I Introduction   I 引言

Increasing disparities between the main urban centers and more peripheral regions create challenges for our societies (OECD, 2016; EC, 2017; Iammarino et al., 2017). Fewer, less varied and less qualified jobs are offered in the periphery. This triggers reallocation of (particularly skilled) labor towards main urban centers and ongoing depopulation of more peripheral regions. The main cause for the growing disparities is that economic development increasingly depends on knowledge-intensive activities, which strive in metropolitan areas due to agglomeration economies, skill matching and knowledge spillovers. In contrast, more peripheral regions as well as regions that are specialized in traditional industries often struggle to find their place in the modern economy.
主要城市中心与更边缘地区之间日益加大的差距给我们的社会带来了挑战（OECD，2016；EC，2017；Iammarino 等，2017）。边缘地区提供的工作岗位更少、种类更少且资格要求更低。这导致（特别是高技能）劳动力向主要城市中心重新分配，并持续导致边缘地区的人口减少。日益加大的差距的主要原因是经济发展越来越依赖于知识密集型活动，这些活动由于聚集经济、技能匹配和知识溢出而在大都市地区蓬勃发展。相比之下，边缘地区以及专注于传统产业的地区往往难以在现代经济中找到自己的位置。

Consequently, regions, defined as functional territorial contexts (Boschma, 2004), ¹ offer varying preconditions to compete, innovate, and stimulate economic growth. Yet, after taking account of preconditions such as industrial structure, the size of the region, capital and labor endowments and infrastructure, a large proportion of regional growth remains unexplained (Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). In other words, some regions grow significantly more than could be expected, given their preconditions, while the opposite is true for other regions. Taking this as a point of departure, the paper contributes theoretically and conceptually to addressing the following fundamental research question: Why do some regions grow more (or less) than others with similar structural preconditions?
因此，作为功能性区域背景定义的地区（Boschma, 2004）， ¹ 提供了不同的竞争、创新和刺激经济增长的前提条件。然而，在考虑了工业结构、地区规模、资本和劳动力禀赋以及基础设施等前提条件后，仍有很大一部分地区增长无法解释（Rodríguez-Pose, 2013）。换句话说，一些地区的增长显著高于其前提条件所能预期的水平，而其他地区则恰恰相反。以此为出发点，本文在理论和概念上对以下基本研究问题作出贡献：为什么一些地区的增长（或减少）超过了具有相似结构前提条件的其他地区？

This question goes beyond the recent debate on economic diversification and regional industrial path development as it emphasizes both the construction and realization of development opportunities. In economic geography, two main theoretical traditions have been mobilized, namely evolutionary and institutional theory, to tackle new path development. Evolutionary theories ‘must be dynamical; they must deal with irreversible processes; and they must cover the generation and impact of novelty as the ultimate source of self-transformation’ (Boschma and Martin, 2007, emphasis original: 537). Evolutionary theories foreground ‘path dependent processes, in which previous events affect the probability of future events to occur’ (Boschma and Frenken, 2006: 280ff). The continuities of the past include individuals’ skills and knowledge, organizational routines, network interdependencies between individuals and organizations, and institutions (Grillitsch and Rekers, 2016). These properties are rigid, meaning it takes time and effort to change them. From an evolutionary account, novelty is introduced through innovation, which, however, is most likely in related fields (Frenken et al., 2007), thus creating a path-dependency in the process of self-transformation. Recently, proponents of evolutionary economic theory have also acknowledged that self-transformation may be the result of unrelated diversification (Boschma et al., 2017). Unrelated diversification is less likely but may have a greater transformative power. Evolutionary theory suggests that historically grown structural preconditions produce probabilities for certain future paths. Such a probabilistic account is, however, ill-equipped to explain the actions of individual agents or groups of them in particular places aimed at constructing or realizing development opportunities. Notwithstanding some exceptions (Dawley, 2014; Bristow and Healy, 2014), the evolutionary tradition in economic geography is largely ignorant about micro-level explanations for why new growth paths emergence in some regions but not in others despite similar preconditions (Boschma, 2017).
这个问题超越了最近关于经济多样化和区域产业路径发展的辩论，因为它强调了发展机会的构建和实现。在经济地理学中，动员了两种主要的理论传统，即进化理论和制度理论，以应对新路径的发展。进化理论“必须是动态的；它们必须处理不可逆的过程；并且它们必须涵盖新奇的产生和影响，作为自我转型的最终来源”（Boschma 和 Martin，2007，强调原文：537）。进化理论强调“路径依赖过程，其中先前事件影响未来事件发生的概率”（Boschma 和 Frenken，2006：280ff）。过去的连续性包括个人的技能和知识、组织惯例、个人与组织之间的网络相互依赖以及制度（Grillitsch 和 Rekers，2016）。这些特性是僵化的，这意味着改变它们需要时间和努力。 从进化的角度来看，新颖性是通过创新引入的，但这种创新最有可能发生在相关领域（Frenken et al., 2007），从而在自我转型的过程中创造了路径依赖。最近，进化经济理论的支持者们也承认，自我转型可能是无关多样化的结果（Boschma et al., 2017）。无关多样化的可能性较小，但可能具有更大的转型力量。进化理论表明，历史上形成的结构性前提为某些未来路径产生了概率。然而，这种概率性的解释对于解释个体代理人或其群体在特定地点旨在构建或实现发展机会的行为来说，显得力不从心。尽管有一些例外（Dawley, 2014; Bristow and Healy, 2014），但经济地理学中的进化传统在很大程度上对微观层面上为什么某些地区出现新的增长路径而其他地区没有，尽管前提条件相似，仍然缺乏了解（Boschma, 2017）。

A similar shortcoming can be identified in studies that are strongly anchored in institutional theory. Studies on varieties of capitalism and national innovation systems explain differences in economic trajectories, competitiveness and innovativeness with variations in national institutions (Hall and Soskice, 2001; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Freeman, 1995). At the regional level, the institutional tradition has probably received most traction in the work on regional innovation systems. Accordingly, region-specific formal and informal institutions as well as the embedding of the region in a multi-scalar institutional architecture set strong preconditions for innovation and thus regional development opportunities (Cooke and Morgan, 1994; Asheim and Isaksen, 1997; Doloreux and Parto, 2005; Tödtling and Trippl, 2005; Gertler, 2010; Hassink, 2010). Still, these studies provide limited insights into the micro-level processes that shape new path development (Asheim et al., 2016; Uyarra et al., 2017). There is a dearth of knowledge about what actors do to create and exploit opportunities in given contexts, why they do so in some places and not in others, and why the effects of such efforts differ between apparently similar places.
在强烈依赖于制度理论的研究中，可以识别出类似的缺陷。关于资本主义多样性和国家创新系统的研究通过国家制度的差异解释了经济轨迹、竞争力和创新能力的差异（Hall 和 Soskice，2001；Lundvall，1992；Nelson，1993；Freeman，1995）。在区域层面，制度传统可能在区域创新系统的研究中获得了最多的关注。因此，特定区域的正式和非正式制度以及该区域在多尺度制度架构中的嵌入为创新以及区域发展机会设定了强有力的前提条件（Cooke 和 Morgan，1994；Asheim 和 Isaksen，1997；Doloreux 和 Parto，2005；Tödtling 和 Trippl，2005；Gertler，2010；Hassink，2010）。尽管如此，这些研究对塑造新路径发展的微观层面过程提供的见解仍然有限（Asheim 等，2016；Uyarra 等，2017）。 关于参与者在特定环境中如何创造和利用机会、他们为何在某些地方而不是其他地方这样做，以及这些努力的效果为何在看似相似的地方之间存在差异，知识仍然匮乏。

Consequently, against the backdrop of the more fundamental theoretical debate on structure and agency, the blind spot is the role of agency and its relation to structure. The theoretical debate on structure and agency has struggled with the dual nature of structure and agency for a long time. Giddens (2007 [1984]) proposes a dualism where one becomes meaningless without the other. Giddens argues that agency is always contextual and thereby anchored in time and space. Due to this anchoring of agency in time and space, his work has also reached human geographers (Dyck and Kearns, 2006). Even though Giddens argues for a continual interplay of agency and structure in theory, his methodological approach of bracketing either agency or structure in empirical work has been criticized (Jessop, 2001). This implies, for instance, that an empirical focus on agency may assume structural conditions as given. In contrast, Jessop (2001) suggests a relational approach with the aim ‘to examine structure in relation to action and action in relation to structure, rather than bracketing one of them’ (p. 1223). Such a relational approach gives credit to the emergent nature of structure and puts emphasis on agents’ varying capabilities, resources and powers (Gregson, 2005; Coe and Jordhus-Lier, 2011), and potentially links back to explanations of uneven development across space by explicitly focusing on structures of power (Faulconbridge, 2012: 735).
因此，在关于结构与能动性的更基本理论辩论的背景下，盲点在于能动性的角色及其与结构的关系。关于结构与能动性的理论辩论长期以来一直在挣扎于结构与能动性的双重性质。吉登斯（2007 [1984]）提出了一种二元论，其中一个在没有另一个的情况下变得毫无意义。吉登斯认为，能动性总是具有情境性，因此根植于时间和空间。由于能动性在时间和空间中的这种锚定，他的工作也引起了人文地理学家的关注（Dyck 和 Kearns，2006）。尽管吉登斯在理论上主张能动性与结构的持续相互作用，但他在实证工作中将能动性或结构进行括号处理的方法论方法受到批评（Jessop，2001）。这意味着，例如，专注于能动性的实证研究可能假设结构条件是既定的。相反，杰索普（2001）建议采用一种关系方法，旨在“考察结构与行动的关系，以及行动与结构的关系，而不是将其中一个括起来”（第 1223 页）。 这种关系方法承认结构的涌现特性，并强调代理人不同的能力、资源和权力（Gregson, 2005；Coe 和 Jordhus-Lier, 2011），并可能通过明确关注权力结构，回溯到对空间不均衡发展的解释（Faulconbridge, 2012: 735）。

Giddens (1984) contrasts functionalism and structuralism with hermeneutics and interpretative sociology. While the former gives primacy to structure, the latter zooms in on the subjective experience – i.e. on agency. He notably relates functionalism and structuralism to system and evolutionary theories, which – according to his analysis – suffer from a poor understanding of agency. As mentioned before, in the current debate on regional path development, evolutionary and institutional theory are prominent, while there is no agency-focused debate with the same weight as in hermeneutics and interpretative sociology. However, there are accounts of different types of agency in geography, based on different theoretical traditions, which have not been consolidated so far. Giddens’ work has been criticized (Jessop, 2001; Coe and Jordhus-Lier, 2011), but the need to theorize and conceptualize the relation between structure and agency remains.
吉登斯（1984）将功能主义和结构主义与解释学和解释性社会学进行了对比。前者强调结构的优先性，而后者则关注主观体验——即代理性。他特别将功能主义和结构主义与系统和进化理论联系起来，认为这些理论在代理性理解上存在不足。如前所述，在当前关于区域路径发展的辩论中，进化和制度理论占据了重要地位，而没有与解释学和解释性社会学同等重要的以代理性为中心的辩论。然而，地理学中存在基于不同理论传统的不同类型的代理性描述，但至今尚未得到整合。吉登斯的工作受到批评（杰索普，2001；科和约德胡斯-利尔，2011），但理论化和概念化结构与代理性之间关系的需求依然存在。

Our approach differs from that of Giddens as it is more concrete, focusing on the emergence of regional growth paths. To some extent, our approach also differs from studies seeking to analyze ‘modalities of power’, i.e. the many forms of social power constructed and exercised to empower certain social groups to exploit economic opportunities while disempowering others (Allen, 2003). We acknowledge the importance of structures of power and related spatial disparities (Sunley, 2008) but investigate conceptually how actors influence path development. Our approach is explicitly dealing with ‘the ways actors marshal and exercise resources as part of attempts to shape the behaviour of others and in the process gain economic advantage’ (Faulconbridge, 2012: 735).
我们的方法与吉登斯的不同，因为它更加具体，专注于区域增长路径的出现。在某种程度上，我们的方法也与寻求分析“权力方式”的研究不同，即构建和行使多种社会权力，以使某些社会群体能够利用经济机会，同时削弱其他群体的能力（艾伦，2003）。我们承认权力结构及相关空间差异的重要性（桑利，2008），但从概念上探讨参与者如何影响路径发展。我们的方法明确处理“参与者如何调动和行使资源，以试图塑造他人行为并在此过程中获得经济优势的方式”（福尔孔布里奇，2012：735）。

