding the knowledge economy

Knowledge Economy 1.0 Knowledge Economy 2.0

Innovation Manufacturing based Services industry drivenValue creation Flexible production technologies New knowledgeGlobalization Countries, firms Also individualsCommunication Email, mobile phone, Internet Integrated web-based devicesWorld economy Developed and emerging economies Emerging global economyKnowledge Codified versus tacit Context dependentProcess of learning Formal, organized in firms Informal, individual interactionPrincipal agents of learning Firms IndividualsNetworks Inter-firm relations Relations between individuals


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

rejected as flawed and simplistic. Instead, knowledge isargued to be context-dependent (AMIN andCOHENDET,2004; MUTHUSAMY and WHITE, 2005; TSOUKAS,2009). Furthermore, in Knowledge Economy 1.0 learn-ing was conceived as a rational and formal process to beorganized andmanaged in firms and inter-firm networks.That is, learning took place chiefly in an organizationalcontext and firms were the principal agents of learning(BEST, 1990; COOKE and MORGAN, 1998). In Knowl-edge Economy 2.0 learning is conceptualized as aprocess of often informal social interaction among indi-viduals taking place in social contexts that transcendorganizations, such as social and professional networks(AMIN and COHENDET, 2004; AMIN and ROBERTS,2008; LORENTZEN, 2008; STORPER and VENABLES,2004). Consequently, while the dominant social capitalfor learning in Knowledge Economy 1.0 was connectedto firms, inter-firm networks and societies (STORPER,1993; MORGAN, 1997), in Knowledge Economy 2.0 itis connected to networks of individuals and is muchmore diffused as individuals are members of multiplesocial and professional networks (AMIN and ROBERTS,2008; GERTLER, 2003; WESTLUND et al., 2010).

The implication of Knowledge Economy 2.0 for thestudy of the relation between space and learning is prin-cipally a change of perspective. In Knowledge Economy1.0, and thus the learning region, regions were definedas bounded territories, having a regional culture andregional social capital (ASHEIM, 2012; HASSINK andKLAERDING, 2012; MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003);hence the notion of territorial production systems. InKnowledge Economy 2.0 production and innovationnetworks have a much wider, often global, spatial envel-ope (HEALY and MORGAN, 2012; LORENTZEN, 2008;MALECKI, 2010). Moreover, informal buzz in local andeven global social and professional networks plays afar more prominent role in the process of learningand knowledge creation than previously believed(AMIN and COHENDET, 2004; BATHELT et al., 2004;STORPER and VENABLES, 2004). The vertically inte-grated firms and supply chains that were the locus ofinnovation in Knowledge Economy 1.0 have givenway to much looser social and professional networksof individuals. While some of these networks have a sig-nificance or a salience on the regional scale, they are notin principle a regional phenomenon. In sum, thechanged nature of the economy and the more sophisti-cated understanding of learning question several of theassumptions underlying the learning region and necessi-tate developing a new perspective.

BACKGROUND OF THE LEARNINGREGION

The concept of the learning region emerged in the early1990s. It was in part the result of a conceptual effortto connect learning to space but it was at the same

time conceived as a new approach to regional inno-vation policy (MOULAERT and NUSSBAUMER, 2005;MORGAN, 1997). This mixed antecedence gave rise totwo different views on what the learning region is.The first view sees the learning region as a new formof regional innovation policy where regionallyembedded (or indigenous) knowledge drives innovationand regional development. Accordingly, the learningregion conceptualizes how regional learning capacitycan be built by forging linkages between regionalactors, such as government, intermediary organizations,knowledge centres and the business community(BELLINI and LANDABASO, 2007; LANDABASO, 2000;MORGAN and NAUWELAERS, 2003). Secondly, andquite different from the first view, the learning regionmay refer to regional innovation networks of firms(and knowledge centres). In this view, the learningregion conceptualizes how regional characteristicsaffect innovation in regional networks (ASHEIM, 1996;COOKE and MORGAN, 1998; STORPER, 1993). Bothviews of the learning region share a focus on intra-regional learning as the principal means of developinginnovations from indigenous knowledge in order tostrengthen competitiveness. However, the existence oftwo different views on the learning region has preventedconsensus-building on the seemingly innocent question:what is a learning region?

Consequently, a key problem of the learning regionconcerns its place in the economic geography literature.Contrary to MORGAN’s (1997) claim that the learningregion aims to marry two (at that point) separated litera-tures, that is, innovation studies and economic geogra-phy, the learning region is more accurately classified asthe latest member of the TIM family. This family,which includes members such as industrial district,regional innovation systems, and innovative milieu,aims to explain the relationship between space and learn-ing by pointing out how regional characteristics affectlearning among regional actors and by celebrating theadvantages of co-location, spatially embedded (indigen-ous) knowledge and shared regional customs as facilitatorsof regional learning (LORENTZEN, 2008; MOULAERT

and SEKIA, 2003; OERLEMANS et al., 2007). Criticshave consistently argued that the learning region doesnot offer a deeper or better understanding of the relationsbetween space and learning than other TIMs because itoverlaps too much with them (HASSINK, 2007; MOU-

LAERT and SEKIA, 2003). As this criticism may beargued to cut both ways, implying that all the TIM litera-ture suffers from a certain degree of conceptual vagueness(MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003; OERLEMANS et al.,2007), it raises a more fundamental question, which is:how does one develop a more sophisticated explanationof the relation between space and learning?

The direction that the learning region exploredwas to look at how regional networks perform inno-vation and thus contribute to regional development(BOSHUIZEN et al., 2009; HAUSER et al., 2007;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

MOULAERT and NUSSBAUMER, 2005). Elaboratingthis direction, the present authors’ work on the learn-ing region (BOEKEMA et al., 2000; RUTTEN andBOEKEMA, 2005, 2007a, 2007c) emphasized that thelearning region must aim to conceptualize the processof regional learning rather focus on regional innovationpolicy. Accordingly, the learning region was defined bythe authors as follows:

In a learning region, regional actors engage in collabor-ation and coordination for mutual benefit, resulting in aprocess of regional learning. Regional characteristicsaffect the degree to which the process of regional learningleads to regional renewal.

(RUTTEN and BOEKEMA, 2007b, p. 136)

The strength of this argument is that it specificallyaddresses the link between learning among regionalactors and regional development and that it suggeststhat regional learning may lead to different outcomesin different regions depending on their characteristics.In other words, it aims to open the black box on therelation between space and learning. However, it doesnot clearly delineate the learning region from otherTIMs which, actually, have very similar ambitions(HASSINK, 2007; MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003;OERLEMANS et al., 2007). Moreover, the above defi-nition ignores the fact that learning is not in principlea regional phenomenon (AMIN and COHENDET,2004; LORENTZEN, 2008; MALECKI, 2010). Thatnotion rests on two basic arguments, which have bothbeen refuted. In the first place, it refers to the ideathat knowledge may be divided in tacit and codifiedknowledge and that tacit knowledge is best communi-cated in spatially proximate relations while codifiedknowledge can be transferred over large distances (cf.OINAS, 2000). However, if knowledge is socially con-structed and context-dependent its transferabilitydepends on the degree in which agents share therelevant social context rather than on spatial proximity.In fact, shared social context may overcome geographi-cal distance as an obstacle to knowledge transfer(AMIN and COHENDET, 2004; AMIN and ROBERTS,2008; MALECKI, 2010; TORRE, 2008). Secondly, andpartially as a response to the notion of knowledgebeing context-dependent, the regional context hasbeen suggested as the principal social context in whichknowledge is embedded (GERTLER, 2003; MORGAN,2004). Shared customs, norm and values, in the wordsof MORGAN (2004), allow a ‘wider scope for social reci-procity, which is the essential prerequisite for deeplearning’ (p. 5). While it may be true that differentregions possess different customs, norms and values,they are enacted in networks which are not necessarilyintra-regional networks (SCOTT and STORPER, 2003;SIMMIE, 2005; WESTLUND et al., 2010).

In other words, the customs, norms and values affect-ing learning are network characteristics rather thanregional characteristics and networks are not necessarily

regional but may cut across multiple geographical scales.However, rooted in the learning region as well as inthe TIM literature in general is the desire to see learningand innovation as something regional. Though learningmay have a regional dimension, it is increasinglyunrealistic to conceptualize learning as a regionalphenomenon, because knowledge is distributed globallyand innovative regions (and networks) are globallylinked (MALECKI, 2010; OINAS, 2000; SCOTT andSTORPER, 2003; SIMMIE, 2005). Even though spatialproximity may still offer a premium for learning as itallows the use of a wider and richer range of verbaland non-verbal communication (MORGAN, 2004;SCOTT and STORPER, 2003), the advantages of spatialproximity are moderated by other forms of proximitysuch as social and cognitive proximity (BOSCHMA,2004; SHEARMUR, 2011). Moreover, temporaryspatial proximity, such as meetings and (extended)visits, may offer (most of) the same benefits as co-location with regard to knowledge creation and learning(GRABHER, 2004; TORRE, 2008).

This is not to say that regional social contexts are unim-portant to explain regional learning. On the contrary;regions characterized by cosmopolitan norms and valuesand openness towards different ideas and lifestyles tendto perform better in terms of learning and innovationthan regions hosting more traditional norms and values(FLORIDA, 2002; INGELHART and BAKER, 2000;RUTTEN and GELISSEN, 2010). But that does not meanthat all agents in all learning networks in a regionbenefit, or suffer, equally from that region’s dominantnorms and values (WESTLUND et al., 2010; YEUNG,2005). The learning region overestimated the role of thiskind of regional embeddedness of knowledge and learn-ing; a position that follows from its regional innovationpolicy preoccupation with indigenous regionaldevelopment.

