- -

Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Ficheros en el ítem

dc.contributor.author Bugge, Markus es_ES
dc.contributor.author Coenen, Lars es_ES
dc.contributor.author Marques, Pedro es_ES
dc.contributor.author Morgan, Kevin es_ES
dc.date.accessioned 2020-04-17T12:52:19Z
dc.date.available 2020-04-17T12:52:19Z
dc.date.issued 2017 es_ES
dc.identifier.issn 0965-4313 es_ES
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10251/140978
dc.description.abstract [EN] Debates on how to address societal challenges have moved to the forefront of academic and policy concerns. Of particular importance is the growing awareness that to deal with issues such as ageing, it will be necessary to implement concerted efforts on technological, social, institutional or political fronts. Drawing on a number of theoretical perspectives ¿ including socio-technical transitions and embedded state theory ¿ the aim of this paper is to identify and understand different approaches to the governance of such system innovations by comparing state responses to assisted living in two contrasting national systems of care, namely that of the UK and Norway. Its findings highlight that state-supported and funded experimentation projects have been instrumental in designing and implementing system innovation: through their emphasis on co-design and co-creation, these projects demonstrated the value of early implementation pilots to explore the `fit¿ between novel technologies and prevailing practices and institutional structures in national systems of care. Still, competition, biases or conflicting interests should not be ignored between well-established agents and institutions and experimental solutions whose efficacy remains relatively untested and which involve a combination of new technical, social, organizational and institutional solutions. es_ES
dc.description.sponsorship This project has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 320131 (SmartSpec). es_ES
dc.language Inglés es_ES
dc.publisher Taylor & Francis es_ES
dc.relation.ispartof European Planning Studies es_ES
dc.rights Reserva de todos los derechos es_ES
dc.subject Strategic niche management es_ES
dc.subject Innovation policy es_ES
dc.subject Assisted living es_ES
dc.subject Governance es_ES
dc.subject System innovation es_ES
dc.subject Embedded state es_ES
dc.title Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway es_ES
dc.type Artículo es_ES
dc.identifier.doi 10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078 es_ES
dc.relation.projectID info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/FP7/320131/EU/Smart Specialisation For Regional Innovation/ es_ES
dc.rights.accessRights Abierto es_ES
dc.contributor.affiliation Universitat Politècnica de València. Instituto de Gestión de la Innovación y del Conocimiento - Institut de Gestió de la Innovació i del Coneixement es_ES
dc.description.bibliographicCitation Bugge, M.; Coenen, L.; Marques, P.; Morgan, K. (2017). Governing system innovation: assisted living experiments in the UK and Norway. European Planning Studies. 25(12):2138-2156. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078 es_ES
dc.description.accrualMethod S es_ES
dc.relation.publisherversion https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1349078 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpinicio 2138 es_ES
dc.description.upvformatpfin 2156 es_ES
dc.type.version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion es_ES
dc.description.volume 25 es_ES
dc.description.issue 12 es_ES
dc.relation.pasarela S\359245 es_ES
dc.description.references Benner, M. (2014). From smart specialisation to smart experimentation. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie, 58(1). doi:10.1515/zfw.2014.0003 es_ES
dc.description.references Bovens, M. (2007). Analysing and Assessing Accountability: A Conceptual Framework. European Law Journal, 13(4), 447-468. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x es_ES
dc.description.references Bulkeley, H., Broto, V. C., & Edwards, G. (2012). Bringing climate change to the city: towards low carbon urbanism? Local Environment, 17(5), 545-551. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.681464 es_ES
dc.description.references Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 41(6), 968-979. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.014 es_ES
dc.description.references Coenen, L., Raven, R., & Verbong, G. (2010). Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages. Technology in Society, 32(4), 295-302. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2010.10.006 es_ES
dc.description.references Devlin, A. M., McGee-Lennon, M., O’Donnell, C. A., Bouamrane, M.-M., Agbakoba, R., … O’Connor, S. (2015). Delivering digital health and well-being at scale: lessons learned during the implementation of the dallas program in the United Kingdom. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 23(1), 48-59. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv097 es_ES
dc.description.references Evans, P. B. (1995). Embedded Autonomy. doi:10.1515/9781400821723 es_ES
dc.description.references Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(02)00062-8 es_ES
dc.description.references Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 521-536. doi:10.1080/09537320802292982 es_ES
dc.description.references Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603-633. doi:10.1016/s0304-3878(03)00124-x es_ES
dc.description.references Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., & Sundström, G. (2015). Governing the Embedded State. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199684168.001.0001 es_ES
dc.description.references Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5), 680-693. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006 es_ES
dc.description.references Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. doi:10.1080/09537329808524310 es_ES
dc.description.references Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823-835. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.006 es_ES
dc.description.references Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70-75. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003 es_ES
dc.description.references Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (2012). Experimentalist Governance. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.013.0012 es_ES
dc.description.references Schot, J., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), 537-554. doi:10.1080/09537320802292651 es_ES
dc.description.references Sengers, F., & Raven, R. (2014). Metering motorbike mobility: informal transport in transition? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 453-468. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.870991 es_ES
dc.description.references Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603. doi:10.1080/09644010701419121 es_ES
dc.description.references Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions Ahead: Politics, Practice, and Sustainable Transition Management. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 39(4), 763-770. doi:10.1068/a39310 es_ES
dc.description.references Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025-1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012 es_ES
dc.description.references Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023 es_ES
dc.description.references Steward, F. (2012). Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 331-343. doi:10.1080/09537325.2012.663959 es_ES
dc.description.references Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015 es_ES
dc.description.references Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M., & Gilsing, V. (2005). A system failure framework for innovation policy design. Technovation, 25(6), 609-619. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.002 es_ES


Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem