Abstract
The general idea of this paper is the fact that the theory of innovation cannot be completed as long as the idea of creativity is not introduced in the analysis of the cognitive processes involved. Too often, in innovation studies, novelty is considered as pure knowledge creation. The new approach of creativity in management science, economic geography, or sociology of innovation has revealed the importance of other ingredients than knowledge: entrepreneurship, serendipity, imagination, etc. In particular, creative cities are not just knowledge-based territories. For addressing the issue of creative territories, we need first to define creativity in general and in different domains: in science (discovery), technology (invention), or economy (innovation), as well as in artistic, cultural, or societal fields. We will underline the necessity to be creative in policy design as well. It is not enough to build knowledge infrastructures and to promote human capital or attract “creative people.” Are there recipes for the creative governance of geographical entities? What can we learn from the application of standard policies? And from the new policy paradigms like the Smart specialization strategy of the EU? At microeconomic level, entrepreneurs and creative organizations must deal with the exploration/exploitation issues and find an acceptable tradeoff. Territories must also find relevant governance structures and procedures for the “creative” design of development strategies. In this perspective, they can rely on certain actors of the innovation process, like knowledge-based business services, and some talented individuals, for implementing the necessary distributed intelligence.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amabile, T. (2008). A model of creativity in organizations. Research and Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.
Amin, A., Cohendet, P. (2012), “The firm as a “Platform of Communities”: a contribution to the knowledge-based approach of the firm”, In: R. Arena, A. Festré, N. Lazaric (Ed.), Handbook of knowledge and economics (pp. 403–434). Edward Elgar.
Antonelli, C. (2015). Innovation as a creative response: a reappraisal of the Schumpeterian legacy. History of Economic Ideas, 23(2), 99–116.
Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity: economic and social factors (pp. 609–625). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Becattini, G. (1992). Le district marshallien: une notion socio-économique. In G. Benco & A. Lipietz (Eds.), Les régions qui gagnent. Districts et réseaux: les nouveaux paradigmes de la géographie économique (pp. 35–55). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2008). Knowledge intensive firms, communities, and creative cities. In A. Amin & J. Roberts (Eds.), Community, economic creativity, and organization (pp. 227–253). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cohendet, P., Grandadam, D., & Simon, L. (2010). The anatomy of the creative city. Industry and Innovation, 17(1), 91–111.
European Commission (2014). National/Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization (RIS3). Cohesion policy 2014–2020. Brussels, March.
Florida, R. (2003). Cities in the creative class. City & Community, 2(1), March. New York: American Sociological Association.
Foray, D., David, P., Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialization—the concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief N°9.
Gertler, M. (2004). Creative cities: what they are for, how do they work, and how do we build them? Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Grandadam, D., Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. (2013). Places and spaces and the dynamics of creativity: the video game industry in Montreal. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1701–1714.
Héraud, J.-A. (2003). Regional innovation systems and European research policy: convergence or misunderstanding? European Planning Studies, 11(1), 41–56.
Héraud, J.-A., & Lachmann, J. (2015). L’évolution du système de recherche et d’innovation: ce que révèle la problématique du financement dans le cas français. Innovations, 46(2015/1), 9–32.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patents citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 63(3), 957–970.
Joly, P.-B. (2007). Scientific expertise in public arenas: lessons from the French experience. Journal of Risk Research, 10(7), 905–924.
Landry, C. (2000). The creative city. A toolkit for urban innovators. New York: Earthscan. Second edition in 2008.
Lhuillery, S., Marino, M., Parotta, P. (2013). Evaluation de l’impact des aides directes et indirectes à la R&D en France. Rapport pour le Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche, Décembre.
Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.
Loasby, B.J. (1998), Industrial districts as knowledge communities. In M. Bellet and Corine L’Harmet (eds), Industry, space and competition. The contribution of economists of the past. (70–85). Cheltenham : Edward Elgar.
Maillat, D. (1995). Milieux innovateurs et dynamique territoriale. In A. Rallet & A. Torre (Eds.), Economie industrielle et économie spatiale (pp. 211–233). Paris: Economica.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: Macmillan.
Mensch, G. (1979). Stalemate in technology: innovations overcome the depression. Cambridge: Ballinger (Harper & Row).
Metcalfe, J. S. (2010). Complexity and emergence in economics: the road from Smith to Hayek (via Marshall and Schumpeter). History of Economic Ideas, 18(2), 45–75.
Miles, I. (2005). Knowledge intensive business services: prospects and policies. Foresight, 7(6), 39–63.
Mohnen, P. (2013). The effectiveness of R&D tax incentives. Workshop on the revision of state aid rules for research and development and innovation. Brussels, January.
Morgan, K. (2004). The exaggerated death of geography: learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 3–21.
Moulaert, F., & Nussbaumer, J. (2008). La logique sociale du développement territorial. Presses de l’Université du Québec: Québec.
Muller, E., Héraud, J.-A., & Zenker, A. (2013). Innovation, territories and creativity. Some reflections about usual and less usual instruments for innovation-driven regional policies. In T. Burger-Helmchen (Ed.), The economics of creativity. Ideas, firms and markets (pp. 78–88). New York: Routledge.
Muller, E., Zenker, A., & Héraud, J.-A. (2015). Knowledge angels : creative individuals fostering innovation in KIBS—observations from Canada, China, France, Germany and Spain. Management International, 19, 201–218.
Mustar, P., & Laredo, P. (2002). Innovation and research policy in France (1980–2000), or the disappearance of Colbertist state. Research Policy, 31(1), 55–72.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7(2), 149–159.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. new edition.
Uzunidis, D. (2010). Milieu innovateur, relations de proximité et entrepreneuriat. Analyse d'une alchimie féconde. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 33, 91-106.
Von Hippel, E. (1994). Sticky information and the locus of problem-solving: implications for innovation. Management Science, 40, 429–439.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Héraud, JA. A New Approach of Innovation: from the Knowledge Economy to the Theory of Creativity Applied to Territorial Development. J Knowl Econ 12, 201–217 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0393-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-016-0393-5