Hanusch, B. Los, M. Menhart, P. Morone, L. Nesta, J. Niosi, A. Nuvolari, A. Pyka, A. Secchi, E. Stam, R. Taylor, B.
Verspagen, N. Contents: Preface 1. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted. Your email address will not be published.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting. Submit Comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Today, over 2 million Americans are living without access to clean, running water. This is the first-ever comprehensive look at indoor water access across the United States, and its findings are explosive: Race is the strongest predictor of vulnerability. In six states plus Puerto Rico , progress is actually backsliding. More than 44 million Americans are served by water systems with recent violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. When thinking about conserving water, we should also be focusing on how more efficient water use correlates with energy savings.
Studies show that when households participate in water savings programs, they also conserve energy and reduce strain on the power grid during peak demand periods while saving consumers money on their utility bills.
Water utilities can also dramatically increase their energy efficiency and reduce overall energy usage by adopting locally based solutions. For many municipal governments, drinking water and wastewater treatment plants are typically the largest energy consumers, often accounting for 30 to 40 percent of total energy consumed. Overall, drinking water and wastewater systems account for approximately two percent of energy use in the United States, adding over 45 million tons of greenhouse gases annually. Through extensive surveillance and community surveys, we have demonstrated the importance of local public health data to increase buy-in from new and existing partners and obtain funding to address this significant public health issue.
Meeting of the Minds is made possible by the generous support of these organizations. A hitherto stable context may begin to change historically. The erosion of relative stability in the nation states after World War II has thus changed the conditions of innovation systems. When three subdynamics can interact, behaviour of the resulting systems can become complex.
For example, a previously relatively stabilized coevolution between production and diffusion capacities within a national system can then increasingly be the subject of conflicting conditions of the local production and the world market. The multinational corporation thus emerged during the s. When Lundvall proposed that the nation be considered as a first candidate for the integration of innovation systems, he formulated this claim carefully in terms of heuristics:.
The interdependency between production and innovation goes both ways. Lundvall, The assumption of integrating innovation into production at the national level has the analytical advantage of providing us with an obvious system of reference. If the market is continuously upset by innovation, can the nation then perhaps be considered as another, albeit institutionally organized equilibrium Aoki, ? This problem of the relative rates of innovation cannot be defined properly without the specification of a system of reference that integrates different sectors of an economy Nelson, , The solutions to this puzzle can accordingly be expected to differ among nation states.
The historical progression varies among countries, and integration at the national level still plays a major role in systems of innovation Skolnikoff, However, the emergence of transnational levels of government like the European Union, as well as the increased awareness of regional differences within and across nations, have changed the functions of national governments Braczyk et al. Interactive knowledge production and control.
Governance can be considered as the variable that instantiates and organizes systems in the geographical dimension of the model, while industry is the main carrier of economic production and exchange. In this neo- evolutionary model of interacting subdynamics, the institutional dimensions cannot be expected to correspond one-to-one with the functions in the network carried by and among the agencies. Each university and industry, for example, has also a geographical location and is therefore the subject of regulation and legislation.
In a knowledge-based system, functions no longer develop exclusively at the local level, that is, contained within the institutional settings. Instead, the interactions generate evolutionary dynamics of change in the relations at the network level. In other words, university-industry-government relations develop in terms of institutional arrangements that recombine three functions of the socio-economic system: 1 wealth generation and retention, 2 novelty production, and 3 control at the interfaces of these subdynamics. The functions provide a layer of development analytically different, but historically coupled to the institutional arrangements.
However, the third function of normative control bends the space of possible interactions reflexively back to the position of the operating units e. In this dimension, the question of what can be retained locally during the reproduction of the innovation processes becomes crucial. The advantages of entertaining a knowledge base can be incorporated only if the knowledge produced by the interacting fluxes can also be retained.
In other words, the development of a knowledge base is dependent on the condition that knowledge production be socially organized. The knowledge-base of an economy can be considered as a second-order interaction effect in the historical trade-offs between functions and institutions. In other words, the interfaces between institutions and functions can be expected to resonate into coevolutions in some configurations more than in others.
However, these resonances remain incomplete because the coevolving subdynamics are continuously disturbed by the third one. Therefore, the knowledge base cannot be stabilized and should not be reified reflexively. It remains merely an order of expectations pending as selection pressure upon the local configurations.
The expectations, however, can be further codified through the use of knowledge. Thus, one can distinguish between the stabilization of innovations along technological trajectories and the knowledge base as a next-order regime that remains emergent Dosi, ; Sahal, As innovations are further developed along trajectories, a knowledge base becomes reflexively available as the evolutionary mechanism for restructuring of the historical trajectories.
The next-order perspective of a regime rests as an additional selection environment on the trajectories.
In terms of the previous figure, this second-order system can be added as follows:. Figure 2: The first-order interactions generate a knowledge-based economy as a next-order system. The second-order interaction term the knowledge base remains a historical result of the first-order interactions in the knowledge infrastructure.
Knowledge, innovation and creativity are the keys to success with the globalization of the knowledge based economy. The archive of previous issues of the publication is available here. As the 20th century draws to a close, the knowledge content of everyday goods and services is rising as never before. Economic Developers it is your job to manage creative destruction. Individuals should feel responsible to gain knowledge over the marketing skills which intern helps them to generate personal wealth and helps the individuals in setting better trends for the future generations and also allows and encourages them to continuously upgrade their knowledge and skills and move on to choose and make better careers. The main points of the text are extracted, from which the resulting adaptation follows next.
An evolving knowledge base can be developed under the condition that the various interactions be left free to seek their own resonances, that is, in a self-organizing mode. This self-organization among the functions exhibits a dynamics potentially different from the organization of relations among the institutions. The globalization of knowledge production and control. The availability and growth of a knowledge base reinforces the capacity of the system to develop solutions that improve on combinations developed hitherto.
However, the knowledge base remains a reflexive construct that emerges endogenously within the system and is expected to remain under reconstruction. It self-organizes under the conditions of the organizations upon which it is created as a second-order layer.