THE LEARNING REGION AND REGIONALINNOVATION POLICY

As a regional innovation policy concept, the learningregion aims to explain regional renewal, which refersto revitalizing the competitiveness of, in particular, oldindustrial regions through regional learning and inno-vation (BELLINI and LANDABASO, 2007; MORGAN,1997; MORGAN and NAUWELAERS, 2003). Aroundthe time of the learning region emerging in the litera-ture, old industrial regions in Western Europe andNorth America saw their competitiveness eroded as aresult of low-cost competition from industrial regionsin Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific,resulting in very substantial job losses. Stimulatingknowledge-based development through learning inintra-regional networks by making use of indigenousknowledge offered a way out of this crisis. Old industrialregions would thus transform from price competition to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

knowledge-based competition (BEST, 1990; COOKE

and MORGAN, 1998). In particular, the EuropeanUnion invested substantially in regional innovationpolicy in order to support old industrial regions inthis transition (LANDABASO, 2000; MORGAN, 1997;MORGAN and NAUWELAERS, 2003). To preparethemselves for this role, regions, as in administrativeentities, had to develop regional governance capabilities,which refer to the ability of regions (or lack thereof) tobuild institutional learning capacity to develop andimplement regional learning and innovation strategiesin a concerted effort of the regional administration,business community and innovation support agencies.Regional governance became an important focus ofthe regional innovation policy view of the learningregion (BELLINI and LANDABASO, 2007; LANDABASO,2000; MORGAN and NAUWELAERS, 2003). Conceptualwork on the learning region and regional innovationpolicy development thus went hand in hand from theearly 1990s onward, where the former benefitted fromthe many case studies that the latter provided (BELLINI

and LANDABASO, 2007).Sensible as this regional innovation policy may have

been, it frustrated the conceptual development in twoways. It gave the learning region a prescriptive andnormative connotation where good-practice examplesfrom specific regions were generalized into stylizedfacts that were claimed to be generally applicable(HASSINK, 2007). And it biased empirical worktowards case studies while little progress was made onmore fundamental development and testing of hypoth-eses (MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003).

It is one thing to find that regional knowledge canform the basis for learning and innovation amongregional firms in intra-regional networks and thatregional hard institutions (for example, venture capital)and soft institutions (for example, social capital) mayaffect this process (ASHEIM, 1996; GERTLER, 2003;MORGAN, 1997). However, it is quite another thingto suggest that this is the principal way of knowledge-based regional development (LORENTZEN, 2008;MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003; OINAS, 2000). Net-works, and therefore the learning that takes placewithin them, may be regionally embedded (LORENT-

ZEN, 2008; MALECKI, 2010; SHEARMUR, 2011) andthis regional embeddedness may be stronger in regionswith certain characteristics. However, assuming thatregional embeddedness is a common feature of learningnetworks, as the learning region does, is to conflatespace and networks. It may have been convenient forpolicy reasons to define regions as territoriallybounded (administrative) spaces but in reality learningnetworks are quite oblivious to such delineations.Moreover, successful regions are connected to regionsand knowledge globally (LORENTZEN, 2008;MALECKI, 2010; SHEARMUR, 2011). These global lin-kages are to a large degree enabled by time proximitieswhich facilitate knowledge transfers between distant

regions (SIMMIE, 2005). This further undermines theidea of indigenous regional development that the learn-ing region advocates. While there is a relation betweenspace and learning, conceptualizing it requires attachinga spatial dimension to learning (in networks) ratherthan attaching a learning-and-networks dimension toregions. The latter is essentially what the learningregion aimed to do by emphasizing indigenous regionaldevelopment; that is, development driven by regionallyembedded knowledge and networks (MOULAERT andNUSSBAUMER, 2005; MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003;OINAS, 2000).

