ATINER's Conference Paper Series SOC2012-0066 Territorial Intelligence: A Driver of Socialization and Development

ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 Athens Institute for Education and Research ATINER ATINER's Conference Paper Series SOC2012-0066 Territorial Intelligence: A Driver of Socialization and Development Elvira Martini PhD, Lecturer Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento Italy Francesco Vespasiano Associate professor of Sociology Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento Italy 1 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 Athens Institute for Education and Research 8 Valaoritou Street, Kolonaki, 10671 Athens, Greece Tel: + 30 210 3634210 Fax: + 30 210 3634209 Email: info@atiner.gr URL: www.atiner.gr URL Conference Papers Series: www.atiner.gr/papers.htm Printed in Athens, Greece by the Athens Institute for Education and Research. All rights reserved. Reproduction is allowed for non-commercial purposes if the source is fully acknowledged. ISSN 2241-2891 3/08/2012 2 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 An Introduction to ATINER's Conference Paper Series ATINER started to publish this conference papers series in 2012. It includes only the papers submitted for publication after they were presented at one of the conferences organized by our Institute every year. The papers published in the series have not been refereed and are published as they were submitted by the author. The series serves two purposes. First, we want to disseminate the information as fast as possible. Second, by doing so, the authors can receive comments useful to revise their papers before they are considered for publication in one of ATINER's books, following our standard procedures of a blind review. Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos President Athens Institute for Education and Research 3 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 This paper should be cited as follows: Martini, Elvira and Vespasiano, Francesco (2012) "Territorial Intelligence: A Driver of Socialization and Development" Athens: ATINER'S Conference Paper Series, No: SOC2012-0066. 4 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 Territorial Intelligence: A Driver of Socialization and Development Elvira Martini PhD, Lecturer Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento Italy Francesco Vespasiano Associate professor of Sociology Università degli Studi del Sannio, Benevento Italy Abstract The notable social, economic and cultural dynamics of the last times impose a more and more complex and organized management of the knowledge in order to improve the development. This involves complexes processes of social interaction, in which the individuals redefine the acquired knowledge, activating and supporting innovation processes. This situation underlines the importance of the social nets and it induces to review the models of governance, according to a reading key that involves the cognitive socialization and transfer of competences dynamics among the socioeconomic actors. In other words, when one want to conduct an analysis centred on the theme of local development and to focus it around the development and innovative ability of a territory, one cannot ignore the analysis of relationships between the actors who live on that territory. These actors - and the social relationships that they build and support - choose the most appropriate resources to enable development mechanisms (Vespasiano, Martini, 2008 : 9). At the same time, the actors decide what are the costs of sustainable development and who should participate in the efforts in order to favour the growth and to share successes. In addition, one cannot forget there is the conviction that sustainability of the development takes strength with an cognitive and evolutionary auto-organization bottom-up, favouring the integration among public research, enterprise and government. In this perspective, to socialize intelligence and knowledge means to develop positive actions for the compensation of social, cultural and economic disadvantage forms that characterize some others territories. Based on these statements the aim of this paper is to highlight the cognitive strategies that enable actors to support institutional development and growth of a territory, with particular reference to the implementation of invisible factors such as the social capital, the construction and socialization of new knowledge, the good practices of a territorial management based on the principles of good governance. Contact Information of Corresponding author: dill2230@mylaurier.ca, Co-author's email is wood@wlu.ca. 5 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 1. The local context development by the actors of knowledge The institutional issues attract the attention of local development’s scholars from several years, in particular since the early days when this type of studies has established (Sviluppo locale 1998). Since then the importance of experiential approaches, the importance of a endogenous type of development, based on bottomup view through processes of valorization of local resources, especially in remote areas, become the pillars of the new approach to spatial strategy. In this context, new development models begin relate more and more to the systemic optic, aware of the close ties between business and the local environment, so that the local specificities become the key factor for the location of the enterprises and for development forecasts. On the other hand, to the local system is required to adapt to the changes coming from the external environment, while maintaining its originality (which is only partly and not always to be understood as original identity), to use it as a strategic factor for the production of new values, new knowledge and innovation (Becattini, Rullani, 1993). From this perspective, the task of the local political process is to activate the promotion of local