Fróðskaparrit - 01.01.2002, Qupperneq 51

TÝDNINGURIN AV TVØRTJOÐA SAMSTARVI í NORÐURATLANTSØKINUM
49
or Southern Norway, as are the Faroese,
Greenlanders and to a lesser extent the
North Norwegians, who have their own re-
gional university in Troinsø. Icelanders are
able to travel anywhere to be educated and
to experience life in Sweden, the UK or the
US etc. This open-mindedness towards the
world appears to be a significant benefit,
especially when it is found even in remote
villages, as ex-migrant Icelanders tend to
return to their roots, even to the smaller vil-
lages, bringing their knowledge back with
them. It is important to stress here that hav-
ing a global orientation has nothing to do
with being a global individual. Global ori-
entation in this case is the viewpoint of an
Icelander who possesses a strong sense of
national identity. A certain balance be-
tween global orientation, national identity
and the sense of belonging to a local com-
munity, seems decisive in mastering inno-
vation in all its aspects. Social interaction
between experienced ‘locals’ and educated
‘mobiles’ is required (Bærenholdt, 1993:
150-151; 1998).
Apparently, Icelandic fish processing in-
dustries have been quite successful in ad-
justing their production of frozen fillets to
new segments on the consumer markets as
a reponse to the introduction on a massive
scale of cheaper species such as Alaskan
pollack. These are not ‘ready-made’ meals
which skimp on the fish but high quality
pieces of fish fillet which are either sold in-
dividually, frozen or fresh (transported by
air). This would appear to be the trend of
innovative lcelandic fish processors (Jóns-
son, 1994b). This kind of specialisation is,
of course, not unique to Icelanders - but has
very much been essential for survival in a
market characterised by intensified interna-
tional competition. Furthermore, compared
with the increased fish stocks in the Barents
Sea fisheries in the mid 1990s, the decline
of fish stocks in the Icelandic EEZ has been
another motivation to achieve more value
for less fish. This should be compared to
the North Norwegian case where increas-
ing fish stocks and increased landings, in-
cluding those from Russia, effectively de-
layed a move towards real value-added pro-
cessing. However, in recent years Finnmark
fish processing industries have been re-
structured, in part through the introduction
of Icelandic technologies. Meanwhile,
there has also been a growth in North Nor-
wegian exports of hening, cod and salmon
to Central Russia, a sign of further cross-
border economic integration (Sneve, 1996).
Many Icelandic and Norwegian exam-
ples of successful integration seem to doc-
ument the importance of certain key per-
sons working as entrepreneurs, i.e. as trans-
acting persons, willing to take risks and
able to establish a network of relationships
in non-institutional fields (Barth, 1972).
Such entrepreneurs are often localised in
the sense that their networks operate from a
certain social and spatial position. There-
fore, it must be assumed that there are close
links between entrepreneurs and their lo-
calised social milieux. Localised processes
of learning, regional production culture and
innovative milieux (Storper, 1995) are nec-
essary elements for thriving innovation and
regionalisation.
The presence of a strong tradition of so-
cial integration might be an interesting en-