INDIVIDUALS AS AGENTS OF LEARNING

The different approach suggested here for conceptualiz-ing the relation between space and learning benefitsfrom insights from the literature on learning and knowl-edge creation which increasingly sees them as a processof social interaction among individuals (GRANT, 1996;MUTHUSAMY and WHITE, 2005; TSOUKAS, 2009)within a social context (AMIN and COHENDET, 2004;NONAKA and VON KROGH, 2009). The economicgeography literature has followed up on this insight byshifting the level of analysis from regions to a socio-spatial context, where neither the social nor the spatialis reduced to or conflated with co-location or a specificplace. Instead, learning takes place across multiplegeographical scales, from local to global, as agents(individuals and firms) are trying to access knowledgefrom around the world in order to strengthen theircompetences and competitiveness (MALECKI, 2010;SACCHETTI, 2009; SHEARMUR, 2011). Yet, eventhough they cross multiple geographical scales, learningnetworks may still be regionally embedded for two prin-cipal reasons. The first of these reasons is extensivelydealt with in the economic geography literature andpertains to knowledge as a location factor, that is, theavailability of knowledge and knowledgeable partnersin a region. The second reason pertains to the ideaof social contexts facilitating learning in case theysupport openness, tolerance and socio-cultural diversity(GAMBAEDELLA et al., 2009; FLORIDA, 2002; LEE et al.,2004). Although one cannot simply equate socialcontext and regions, social contexts may be spatiallyembedded. Social contexts are populated by individualswho are to a large extent spatially sticky. That is,individuals are connected to the place where theyhave their jobs, their families and friends, where theyspend their leisure time; in other words, the placethey call home. When these individuals engage insocial and economic interactions with other spatiallysticky individuals in their home regions, these inter-actions are spatially sticky as well and are likely to giverise to specific regional norms, values and other formsof social capital (BOSHUIZEN et al., 2009; FLORIDA,2002; HAUSER et al., 2007). But rather than to suggest


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

that this mechanism produces a regional social contextwith a single set of norms and values, it may be morerealistic to argue that regions harbour multiple socialcontexts and that not all of them need to be equallysupportive of learning.

Drawing attention to individuals as learning agentsand to the socio-spatial context in which they areembedded gives the conceptualization of the relationbetween space and learning a relational perspective(ASHEIM, 2012; HASSINK and KLAERDING, 2012;HEALY and MORGAN, 2012). Although the TIM litera-ture has gradually included more relational elements(GLÜCKLER, 2007), this is an important distinction asthe TIM literature is chiefly concerned with innovationas a driver of regional competitiveness and economicdevelopment and regional characteristics affecting inno-vation (BOSCHMA, 2004; MORGAN, 1997). In the TIMliterature innovation is a function of firms. As inno-vation may be seen as the materialization of knowledgecreation in new technologies and products, there is aclose relation between innovation and learning;however, the object of analysis is different. If innovationis conceptualized as a process of learning that is orga-nized and managed within firms and networks offirms, this difference may not matter much. But whenlearning is seen as a process of social interactionamong individuals in a socio-spatial context that doesnot necessarily coincide with a firm or an inter-firmnetwork, the different object of analysis (individualsand their relations) merits a relational perspective.Such a perspective explains learning in a socio-spatialcontext rather than innovation and regional competi-tiveness. A relational perspective as such is not limitedto individuals as agents but may pertain to firms aswell (BATHELT et al., 2004; BOGGS and RANTISI,2003). In fact, several authors (Asheim, Healy andMorgan) in this special issue argue for a relational turnto the TIM literature in which case the object of analysisremains innovation and regional competitiveness (cf.YEUNG, 2005). Only HASSINK and KLAERDING

(2012) join in the present authors’ conclusion that thesocio-spatial dimension of relations rather than regionsshould be the principal object of analysis to understandthe relation between space and learning.

Interestingly, it could be debated that the findings ofKNOBEN and OERLEMANS (2012) argue indirectly fora relational perspective that looks at agents and theirrelations rather than regions.

Based on a dataset of actual inter-firm linkages theyanalysed different configurations of inter-firm knowl-edge linkages with different types of actors, differenttie depths, different geographical scales and differentinnovation outcomes. Their findings strongly suggestthat networks matter but that geography plays only aminor role. These findings raise two important issues.First, it may be more productive to look at relationsbetween individuals rather than at inter-organizationallinkages when conceptualizing the relation between

space and learning, as individuals do the actual learning(GRANT, 1996; NONAKA and VON KROGH, 2009).Second, one may look more closely at how the socio-spatial context, which Knoben and Oerlemans do notspecifically study, enables individuals to be successfulin learning networks across various spatial scales. Thesocio-spatial context, in terms of shared norms andvalues and other forms of social capital, either facilitatesor hampers interaction among individuals (HASSINK andKLAERDING, 2012). In the words of MALECKI (2012), itcan be both a glue and a lubricant. As a glue it bindspeople together around a set of shared norms andvalues; as a lubricant it facilitates exchanges among indi-viduals because of the trust and reciprocity that developin relations (MALECKI, 2012). Seen in this light, socialcontext is clearly a relational phenomenon; however,it is argued to be a regional characteristic as well(ASHEIM, 2012; HASSINK and KLAERDING, 2012;HEALY and MORGAN, 2012) following the empiricalobservation that some regions foster a culture ofinteraction more than other regions (HASSINK andKLAERDING, 2012; MALECKI, 2012) and that suchdifferences are related to regional innovation and devel-opment (GAMBAEDELLA et al., 2009; LEE et al., 2004;RUTTEN and GELISSEN, 2010). On the other hand, itis too simplistic to see socio-spatial context as stylizedcharacteristics of regions as the learning region does.The challenge is to find a relational mechanism thatconnects social context to place.