resources, supporting local enterprises in their attempts to innovation and development. The development model that results from all of these beliefs is focused on the enhancement use of local resources, environmental and social sustainability, institutional capacity building and on the logic based on the networking and on the concepts of consultation and socio-economic partnership (in this direction should be all the tools provided by the EU for regional development) (Vespasiano, Martini, 2008: 12). The fate of local development seem to be in the hands of the actors who “make relationship” and who want to achieve a common interest. The development must be understood as the result of collective action made possible by the sharing of own territory and by idea of development envisioned for it. Among other things, sharing also facilitates the reflection on the selection of resources must be mobilized to initiate and support the development 1 (Ibidem, 2008: 34). In this perspective, the main actors of development are those who live in the territories. They are the ones who know the needs and expectations; the availability for change and also the resistance to it; the strength of the traditional identity and the weaknesses of the daily conflict (Vespasiano, 2005: 46). However, in the explaining the success of some areas and the decline and stagnation of other ones, the mechanisms of creation and transmission of knowledge played a crucial role; next to the calculation of the conveniences of actors and companies, one has also begun to consider the existence of invisible factors (variously known as: embedded, submerged, tacit, implicit) that the production system of a certain territory shares often without being aware of it. 1 For a review of the debate, see Becattini (1989, 1999), Becattini, Rullani (1993), Grabher (1993). 6 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 The local production systems development literature has documented many different conditions in which these invisible factors are materialized, differentiating the performance of certain areas than others. It is so spoken about external economies; of benefits of cooperation in a context of stable and repeated relationships; of use of trust as the glue of a local division of labour; of community spirit in the relationships between economic operators who share the same vision of things and the same story; of increasing returns triggered by localized dynamic learning; of sharing knowledge, professional practices and rules of social behavior. International literature describes this system of not reproducible local conditions with the term (not easily translatable) of milieu, that is interpreted as the set of internal conditions and resources that defines the characteristics of a territory and can determine the majority of possible changes and the concrete spreading of the development (Governa, 1999)1. The key to understanding the potential of an area arises from the assumption that, before the accumulation of capital, the decisive factor is represented by knowledge (Brusco, 1994: 68) and in particular the mix between codified knowledge, globally accepted knowledge and local knowledge - or localized knowledge (Rullani, 1989: 137) - capable to support innovative long-term processes. This localized knowledge is the differential based not on economies of scale, but on economies of culture2. “The competitive advantage of a territory and of a system of companies that knows how to build networks is given by the possibility of organizing learning forms and knowledge dissemination collective forms on a local basis: moving from one company to another, from a competitor already on the market to a newly-company, from a worker to another one, the same knowledge is used frequently, without additional cost and with an increase of the value of the product. This mechanism is called multiplier effect of knowledge and with it the learning rate of the local system can become a criteria by which to read the competitive differentials. In relation to this aspect is known that in the current processes of globalization and internationalization, the meaning which sees the territory as a physical or geographical location moves towards an approach that considers and values the intangible resources that flow from it, such as knowledge, design, art, style and creativity (we think about the indispensable synergy between territoriality and Made in Italy). Following this approach, the local dimension is stated as a key factor in the evolution of the system because the fundamental process of conversion and regeneration of knowledge takes place locally; a local system, thus understood, is not a closed system but a loop of continuous learning” (Martini, Serluca 2012). Particularly, its active role in the incremental process of knowledge useful for the development, increases substantially along two lines (Rullani, 2004): 1 Therefore milieu is characterized not only by territory but also by the role of individuals within it and by the relationships they have with the outside: these elements constitute the identity of the system because they generate a local living conditions and potential resources that are formed and layered over time and can not be produced or reproduced at will, and even transferred from a local system to another one. 2 In fact, in the analysis of local interests is increasingly emphasized that the success of an enterprise depends by the interaction with other enterprises on the local-area, but also - and perhaps decisively by interactions with the socio-cultural and institutional context. 7 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066  becoming depository of localized knowledge, that being dependent on the experience of those who work or live on the local context, are shared by various stakeholders;  acting as a catalyst for externalities, locally produced due to physical proximity, due to the sharing of the local context, symbols, codes that are implicit in the experience localized. The local territorial systems capable of exercising more productive and innovative capacity will be those in which there will create a continuous and more intensive interaction among the two spheres of knowledge, that is those capable of activating their own substrate of values, knowledge, traditions and institutions. In this perspective the competitive advantage is outside from the enterprises and it must be attributed to the location of its units. With this in mind, one becomes aware that the society contaminates the economic actors of the market, leaving an imprinting in the way they make choices and actions, but at the same time, the society provides them with additional resources, useful in the competition. In such vision, the environment is not a simple container, but a structured space. Through the social capital, the action of the actors is contextualized, and the context is transformed into the active force and productive resource (in social capital, in fact). It is evident that the social capital is not an item transferable from one area to another one (this is possible with the financial, physical and human capital); as already argued, in fact, social capital is presented in a “situational way” because each area is different from another one and has its own characteristics that differentiate and distinguish it and that keep the capital in a state of latency for a long time, or putting it in slow motion or immediately (Bonfanti, 2008). To conclude, the cognitive process of a territory is socialized and collective, founded on a relational organization between the actors. In this way, the local context becomes an open system of interactions for the production and dissemination of its own social capital which becomes the real differential of t he territory and its entrepreneurship (Martini, Serluca 2012). 2. The dynamic of the territorial intelligence: trajectories of institutional policy In the analysis of local development policies and factors of their success / failure one must ask what is the role and the influence of the features of the system of institutions, organizations and agencies responsible for development and implementation of local development policies. In this regard, Lanzalaco (2009: 41 e ss.) identifies at least two lines of institutional policy for local development, in order to contain the possible negative effects. First of all, given the scarcity of financial resources for local institutions particularly since 2013, when the abundant and generous donations of funds will finish - the primary objective is to save money and avoid waste of resources in the expensive institution building process (inefficient and, above all, ineffective). In other words, one must put a stop to the process of indiscriminate proliferation of projects and agencies whose primary purpose is to provide funding “to give to just anyone and anywhere” rather than promote focused and consistent projects. In order to prevent these forms of institutional opportunities, one can move into directions, which arise from and are added to the first line that we have just identified. One can think about a drastic simplification of the system of institutions and organizations of local 8 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 development with the dual purpose of saving resources and creating homogeneous development projects. This process should not necessarily lead to forms of centralized planning, but one might be in search of unitary and unifying design forms that minimize fragmentation and dispersion of resources and policies. The second line of action consists in the strengthening of integration processes between the different policies (policy integration) in order to reduce the weight of economic and distribution size and to give, instead, the appropriate importance to the others dimensions of local development (the environmental and landscape protection, welfare, policies for immigrants, for the family, the labour market, vocational training, for the enhancement cultural heritage and protection of professionalism) in order to give to the political and development process a real multidimensional character. To conclude, the institutional sustainability of local development policies seem to establish itself as a determining factor for their effectiveness. In fact, the power of policies is not only expressed through own prescriptive will but also on own legislation ability. For this reason who has the power to “define” and enforce policy becomes a crucial figure because it also has the power to legitimize a specific way of looking for the reality on which one want to operate (Orlandini, 2010: 131). The idea to consider the territory a social construction has authoritatively been clarified by Marcel Roncayolo (1981) and resumption, among the others, from Carlo Donolo (1997). Particularly, Roncayolo, according to the studies of Lucien Febvre (La terre et l’évolution humaine, 1949), says «it is always dangerous to simply consider the territory as a support, an unity of measure», for which is more profit to think about it as “territorial construction”, to whose inside the territoriality is developed that the author defines as «a complex of behaviors, of representations and of feelings», and in which the territorial organizations act as institutions that sustain, when they are not in crisis, the action of the collectivity (Roncayolo 1981: 239-241). The crisis that has involved the territoriality is evident and it was very already it in the preceding years the explosion of the globalization; it is also evident the difficulty of the local collectivities to propose programs of territorial development. Local collectivities develop, keeping on following the reasoning of Roncayolo, «the part of plug for the social investments», because for the important decisions they are undermails to choices that are taken by non local apparatuses. The involved actors in the different programs are found in the not easy situation of subjection toward the outside and of weakening toward the inside (just because not autonomous in to propose specifics programs for the territorial demands). The action of “cut and sew” is that to which all the experienced actors submit in programs financed from the UE or from other not-local organisms; it is a necessary action, but not it always produces results suitable to the local demand (forcings are inevitable and the justified results often a posteriori). Anyway, also when everything goes for the best, it deals with actions that put the local actors “for waiting” of decisions took from non local institutions. 