Abstract
This paper builds on the idea of cross-border regional innovation system (CBRIS) to investigate the implications of global and regional changes in social, political, economic, and ecological systems on cross-border regions. In an era of increasingly abrupt changes in border permeability, CBRIS offers an intriguing context for studying such processes. Our main contribution is to define a resilient CBRIS (R-CBRIS) for sustainability based on careful reading of previous literature on resilience, sustainability, and CBRIS integration. As merging these concepts requires a sound understanding of the factors driving or constraining CBRIS integration, we conduct a systematic review of the literature to answer our main research question: what factors affect the resilience and sustainability of CBRIS? The literature reveals that the studied CBRIS are not particularly sustainable and that their resilience remains a neglected topic. This is a definite cause for concern for everyone interested in the long-term success of cross-border regions.
Highlights
Humanity is presently trespassing a number of critical biophysical boundaries, such as those in relation to carbon emissions and ecological footprint, but failing to achieve the minimum social thresholds to guarantee a ‘safe and just’ development space (O’Neill et al 2018; Steffen et al 2018)
Studies focusing on cross-border regions elsewhere are needed to gain an understanding of the validity and feasibility of the cross-border regional innovation system (CBRIS) integration model of Lundquist and Trippl (2013) in non-European contexts
Our results suggest that cross-border regional development is typically driven by the conventional ‘triple helix’ model of innovation with governmental, business, and research organizations at its core (Clar 2018, 8)
Summary
Humanity is presently trespassing a number of critical biophysical boundaries, such as those in relation to carbon emissions and ecological footprint, but failing to achieve the minimum social thresholds to guarantee a ‘safe and just’ development space (O’Neill et al 2018; Steffen et al 2018). Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 203 by a careful evaluation of its impacts, they can be important tools for staying within the safe and just space for humanity (Raworth 2013). Austrian economist Schumpeter (1911, 66) defined innovation broadly as ‘new combinations’ of new or improved products, processes, or methods of production, new markets, new forms of organization, or even ‘conquests’ of new resources. He distinguished invention from innovation: the former occurs when someone creates something for the first time, while the latter occurs only if the former diffuses into practice. An important notion in the popular ‘innovation systems’ approach is that innovations come in many forms and result from the interactions (and interdependencies) between actors who possess diverse resources and knowledge (Asheim, Grillitsch, and Trippl 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