As suggested above, the answer may lie in the fact thatindividuals are to a large degree spatially sticky. Spatiallysticky individuals interacting with one another develop asocial context that is specific to their location but it mayattract individuals from outside who are professionallyand/or socially connected to the social context. Thisprocess is reinforced when various social contextsoverlap. Therein lies the real value of place; the factthat spatially sticky individuals are part of multiplesocial contexts, both professional and social, in theirhome regions (BATHELT and GLÜCKLER, 2003;YEUNG, 2005). Norms and values, trust and reciprocitiesfrom one social context will therefore resonate in othersocial contexts as well, in which case learning in pro-fessional relationships may benefit strongly from thesocial relationships among the individuals in a region(HEALY and MORGAN, 2012). Overlapping social con-texts, and in particular the norms and values enacted inthem, may explain the attractiveness of places to individ-uals belonging to the ‘creative class’ (cf. FLORIDA, 2002),and it may explain why certain regions are more effectivein exchanging knowledge and generating new ideas asthey create more ‘buzz’ (cf. STORPER and VENABLES,2004). A region then is no longer a bounded territorywith a set of characteristics but a space of professionaland social networks and opportunities (HASSINK andKLAERDING, 2012; HEALY and MORGAN, 2012;SHEARMUR, 2011). Similarly, social context then is nolonger a ‘thing’ but a process of continuous interactions


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

between individuals (MALECKI, 2012); in other words,social context becomes social dynamics. Social dynamicsare, on the one hand, spatially sticky because of thespatially sticky individuals enacting them; on the otherhand, as social and professional relationships of individ-uals cut across multiple spatial scales, even spatiallysticky social dynamics are embedded in a much broaderspatial envelope.

Shifting the object of analysis from firms and regionsto (individual) agents and their relations begs the ques-tion to the role of firms and regions. This is principallyone of social context within which individuals learn.Various social contexts, such as social and professionalnetworks, are relevant for learning and learning benefitsfrom individuals bridging multiple networks (AMIN andROBERTS, 2008). As these networks may be embeddedin firms, networks and places, their characteristics arerelevant to explaining learning. Because of theirembeddedness in socio-spatial contexts, individualsfind access to knowledge sources that they are not actu-ally connected to and are exposed to (local) buzz(BATHELT et al., 2004). Embeddedness in socio-spatialcontext may thus explain rival, or non-relational learn-ing, as even non-relational learning depends on socialinteraction. Moreover, in many cases individuals canchoose the place where they live and work, whichmakes the physical, environmental and socio-culturalcharacteristics of places highly relevant to understandingwhy learning happens in one place rather than another.Nor does focusing on agents and their relations suggestan individuals-first approach, as firms, too, may beagents of learning. With its focus on the process of learn-ing, a relational approach answers the limitations of thelearning region discussed above.

A RELATIONAL APPROACH

Relational thinking appears in economic geography atleast as early as the 1990s. In general, it may be described as

a theoretical orientation where actors and the dynamicprocesses of change and development engendered bytheir relations are central units of analysis.

(BOGGS and RANTISI, 2003, p. 10)

In a recent addition to this literature, SHEARMUR (2011)juxtaposes relational thinking with neo-regionalism,which takes regions as bounded territories with particu-lar attributes as units of analysis. In as far as the learningregion and the TIM literature in general have focusedon such territorial-based explanations, they can beargued to belong to the neo-regionalist approach ineconomic geography. The learning region’s concernwith relational concepts, such as networks, socialcapital and local buzz notwithstanding, it has largelyunderstood these concepts as stylized regional character-istics rather than studied them from a relational view(MOULAERT and SEKIA, 2003; LORENTZEN, 2008).

Though multiple authors have argued in favour of arelational view in economic geography, there is littleconsensus as to what a relational view entails. Advocat-ing a relational view, BATHELT and GLÜCKLER (2003)stated that

economic actors and their actions and interaction shouldbe at the core of a theoretical framework of economicgeography and not space and spatial categories.

(pp. 123–124)

Their view corresponds to that of BOGGS and RANTISI

(2003) quoted above and connects to the sociology ofGRANOVETTER (1985) who argued that economicaction is embedded in structures of ongoing socialrelations. Because of embeddedness, actors are neitheratoms outside a social context, nor are they determinedby it. This relational economic geography concerns itselfwith socio-spatial relations of agents, such as in regionalclusters, global pipelines and local buzz (BATHELT et al.,2004; GLÜCKLER, 2007; MALMBERG and MASKELL,2002), their interconnectedness with broader structuresand institutions, such as culture and social capital(WESTLUND et al., 2010), and how this affects thebehaviour of agents and the (knowledge) outcomes oftheir relations. However, according to YEUNG (2005),this kind of economic geography is relational only in athematic sense. Theoretical emphasis on relationalassets, such as institutional thickness, untraded interde-pendencies and associational economies, merely high-lights a variety of non-economic factors in theexplanation of agglomeration and regional development(YEUNG, 2005, p. 41). Instead, YEUNG (2005) arguedfor relational geometries, which he defined as ‘hetero-geneous relations among actors and structures throughwhich power and identities are played out andbecome efficacious’ (p. 38). Power is a central conceptin Yeung’s understanding of relational economicgeography since ‘relations and networks… are in them-selves descriptive categories devoid of explanatorycapacity’ (p. 43). The utilization of power practisedthrough relationality in Yeung’s view is the missinglink in the thematic relational frameworks sincepower, defined as ‘emergent effects of social practiceamong actors who have the capacity and resources toinfluence’ (p. 45), explains why, for example, ‘relationalassets and institutional thickness are not generally ben-eficial to all firms in a region’ (p. 45).

Though Yeung’s approach goes beyond the thematicapproach of BATHELT and GLÜCKLER (2003) andBOGGS and RANTISI (2003), he shares with them theview that regions should not be conceived

as closed a system or a container of intangible assets andstructures, but as a relational construct through which het-erogeneous flows of actors, assets and structures coalesceand take place

(YEUNG, 2005, p. 47)

and that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

relational assets and/or institutional thickness in one regionmight be a liability and a constraint to development inanother.

(YEUNG, 2005, p. 47; cf. HASSINK andKLAERDING, 2012)

Moreover, as YEUNG (2005, p. 48) himself admits,spatial geometries are difficult to operationalize and hisrelational thinking may appear fuzzy and imprecise. Asthe present paper has criticized the learning region forits lack of empirical rigour, embracing Yeung’s perspec-tive would hardly be an improvement. Moreover, it isargued here that Yeung’s focus on power risks over-looking the importance of other relational character-istics, such as trust, norms and values and other formsof social capital. Consequently, a relational economicgeography is advocated in line with BATHELT andGLÜCKLER (2003), BOGGS and RANTISI (2003), andSHEARMUR (2011), who argued that agents and theirrelations rather than regions as bounded territoriesshould be the object of analysis. What matters here isthat relational concepts, such as embeddedness, localbuzz, social capital, etc., are not seen as stylized charac-teristics of regions but as characteristics of relations thatshape and are shaped by interactions among agents.Consequently, a relational perspective on the socio-spatial dimension of learning needs to address two keyquestions:

• Why are agents (in particular, individuals) and theirrelations spatially sticky?

This question draws attention to two aspects of thesocio-spatial context of agents. In the first place, iturges one to consider that individuals conduct most oftheir social interactions and economic transactions ‘athome’. Secondly, it raises the issue of what makes aplace attractive to individuals who practise learning aspart of their jobs (that is, knowledge workers or thecreative class). The attractiveness of places for thoseindividuals is affected by, among others, the normsand values of its inhabitants, various cultural andenvironmental amenities, and its connectedness toother regions (particularly socio-cultural and economichubs) across the globe. From these aspects an expla-nation may be built of how a place becomes a conducivespace for learning. While these aspects have beenaddressed in the TIM literature from a regional perspec-tive, the challenge now is to build an explanation thatstarts from agents and their relations.

• What is the spatial envelope of learning?

This question considers the motivations of agents toconduct learning in local, regional, national or globalrelations. Relevant motivations include aspects thatare familiar from the literature on firms, innovationand regions, such as the availability of resources(knowledge), transaction costs, the kind of learning(accessing knowledge or creating new knowledge),

and institutional conditions. Again, the challenge is toaddress these motivations from a relational perspective.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper has been to develop a more soph-isticated explanation of the relation between space andlearning than the one offered by the learning region.The learning region is a member of the TIM familythat emerged in the early 1990s and it attempted toconnect the networks and innovation and the economicgeography literatures in an effort to explain learning inregions. However, changes in the nature of theeconomy and advances in conceptual understanding oflearning have undermined several of its key assumptions.The discussion in this paper is informed by and serves asan introduction to the remaining papers in this specialissue. This paper contributes to the literature on spaceand learning in general and the learning region inparticular in the following ways. (1) It assesses the back-ground and the strengths and weaknesses of the learningregion and finds that the learning region’s conceptualiz-ation of the relation between space and learning isflawed because of two reasons. In the first place, thelearning region conflates networks and learning whichleads it to overemphasize the importance of intra-regional networks. Secondly, the learning region istoo intimately connected to a specific kind of regionalinnovation policy that erroneously suggests indigenousknowledge as the key resource for regional develop-ment. Furthermore, (2) the paper takes stock of theinsights gained from the learning region debate fromthe past twenty years as well as the literature on learning.Critically these insights suggest that learning is a processof social interaction among individuals rather than arationally organized process within and between firmsand that, consequently, learning should be understoodfrom the social context in which it takes place. Thesocial context is not connected to a specific place buthas a spatial envelope that may reach from local toglobal; hence, it is more accurate to speak of thesocio-spatial context of learning. This leads the authorsto suggest a relational approach to conceptualize therelation between space and learning. A relationalapproach takes agents and their relations as object ofanalysis rather than regions as bounded territories andallows an understanding of the relation between spaceand learning from the perspective of the agents involvedin the process of learning. This approach connects to ashift towards relational thinking in the economicgeography literature but it differs in its specific focuson agents. The relevance of this approach lies in thefact that individuals in particular are seen as principalagents of learning in contemporary learning literature,but that individuals are absent in the TIM literature.This approach thus augments the TIM literature byoffering an angle of enquiry to the relation between


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

space and learning that this literature has thus farignored.

Examples of empirical questions may clarify howthis approach augments the existing TIM literature.Looking at agglomeration from the perspective of(individual) agents: what makes (individual) agentsspatially sticky and how are environmental, architec-tural and socio-cultural characteristics of places impor-tant in this process? In connection to this, andfollowing the observation that cosmopolitan urbanregions are also the learning hubs in KnowledgeEconomy 2.0: what makes cosmopolitan urbanregions change into preferred places for social and pro-fessional networking among knowledge workers andmembers of the creative class? Next, the authors areinterested in the mechanism that explains how learningbenefits or suffers from the socio-spatial context inwhich it is embedded. Focusing more specifically on

proximity and distance: why do (individual) agentsconnect to learning partners on different spatialscales? And closely connected to that: what types oflearning (for example, explorative or exploitative)benefit from local and global relations? True to thispaper’s ambition, questions like these address issuessuch as space, proximity, socio-cultural context, etc.from the perspective of learning as a process of socialinteraction among (individual) agents. Whereas thelearning region and the TIM literature in generaltreat learning somewhat as a black box, the contri-butions in this special issue open this black box fromseveral perspectives to build a relational approach tolearning in socio-spatial context.

Acknowledgement – The authors wish to thank ananonymous reviewer for his helpful comments on an earlierversion of this paper.

REFERENCES

AMIN A. and COHENDET P. (2004) Architectures of Learning: Firms, Capabilities and Communities. Oxford University Press, Oxford.AMIN A. and ROBERTS J. (2008) Knowing in action: beyond communities of practice, Research Policy 37, 353–369.ASHEIM B. (1996) Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: a condition for prosperity, European Planning Studies 4, 379–400.ASHEIM B. (2012) The changing role of learning regions in the globalising knowledge economy, Regional Studies (this issue).BATHELT H. and GLÜCKLER J. (2003) Toward a relational economic geography, Journal of Economic Geography 3, 117–144.BATHELT H., MALMBERG A. and MASKELL P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowl-

edge creation, Progress in Human Geography 28, 31–56.BELLINI N. and LANDABASO M. (2007) Learning about innovation in Europe’s regional policy, in RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds)

The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future, pp. 231–251. Routledge, London.BEST M. (1990) The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring. Polity, Cambridge.BOEKEMA F., MORGAN K., BAKKERS S. and RUTTEN R. (Eds) (2000) Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth: The Theory and

Practice of the Learning Region. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.BOGGS J. and RANTISI N. (2003) The ‘relational’ turn in economic geography, Journal of Economic Geography 3, 109–116.BOSCHMA R. (2004) Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective, Regional Studies 38, 1001–1014.BOSHUIZEN J., GEURTS P. and VAN DER VEEN A. (2009) Regional social networks as conduits for knowledge spillovers: explaining

performance of high-tech firms, Journal of Economic and Social Geography 100, 183–197.COOKE PH. and MORGAN K. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.DOLOREUX D., FREEL M. and SHEARMUR R. (Eds) (2010) Knowledge Intensive Business Services: Geography and Innovation. Ashgate,

London.FLORIDA R. (2002) The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. Basic Books,

New York, NY.FRIEDMAN TH. (2005) The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. Farrer, Straus & Giroux, New York, NY.GAMBAEDELLA A., MARIANA M. and TORRISI S. (2009) How ‘provincial’ is your region? Openness and regional performance in

Europe, Regional Studies 43, 935–947.GERTLER M. (2003) Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context or the undefinable tacitness of being (there), Journal

of Economic Geography 3, 75–99.GLÜCKLER J. (2007) Economic geography and the evolution of networks, Journal of Economic Geography 7, 619–634.GRABHER G. (2004) Temporary architectures of learning: knowledge governance in project ecologies, Organization Studies 25,

1491–1541.GRANOVETTER M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91,

481–510.GRANT R. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm, Strategic Management Journal 17 [Special Issue: ‘Knowledge and

the Firm’], 109–122.HASSINK R. (2007) The learning region: a constructive critique, in RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) The Learning Region: Foun-

dations, State of the Art, Future, pp. 252–271. Routledge, London.HASSINK R. and KLAERDING C. (2012) The end of the learning region as we know it: towards a cultural and relational perspective

on learning in space, Regional Studies (this issue).HAUSER CH., TAPPEINER G. and WALDE J. (2007) The learning region: the impact of social capital and weak ties on innovation,