The main objective of the paper is to propose a holistic conceptual framework for the analysis of agency in emerging regional growth paths. Regional paths emerge due to the intertwining of a whole range of actions, and intended and unintended results of them (Dawley, 2014; Karnøe and Garud, 2012; Simmie, 2012; Garud and Karnøe, 2003), yet such a holistic framework is missing. It is argued that three types of agency, originating in different fields of literature, are essential for regional path development. These are Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship rooted in the entrepreneurship literature, institutional entrepreneurship resting on institutional theory, and place-based leadership developed in the city and regional development literature but being inspired by the broader leadership literature. The discussion unfolds how the three types of agency – separately and in combination – contribute to the emergence of regional growth paths. Arguments are advanced why and how the three types of agency condition, call for, and necessitate each other, thereby constituting a trinity of change agency that is essential for shaping regional growth paths.
本文的主要目标是提出一个整体概念框架，用于分析新兴区域增长路径中的代理性。区域路径的出现是由于一系列行动的交织，以及这些行动的预期和非预期结果（Dawley, 2014; Karnøe 和 Garud, 2012; Simmie, 2012; Garud 和 Karnøe, 2003），然而这样的整体框架却缺失。文章认为，源于不同文献领域的三种类型的代理性对于区域路径的发展至关重要。这三种类型分别是根植于创业文献的熊彼特创新创业、基于制度理论的制度创业，以及在城市和区域发展文献中发展但受到更广泛领导文献启发的基于地点的领导力。讨论展开了这三种类型的代理性如何单独及结合起来促进区域增长路径的出现。文章提出了三种类型的代理性如何相互制约、相互呼唤和相互必要的论点，从而构成了塑造区域增长路径所必需的变革代理的三位一体。

Section II.1 articulates how the rather abstract notion of agency is mobilized to explain the emergence of regional growth paths. Then, the relevance and contribution of Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, and place-based leadership are explored in sections II.2, II.3 and II.4. In Section III, we return to structure by relating agency to the time-dynamic structural preconditions agents face in specific places. Section IV discusses how to approach agency in empirical studies and Section V concludes the paper.
第二部分第 1 节阐明了如何动用相对抽象的代理概念来解释区域增长路径的出现。然后，在第 2 节、第 3 节和第 4 节中探讨了熊彼特创新型企业家、制度企业家和基于地点的领导力的相关性和贡献。在第 3 节中，我们通过将代理与特定地点代理人面临的时间动态结构前提联系起来，回到结构问题。第 4 节讨论了在实证研究中如何处理代理问题，第 5 节总结了论文。

II Trinity of change agency: Three types of agency driving regional path development
II 变革代理的三位一体：推动区域路径发展的三种代理类型

1 The concept of trinity of change agency
变革代理的三位一体概念

In the Dictionary of Human Geography, human agency is defined as ‘the ability of people to act, usually regarded as emerging from consciously held intentions, and as resulting in observable effects in the human world’ (Gregory et al., 2009). In human geography, we also find accounts about ‘agency of things’. Gregson (2005), for instance, discusses the effects of a virus (foot and mouth disease in the UK) and the effects of the 9/11 terror attack. Concentrating our attention solely on human agency has important implications for the vocabulary and conceptual focus we are suggesting. For instance, things like oil resources can – in combination with demand for oil – produce important effects, such as the growth of the oil industry in Norway and the emergence of new regional growth paths (thus one could talk about the agency of oil resources). While such narratives are to be welcomed, for the purpose of developing a vocabulary and related conceptual frames both for empirical studies and policy purposes, we, as said, limit the use of the term agency to human only; for instance, how oil resources are intentionally used by specific actors (or groups of them) for specific purposes such as creating income and jobs would be of interest to us.
在人文地理词典中，人类能动性被定义为“人们行动的能力，通常被视为源于有意识的意图，并在人的世界中产生可观察的效果”（Gregory 等，2009）。在人文地理学中，我们还发现关于“事物的能动性”的论述。例如，Gregson（2005）讨论了病毒（英国的口蹄疫）和 911 恐怖袭击的影响。仅仅将注意力集中在人类能动性上，对我们所建议的词汇和概念焦点具有重要意义。例如，像石油资源这样的事物可以与对石油的需求结合，产生重要的影响，例如挪威石油产业的增长和新区域增长路径的出现（因此可以谈论石油资源的能动性）。 虽然这样的叙述是值得欢迎的，但为了发展一个词汇和相关的概念框架，以便于实证研究和政策目的，我们如前所述，将“代理”一词的使用限制为仅限于人类；例如，特定行为者（或其群体）如何有意地使用石油资源以实现特定目的，如创造收入和就业，将是我们感兴趣的内容。

Human agency refers to intentional, purposive and meaningful actions, and the intended and unintended consequences of such actions. Even though intentionality plays an important role for the emergence of agency, this does not imply that the evolution of regional paths can be attributed to intentional actions and purposive effects (Lukes, 1986). When aiming to shape path development, as Sotarauta (2016) indicates, agents are confronted with the intentions of many other agents internal and external to a region, and thus they continuously face a series of emergent forces that are beyond their control. Intentional actions of many cause effects in a region that no single actor purposively pushes for. A regional growth path can hence be seen as the nexus of intentional, purposive and meaningful actions of many actors, and the intended and unintended consequences of these actions.
人类能动性指的是有意图、有目的和有意义的行为，以及这些行为的预期和非预期后果。尽管意图在能动性的出现中扮演着重要角色，但这并不意味着区域路径的演变可以归因于有意的行为和目的性效果（Lukes，1986）。正如 Sotarauta（2016）所指出的，在旨在塑造路径发展的过程中，行动者面临着许多其他内部和外部于区域的行动者的意图，因此他们不断面临一系列超出其控制的突现力量。许多行动者的有意行为在一个区域内造成了单一行动者并不有意推动的效果。因此，区域增长路径可以被视为许多行动者的有意、有目的和有意义的行为，以及这些行为的预期和非预期后果的交汇点。

This article is not concerned with any actions but those of relevance for the emergence of regional growth paths, and in particular actions aiming to break from existing patterns and work towards the establishment of new ones. Likewise, Coe and Jordhus-Lier (2011) distinguish transformative agency from reproductive agency maintaining existing structures. In relation to the emergence of regional growth paths, we suggest that Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship, institutional entrepreneurship, and place-based leadership are the three fundamental and conceptually distinct types of transformative agency. They form an integrative and holistic framework – the trinity of change agency.
本文不涉及任何行动，而是关注与区域增长路径的出现相关的行动，特别是旨在打破现有模式并朝着建立新模式努力的行动。同样，Coe 和 Jordhus-Lier（2011）将变革性代理与维持现有结构的再生产代理区分开来。关于区域增长路径的出现，我们建议，熊彼特式的创新创业、制度创业和基于地点的领导力是三种基本且概念上不同的变革性代理类型。它们形成了一个综合和整体的框架——变革代理的三位一体。

First, innovative entrepreneurship is a crucial engine of change (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Schumpeter, 1911) because it is the source for path-breaking innovations triggering new industrial specializations and the transformation of places (Foray et al., 2009; Feldman, 2014; Grillitsch, 2018) Second, new industrial growth paths often require institutional changes to be made possible to begin with (Sotarauta and Suvinen, 2018; Granovetter, 2005; Morgan, 2016), and therefore risk-taking and opportunity oriented institutional entrepreneurship is essential as a second type of transformative agency. Third, as the emergence of new paths is a multi-actor construction – contributed to and exploited by many actors – place-based leadership is important to orchestrate actions and to pool competencies, powers and resources to benefit both the actors’ individual objectives and a region more broadly (Sotarauta, 2016; Gibney et al., 2009).
首先，创新型创业是变革的重要引擎（Shane 和 Venkataraman，2000；Schumpeter，1911），因为它是突破性创新的源泉，触发新的产业专业化和地方的转型（Foray 等，2009；Feldman，2014；Grillitsch，2018）。其次，新的产业增长路径往往需要制度变革才能开始（Sotarauta 和 Suvinen，2018；Granovetter，2005；Morgan，2016），因此，面向风险和机会的制度创业作为第二种变革性代理是至关重要的。第三，新的路径的出现是一个多主体的构建——由许多参与者共同贡献和利用——基于地方的领导力对于协调行动和整合能力、权力和资源以惠及参与者的个人目标和更广泛的地区是重要的（Sotarauta，2016；Gibney 等，2009）。

In the field of economics (but later mainly mobilized in the literature on entrepreneurship and innovation), Joseph Schumpeter (1911) was (probably) the first who explicitly singled out such path-breaking economic actions as willful attempts to realize novel combinations of knowledge and resources coupled with the search for a not-yet-realized potential. In other words, actions lying at the heart of the notion of Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship. Economic actions are, however, not isolated from other spheres of social life but deeply embedded in institutions (Granovetter, 1985; Nelson 1998). Institutions, which in very generic terms can be defined as the rules of the game, have been shown to influence the innovativeness and competitiveness of countries and regions (Gertler, 2010; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Cooke and Morgan, 1994). Actions that are directed towards transforming existing or creating new institutions are relevant for the emergence of regional growth paths because they shape preconditions for Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship and influence the diffusion and growth of new paths. Such actions define institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana et al., 2009) – the second type of agency included in the trinity of change agency.
在经济学领域（但后来主要在创业和创新文献中被动员），约瑟夫·熊彼特（1911）可能是第一个明确指出这种开创性经济行为的人，这种行为是有意尝试实现知识和资源的新组合，并伴随着对尚未实现潜力的探索。换句话说，这些行为处于熊彼特创新创业概念的核心。然而，经济行为并不是与社会生活的其他领域孤立存在，而是深深嵌入于制度中（Granovetter, 1985; Nelson 1998）。制度在非常一般的术语中可以定义为游戏规则，已经被证明会影响国家和地区的创新能力和竞争力（Gertler, 2010; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Cooke and Morgan, 1994）。旨在转变现有制度或创建新制度的行为对于区域增长路径的出现是相关的，因为它们塑造了熊彼特创新创业的前提条件，并影响新路径的扩散和增长。 这样的行为定义了制度创业（Battilana et al., 2009）——变革代理三位一体中包含的第二种代理类型。

We refer to institutional entrepreneurship in contrast to the more generic notion of institutional work (Lawrence et al., 2009). Institutional work includes actions aiming at reproducing or strengthening the status quo while institutional entrepreneurship by definition requires the intention of bringing about change. It is about seeing the opportunities to change institutions and taking risks in doing so. Innovative and institutional entrepreneurship are conceptually distinct even though often intertwined (Grillitsch, 2018). This intertwining crystallizes, for instance, in Saxenian and Sabel’s (2008) narrative about the development of the semi-conductor industry in Taiwan, where institutional entrepreneurship was the turning point for the emergence of the new growth path. The adaptation of Silicon Valley’s venture capital system to the local context created the preconditions for successful innovative entrepreneurship.
我们将制度创业与更一般的制度工作概念相对比（Lawrence et al., 2009）。制度工作包括旨在重现或加强现状的行动，而制度创业则在定义上要求有带来变革的意图。它涉及识别改变制度的机会并在此过程中承担风险。尽管创新和制度创业在概念上是不同的，但它们常常交织在一起（Grillitsch, 2018）。这种交织在 Saxenian 和 Sabel（2008）关于台湾半导体产业发展的叙述中得到了体现，其中制度创业是新增长路径出现的转折点。硅谷风险投资体系的本地化适应为成功的创新创业创造了前提条件。

The emergence of regional growth paths is typically not associated with only one actor (exceptions may prove the rule, such as the role of Ingvar Kamprad in growing IKEA in Älmhult, Sweden) but the interplay of many (Dawley, 2014; Bristow and Healy, 2014). As Garud and Karnøe (2003) maintain, agency is distributed and embedded; a variety of actors with their very specific frames and roots in different professions, industries, and sectors engage in the process of emerging growth paths. Regional path development is also a process of mobilization, coordination, and advocating for new paths (Mackinnon et al., 2018). Therefore, we introduce place-based leadership as the third element in the trinity of change agency concept. Place-based leadership captures actions that aim at transforming particular places by pooling competencies, powers and resources to benefit both agents’ individual objectives and a region more broadly (Sotarauta, 2016; Gibney et al., 2009). For instance, the possibilities for firms to innovate and grow depend on the collective resources provided regionally. The lack of important resources may be a substantial barrier for the development of new paths, may motivate Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurs to relocate, or – to the contrary – engage in place-based leadership to build up the required resources.
区域增长路径的出现通常并不只与一个参与者相关（例外可能证明这一规则，例如英瓦尔·坎普拉德在瑞典艾尔姆赫尔特发展宜家的角色），而是许多参与者之间的相互作用（Dawley, 2014; Bristow and Healy, 2014）。正如 Garud 和 Karnøe（2003）所指出的，代理权是分散和嵌入的；各种参与者以其特定的框架和在不同职业、行业和部门的根基参与到新兴增长路径的过程中。区域路径发展也是一个动员、协调和倡导新路径的过程（Mackinnon et al., 2018）。因此，我们将基于地点的领导力引入作为变革代理概念的第三个元素。基于地点的领导力捕捉旨在通过汇聚能力、权力和资源来转变特定地点的行动，以惠及代理者的个人目标和更广泛的区域（Sotarauta, 2016; Gibney et al., 2009）。例如，企业创新和增长的可能性依赖于区域提供的集体资源。 重要资源的缺乏可能成为新路径发展的重大障碍，可能促使熊彼特式的创新企业家迁移，或者——相反——参与基于地点的领导，以建立所需的资源。

We argue that micro-level processes related to regional path emergence are best understood as an interplay between the three types of transformative agency. Feldman, Francis, and Bercovitz (2005) describe a case where entrepreneurs actively engaged in creating a cluster with local development officials – in our words, the interplay between innovative entrepreneurship and place-based leadership shaped the emergence of a new regional growth path. Lacking one of the three types of agency is expected to be a hindrance for the emergence of new growth paths. Sotarauta and Heinonen (2016) show how institutional change created the preconditions for the emergence of a regional growth path in regenerative medicine in Tampere, Finland, which, however, has not properly taken off due to a lack of innovative entrepreneurship (there is a lack of entrepreneurially-oriented people, and thus also business models and products creating value from this new opportunity). The three types of agency are thus identified through intentional, purposive and meaningful actions that are directed towards creating a change to the economy, to institutions, to places.
我们认为，与区域路径出现相关的微观层面过程最好理解为三种转型代理之间的相互作用。Feldman、Francis 和 Bercovitz（2005）描述了一个案例，其中企业家积极与地方发展官员合作创建一个集群——用我们的语言来说，创新型企业家精神与基于地点的领导力之间的相互作用塑造了新的区域增长路径的出现。缺乏三种代理中的一种预计将对新增长路径的出现构成障碍。Sotarauta 和 Heinonen（2016）展示了制度变革如何为芬兰坦佩雷再生医学区域增长路径的出现创造了前提条件，但由于缺乏创新型企业家精神（缺乏以企业家为导向的人，因此也缺乏从这一新机会中创造价值的商业模式和产品），该领域尚未得到适当发展。因此，这三种代理通过有意、目的明确和有意义的行动被识别，这些行动旨在对经济、制度和地点产生变革。

Actions are performed by agents – individuals or groups of them. This is an important conceptual stance because we want to contribute to the understanding of the emergence of growth paths from the bottom, the micro-level. The obvious next question is how to take into account organizations such as firms, universities, or public agencies. We suggest dealing with this in correspondence with structure-agency theories that foreground the relational and conditional properties of agency (Jessop, 2001; Coe and Jordhus-Lier, 2011; Grillitsch, 2018). Accordingly, not all agents have the same abilities and power to cause an effect by their own actions. Agency depends on, and is conditioned by, agents’ positions in society, and hence organizations can be approached as institutionalized structures that by themselves do not produce intentional, purposive and meaningful actions – human individuals do. While we hope for a true micro-level perspective, this does not rule out organizational agency. Organizational routines and resources as well as enacted functions and goals imply that individuals occupying certain positions need to be seen in their respective organizational contexts. Organizations operate as legal entities and, as such, produce actions that affect regional growth paths. Moreover, in the empirical analysis of path development, it may be a challenge to carve out the role of individuals from that of informal groups, networks or organizations. Consequently, we acknowledge that empirical studies focusing on agency may also be conducted at a group or organizational level.
行动是由代理人执行的——个人或他们的群体。这是一个重要的概念立场，因为我们希望有助于理解从底层、微观层面上出现的增长路径。显而易见的下一个问题是如何考虑诸如公司、大学或公共机构等组织。我们建议根据结构-代理理论来处理这个问题，这些理论强调了代理的关系和条件属性（Jessop, 2001；Coe 和 Jordhus-Lier, 2011；Grillitsch, 2018）。因此，并非所有代理人都有相同的能力和权力通过自己的行动产生影响。代理依赖于并受到代理人在社会中位置的制约，因此可以将组织视为制度化的结构，这些结构本身并不产生有意图、有目的和有意义的行动——人类个体才会。虽然我们希望获得真正的微观层面视角，但这并不排除组织代理。组织的常规和资源以及实施的职能和目标意味着，处于特定位置的个体需要在各自的组织背景中被看待。 组织作为法律实体运作，因此会产生影响区域增长路径的行为。此外，在路径发展的实证分析中，区分个人与非正式团体、网络或组织的角色可能是一项挑战。因此，我们承认，关注代理的实证研究也可以在群体或组织层面进行。

The trinity of change agency can be conceptually distinguished from other types of agency. In any region, there will be agents who pursue intentional, purposive, and meaningful actions within existing growth paths. Such actions include, among others, the regular purchase, sales, and consumption of goods as well as the continuation of cluster policies aimed at strengthening existing industrial specializations. In industrial policy, subsidies to keep declining industries alive are typical examples. Moreover, some actors may even work against changes. Grabher (1993) identified political-institutional lock-ins as major obstacle for change. ² This refers to a coalition of elites – business people and policy-makers – who intentionally act against a change and for the stabilization of the status quo (see Bellandi et al., 2018). Regional growth paths result from an interplay between transformative types of agency captured by the trinity of change agency and other types of agency that are agnostic, irrelevant or even against change.
变革代理的三位一体在概念上可以与其他类型的代理区分开。在任何地区，都会有代理人追求在现有增长路径内的有意、目的性和有意义的行动。这些行动包括定期购买、销售和消费商品，以及继续实施旨在加强现有产业专业化的集群政策。在产业政策中，维持衰退产业生存的补贴就是典型的例子。此外，一些参与者甚至可能会反对变革。Grabher（1993）将政治-制度锁定视为变革的主要障碍。这指的是一群精英——商人和政策制定者——故意反对变革并维护现状的联盟（见 Bellandi 等，2018）。区域增长路径是由变革代理三位一体所捕捉的变革性代理类型与其他对变革持中立、无关甚至反对态度的代理类型之间的相互作用所产生的。

As Djelic and Quack (2007) maintain, in complex multi-actor settings, path development generates emergent qualities; the realized path is never the implementation of individual intentions – it emerges from direct and/or indirect interactions with a set of them. Even though the trinity of change agency identifies intentional actions directed at creating change, these actions have both intended and unintended consequences, which both feed into regional development processes over time. Therefore, agency is best studied in its full complexity by situating it in long evolving development processes and structural changes of places (Sotarauta and Suvinen, 2018). It should also be kept in mind that change is not usually abrupt by nature but new things creep into old structures and systems as well as related institutions (Streeck and Thelen, 2005).
正如 Djelic 和 Quack（2007）所指出的，在复杂的多参与者环境中，路径发展会产生新兴特性；实现的路径从来不是个体意图的实施——它是通过与一组参与者的直接和/或间接互动而产生的。尽管变革代理的三位一体识别了旨在创造变革的有意行动，但这些行动既有预期的后果，也有意外的后果，这些后果随着时间的推移都融入了区域发展过程。因此，代理最好在其完整的复杂性中进行研究，将其置于长期演变的发展过程和地方的结构变化中（Sotarauta 和 Suvinen，2018）。还应记住，变革通常不是突发的，而是新事物逐渐渗入旧的结构和系统以及相关的机构中（Streeck 和 Thelen，2005）。

This conceptualization allows us to disentangle overlaps between the different types of transformative agency. For continuity, we refer again to the case study on entrepreneurs creating a cluster by Feldman, Francis, and Bercovitz (2005). The story rests on agents who perform different types of actions with different effects. Some actions are pursued with the intention to introduce path-breaking innovations (innovative entrepreneurship) and some to pool competencies, powers, and resources for the creation of a strong environment for the firms in the cluster to innovate and grow (place-based leadership). These actions are distributed between various human agents. Some agents engage in both innovative entrepreneurship and place-based leadership. However, some entrepreneurs may be less concerned with creating a strong regional milieu (but as an unintended consequence still contribute to it) and some place-based leaders (e.g. politicians or regional policy-makers) may not be engaged in introducing innovations. Furthermore, who is performing which type of action may change over time. New agents may enter the scene, old agents may step down, and agents may engage in different types of actions at different points in time. Actions are linked to agents who differ in capabilities and power due to their experience, background and position in society.
这种概念化使我们能够理清不同类型的变革性代理之间的重叠。为了保持连贯性，我们再次提到 Feldman、Francis 和 Bercovitz（2005）关于企业家创建集群的案例研究。这个故事基于执行不同类型行动并产生不同效果的代理。一些行动的目的是引入突破性的创新（创新型企业家精神），而另一些则是为了汇聚能力、权力和资源，以为集群内的公司创造一个强大的创新和成长环境（基于地点的领导）。这些行动分布在不同的人类代理之间。一些代理同时参与创新型企业家精神和基于地点的领导。然而，一些企业家可能对创造强大的区域环境不太关心（但作为意外后果仍然对此有所贡献），而一些基于地点的领导者（例如政治家或区域政策制定者）可能并未参与引入创新。此外，谁在执行哪种类型的行动可能会随着时间的推移而变化。 新代理可能会进入场景，旧代理可能会退场，代理可能会在不同时间点采取不同类型的行动。行动与代理相关，代理因其经验、背景和社会地位而在能力和权力上有所不同。

2 Innovative entrepreneurship
2 创新创业

Entrepreneurship is about discovering and exploiting opportunities to create value. Shane and Venkataraman (2000: 219) maintain that entrepreneurship as a field of study is interesting for three reasons:
创业是关于发现和利用机会以创造价值。Shane 和 Venkataraman（2000: 219）认为，创业作为一个研究领域有三个有趣的原因：

first […] entrepreneurship is a mechanism by which society converts technical information into […] products and services. Second, entrepreneurship is a mechanism through which temporal and spatial inefficiencies in an economy are discovered and mitigated (Kirzner, 1997). Finally, of the different sources of change in a capital society, Schumpeter (1934) isolated entrepreneurially driven innovation in products and processes as the crucial engine driving the change process.
首先，企业家精神是社会将技术信息转化为产品和服务的机制。其次，企业家精神是发现和缓解经济中时间和空间低效的机制（Kirzner，1997）。最后，在资本主义社会的不同变革来源中，熊彼特（1934）将以企业家驱动的产品和过程创新视为推动变革过程的关键引擎。

In this paper, we are most interested in the third aspect, innovative entrepreneurship as a driving force for change. Beyond building firms, innovative entrepreneurs are contributing to transforming regional economies and shaping new growth paths (Feldman et al., 2005; Lawton Smith, 2003).
在本文中，我们最感兴趣的是第三个方面，即创新创业作为变革的驱动力。除了建立公司，创新企业家还在推动区域经济转型和塑造新的增长路径（Feldman et al., 2005; Lawton Smith, 2003）。

Innovative entrepreneurship in the Schumpeterian sense concerns breaking with existing paths and working towards the establishment of new ones. Hence, it is a process that may originate unexpected regional growth paths and consequently is of major concern for this paper. The unexpectedness of Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship lies in the nature of the process where knowledge and resources are combined in novel ways (Schumpeter, 1911), typically across sectors and industries (Strambach and Klement, 2012), and with uncertain outcome. The distinction made by Schumpeter in economic actions that are grounded in past experience as opposed to those that are driven by a belief in future opportunities is essential. The former relies on market and technological knowledge from past interactions, which is projected into the future. For the latter, the market is not known, might not even exist for a given product, and the technological feasibility is not established. The former actions will promote a continuation along existing industrial paths while the latter are attempts to break with them. An essential trait of Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship is therefore the will to realize something new (Schumpeter, 1911), to ‘map unknown terrain, to move where no-one dared venture before’ (Weik, 2011).
在熊彼特意义上的创新创业涉及打破现有路径并致力于建立新路径。因此，这是一种可能产生意想不到的区域增长路径的过程，因此对本文具有重要意义。熊彼特式创新创业的意外性在于这一过程的性质，其中知识和资源以新颖的方式结合（熊彼特，1911），通常跨越部门和行业（斯特兰巴赫和克莱门特，2012），并且结果不确定。熊彼特在经济行为中所做的区分，即基于过去经验的行为与基于对未来机会信念的行为，是至关重要的。前者依赖于来自过去互动的市场和技术知识，这些知识被投射到未来。对于后者，市场是未知的，甚至可能不存在于某个特定产品中，技术可行性尚未确定。前者的行为将促进沿现有产业路径的延续，而后者则是试图打破这些路径。 施姆普特式创新创业的一个基本特征因此是实现新事物的意愿（施姆普特，1911），即“绘制未知领域，走向无人敢于冒险的地方”（韦克，2011）。

