City 2.0 as a Platform for Global E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Abstract

Due to increased cross-boundary flows of resources, local governments have become more concerned with global economic development. In this regard, in this paper, the author discusses how globalisation and related intercity competition pose challenges to the development of cities. The objective is to describe innovative ways of dealing with global intercity competition with special reference to how the tools of City 2.0 may be used to support e-entrepreneurship by connecting local actors to different layers of innovation networks. DOI: 10.4018/jeei.2010040101 2 International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 1(2), 1-13, April-June 2010 Copyright © 2010, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. urbAn rEsPonsE to GlobAlIsAtIon One of the manifestations of globalisation is that the number of countries promulgating favourable policies towards foreign direct investment (FDI) has skyrocketed since the early 1980s; hence the number of candidate locations for businesses has increased exponentially (Douglas, 2002, p. 56). Another sign of this trend is that the relocations of factories from Western and Northern Europe and the USA to low-cost countries have become daily news (e.g., Collins & Brainard, 2006; Markusen, 2005). There are two fundamentally different ways of responding to this challenge: to increase the competitiveness of a local community or to affect the very condition within which these intercity relations are determined and regulated. In other words, local response to globalisation has two paradigmatic forms and arenas: (a) competitive development-oriented responses in a dynamic environment of economic competition by which cities attract values of global flows and local businesses produce products and services for global markets, and (b) collaborative welfare-oriented responses in an institutionalised environment, which are needed to promote solidarity and sustainability from the local to the global level as a joint effort of local governments and other public agencies. It goes without saying that it is more difficult to realise transnational solidarity than to pursue local development policies that aim at benefitting an individual urban community (Anttiroiko, 2009c). cIty 2.0 As An urbAn dImEnsIon of WEb 2.0 remarks on the Web 2.0 trend The core service of the Internet, the World Wide Web (WWW), emerged in the 1990s essentially as the global publication and exchange network dominated by professional and business organisations. In the 2000s new forms of online communities, social networking and content sharing started to change the logic of the use of this global network. These new forms became known as Web 2.0, a concept launched by consultants aspiring to map out the then new trends revolving around the Internet. The term appeared for the first time at the Web 2.0 conference held in 2004 (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 refers to the second generation of Web-based communities, networks and hosted services, which facilitates interaction between users. It does not refer to technology as such – i.e., a new technological version of WWW – but rather to the way software developers and end-users use the Web. Web 2.0 applications are illustrated in Figure 1. We focus here on two basic forms of social network services (SNS), which are relevant from a network perspective: profile-based SNS and content-based SNS. Social networking is about the building and functioning of online social networks for people who share an interest in creating connections and sharing content. These networks are facilitated by hosted services known as social network services (SNS), which can be broadly defined as “Internetor mobile-device-based social spaces designed to facilitate communication, collaboration and content sharing across networks of contacts” (digizen.org, 2008). Most SNSs are primarily Web based and provide various ways for users to create their profile pages and to interact with each other. They allow relationship initiation and enable individuals to articulate and make visible their social networks (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). As noted, in addition to social networking the social dimension of Web 2.0 is associated with content sharing. In most of the social network sites various kinds of content are published and similarly content-sharing sites include social networking functionalities, which indicate the convergence of social networking and content sharing services. For example, YouTube is based on video sharing, but it also includes selected social networking functionalities, such as user profiles as well as comment and messaging options. Similarly, such social network services as Facebook, MySpace, Tagged, Friendster or Netlog provide various 11 more pages are available in the full version of this document, which may be purchased using the "Add to Cart" button on the product's webpage: www.igi-global.com/article/city-platform-globalentrepreneurship-innovation/46052?camid=4v1 This title is available in InfoSci-Journals, InfoSci-Journal Disciplines Business, Administration, and Management, InfoSci-Digital Marketing, E-Business, and E-Services eJournal Collection, InfoSci-Select. Recommend this product