Regional Studies 41, 75–88.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

HEALY A. and MORGAN K. (2012) Spaces of innovation: learning, proximity and the ecological turn, Regional Studies (this issue).INGLEHART R. and BAKER W. (2000) Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values, American Sociological

Review 65, 19–51.KNOBEN J. and OERLEMANS L. (2012) Configuration of inter-organizational knowledge links: does spatial embeddedness still

matter?, Regional Studies (this issue).LANDABASOM. (2000) Innovation and regional development policy, in BOEKEMA F., MORGAN K., BAKKERS S. and RUTTEN R. (Eds)

Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth: The Theory and Practice of the Learning Region, pp. 73–94. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.LEE S., FLORIDA R. and ACS Z. (2004) Creativity and entrepreneurship: a regional analysis of new firm formation, Regional Studies

38, 879–891.LORENTZEN A. (2008) Knowledge networks in local and global space, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 20, 533–546.MALECKI E. (2010) Global knowledge and creativity: new challenges for firms and regions, Regional Studies 44, 1033–1052.MALECKI E. (2012) Regional social capital: why it matters, Regional Studies (this issue).MALMBERG A. and MASKELL P. (2002) The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial

clustering, Environment and Planning A 34, 429–449.MORGAN K. (1997) The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal, Regional Studies 31, 491–503.MORGAN K. (2004) The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems, Journal of Economic

Geography 4, 3–21.MORGAN K. and NAUWELAERS C. (Eds) (2003) Regional Innovation Strategies: The Challenge for Less-Favoured Regions. Routledge,

London.MOULAERT F. and NUSSBAUMER J. (2005) Beyond the learning region: the dialectics of innovation and culture in territorial devel-

opment, in BOSCHMA R. and KLOOSTERMAN R. (Eds) Learning from Clusters: A Critical Assessment from an Economic–GeographicalPerspective, pp. 89–110. Springer, Dordrecht.

MOULAERT F. and SEKIA F. (2003) Territorial innovation models: a critical survey, Regional Studies 37, 289–302.MUTHUSAMY S. and WHITE M. (2005) Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a social exchange view, Organization

Studies 26, 415–441.NONAKA I. and VON KROGH G. (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: controversy and advancement in organiz-

ational knowledge creation theory, Organization Science 20, 635–652.OERLEMANS L., MEEUS M. and KENIS P. (2007) Regional innovation networks, in RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) The Learning

Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future, pp. 160–183. Routledge, London.OINAS P. (2000) Distance and learning: does proximity matter?, in BOEKEMA F., MORGAN K., BAKKERS S. and RUTTEN R. (Eds)

Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Growth: The Theory and Practice of the Learning Region, pp. 57–69. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.PIORE M. and SABEL CH. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Basic Books, New York, NY.PORTER M. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Macmillan, London.RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) (2005) Innovation, policy and economic growth: theory and cases, European Planning Studies

13 [Special Issue].RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) (2007a) The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future. Routledge, London.RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (2007b) The learning region: a conceptual anatomy, in RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) The Learning

Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future, pp. 127–142. Routledge, London.RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (Eds) (2007c) Spatial innovation systems: theory and cases, European Planning Studies 15 [Special Issue].RUTTEN R. and GELISSEN J. (2010) Social values and the economic development of European regions, European Planning Studies 18,

921–940.SACCHETTI S. (2009) Why, where and with whom do you link? The nature of and motivations of linkages within and outside the

Italian local system, Regional Studies 32, 197–209.SCOTT A. and STORPER M. (2003) Regions, globalization, development, Regional Studies 37, 579–593.SHEARMUR R. (2011) Innovation, regions and proximity: from neo-regionalism to spatial analysis, Regional Studies 45, 1225–1243.SIMMIE J. (2005) Innovation and space: a critical review of the literature, Regional Studies 39, 789–804.STORPER M. (1993) Regional ‘worlds’ of production: learning and innovation in the technology districts of France, Italy and the

USA, Regional Studies 27, 433–455.STORPER M. and VENABLES A. (2004) Buzz: face-to-face and the urban economy, Journal of Economic Geography 4, 351–370.TORRE A. (2008) On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission, Regional Studies 42,

869–889.TSOUKAS H. (2009) A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations, Organization Science 20, 941–957.WESTLUND H., RUTTEN R. and BOEKEMA F. (2010) Social capital, distance, values and levels of space, European Planning Studies 18,

965–970.YEUNG H. (2005) Rethinking relational economic geography, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers n.s. 30, 37–51.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

isco

nsin

- M

adis

on]

at 1

6:23

10

Sept

embe

r 20

14

from learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context

Documents