The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey
Abstract
MOULAERT F. and SEKIA F. (2003) Territorial innovation models: a critical survey, Reg. Studies 37 , 289-302. This paper provides a critical review of the literature on territorial innovation models (industrial districts, milieux innovateurs , new industrial spaces, local production systems, etc.). The review is organized in two stages. First, the main features of each of these models and their view of innovation are compared. Second, their theoretical building blocks are reconstructed and evaluated from the point of view of conceptual clarity and analytical coherence. It is found that despite some semantic unity among the concepts used (economies of agglomeration, endogenous development, systems of innovation, evolution and learning, network organization and governance), territorial innovation models (TIMs) suffer from conceptual ambiguity. The latter is mainly a consequence of the way territorial innovation is theorized, i.e. in terms of technologically driven innovation and a business culture that is mainly instrumental to the capitalist market logic. This pressing ideological priority pushes the "conceptual flexibility' of TIMs across the border of coherent theory building. MOULAERT F. et SEKIA F. (2003) Des modèles de l'innovation territoriale: une étude critique, Reg. Studies 37 , 289-302. Cet article cherche à fournir une étude critique de la documenatation sur les modèles de l' innovation territoriale (p.e. districts industriels, milieux innovateurs, nouveaux espaces industriels, systèmes de production locaux). L'étude se fait à deux temps. Dans un premier temps, on compare les principaux caractéristiques de chacun de ces modèles et leur point de vue sur l'innovation. Dans un deuxième temps, on reconstruit et é value leurs éléments de base théoriques quant à leur précision conceptuelle et à leur cohérence analytique. Il s'avère que malgré une certaine unité sémantique pour ce qui est des notions employées (économies d' agglomération, développement autochtone, systèmes d' innovation, évolution et apprentissage, organisation de réseau et gouvernance), les modèles d'innovation territoriales (MIT) souffrent d'une ambiguité conceptuelle. Ceci remonte à la façon de théoriser l'innovation territoriale; c'est à dire, en termes de l'innovation déterminée par la technologie et par une culture d'entreprise qui répond dans une large mesure au credo du marché. La priorité idéologique urgente pousse la " flexibilité conceptuelle' des MIT au-delà de la frontière de la construction des théories cohérentes. MOULAERT F. und SEKIA F. (2003) Territoriale Innovationsmodelle: eine kritische Untersuchung, Reg. Studies 37 , 289-302. Der vorliegende Aufsatz liefert einen kritischen Ü berblick über die Literatur, die sich mit territorialen Innovationsmodellen befaßt (Industriegebiete, milieux innovateurs, neue Industrieräume, örtliche Produktionssysteme, usw.). Der Überblick besteht aus zwei Teilen: zuerst werden sowohl die Hauptzüge jedes dieser Modelle als auch ihre Ansichten über Innovation verglichen. Dem folgt eine Rekonstruktion ihrer theoretischen Bausteine und Bewertung vom Standpunkt konzeptualer Klarheit und analytischer Kohärenz. Es zeigt sich, daß trotz einer gewissen semantischen Einheitlichkeit der dabei benutzten Konzepte (Einsparungen durch Ballung, emdogene Entwicklung, Innovationssysteme, Evolution und Lernen, Netzwerkorganisation und -maßnahmen) territoriale Innovationsmodelle (TIMs) unter begrifflicher Vieldeutigkeit leiden. Letztere ergibt sich vorallem infolge der Art und Weise in der territoriale Innovation theorisiert wird, d.h. durch Begriffe technologisch betriebener Innovation und eine Unternehmenskultur, die sich vorallem an die Logik des kapitalistischen Marktes wendet. Dieser nachdrücklich ideologische Vorrang schiebt die "konzeptuelle Elastizität' der TIMs über die Grenze der Errichtung einer zusammenhängenden Theorie.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Cluster life cycles--dimensions and rationales of cluster evolution
Menzel, M.-P., & Fornahl, D. (2010) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dtp036 · Cited by 677
Open innovation in SMEs: Exploring inter-organizational relationships in an ecosystem
Radziwon, A., & Bogers, M. (2019) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.021 · Cited by 382
Resilient regions in an uncertain world: wishful thinking or a practical reality?
Hudson, R. (2010) · Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society · doi:10.1093/cjres/rsp026 · Cited by 359
Understanding the Regional Contribution of Higher Education Institutions: A Literature Review
(2007) · OECD Education Working Papers · doi:10.1787/161208155312 · Cited by 296
Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015) · Geography Compass · doi:10.1111/gec3.12231 · Cited by 174
Metadata
- Authors
- Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F.
- Venue
- Regional Studies
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 289-302
- ISSN
- 0034-3404 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0591
- OpenAlex
- W2119177619
- Cited by
- 1,142
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 101.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0034340032000065442
- The paper
- Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial Innovation Models: A Critical Survey. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340032000065442
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.