According to Shane and Venkataraman (2000), entrepreneurship can be understood as nexus of the presence of opportunities and the presence of individuals that perceive and strive to realize these opportunities. In some locations and time periods, entrepreneurs will find more opportunities than in others depending on the regional industrial composition (Boschma et al., 2017; Grillitsch and Asheim, 2018), the possibilities to tap knowledge and resources from extra-regional sources (Trippl et al., 2017), the support structure for innovation and entrepreneurship (Mason and Brown, 2014; Asheim and Gertler, 2005), as well as the institutional environment supporting or hindering Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship (Fritsch and Wyrwich, 2014; Morgan, 2016).
根据 Shane 和 Venkataraman（2000）的说法，创业可以理解为机会的存在与能够感知并努力实现这些机会的个体的结合。在某些地点和时间段，企业家会发现比其他地方更多的机会，这取决于区域产业结构（Boschma 等，2017；Grillitsch 和 Asheim，2018）、从区域外来源获取知识和资源的可能性（Trippl 等，2017）、对创新和创业的支持结构（Mason 和 Brown，2014；Asheim 和 Gertler，2005），以及支持或阻碍熊彼特创新创业的制度环境（Fritsch 和 Wyrwich，2014；Morgan，2016）。

3 Institutional entrepreneurship
3 机构创业

Schumpeter’s early theorizing acknowledged the importance of institutions for innovative entrepreneurship in modern capitalism. He saw innovative entrepreneurship as an endogenous development force with a capacity to generate economic growth, if only institutions favored entrepreneurial activity. In line with Mazzucato’s (2015) argument, we acknowledge that institutional influences not only constrain but also make innovative entrepreneurship possible. Earlier studies show that path creation may be explained both by the strong presence of innovative entrepreneurship and institutional factors (Holmen and Fosse, 2017; Dawley, 2014; Sotarauta and Suvinen, 2018). Therefore, we find it crucial to better understand how institutions change and what actors consciously do to change them so that they would better support innovative entrepreneurship and regional growth. It is institutions that frame what is suitable, and actions deviating from prevailing institutions are often sanctioned, one way or another. Institutions are constraining, enabling and incentivizing structures for change but also objects of change (Soskice, 1999).
熊彼特早期的理论承认了制度在现代资本主义创新创业中的重要性。他将创新创业视为一种内生的发展力量，能够产生经济增长，只要制度支持创业活动。根据马祖卡托（2015）的论点，我们承认制度影响不仅限制了创新创业，也使其成为可能。早期研究表明，路径创造可以通过创新创业的强大存在和制度因素来解释（Holmen 和 Fosse, 2017；Dawley, 2014；Sotarauta 和 Suvinen, 2018）。因此，我们认为更好地理解制度如何变化以及行动者有意识地做什么来改变它们，以便更好地支持创新创业和区域增长是至关重要的。制度框定了什么是合适的，偏离现行制度的行为往往会受到某种形式的制裁。制度是变革的约束、促进和激励结构，同时也是变革的对象（Soskice, 1999）。

In regional development studies, institutions are seen as a set of rules, regulations and constraints, on the one hand, and organizations in the form of economic, political, social and educational bodies, on the other hand (Storper, 1997; Rodríguez-Pose and Storper, 2006). By definition, they are the elements of permanence and stability, as they are fairly immune to change. Institutions are carriers of social practices and routines (David, 1994), and institutional reproduction passes ingredients of the present and past into the future (Martin, 2000). The institutional approach has been criticized for predicating compliance and conformity, and its limited capacity to explain institutional change and thus also regional transformations. Therefore, the concept has been more useful in the analysis of path dependency than path creation. This critique, for its part, has generated increasing interest in the role of agency in institutional change and thus also institutional entrepreneurship (Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011). Therefore, we position the concept of institutional entrepreneurship into the trinity of change agency and approach it as a force molding rules of the game and playing fields for innovative entrepreneurs to surface and succeed.
在区域发展研究中，制度被视为一套规则、法规和约束，一方面是经济、政治、社会和教育机构的组织，另一方面（Storper, 1997；Rodríguez-Pose 和 Storper, 2006）。根据定义，它们是持久性和稳定性的元素，因为它们对变化相对免疫。制度是社会实践和常规的载体（David, 1994），制度的再生产将现在和过去的成分传递到未来（Martin, 2000）。制度方法因其假定的遵从性和一致性而受到批评，并且其解释制度变迁的能力有限，因此也限制了对区域转型的解释。因此，该概念在路径依赖的分析中比路径创造更有用。这种批评反过来又引发了对代理在制度变迁中作用的日益关注，因此也引发了对制度创业的兴趣（Sotarauta 和 Pulkkinen, 2011）。 因此，我们将制度创业的概念置于变革代理的三位一体中，并将其视为塑造游戏规则和创新企业家浮现与成功的竞争环境的力量。

Institutional entrepreneurs are individuals or groups of individuals but also organizations or groups of organizations that originate change processes contributing to the creation of new institutions and/or transformation of existing ones (Battilana et al., 2009). As Battilana et al. (2009: 67) further say, ‘they are actors who initiate divergent changes and actively participate in the implementation of them’. Institutional entrepreneurs challenge existing rules and practices and institutionalize the alternative rules and practices they are championing (DiMaggio, 1988).
制度企业家是个人或个人群体，也可以是组织或组织群体，他们发起变革过程，促进新制度的创建和/或现有制度的转变（Battilana 等，2009）。正如 Battilana 等（2009：67）进一步所说，“他们是发起不同变化并积极参与实施的行动者”。制度企业家挑战现有的规则和实践，并将他们所倡导的替代规则和实践制度化（DiMaggio，1988）。

Broadly speaking, Pacheco et al. (2010) identify two lines of enquiry in the study of institutional entrepreneurship. The first defines institutional entrepreneurs broadly as change agents that do not necessarily have a self-interest in the issues at hand. The focus is essentially on informal and socially embedded institutions; institutionalized practices and belief systems; and the processes of institutionalization and related change strategies. The second line of enquiry, according to Pacheco et al. (2010), sees institutional entrepreneurs as change agents driven by economic motivation and a self-interest. In this thinking, they are profit-seekers and exploiters of economic opportunities. Consequently, the focus is more on formal institutions (property rights, government policy) than informal ones, and thus also on functional and economic pressures, market conditions and transaction costs as well as contractual and self-enforcement strategies (Pacheco et al., 2010). If in the first approach the analytical effort focuses on processes of institutionalization, the second one is more interested in the outcomes of it. For our efforts to better understand the trinity of change agency in regional growth, both interpretations of institutional entrepreneurship are valid, as innovative entrepreneurs may end up changing institutions with or without economic self-interest.
广义上讲，Pacheco 等人（2010）在研究制度创业时识别出两条研究方向。第一条将制度创业者广泛定义为不一定对当前问题有自我利益的变革推动者。重点基本上在于非正式和社会嵌入的制度；制度化的实践和信仰体系；以及制度化过程和相关的变革策略。根据 Pacheco 等人（2010）的说法，第二条研究方向将制度创业者视为受经济动机和自我利益驱动的变革推动者。在这种思维中，他们是追求利润和利用经济机会的掠夺者。因此，重点更多地放在正式制度（产权、政府政策）而非非正式制度上，因此也关注功能性和经济压力、市场条件以及交易成本，以及合同和自我执行策略（Pacheco 等人，2010）。如果在第一种方法中，分析工作集中在制度化过程上，那么第二种方法则更关注其结果。 为了更好地理解区域增长中的变革代理三位一体，制度创业的两种解释都是有效的，因为创新型企业家可能会在有或没有经济自利的情况下改变制度。

4 Place-based leadership
4 基于地点的领导力

Almost as a general rule, various actors participate in regional development efforts with the aim to find something for themselves. They do not leave their own interests, drivers, incentives and overseers behind. Thus, it is far from easy to find a common ground for a collective development effort in these kinds of situations. Regional development, and related institutional changes, is essentially about sustained and possibly conflicting encounters of various visions of single organizations, individual interests and a whole range of ideas. Contrary to the common assumption, it is notoriously difficult to construct a shared vision providing a heterogeneous bunch of actors with a sense of direction. Conscious efforts to stimulate the emergence of a regional growth path and construct conditions for it require agents who work to determine the direction for change through, with and by other actors, and convene and inspire them.
几乎可以说，各种参与者在区域发展努力中参与的目的都是为了寻找自身的利益。他们并不会抛弃自己的利益、驱动因素、激励措施和监督者。因此，在这种情况下，找到一个共同的基础以进行集体发展努力是非常困难的。区域发展及相关的制度变革，实质上是关于各种组织的单一愿景、个人利益和一系列想法之间持续且可能冲突的相遇。与普遍的假设相反，构建一个为异质参与者提供方向感的共享愿景是极其困难的。为了刺激区域增长路径的出现并构建其条件，需要有代理人通过与其他参与者的合作、互动和激励来确定变革的方向。

Studies on place-based leadership aim at identifying the genuine, but often shadowed, processes of influence to better understand
基于地点的领导力研究旨在识别真实但常常被掩盖的影响过程，以更好地理解

what people actually do to influence other people in these very particular types of settings both formally and informally – openly as well as opaquely – and how they go about doing what they do. It is also about revealing the types of social processes involved in ‘making things happen’ and in ‘getting things done’ (or not getting things done). (Sotarauta et al., 2017: 188)
人们在这些特定类型的环境中，正式和非正式地——公开地以及不透明地——实际做些什么来影响其他人，以及他们如何进行这些活动。这也涉及揭示在“促成事情发生”和“完成事情”（或未能完成事情）中所涉及的社会过程类型。（Sotarauta et al., 2017: 188）

We find this important as, in the context of regional development, we are called to fill the conceptual and empirical gap between the fallacious heroic leadership discourse and what really happens in regions (the need to go beyond heroic leadership is widely recognized, e.g. Reicher et al., 2005).
我们认为这很重要，因为在区域发展的背景下，我们被要求填补虚幻的英雄领导话语与地区实际发生的情况之间的概念和实证空白（超越英雄领导的必要性已被广泛认可，例如 Reicher 等，2005）。

In regional development, the capability to orient complex multi-actor processes in an indirect manner is the key for successful efforts to influence the emergence of new paths (MacNeill and Steiner, 2010). Sotarauta and Beer (2017: 212) argue that place-based ‘leaders as individuals, and groups of individuals, tend to possess a greater range and depth of assets – including commitment to advancing the region – than other actors’. As such, place-based leadership comprises varying approaches but is intrinsically concerned with (a) launching and guiding interactive development work that crosses the many organizational boundaries and professional cultures, and (b) guaranteeing the versatile engagement of various stakeholder groups and helping them to both contribute to and take advantage of development processes and their fruits (Gibney et al., 2009; Collinge et al., 2015).
在区域发展中，以间接方式引导复杂的多方参与过程的能力是成功影响新路径出现的关键（MacNeill 和 Steiner，2010）。Sotarauta 和 Beer（2017：212）认为，基于地点的“领导者作为个体和个体群体，往往拥有比其他参与者更广泛和更深厚的资产——包括推动区域发展的承诺”。因此，基于地点的领导力包含多种方法，但本质上关注于（a）启动和指导跨越多个组织边界和专业文化的互动发展工作，以及（b）确保各种利益相关者群体的多元参与，并帮助他们既能为发展过程及其成果做出贡献，又能从中受益（Gibney 等，2009；Collinge 等，2015）。

As Gibney, Copeland, and Murie (2009) stress, place-based leadership of this kind ought to be capable at looking beyond the fugitive and narrow interest of individual actors and thus reach beyond short-termism. Genuine place-based leaders move into interactive leadership spaces and work to find third solutions that reach beyond individual ambitions, intensions and interests. And here, the truly influential actors are capable of drawing the attention of other actors to the strategic issues requiring action (Heifetz, 1994). Of course, to do so, they need to merit an influential (but not always formal) position in the social fabric of place. If the concept of institutional entrepreneurship directs the attention to conscious efforts to change institutions, the concept of place-based leadership is essentially interested in how actors are mobilized and their actions coordinated for stimulating path development.
正如 Gibney、Copeland 和 Murie（2009）所强调的，这种基于地点的领导力应能够超越个体行为者的短期和狭隘利益，从而超越短期主义。真正的基于地点的领导者进入互动领导空间，努力寻找超越个人雄心、意图和利益的第三种解决方案。在这里，真正有影响力的行为者能够吸引其他行为者关注需要采取行动的战略问题（Heifetz，1994）。当然，要做到这一点，他们需要在地方的社会结构中获得一个有影响力（但不一定是正式的）位置。如果制度创业的概念将注意力引向有意识地改变制度的努力，那么基于地点的领导力的概念本质上关注的是如何动员行为者及其行动的协调，以刺激路径发展。

III Opportunity space for change agency
III 变革机构的机会空间

Granovetter (1985) maintains that when studying agency we may suffer – depending on the scientific tradition – from an over-socialized or under-socialized perspective and suggests the concept of embedded agency to bridge the gap. On our part, we suggest that the concept of opportunity space may prove useful in a study of embedded and reflexive agency. Opportunity space mediates between trinity of change agency and structure, as, in our thinking, actors are embedded in an opportunity space that is specific to a region, industry, and time in question. Furthermore, the concept of opportunity space captures agents’ deliberations about the future. Agents reflect in a strategic manner considering how structures may evolve in the future and considering how their actions might affect this evolution (see also Lagendijk, 2007). The temporal dimension is also captured by Emirbayer and Mische (1998: 963), who define agency as (a) ‘action or intervention to produce a particular effect’ but also (b) ‘a temporally embedded process of social engagement, calling for a strong capacity to interpret past habits and future prospects’. Similarly, Garud, Kumaraswamy, and Karnøe (2010: 770) argue that ‘[a]ctors mobilize the past not necessarily to repeat or avoid what happened, but, instead, to generate new options. Likewise, people imagine new initiatives for the future which then lead them to mobilize the past in support.’ Steen (2016) argues that not only actions but also intentions are future oriented, which is in line with the very notion of entrepreneurship: the perception and intentional realization of opportunities. An opportunity is by definition future oriented, as the notion relates to something that is possible in the future but presently not yet realized. According to the Oxford Dictionary, ‘opportunity is a time or set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something’. We thus suggest to conceptualize how change agency is related to structure by the time or set of circumstances that make a change possible and call this an opportunity space.
Granovetter（1985）认为，在研究代理时，我们可能会受到过度社会化或不足社会化视角的影响，这取决于科学传统，并建议使用嵌入代理的概念来弥合这一差距。就我们而言，我们建议机会空间的概念在嵌入和反思代理的研究中可能会证明有用。机会空间在变革代理和结构的三重关系之间起到中介作用，因为在我们看来，行动者嵌入在特定于某个地区、行业和时间的机会空间中。此外，机会空间的概念捕捉了代理人对未来的思考。代理人以战略性的方式反思，考虑结构在未来可能如何演变，以及他们的行动可能如何影响这种演变（另见 Lagendijk，2007）。时间维度也被 Emirbayer 和 Mische（1998：963）捕捉，他们将代理定义为（a）“采取行动或干预以产生特定效果”，但也（b）“一种时间嵌入的社会参与过程，要求强大的能力来解释过去的习惯和未来的前景”。 同样，Garud、Kumaraswamy 和 Karnøe（2010: 770）认为“[a]行为者动员过去并不一定是为了重复或避免发生的事情，而是为了产生新的选择。同样，人们想象未来的新举措，这使他们动员过去以支持这些举措。”Steen（2016）认为，不仅行动，意图也是面向未来的，这与创业的概念完全一致：对机会的感知和有意实现。机会的定义是面向未来的，因为这一概念与未来可能发生但目前尚未实现的事物相关。根据牛津词典，“机会是使某事成为可能的时间或一组情况”。因此，我们建议通过使变革成为可能的时间或一组情况来概念化变革代理与结构之间的关系，并称之为机会空间。

In our understanding, institutional entrepreneurs and place-based leaders often, but not always, work to create such sets of regional structures and circumstances that increase the likelihood of innovative entrepreneurs moving to unknown terrains; they aim to construct opportunity spaces for entrepreneurs. Much of the previous literature has been concerned with promoting existing pathways while only recently the attention has shifted to a wider conceptualization of opportunity spaces for new path development (Grillitsch et al., 2018). The concept of opportunity space builds on earlier notions on how regional advantage may be constructed by an active policy approach creating strong preconditions for innovative entrepreneurship (Asheim et al., 2011; Tödtling et al., 2013).
在我们的理解中，制度企业家和基于地点的领导者通常（但并不总是）致力于创造一系列区域结构和环境，以增加创新企业家进入未知领域的可能性；他们的目标是为企业家构建机会空间。之前的文献大多关注于促进现有路径，而最近的关注则转向了对新路径发展机会空间的更广泛概念化（Grillitsch 等，2018）。机会空间的概念建立在早期关于如何通过积极的政策方法构建区域优势，从而为创新创业创造强有力的前提条件的观点之上（Asheim 等，2011；Tödtling 等，2013）。

Opportunities change over time and differ between places. What is more, the perception of opportunities and the capabilities to realize them vary even between individuals in specific places. These different dimensions of an opportunity space manifest at three levels:
机会随着时间的推移而变化，并且在不同的地方有所不同。此外，对机会的认知和实现机会的能力甚至在特定地点的个体之间也存在差异。这些机会空间的不同维度在三个层面上表现出来：

1. Time-specific opportunity space: Delineates what is possible given the global stock of knowledge, institutions, and resources at any moment in time.
   时间特定的机会空间：描绘了在任何时刻，考虑到全球知识、机构和资源的存量，什么是可能的。
2. Region-specific opportunity space: Defines what is possible considering regional preconditions.
   区域特定的机会空间：定义考虑区域前提条件下可能实现的内容。
3. Agent-specific opportunity space: Captures perceived opportunities and capabilities of individual agents to make a change.
   代理特定的机会空间：捕捉个体代理人感知的机会和能力，以实现变革。

We have argued above that agency is about intentional, purposive and meaningful actions, and the intended and unintended consequences of such actions. Therefore, a micro-level focus is needed to further our understanding of the emergence of regional growth paths. For this reason, we take the agent-specific opportunity space as our first reference point. Saxenian and Sabel (2008) provide a powerful account of the importance of agent-specific opportunity spaces in explaining the emergence of regional growth paths in the global periphery. The authors foreground individual agents – the ‘new Argonauts’ – who move to other places where they develop capabilities and networks, which are – at a later stage – mobilized to shape the development trajectories in their home countries. Taiwan, for instance, became a world leader in the semiconductor industry despite unfavorable structural preconditions. Taiwanese engineers who had migrated to Silicon Valley became a powerful resource for the emergence of this industry. Path emergence could be traced back to individuals who perceived this opportunity and had the capabilities and power to mobilize the external resources required to realize the opportunity (Saxenian and Sable, 2008).
我们在上面论述了代理性是关于有意、目的性和有意义的行动，以及这些行动的预期和非预期后果。因此，需要关注微观层面，以进一步理解区域增长路径的出现。因此，我们将代理特定的机会空间作为我们的第一个参考点。Saxenian 和 Sabel（2008）提供了一个有力的论述，说明代理特定机会空间在解释全球边缘地区区域增长路径出现中的重要性。作者强调了个体代理——“新阿戈诺特”——他们迁移到其他地方，在那里发展能力和网络，这些能力和网络在后期被动员以塑造他们本国的发展轨迹。例如，尽管结构性前提不利，台湾仍然成为半导体行业的世界领导者。迁移到硅谷的台湾工程师成为该行业出现的强大资源。 路径的出现可以追溯到那些意识到这一机会并具备动员实现该机会所需外部资源的能力和权力的个人（Saxenian 和 Sable，2008）。

The agent-specific differences in constraints but also capabilities to produce certain effects are – as previously discussed – strongly related to the networks and position of individual agents in society. In relation to Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship, Grillitsch (2018) adds that mobility between positions as well as holding multiple positions are powerful mechanisms that enhance individuals’ capabilities to perceive opportunities and bring about path-breaking innovations (see also Suvinen, 2014). Saxenian and Sabel’s narrative, for instance, builds on individuals that move between positions in different countries and thereby learn and become connected. In more general terms, the differences between individuals as regards perceived opportunities and capabilities to act are to a large extent shaped by the experiences and encounters individuals have had in the past. This is consequently the most direct interpretation of how structures limit but also enable human actions. It allows acknowledging structures of all sort not only relating to profession, education, sector or location but also to more generally discussed structural features such as position in a society, gender, or country of origin.
代理特定的约束差异以及产生某些效果的能力与个体在社会中的网络和位置密切相关，如前所述。关于熊彼特创新型创业，Grillitsch（2018）补充道，职位之间的流动性以及同时担任多个职位是增强个体感知机会和带来突破性创新的强大机制（另见 Suvinen，2014）。例如，Saxenian 和 Sabel 的叙述建立在不同国家之间流动的个体身上，从而学习并建立联系。更一般而言，个体在感知机会和行动能力方面的差异在很大程度上受到个体过去经历和遭遇的影响。因此，这就是结构如何限制但也使人类行动成为可能的最直接解释。 它允许承认各种结构，不仅与职业、教育、行业或地点相关，还与更普遍讨论的结构特征有关，例如在社会中的位置、性别或原籍国。

Past experiences and encounters are influenced by the place where individuals are located. Social embedding at the workplace, through recreational and leisure activities, or other social functions such as childcare and education, contribute to an alignment of perceived opportunities regionally. Localized interactions and learning support the emergence of collective expectations and perceptions of future development opportunities (Steen, 2016; Coenen et al., 2010). Maskell and Malmberg (2007) observe that such processes lead to spatial myopia, which implies a selective perception of opportunities shared between individuals in a region. This creates a somewhat paradoxical interplay between structure and agency, which can only be resolved if processes are observed over time. On the one hand, change agency is exactly about breaking with existing structures, and thus also with explicitly or implicitly held shared expectations and perceptions. On the other hand, shared expectations and perceptions will change with the emergence of new regional growth paths, and agency might be directed to change shared expectations and perceptions in order to mobilize and pool resources for a new growth path.
过去的经历和遭遇受到个体所处地点的影响。工作场所的社会嵌入，通过休闲和娱乐活动，或其他社会功能如儿童保育和教育，有助于区域内感知机会的一致性。地方性的互动和学习支持集体期望和未来发展机会感知的出现（Steen, 2016; Coenen et al., 2010）。Maskell 和 Malmberg（2007）观察到，这些过程导致空间近视，这意味着区域内个体之间共享机会的选择性感知。这在结构和能动性之间创造了一种有些矛盾的相互作用，只有在时间的推移中观察这些过程才能得到解决。一方面，变革能动性正是关于打破现有结构，因此也打破显性或隐性持有的共享期望和感知。 另一方面，随着新区域增长路径的出现，共享的期望和认知将会改变，而代理可能会被引导去改变共享的期望和认知，以便动员和集中资源以支持新的增长路径。

While the agent-specific opportunity space establishes the most direct link between structure and agency, regional preconditions are important as they shape the encounters and experiences of agents, and thereby influence agent-specific opportunity spaces. The region-specific opportunity space acknowledges that structural barriers and opportunities for the emergence of new growth paths differ between regions (Grillitsch and Asheim, 2018; Grillitsch and Trippl, 2018) due to a variety of factors such as industry structure, institutional configurations, and regional support systems for innovation and entrepreneurship. As regards industrial structure, regions differ in their degree of specialization and diversity. Regions that are specialized in one industry might find diversification based on related or unrelated variety as the most likely form of new path development because it allows them to reuse their existing competencies in higher-value added activities while avoiding opposition of incumbent firms (Grillitsch and Trippl, 2018). Conversely, diversity is supportive for the creation of completely new industries. These typically require the combination of unrelated knowledge with a high degree of cognitive and institutional distance, which is facilitated by co-location (Boschma, 2005; Strambach and Klement, 2012). In comparison to specialized and diversified regions, peripheral areas find fewer opportunities for diversification or the creation of completely new growth paths. For peripheral regions it is therefore often most promising to upgrade their position in global production networks or import paths from outside the region (Grillitsch and Trippl, 2018).
尽管特定代理的机会空间在结构与代理之间建立了最直接的联系，但区域前提条件同样重要，因为它们塑造了代理的遭遇和经验，从而影响特定代理的机会空间。区域特定的机会空间承认，由于行业结构、制度配置和区域创新与创业支持系统等多种因素，结构性障碍和新增长路径出现的机会在不同区域之间存在差异（Grillitsch 和 Asheim，2018；Grillitsch 和 Trippl，2018）。在行业结构方面，各区域在专业化和多样化的程度上存在差异。专注于某一行业的区域可能会发现基于相关或不相关多样性的多样化是新路径发展的最可能形式，因为这使它们能够在更高附加值的活动中重用现有能力，同时避免与现有企业的对抗（Grillitsch 和 Trippl，2018）。相反，多样性有助于完全新行业的创建。 这些通常需要将无关的知识结合起来，并具有较高的认知和制度距离，这通过共同位置得以促进（Boschma, 2005; Strambach 和 Klement, 2012）。与专业化和多样化地区相比，边缘地区在多样化或创造全新增长路径方面的机会较少。因此，对于边缘地区来说，提升其在全球生产网络或外部进口路径中的地位通常是最有前景的选择（Grillitsch 和 Trippl, 2018）。

While appreciating the regional industrial structure, Trippl, Grillitsch, and Isaksen (2017) argue that the required knowledge for new path development can potentially be accessed from extra-regional sources. Evidence suggests that the combination of regional and international knowledge networks is conducive for firm innovativeness (Tödtling and Grillitsch, 2015). The extent that firms develop global linkages depends, on the one hand, on firm characteristics (Herstad et al., 2014) and, on the other hand, on the position of the region in global production and innovation networks (MacKinnon, 2012). Global linkages may provide opportunities in terms of accessing complementary knowledge or compensating for a lack of knowledge available regionally (Grillitsch and Nilsson, 2015; Chaminade and Plechero, 2015). However, regions can also
在欣赏区域产业结构的同时，Trippl、Grillitsch 和 Isaksen（2017）认为，新路径发展的所需知识可能可以从区域外的来源获取。证据表明，区域和国际知识网络的结合有利于企业的创新能力（Tödtling 和 Grillitsch，2015）。企业发展全球联系的程度，一方面取决于企业特征（Herstad 等，2014），另一方面取决于该地区在全球生产和创新网络中的位置（MacKinnon，2012）。全球联系可能在获取互补知识或弥补区域内知识缺乏方面提供机会（Grillitsch 和 Nilsson，2015；Chaminade 和 Plechero，2015）。然而，地区也可以

become ‘locked-in’ to external networks…controlled by TNCs [transnational corporations]…as is evident from the experiences of branch-plant regions which became over-reliant on relatively low-value production plants, lacking more advanced functions and high-status employment as a result. (MacKinnon 2012: 236)
变得“锁定”于外部网络……受跨国公司（TNCs）控制……这从依赖相对低价值生产工厂的分支工厂地区的经验中显而易见，结果缺乏更先进的功能和高地位的就业机会。（MacKinnon 2012: 236）

Institutions are another important factor shaping the opportunity space. Institutions influence innovation and economic activities and thereby the development of the industrial profile of countries (Hall and Gingerich, 2009; Vitols, 2001). Differences in national institutions affect the nature of regional innovation systems, making certain types of new regional industrial path development more likely than others (Asheim and Coenen, 2006; Asheim and Gertler, 2005). The creation of completely new industries may, for instance, be most likely in a liberal market economy and an entrepreneurial regional innovation system like Silicon Valley. Institutions such as the proverbial entrepreneurial climate have been found to affect the likelihood that perceived opportunities are pursued (Fritsch and Wyrwich, 2014). Furthermore, the extent to which institutions allow for overlaps between different professions, industries and sectors influences the likelihood that unrelated knowledge and resources are combined and in consequence yield structural change and new growth paths (Grillitsch, 2016). Institutions also refer to policy repertoires, which are relatively stable over time and have a substantial influence over whether regions engage in learning and innovation, thereby realizing growth potentials, or remain in economic deadlocks (Morgan, 2016).
机构是塑造机会空间的另一个重要因素。机构影响创新和经济活动，从而影响国家的产业特征（Hall 和 Gingerich，2009；Vitols，2001）。国家机构的差异影响区域创新系统的性质，使某些类型的新区域产业路径发展比其他类型更有可能（Asheim 和 Coenen，2006；Asheim 和 Gertler，2005）。例如，完全新兴产业的创建可能在自由市场经济和像硅谷这样的创业区域创新系统中最为可能。诸如典型的创业气候等机构被发现会影响感知机会被追求的可能性（Fritsch 和 Wyrwich，2014）。此外，机构允许不同职业、行业和部门之间的重叠程度影响无关知识和资源结合的可能性，从而导致结构变化和新的增长路径（Grillitsch，2016）。 机构还指政策库，这些政策库在时间上相对稳定，并对地区是否参与学习和创新产生重大影响，从而实现增长潜力，或停留在经济僵局中（摩根，2016）。

Regional support systems for innovative entrepreneurship comprise a number of factors that influence the creation and utilization of economic opportunities (Grillitsch and Asheim, 2018). According to the literature on regional innovation systems (e.g. Asheim and Isaksen, 2002; Cooke et al., 1997; Tödtling and Trippl, 2005) and entrepreneurial eco-systems (e.g. Isenberg, 2011; Mason and Brown, 2014), innovative entrepreneurship partly depends on the provision of regional resources. Besides human capital these resources include universities, research institutes, vocational education and training facilities, finance (and particularly risk finance and smart money), supporting organizations such as cluster organizations, incubators, technology transfer centers, etc. The systemic perspective propagated in this literature suggests that these resources are both created and used by actors who are embedded in a web of local and extra-local networks as well as a socio-institutional context.
创新创业的区域支持系统包括多个影响经济机会创造和利用的因素（Grillitsch 和 Asheim，2018）。根据区域创新系统的文献（例如，Asheim 和 Isaksen，2002；Cooke 等，1997；Tödtling 和 Trippl，2005）以及创业生态系统（例如，Isenberg，2011；Mason 和 Brown，2014），创新创业在一定程度上依赖于区域资源的提供。除了人力资本，这些资源还包括大学、研究机构、职业教育和培训设施、金融（特别是风险金融和智能资金）、支持组织如集群组织、孵化器、技术转移中心等。这些文献中倡导的系统视角表明，这些资源既是由嵌入在地方和外部网络以及社会制度背景中的参与者创造的，也被这些参与者所使用。

The region-specific opportunity space is not only important as a precondition for generating path-breaking innovations but also for stimulating the growth of new paths. New growth paths need to be anchored in a regional environment (Crevoisier and Jeannerat, 2009). The provision or attraction of resources is especially important for anchoring and growing new paths in peripheral regions (Binz et al., 2016) because otherwise firms may fail to grow or simply relocate (Shearmur, 2016). This calls for a collective mobilization of resources to support the emergence and growth of new paths, i.e. place-based leadership.
区域特定的机会空间不仅是产生突破性创新的前提条件，而且对于刺激新路径的增长也至关重要。新的增长路径需要扎根于区域环境中（Crevoisier 和 Jeannerat，2009）。资源的提供或吸引对于在边缘地区锚定和发展新路径尤其重要（Binz 等，2016），因为否则企业可能无法增长或仅仅选择迁移（Shearmur，2016）。这需要集体动员资源，以支持新路径的出现和增长，即基于地点的领导力。

The time-specific opportunity space is an abstract notion of what is possible in general with the global stock of knowledge, institutions, and resources. While it is beyond human imagination to perceive everything that would in principle be possible, this notion is of relevance as new opportunities may emerge due to changes in knowledge, institutions, and resources anywhere in the world. For instance, advances in artificial intelligence create new opportunities for Schumpeterian innovative entrepreneurship, and institutional entrepreneurs in many countries and regions work to strengthen selected elements of innovation systems to support the emergence and exploitation of artificial intelligence related opportunities in a specific place. The time-specific opportunity space becomes relevant in the context of regional path emergence typically in connection with the agent-specific opportunity space. This is to say, only if an agent perceives new opportunities that arise due to advances in artificial technology, and only if the agent has the capabilities to set actions towards the realization of these opportunities, the time-specific opportunity space has a bearing for the emergence of regional growth paths. For all this, as we believe, the trinity of change agency is needed.
时间特定的机会空间是一个关于全球知识、制度和资源存量中可能性的一种抽象概念。虽然人类的想象力无法感知原则上可能发生的一切，但这一概念是相关的，因为由于世界各地知识、制度和资源的变化，新的机会可能会出现。例如，人工智能的进步为熊彼特式的创新创业创造了新的机会，许多国家和地区的制度创业者致力于加强创新系统的某些要素，以支持在特定地点人工智能相关机会的出现和利用。时间特定的机会空间在区域路径出现的背景下变得相关，通常与代理特定的机会空间相关联。 这就是说，只有当一个代理人感知到由于人工技术的进步而出现的新机会，并且只有当代理人具备采取行动实现这些机会的能力时，特定时间的机会空间才会对区域增长路径的出现产生影响。为此，我们认为需要变革代理的三位一体。

IV How to approach agency
IV 如何接触代理机构

The kind of approach discussed in this paper locates agency not in the attributes of individual agents but in the relationships connecting agents in opportunity spaces. The emerging property of regional paths in time and space are at the center of attention. The three forms of agency contribute in their own way to constructing and exploiting opportunity spaces, thereby continuously forming and shaping regional growth trajectories. To understand these kinds of change processes it is important to ask: How do different actors deal with change? What kind of change strategies do they launch, and why? How do different actors perceive opportunities, how have the perceptions changed over time, and how has this motivated actions? What role do the three types of change agency play over time and in different contexts? How do the types of change agency play together? What is the combination of change strategies actors adopt in specific situations at specific times, and what are the intended and unintended consequences? How do they resolve the paradoxical situation in which they aim to change those structures that frame their very actions? How do actors earn/take their positions and what makes them able to act for change? How can actors innovate and renew institutional settings if the very institutional environment they wish to change determines their beliefs and actions? Who are the key actors in different contexts? (cf. Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011)
本文讨论的这种方法将能动性定位于个体代理者的属性之外，而是在连接代理者与机会空间的关系中。区域路径在时间和空间中的新兴特性是关注的中心。三种形式的能动性以各自的方式为构建和利用机会空间做出贡献，从而不断形成和塑造区域增长轨迹。要理解这些变化过程，重要的是要问：不同的参与者如何应对变化？他们启动了什么样的变化策略，为什么？不同的参与者如何看待机会，这种看法随着时间的推移发生了怎样的变化，这又如何激励了行动？三种变化能动性在不同时间和不同背景下扮演了什么角色？这些变化能动性如何相互作用？在特定时间和特定情况下，参与者采用的变化策略组合是什么，预期和非预期的后果是什么？他们如何解决旨在改变那些框定其自身行动的结构的矛盾局面？ 演员如何获得/采取他们的位置，以及是什么使他们能够推动变革？如果他们希望改变的制度环境决定了他们的信念和行动，演员如何能够创新和更新制度设置？在不同的背景下，关键演员是谁？（参见 Sotarauta 和 Pulkkinen，2011）

These questions are far from easy to answer because agency is often shadowed by visible forms of influence such as organizational structures and formal institutions, as well as development programs and plans (Sotarauta, 2016). The difficulty in answering these questions may also be due to the fact that agency is an emergent property of interacting individuals (Bennett et al., 2003), and as such it often is arduous to identify the institutional influencers as well as leaders and their followers, not to mention their relationships (Trickett and Lee, 2010; Huxham and Vangen, 2000). All too often formal authority and institutional power are seen as markers of influential agency, and more hidden and emergent sides of it remain overshadowed. Of course, it is not only easy but also attractive to focus on influential and visible actors with formal authority and strong social positions. However, understanding the dynamics of concealed ways of influence is as important to influencing regional growth patterns as the formal policies. We rely on a bottom-up view on structures, institutions and agency that complements the dominant top-down view (Grillitsch, 2015; Sotarauta, 2017). One important implication of such a bottom-up view is that empirical studies should not only aim at describing how regional paths evolve but also at unveiling to what extent, why, and how a multitude of actors shaped this evolution. This means that empirical studies – either through collecting narratives or repeated observations over time – need to zoom in also on the ‘subjective’ stories of individuals, and grasp their perceptions, intentions, and change strategies. By adopting a bottom-up view on regional growth and related institutions and agency, we might find out that the significance of structural preconditions shaping path development varies greatly between not only regions but also actors.
这些问题远非易于回答，因为代理权常常受到组织结构、正式机构以及发展计划和方案等可见影响形式的影响（Sotarauta，2016）。回答这些问题的困难也可能源于代理权是互动个体的一个涌现特性（Bennett 等，2003），因此，识别制度影响者以及领导者和他们的追随者，甚至他们之间的关系，往往是艰巨的任务（Trickett 和 Lee，2010；Huxham 和 Vangen，2000）。正式权威和制度权力常常被视为影响力代理的标志，而其更隐蔽和涌现的方面则被掩盖。当然，关注具有正式权威和强大社会地位的影响力和可见行为者不仅容易，而且具有吸引力。然而，理解隐蔽影响方式的动态与影响区域增长模式同样重要，正如正式政策一样。我们依赖于一种自下而上的视角来看待结构、机构和代理权，以补充主导的自上而下的视角（Grillitsch，2015；Sotarauta，2017）。 这种自下而上的观点的一个重要含义是，实证研究不仅应旨在描述区域路径如何演变，还应揭示多种参与者在多大程度上、为何以及如何塑造了这一演变。这意味着实证研究——无论是通过收集叙述还是随着时间的推移进行重复观察——还需要聚焦于个体的“主观”故事，理解他们的感知、意图和变革策略。通过采用自下而上的视角来看待区域增长及相关的制度和代理，我们可能会发现，塑造路径发展的结构性前提的重要性在不同区域之间以及参与者之间差异很大。

Although agency is often approached as formally constituted hierarchical power, in the context of the emergence of regional growth paths, which is, as discussed above, characterized by many kinds of overlaps and distributed power as well as conflicting or mutually supporting policies and ambitions, agency is to be approached from three perspectives: (a) the process perspective informs a study on temporal dynamism of path development considering the variegated engagement of different actors over time, (b) the network perspective appreciates the distributed and embedded nature of agency by bringing in the fabric of regional and extra-regional social relationships in and beyond specific path development processes, and (c) the system perspective focuses on the institutional embeddedness of actors at the regional, national, and global scale that frame path development as well as forms of agency (cf. Sotarauta, 2016; Sotarauta and Pulkkinen, 2011).
尽管代理通常被视为正式构成的等级权力，但在区域增长路径出现的背景下，如上所述，其特征是多种重叠和分散的权力以及相互冲突或相互支持的政策和雄心，代理应从三个角度进行探讨：（a）过程视角为研究路径发展的时间动态提供信息，考虑到不同参与者随时间的多样化参与，（b）网络视角通过引入区域内外特定路径发展过程中的区域和超区域社会关系的结构，欣赏代理的分散和嵌入特性，以及（c）系统视角关注在区域、国家和全球范围内的参与者的制度嵌入性，这些因素框定了路径发展和代理的形式（参见 Sotarauta, 2016; Sotarauta 和 Pulkkinen, 2011）。

V Conclusion   结论

We advance a twofold proposition: (a) some regions grow more than others with similar structural preconditions because of the successful construction and exploitation of opportunity spaces; and (b) the trinity of change agency explains why some regions are more successful than others in their efforts to construct and exploit such opportunity spaces. The trinity of change agency is a geographical concept as it considers actions that have an effect in particular places, i.e. regions, but simultaneously acknowledges that not all actors are concerned or aware of the spatial effects of their actions.
我们提出双重命题：（a）一些地区在相似的结构前提下比其他地区发展得更快，这是由于成功构建和利用机会空间；（b）变革代理的三位一体解释了为什么一些地区在构建和利用这些机会空间的努力中比其他地区更成功。变革代理的三位一体是一个地理概念，因为它考虑了在特定地点（即地区）产生影响的行动，但同时承认并非所有参与者都关注或意识到其行动的空间效应。

The proposed framework complements structural analyses with agency-oriented studies informing us about micro level dynamism. It is geared to support future attempts to understand the ways actors work to construct and exploit opportunity spaces, change institutions for new development paths and break from path dependency. It adds analytical leverage to investigate how historical paths constrain and enable the construction and exploitation of opportunity spaces. The concept of trinity of change agency suggests that this is accomplished by identifying the rationales, underpinning change strategies, and consequences of the three forms of agency, thereby understanding how multifaceted agentic processes play together – positively or negatively – in shaping regional futures. A more explicit focus on the trinity of change agency offers a conceptual lens in these efforts by seeking for a balance between structure and agency.
所提出的框架通过以行动者为导向的研究补充了结构分析，帮助我们了解微观层面的动态。它旨在支持未来理解行动者如何构建和利用机会空间、改变制度以开辟新的发展路径以及打破路径依赖的尝试。它为研究历史路径如何限制和促进机会空间的构建和利用提供了分析杠杆。变革代理的三位一体概念表明，这一过程是通过识别理性基础、支撑变革策略和三种代理形式的后果来实现的，从而理解多面向的代理过程如何积极或消极地共同影响区域未来。对变革代理三位一体的更明确关注为这些努力提供了一个概念视角，寻求结构与代理之间的平衡。

The notion of opportunity space extends from the existing structural preconditions to potential futures. It extends from regional preconditions to potential novel combinations of regional and extra-regional knowledge, resources and institutions. Innovative entrepreneurship is seen as an essential form of agency to act upon these perceived opportunities with the strong ambition to making them happen. Innovative entrepreneurship in the Schumpeterian sense implies the will to move into unknown terrain, to break with existing growth paths. Entrepreneurial opportunities, however, are not distributed evenly across space and time. Some regions in some periods will offer more entrepreneurial opportunities than others. This calls for other forms of agency that are beyond innovative entrepreneurship. Place-based leadership and institutional entrepreneurship are introduced as essential for constructing opportunity spaces and nourishing emerging new growth paths. The trinity of change agency is a holistic conceptual framework that is derived by necessity, i.e. theoretical arguments why one form of agency calls for or necessitates the other. Together, they are the shapers of regional growth paths beyond the expected.
机会空间的概念从现有的结构前提延伸到潜在的未来。它从区域前提延伸到区域与超区域知识、资源和机构的潜在新组合。创新型创业被视为一种重要的行动形式，以强烈的雄心去把这些感知到的机会变为现实。在熊彼特意义上的创新型创业意味着有意愿进入未知领域，打破现有的增长路径。然而，创业机会并不是在空间和时间上均匀分布的。在某些时期的某些地区，提供的创业机会会比其他地区更多。这就需要超越创新型创业的其他形式的行动。基于地点的领导力和制度创业被引入作为构建机会空间和滋养新兴增长路径的关键。变革行动的三位一体是一个整体的概念框架，出于必要性而产生，即理论论证为什么一种行动形式需要或必然要求另一种。 他们共同塑造了超出预期的区域增长路径。

This perspective suggests that it would be interesting to identify and study regional growth paths that diverge from what could be expected given the existing industrial composition, regional support structure for innovation and entrepreneurship, and institutional arrangements. It is worth noting that empirical regional growth models hide such diverging growth paths in the residuals, which typically are not discussed further. The argument advanced in this paper is that the diverging growth paths can be interesting conceptually and theoretically, potential showcases of the trinity of change agency. This calls further for an investigation of the agentic processes, their embeddedness in multi-scalar networks and institutional contexts, which are behind shaping regional growth paths. While conceptually the three types of agency are connected, this may manifest in very different forms in different regions, in different times. This ranges from a single individual agent engaging in all three forms of agency to a very distributed form where place-based leaders, institutional entrepreneurs, and innovative entrepreneurs act without direct contact to each other. Such distributed agency, however, should not conceal that actions invisible to the naked eye may shape opportunity spaces and thereby possible regional futures too.
这种观点表明，识别和研究与现有工业构成、区域创新和创业的支持结构以及制度安排所能预期的情况不同的区域增长路径将是有趣的。值得注意的是，经验区域增长模型在残差中隐藏了这些不同的增长路径，而这些残差通常不会进一步讨论。本文提出的论点是，这些不同的增长路径在概念上和理论上都可能是有趣的，可能成为变革代理三位一体的展示。这进一步呼吁对代理过程的调查，探讨它们在多尺度网络和制度背景中的嵌入性，这些过程在塑造区域增长路径方面发挥着作用。虽然在概念上这三种代理是相互关联的，但在不同地区和不同时间，这可能以非常不同的形式表现出来。这从一个单一的个体代理参与所有三种代理形式，到一种非常分散的形式，其中基于地点的领导者、制度企业家和创新企业家在没有直接接触的情况下行动。 这种分布式代理不应掩盖这样一个事实：肉眼看不见的行动可能会塑造机会空间，从而影响可能的区域未来。

Acknowledgements   致谢

We are thankful for comments of the Regional Growth Against All Odds project team.
我们感谢区域增长逆势而上的项目团队的评论。

Notes  笔记

1. We follow Boschma (2004) in defining regions not as administrative units but territorial contexts with a bearing on the behavior and performance of local organizations, which in turn depends on the embeddedness of local actors in place-specific production and innovation networks, competence and knowledge bases, and institutional environments. As this functional embeddedness changes over time and differs between places, regions are no fixed, predefined entities. Instead, the relevant territorial context can only be unveiled empirically. 2. In the literature, lock-ins have been described as a problem for old industrial regions, whereas change would be the solution. It is important to note, however, that the trinity of change agency is not normative. In the current scientific and political debate, it is argued that change is needed to address grand challenges and to sustain prosperity in regions in the wake of technological change and globalization. However, this does not necessarily imply that all change is good.
1. 我们遵循 Boschma（2004）的定义，将地区视为具有影响地方组织行为和绩效的区域背景，而不是行政单位，这反过来又依赖于地方参与者在特定地点的生产和创新网络、能力和知识基础以及制度环境中的嵌入性。随着这种功能嵌入性随时间变化并在不同地方之间存在差异，地区并不是固定的、预定义的实体。相反，相关的区域背景只能通过实证研究揭示。 2. 在文献中，锁定现象被描述为老工业地区的问题，而变革则被视为解决方案。然而，重要的是要注意，变革代理的三位一体并不是规范性的。在当前的科学和政治辩论中，人们认为需要变革以应对重大挑战，并在技术变革和全球化的背景下维持地区的繁荣。然而，这并不一定意味着所有的变革都是好的。

