Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2002, Qupperneq 50

48
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION
IN NORDIC ATLANTIC REGIONS
theory of comparative advantages. Even the
comparative disadvantages of being locat-
ed far from resources have been conquered
by new technologies within the fisheries
sector, e.g. through developments in trans-
port technology and of onboard processing.
Developing region-specific competitive ad-
vantages within certain clusters of produc-
tion based on user-producer-relations
(Lundvall, 1992) provides the opportunity
to develop innovative milieux based on a
particular form of social and territorial inte-
gration (Storper, 1995; Asheim, 1993).
In a global economy, many factors deter-
mining optimum production conditions are
no Ionger bound to specific locations, other
than by the presence of a labour force with
certain qualifications, and existing milieux
ol'innovation. In this approach, regionalisa-
tion is concerned with understanding the
function of certain types of agglomerations
of growth industries (viz. Third Italy, Sili-
con Valley etc. as recent ‘classic’ examples
of industrial districts). These agglomera-
tions seem to be related not only to IO (In-
put-Output) relations - but also to ‘untrad-
ed interdependencies’. If localised, such in-
terdependencies make certain regions of
learning and innovation significant (Storp-
er, 1995).
Among people involved in the develop-
ment of new products and new ways of pro-
duction and organisation, informal rela-
tions seem to make an important contribu-
tion to the dynamism of the specifíc milieu.
In this way, an understanding of the neces-
sary balance between functional and terri-
torial integration may be specified (As-
heim, 1993). The necessary territorial as-
pect has not only to be a matter of historical
traditions etc., but also seen as an integral
part of innovation, in itself shaping regions
as a pre-condition of innovation, etc.
When attempting to evaluate North At-
lantic fisheries communities in these terms,
it seems fírst of all obvious that due to the
mobility of fisheries communities, the way
in which this ‘localised learning’ takes
place is not specifically localised to certain
areas. Taking the relatively innovative Ice-
landic fisheries sector as an example, it is
quite clear that the developmenl of prod-
ucts such as fish tubs and visual weighing
equipment very much depends on the
strength of user-producer relations within
the total Icelandic home market, as very lo-
cal untraded interdependencies between in-
novalive firms are not widely found. It is
important for innovative Icelandic firms -
such as Sæplast, producers of fish tubs
(Dalvík, Northern Iceland) - inilially to
base the innovation process on a strong
home market, and físheries are so dominant
in the Icelandic economy that the home
market is substantial. To be localised in a
prosperous and entrepreneurial community
would appear to be important (Bærenholdt,
1998). But at the same time, perhaps the
most remarkable feature of Icelandic entre-
preneurship is its global orientation. Al-
though the status of a micro-society appar-
ently implies weakly formalised systems of
innovation (Jónsson, 1994a), the advantage
of Iceland’s position as a nation with its
own unique aspirations in culture, educa-
tion and research, is that Icelanders are not
as narrowly orientated towards the old
colonial centres of education in Denmark