2.1 The principles of Good Governance On the base of these considerations, analyzing governance means to analyze formal and informal actors involved in decision-making process, in implementation of decisions already taken up and the formal and informal structures that are created to 9 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 get to implement those decisions. The mechanism of governance need to run a constant interconnection of actors and management of their power forms. It may happen in fact that often the discursive practices, and the rhetorical processes of decision-making vehicles and models (within the local plan) the ideas and ideologies developed at international level. This highlights not only the trans-nationality of the formation of an ideology and of the policies of good practice but also the ambivalences and paradoxes of a transnational context, the hegemony of the forces is not easily controlled by the local environment (Minicuci, Revanello, 2011: 33). A situation of this type can occur as a synonym for a crisis of governance. The concept of good governance was use for the first time in 1989, that is the year of the publication of the report of the World Bank in Africa where the lack of development of the continent was attributed to a crisis of governance, which in this case, it became a problem to analyze and to try to solve. From here emerged in all its normative force the policy of good governance, becoming the new paradigm of development of the nineties (Orlandini, 2011: 131), with which the role of public managers in providing high quality services is emphasized; the enhancement of the autonomy managerial is supported; the individual and organizational performance is measured; the importance of providing those resources and technologies that managers use to achieve their institutional goals is recognized; importance of ‘to be receptive to competition and to an open-minded philosophy’ under which public officials should “make” their own purpose (differentiating them from those of the private sector) is recognized (Agere, 2000: 1). From this new paradigm a range of perspectives that serve to frame a government structure that has been the focus of debate in the political arena in both the academic, are outside: 1. the relationship between governments and markets; 2. the relationship between governments and citizens; 3. the relations between governments and private and voluntary sectors; 4. the relationship between elected representatives (politicians) and appointed (civil servants); 5. the relationship between local government institutions and residents of urban and rural areas; 6. the relationship between the legislative and executive power; 7. the relationship between nation states and international institutions. By analyzing these prospects, many theorists and practitioners of public management from academia have formulated several different processes and procedures by which to obtain the so-called good governance and defined the principles and assumptions that underlie the same (Ibidem). Particularly, the concept of good governance must be based on eight fundamental principles: participation, consensus orientation, accountability (responsibility), transparency, responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, equality and inclusiveness, predictability (state of law) (UNESCAP, 2009): Figure 1. around here Participation Participation by both men and women is a key cornerstone of good governance. Participation could be either direct or through legitimate intermediate institutions or representatives. It is important to point out that representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the concerns of the most vulnerable in society would be taken 10 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 into consideration in decision making. Participation needs to be informed and organized. This means freedom of association and expression on the one hand and an organized civil society on the other hand. Predictability Good governance requires fair legal frameworks that are enforced impartially. It also requires full protection of human rights, particularly those of minorities. Impartial enforcement of laws requires an independent judiciary and an impartial and incorruptible police force. Transparency Transparency means that decisions taken and their enforcement are done in a manner that follows rules and regulations. It also means that information is freely available and directly accessible to those who will be affected by such decisions and their enforcement. It also means that enough information is provided and that it is provided in easily understandable forms and media. Responsiveness Good governance requires that institutions and processes try to serve all stakeholders within a reasonable timeframe. Consensus oriented There are several actors and as many view points in a given society. Good governance requires mediation of the different interests in society to reach a broad consensus in society on what is in the best interest of the whole community and how this can be achieved. It also requires a broad and long-term perspective on what is needed for sustainable human development and how to achieve the goals of such development. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community. Equity and inclusiveness A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream of society. This requires all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. Effectiveness and efficiency Good governance means that processes and institutions produce results that meet the needs of society while making the best use of resources at their disposal. The concept of efficiency in the context of good governance also covers the sustainable use of natural resources and the protection of the environment. Accountability Accountability is a key requirement of good governance. Not only governmental institutions but also the private sector and civil society organizations must be accountable to the public and to their institutional stakeholders. Who is accountable to whom varies depending on whether decisions or actions taken are internal or external to an organization or institution. In general an organization or an institution is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. In this scenario, territorial intelligence put on together even before the analysis of the proclamations of extra-local financing to develop a shared idea of territorial development. Those institutional intelligence think together for the territory and inside it, producing a meta-intelligence, or, to say with Pierre Lévy, of collective intelligence, in order to connect the different visions, resources and actions.The interaction among these entities ensures the minimization of corruption, the 11 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 consideration of minorities, the participation of the weaker in decision-making and therefore the sustainable human development. Therefore, good governance implies an efficiently state, a mobilized civil society and a productive market. In other words, good governance is facilitated by effective governments that create legal and political environment conducive to economic growth and to equitable distribution of wealth. This in turn depends on a “lively” civil society, able to mobilize community and groups, to facilitate political and social interactions, to generate social capital and cohesion (Agere, 2000: 10). 3. Conclusions Capacity of local actors to find the right synergy with respect to the choice of different strategies and the ability to know how to create, is vital. However, limitations to these forms of cooperation abound: it is often more inclined to cooperate with people they know, or are sufficiently similar, or even to have a good reputation based on their past. When knowledge is incomplete, or it declares the unreliability or inability of some partners, then things get complicated again. In these cases, cooperation is not in the trust (and in its beneficial consequences for economic development) a strong ally to proceed along the axis of the joint venture. To build trust networks from security policies, becomes essential. Here comes the powerfully active role played by local government policy, as has been repeatedly highlighted. To avoid the ingenuity, it must be said that external government intervention may be insufficient to ensure the continued functioning of cooperative efforts because the government is perceived outside more distant than the local one1. In this case, it becomes essential that external and local government play the same game, and that the local will be able to engage, with long-term strategies, the associations (cultural, productive, recreational) in the mechanisms of governance. A further step in building trust is to develop a series of autopoietic mechanisms which ensure the stability and longevity of these cooperative efforts and, where necessary, also the self-reproduction and the redefinition of the same. We are in the presence of a complex and long process to implement, because each stage is important and necessary for the completion and ultimate success of the same. It remains to remember, to avoid misunderstandings and naive simplifications, that self-interest of the individuals is the foundation of every cooperative effort similar to the trust: this is what draws the people and unites them (Vespasiano, Martini, 2008: 129). At this point, the game among two leading players in the dynamics of social capital and of the “value” of good governance, inevitably becomes virtuous: institutions and organizations. Local institutions of every kind and of every political stripe, are primarily responsible for the development of an area, both for their power to direct the 1 To create relational mechanisms can be complex and very more fatiguing, also for the presence of prejudices and rooted cultural positions strongly, that push the enterprise, from a side, and the university from the other, to remain castled to own entrepreneurial and academic individualisms. To this is added that the government role doesn’t often favor the collaboration, because too busy to resolve bureaucratization problems, rather than to stimulate the innovative flexibility of the enterprises. For example, in an evolutionary interpretation of Triple Helix it is assumed that inside own local contexts, universities, governments and enterprises are learning to encourage the economic growth through the development of the so-called ones “creative collaborations” (Martini, Vespasiano 2012). 12 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 development choices, both for their rightful share of social control, both for their role as facilitators of the dynamics of social cohesion. From this perspective, the issue of depressed areas and lagging becomes increasingly “an institutional matter, a matter of the relationship between state of law and social norms, between knowledge and power, between institutional and social skills” (Donolo 1997: 36). In the depressed economies, institutions that do not play roles they should play, resulting in perverse outcomes with institutional excesses: too much politics, too much bureaucracy, too many rules, too much uncertainty and discretion, too much laxity and amnesties. This at the expense of the social component, that it should participate to a greater extent and with greater accountability to the dynamics of territorial development. With regards to the organizations we can say that the globalizing dynamics does not devalue the importance of the territorial dynamics. Their capacity for innovation and competitiveness is closely linked to the resources of the area, first of all to the quality of human and social capital. The success and quality of the development is just played if the actors are able to select and mobilize, in an appropriate way, cultural, economic and political resources, actually available within the society. Who wants to deal with the local development process must address the local resistances and must do it starting from the perverse mechanisms of local culture, to transform it into a real engine of development: without it, or against it, is not possible initiate or support any process of local development (Vespasiano, Martini, 2008: 131). In fact, for these reasons also “multinational entities such as the European Union encourage university-industry-government collaboration as a source of regional renewal and as method of overcoming the barriers to the regional development inherent in national boundaries” (Etzkowitz 2008: 76). Therefore, the objective would be building “blocks of new created regions territories” (transcending the traditional confinements) and making lever on the presence of carrying aces: “a source of knowledge, a consensus-building mechanism and an innovation development project”1 (Ibidem). In this way it is possible that also territories not particularly productively developed can have the chance to practice own intelligence, experimenting and spreading. In fact, a territory can start and to sustain processes of development if succeeds in using all available resources sustaining the formation of excellence human capital and using the innovation abilities, creating socialization of the knowledge opportunities observing the attention on the unreplaceable of the mechanism of the trust and the collective share of all the involved actors. References Agere, S. (2000). Promoting good governance. Commonwealth Secretariat “The regional Triple Helix spaces are not linear; they can theoretically be created in any order, with any one of them used as the basis for the development of others. The process of enhancing regional innovation may start with the knowledge space, and move to consensus space and then to the innovation space, in a linear fashion, or start from the consensus or innovation space and proceed from there. On the other hand the process may start in the innovation space directly, with the development of a project or initiative” (Etzkowitz 2008: 81). 1 13 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 Becattini, G. & E. Rullani (1993). “Sistema locale e mercato globale”. Economia e politica industriale 1: 7-21. Becattini, G. (1989). “Riflessioni sul distretto industriale marshalliano come concetto socioeconomico”. Stato e mercato 25: 11-128. Becattini, G. (1999). Modelli locali di sviluppo. Bologna: il Mulino. Bonfanti, A. (2008). “Il ruolo del capitale sociale territoriale nei processi di internazionalizzazione delle PMI”. Relazione presentata al Convegno L’internazionalizzazione della piccola e media impresa italiana. Macerata, 25-26 gennaio. Brusco, S. (1994). “Sistemi globali e sistemi locali”. Economia e Politica Industriale 84: 63-76. Donolo, C. (1997). L’intelligenza delle istituzioni. Milano: Feltrinelli. Etzkowitz H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation In Action. London: Routledge. Governa, F. (1999). Il milieu urbano. L’identità territoriale nei processi di sviluppo. Milano: Franco Angeli. Grabher, G. (1993). The Embedded Firm. London: Routledge. Lanzalaco, L. (2009). “Innovare le istituzioni: percorsi di sviluppo sostenibili”. P. Messina (a cura di), Sostenibilità e innovazione. Modelli locali di sviluppo al bivio. Quaderni dell’Associazione MASTER 5. Padova: Cleup. Lanzalaco, L. (2009). “Sviluppo locale, istituzioni intermedie e sostenibilità: considerazioni a partire dal caso marchigiano”. A. Birolo (a cura di), From the crisis to the growth. Policies to sustain the SM Fims. Quaderni Criapi 2: 37-42. Lévy, P. (1996). L’intelligenza collettiva. Milano: Feltrinelli. Martini, E. & M.C. Serluca (2012). “Good governance of public administration for territory development and competitiveness”. Bencardino F. & F. Vespasiano (eds.), Sviluppo locale e turismi. Laboratorio sociologico (in press). Martini, E. & Vespasiano F. (2012). “Socializing intelligence and knowledge for the territorial development”. Proceedings of International Conference “Governance locale e intelligenza territoriale. Modelli di sviluppo a confronto”. 12-13 ottobre 2010, Università degli Studi di Salerno, Fisciano (forthcoming). Minicuci, M. & M. Ravanello (2010). “Introduzione”. Meridiana 68: 9-36. Orlandini, B. (2010). “Sviluppo e good governance: retorica e pratica di nuove forme di potere”. Meridiana 68: 125-142. Roncayolo, M. (1981). “Territorio”. Enciclopedia Einaudi 14: 218-243 Rullani, E. (2004). Economia della conoscenza. Creatività e valore nel capitalismo delle reti. Roma: Carocci. UNESCAP, (2009). “What is governance”. Available at http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp Vespasiano, F. & E. Martini (2008). Innovazione senza capitale sociale. Milano: Franco Angeli. Vespasiano, F. (2005). La società della conoscenza come metafora dello sviluppo. Milano: Franco Angeli. 14 ATINER CONFERENCE PAPER SERIES No: SOC2012-0066 GOVERNMENT MARKET Figure 1. Main principles of Good Governance consensus orientation tion predictability participation accountability GOOD GOVERNANCE effectiveness and efficiency responsiveness transparency equality and inclusiveness CIVIL SOCIETY Source: authors’ calculation by UNESCAP, 2009. http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp 15