References  参考文献

• Allen J, (2003) Lost Geographies of Power. Oxford: Blackwell.
  艾伦·J，（2003）《权力的失落地理》。牛津：布莱克威尔。
• Asheim BT, Coenen L, (2006) Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. The Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 163–173.
  Asheim BT, Coenen L, (2006) 在全球化学习经济中对区域创新系统进行情境化：关于知识基础和制度框架。《技术转移杂志》31: 163–173。
• Asheim BT, Gertler MS, (2005) The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR, (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 291–317.
  Asheim BT, Gertler MS, (2005) 创新的地理：区域创新系统。载于：Fagerberg J, Mowery DC, Nelson RR, (编) 牛津创新手册。牛津：牛津大学出版社，291–317。
• Asheim BT, Isaksen A, (1997) Location, agglomeration and innovation: Towards regional innovation systems in Norway? European Planning Studies 5: 299–330.
  Asheim BT, Isaksen A, (1997) 位置、集聚与创新：朝向挪威的区域创新系统？欧洲规划研究 5: 299–330.
• Asheim BT, Isaksen A, (2002) Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer 27: 77–86.
  Asheim BT, Isaksen A, (2002) 区域创新系统：地方“粘性”知识与全球“普遍”知识的整合。《技术转移杂志》27: 77–86.
• Asheim B, Boschma R, Cooke P, (2011) Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies 45: 893–904.
• Asheim B, Grillitsch M, Trippl M, (2016) Regional innovation systems: Past–present–future. In: Shearmur R, Carrincazeaux C, Doloreux F, (eds) Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 45–62.
• Bennett N, Wise C, Woods PA, Harvey JA, (2003). Distributed Leadership: A Review of Literature. National College for School Leadership.
• Battilana J, Leca B, Boxenbaum E, (2009) How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals 3: 65–107.
• Bellandi M, De Propris L, Santini E, (2018) Endogenous rerouting and longevity in systemic organisations of production. In: Belussi F, Hervas-Oliver J-L, (eds) Agglomeration and Firm Performance. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 207–221.
• Binz C, Truffer B, Coenen L, (2016) Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring: Industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography 92: 172–200.
• Boschma R, (2004) Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Regional Studies 38: 1001–1014.
• Boschma R, (2005) Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies 39: 61–75.
• Boschma R, (2017) Relatedness as driver of regional diversification: A research agenda. Regional Studies 51: 351–364.
• Boschma R, Frenken K, (2006) Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 273–302.
• Boschma R, Martin R, (2007) Editorial: Constructing an evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography 7: 537–548.
• Boschma R, Coenen L, Frenken K, Truffer B, (2017) Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies 51: 31–45.
• Bristow G, Healy A, (2014) Regional resilience: An agency perspective. Regional Studies 48: 923–935.
• Chaminade C, Plechero M, (2015) Do regions make a difference? Regional innovation systems and global innovation networks in the ICT industry. European Planning Studies 23: 215–237.
• Coe NM, Jordhus-Lier DC, (2011) Constrained agency? Re-evaluating the geographies of labour. Progress in Human Geography 35: 211–233.
• 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: 295–302.
• Collinge C, Gibney J, Mabey C, (2015) Leadership and Place. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Cooke P, Morgan K, (1994) The regional innovation system in Baden-Wurttemberg. International Journal of Technology Management 9: 394–429.
• Cooke P, Uranga MG, Etxebarria G, (1997) Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy 26: 475–491.
• Crevoisier O, Jeannerat H, (2009) Territorial knowledge dynamics: From the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus. European Planning Studies 17: 1223–1241.
• David PA, (1994) Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 5: 205–220.
• Dawley S, (2014) Creating new paths? Offshore wind, policy activism, and peripheral region development. Economic Geography 90: 91–112.
• DiMaggio PJ, (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory. In: Zucker LG, (ed.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations: Culture and Environment. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 3–22.
• Djelic M-L, Quack S, (2007) Overcoming path dependency: Path generation in open systems. Theory and Society 36: 161–186.
• Doloreux D, Parto S, (2005) Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in Society 27: 133–153.
• Dyck I, Kearns RA, (2006) Structuration theory: Agency, structure and everyday life. In: Aitken S, Valentine G, (eds) Approaches to Human Geography. London: SAGE, 86–97.
• EC (2017) My Region, My Europe, Our Future. Seventh Report on Economic, Social and Territorial Cohesion, ed. Dijkstra L. Brussels: European Commission.
• Emirbayer M, Mische A, (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology 103: 962–1023.
• Faulconbridge JR, (2012) Economic geographies of power: Methodological challenges and interdisciplinary analytical possibilities. Progress in Human Geography 36: 735–757.
• Feldman MP, (2014) The character of innovative places: Entrepreneurial strategy, economic development, and prosperity. Small Business Economics 43: 9–20.
• Feldman MP, Francis J, Bercovitz J, (2005) Creating a cluster while building a firm: Entrepreneurs and the formation of industrial clusters. Regional Studies 39: 129–141.
• Foray D, David PA, Hall B, (2009) Smart specialisation: The concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief 9: 100.
• Freeman C, (1995) The ‘national system of innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19: 5–25.
• Frenken K, Van Oort F, Verburg T, (2007) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional Studies 41: 685–697.
• Fritsch M, Wyrwich M, (2014) The long persistence of regional levels of entrepreneurship: Germany, 1925–2005. Regional Studies 48: 955–973.
• Garud R, Karnøe P, (2003) Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy 32: 277–300.
• Garud R, Kumaraswamy A, Karnøe P, (2010) Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies 47: 760–774.
• Gertler MS, (2010) Rules of the game: The place of institutions in regional economic change. Regional Studies 44: 1–15.
• Gibney J, Copeland S, Murie A, (2009) Toward a ‘new’ strategic leadership of place for the knowledge-based economy. Leadership 5: 5–23.
• Giddens A, (2007 [1984]) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Grabher G, (1993) The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In: Grabher G, (ed.) The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. London: Routledge, 255–277.
• Granovetter M, (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.
• Granovetter M, (2005) The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 33–50.
• Gregory D, Johnston R, Pratt G, Watts M, Wathmore S, (2009) The Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Gregson N, (2005) Agency: Structure. In: Cloke P, Johnston R, (eds) Spaces of Geographical Thought: Deconstructing Human Geography’s Binaries. London: SAGE, 21–41.
• Grillitsch M, (2015) Institutional layers, connectedness and change: Implications for economic evolution in regions. European Planning Studies 23: 2099–2124.
• Grillitsch M, (2016) Institutions, smart specialisation dynamics and policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 34: 22–37.
• Grillitsch M, (2018) Following or breaking regional development paths: On the role and capability of the innovative entrepreneur. Regional Studies 53(5): 681–691.
• Grillitsch M, Asheim B, (2018) Place-based innovation policy for industrial diversification in regions. European Planning Studies 26: 1638–1662.
• Grillitsch M, Nilsson M, (2015) Innovation in peripheral regions: Do collaborations compensate for a lack of local knowledge spillovers? The Annals of Regional Science 54: 299–321.
• Grillitsch M, Rekers JV, (2016) Revisiting the role of selection for the evolution of industries. Industry and Innovation 23: 112–129.
• Grillitsch M, Trippl M, (2018) Innovation policies and new regional growth paths: A place-based system failure framework. In: Niosi J, (ed.) Innovation Systems, Policy and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 329–358.
• Grillitsch M, Asheim B, Trippl M, (2018) Unrelated knowledge combinations: The unexplored potential for regional industrial path development. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 11: 257–274.
• Hall PA, Gingerich DW, (2009) Varieties of capitalism and institutional complementarities in the political economy: An empirical analysis. British Journal of Political Science 39: 449–482.
• Hall PA, Soskice D, (2001) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hassink R, (2010) Locked in decline? On the role of regional lock-ins in old industrial areas. In: Boschma R, Martin R, (eds) The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 450–468.
• Heifetz RA, (1994) Leadership without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Herstad SJ, Aslesen HW, Ebersberger B, (2014) On industrial knowledge bases, commercial opportunities and global innovation network linkages. Research Policy 43: 495–504.
• Holmen AKT, Fosse JK, (2017) Regional agency and constitution of new paths: A study of agency in early formation of new paths on the west coast of Norway. European Planning Studies 25: 498–515.
• Huxham C, Vangen S, (2000) Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Academy of Management Journal 43: 1159–1175.
• Iammarino S, Rodríguez-Pose A, Storper M, (2017) Why regional development matters for Europe’s economic future. Working Papers of the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy.
• Isenberg D, (2011) The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurship, ed. Project TBEE, . Babson Park, MA: Babson College.
• Jessop B, (2001) Institutional re(turns) and the strategic–relational approach. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 33: 1213–1235.
• Karnøe P, Garud R, (2012) Path creation: Co-creation of heterogeneous resources in the emergence of the Danish wind turbine cluster. European Planning Studies 20: 733–752.
• Lagendijk A, (2007) The accident of the region: A strategic relational perspective on the construction of the region’s significance. Regional Studies 41: 1193–1208.
• Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B, (2009) Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lawton Smith H, (2003) Local innovation assemblages and institutional capacity in local high-tech economic development: The case of Oxfordshire. Urban Studies 40: 1353–1369.
• Lukes S, (1986) Introduction. In: Lukes S, (ed.) Power. Readings in Social and Political Theory. New York: New York University Press, 1–18.
• Lundvall B-A, (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.
• MacKinnon D, (2012) Beyond strategic coupling: Reassessing the firm-region nexus in global production networks. Journal of Economic Geography 12: 227–245.
• Mackinnon D, Dawley S, Pike A, Cumbers A, (2018) Rethinking Ppath creation: A geographical political economy approach. In: Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography. Utrecht: Utrecht University, Urban & Regional Research Centre.
• MacNeill S, Steiner M, (2010) Leadership of cluster policy: Lessons from the Austrian province of Styria. Policy Studies 31: 441–455.
• Martin R, (2000) Institutional approaches in economic geography. In: Barnes T, Sheppard M, (eds) A Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell, 77–94.
• Maskell P, Malmberg A, (2007) Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution. Journal of Economic Geography 7: 603–618.
• Mason C, Brown R, (2014) Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship, 38. Paris: OECD.
• Mazzucato M, (2015) The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. New York: Anthem Press.
• Morgan K, (2016) Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 35: 569–583.
• Nelson RR, (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nelson RR, (1998) The co-evolution of technology, industrial structure, and supporting institutions. In: Dosi G, Teece DJ, Chytry J, (eds) Technology, Organization, and Competitiveness: Perspectives on Industrial and Corporate Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 319–335.
• OECD (2016) Regions at a Glance 2016. Paris: OECD.
• Pacheco DF, York JG, Dean TJ, Sarasvathy SD, (2010) The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management 36: 974–1010.
• Reicher S, Haslam SA, Hopkins N, (2005) Social identity and the dynamics of leadership: Leaders and followers as collaborative agents in the transformation of social reality. The Leadership Quarterly 16: 547–568.
• Rodríguez-Pose A, (2013) Do institutions matter for regional development? Regional Studies 47: 1034–1047.
• Rodríguez-Pose A, Storper M, (2006) Better rules or stronger communities? On the social foundations of institutional change and its economic effects. Economic Geography 82: 1–25.
• Saxenian A, Sabel C, (2008) Roepke Lecture in Economic Geography: Venture capital in the ‘periphery’: The new Argonauts, global search, and local institution building. Economic Geography 84: 379–394.
• Schumpeter JA, (1911) Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.
• Shane S, Venkataraman S, (2000) The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy of Management Review 25: 217–226.
• Shearmur R, (2016) Why local development and local innovation are not the same thing: The uneven geographic distribution of innovation-related development. In: Shearmur R, Carrincazeaux C, Doloreux F, (eds) Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 432–446.
• Simmie J, (2012) Path dependence and new technological path creation in the Danish wind power industry. European Planning Studies 20: 753–772.
• Soskice D, (1999) Divergent production regimes: Coordinated and uncoordinated market economies in the 1980s and 1990s. In: Kitschelt H, Lange P, Marks G, Stephens JD, (eds) Continuity and Change in Contemporary Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–134.
• Sotarauta M, (2016) Leadership and the City: Power, Strategy and Networks in the Making of Knowledge Cities. Abingdon: Routledge.
• Sotarauta M, (2017) An actor-centric bottom-up view of institutions: Combinatorial knowledge dynamics through the eyes of institutional entrepreneurs and institutional navigators. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35: 584–599.
• Sotarauta M, Beer A, (2017) Governance, agency and place leadership: Lessons from a cross-national analysis. Regional Studies 51: 210–223.
• Sotarauta M, Heinonen T, (2016) The Triple Helix model and the competence set: Human spare parts industry under scrutiny. Triple Helix 3: 1–20.
• Sotarauta M, Pulkkinen R, (2011) Institutional entrepreneurship for knowledge regions: In search of a fresh set of questions for regional innovation studies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29: 96–112.
• Sotarauta M, Suvinen N, (2018) Institutional agency and path creation: Institutional path from industrial to knowledge city. In: Isaksen A, Martin R, Trippl M, (eds) New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems –Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons. New York: Springer.
• Sotarauta M, Beer A, Gibney J, (2017) Making sense of leadership in urban and regional development. Regional Studies 51: 187–193.
• Steen M, (2016) Reconsidering path creation in economic geography: Aspects of agency, temporality and methods. European Planning Studies 24: 1605–1622.
• Storper M, (1997) The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guilford Press.
• Strambach S, Klement B, (2012) Cumulative and combinatorial micro-dynamics of knowledge: The role of space and place in knowledge integration. European Planning Studies 20: 1843–1866.
• Streeck W, Thelen K, (2005) Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In: Streeck W, Thelen K, (eds) Beyond continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–39.
• Sunley P, (2008) Relational economic geography: A partial understanding or a new paradigm? Economic Geography 84: 1–26.
• Suvinen N, (2014) Individual actors building an innovation network In: Rutten R, Benneworth P, Irawati D, Boekema F, (eds) The Social Dynamics of Innovation Networks. New York: Routledge, 140–156.
• Trickett L, Lee P, (2010) Leadership of ‘subregional’ places in the context of growth. Policy Studies 31: 429–440.
• Trippl M, Grillitsch M, Isaksen A, (2017) Exogenous sources of regional industrial change. Progress in Human Geography. DOI: 0309132517700982.
• Tödtling F, Asheim BT, Boschma R, (2013) Knowledge sourcing, innovation and constructing advantage in regions of Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies 20: 161–169.
• Tödtling F, Grillitsch M, (2015) Does combinatorial knowledge lead to a better innovation performance of firms? European Planning Studies 23: 1741–1758.
• Tödtling F, Trippl M, (2005) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy 34: 1203–1219.
• Uyarra E, Flanagan K, Magro E, Wilson JR, Sotarauta M, (2017) Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35: 559–568.
• Vitols S, (2001) Varieties of corporate governance: Comparing Germany and the UK. In: Hall PA, Soskice D, (eds) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 337–360.
• Weik E, (2011) Institutional entrepreneurship and agency. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 41: 466–481.