Who Govern Innovation Districts? A Grounded Investigation Through the Lens of Jurisdictions

Innovation districts are hailed as the modern innovation landscapes led by privatized, local coalitions from the bottom-up. This discourse, however, conceals the influences of the multilevel governments and the territorial-power (re)configurations that are persistent and complex. In this article, we developed an Innovation Jurisdiction framework to unpack the different types of governance structures, power compositions, and their use of diverse policy mixes to shape the trajectories of innovation districts. Using the National Employment and Innovation Clusters in metropolitan Melbourne as case studies, we identified the dominance of the general-purpose (Type I) innovation jurisdictions despite the widely claimed local autonomy and power. Melbourne's cases are telling of the governance ambiguity of modern innovation landscapes and how task-specific jurisdictions (Type II) adaptive to place-based innovations are often fragmented and superimposed. Our study on the spatial-functional mismatch of the multi-level governance of innovation districts calls for more nuanced explorations at the intersections between innovation policy, public policy, and urban studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Urban Affairs Review
Published
2026-01-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874251413124
Primary Topic
Urban Planning and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Who Govern Innovation Districts? A Grounded Investigation Through the Lens of Jurisdictions

Julie Tian Miao, Daniel de O. Vasconcelos
Urban Affairs Review
Urban Planning and Governance
article

Who Govern Innovation Districts? A Grounded Investigation Through the Lens of Jurisdictions

Julie Tian Miao, Daniel de O. Vasconcelos
article en

Abstract

Innovation districts are hailed as the modern innovation landscapes led by privatized, local coalitions from the bottom-up. This discourse, however, conceals the influences of the multilevel governments and the territorial-power (re)configurations that are persistent and complex. In this article, we developed an Innovation Jurisdiction framework to unpack the different types of governance structures, power compositions, and their use of diverse policy mixes to shape the trajectories of innovation districts. Using the National Employment and Innovation Clusters in metropolitan Melbourne as case studies, we identified the dominance of the general-purpose (Type I) innovation jurisdictions despite the widely claimed local autonomy and power. Melbourne's cases are telling of the governance ambiguity of modern innovation landscapes and how task-specific jurisdictions (Type II) adaptive to place-based innovations are often fragmented and superimposed. Our study on the spatial-functional mismatch of the multi-level governance of innovation districts calls for more nuanced explorations at the intersections between innovation policy, public policy, and urban studies.

Urban Affairs Review
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 91%
Urban Planning and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.