When recipients cannot absorb the aid and attention they are offered, the common response is “capacity building”—as if the source of the problem is the recipient’s implementation capacity. In this report, Robert D. Lamb and Kathryn Mixon present the results of their research on the sources of absorptive capacity. They find that this sort of “blaming the victim” mentality, while common, is not always justified. While it is true that many aid recipients do not have adequate capacity for implementation, it is equally true that many aid programs are designed and implemented without an adequate appreciation of local desires, resources, capabilities, and challenges. Absorptive capacity, in other words, is a byproduct of the donor-recipient relationship. The authors present a new framework for measuring absorptive capacity. This framework is intended to supplement existing planning, monitoring, and evaluation processes, offering a new way to test whether an existing approach is compatible with local conditions and a method for improving the fit.

Can the United States prevent or end conflicts and protect its interests without using military force? Do U.S. civilian institutions have the right mix of support, funding, and capabilities to respond to major crises and political transitions? In July 2013, CSIS raised these questions before more than 200 policymakers and experts, with 22 speakers offering perspectives from donors, implementers, and recipients. The demand for civilian power is high. U.S. leaders are under constant pressure to respond to armed conflicts abroad. Better civilian tools could help avoid more risky (and costly) military engagements. The past decade has seen real improvement in civilian stabilization and reconstruction capabilities. Yet many lessons of the past eight decades remain unlearned, and public support to civilian agencies remains low.

In development, stabilization, and peace building, donors increasingly recognize the importance of being sensitive to the local contexts of their efforts. Yet the use of “blueprints” remains widespread. Even when standard approaches are modified for particular aid partners, there often remains a poor fit between donor efforts and local conditions. When recipients cannot absorb the aid and attention they are offered, the common response is “capacity building.” While it is true that many aid recipients do not have adequate capacity for implementation, this report presents the results of a case study demonstrating that some security and justice programs are designed and implemented without an adequate appreciation of local desires, resources, capabilities, and challenges. Absorptive capacity, in other words, is a byproduct of the donor-recipient relationship. An earlier study by the authors introduced a new framework for measuring absorptive capacity. This volume applies it to security and justice sector programs that did not meet all of their objectives in Lebanon, Cambodia, and Colombia.

With the rise of the knowledge economy, the knowledge content of goods and services is going up just as their material content is declining. Economic value is increasingly seen to reside in the former - that is, in intangible assets - rather than in the latter. Yet we keep wanting to turn knowledge back into something tangible, something with definite boundaries which can be measured, manipulated, appropriated, and traded. In short, we want to reify knowledge. Scholars have been debating the nature of knowledge since the time of Plato. Many new insights have been gained from these debates, but little theoretical consensus has been achieved. Through six thematically linked chapters, the book articulates the theoretical approach to the production and distribution of knowledge that underpins Max Boisot's conceptual framework, the Information Space or I-Space. In this way the book looks to provide theoretical and practical underpinnings to Boisot's book Knowledge Assets (OUP, 1998). Following an introductory chapter, how knowledge relates to data and information is first examined in chapter 1, and how different economic actors - entrepreneurs, managers, etc - use knowledge as a basis for action is explored in chapter 2. Chapter 3 looks at how the heterogeneity of economic actors arises naturally from their respective data processing strategies in spite of any similarities in the data that they might share. Chapter 4 argues, contra much transaction-based economics, that an organizational order must have preceded a market order, something that should be reflected in any knowledge-based theory of the firm. Chapter 5 discusses the cultural and institutional significance of different kinds of knowledge flows. Finally, chapter 6 presents an agent-based simulation model, SimISpace, that illustrates how the I-Space might be applied to concrete problems such those of intellectual property rights. A concluding chapter proposes a research agenda based on the theorizing developed in the book. The approach the book sets out is used by a whole range of organizations to issues of knowledge management, policy, economics, and organizational and cultural change.

Knowledge Management focuses on identifying, sharing, storing, and exploiting internal knowledge, whereas Open Innovation is more concerned with sources of external knowledge. However, this simple dichotomy between open and closed approaches is unhelpful and not realistic. Instead, it is the interaction between internal and external knowledge that creates dynamic capabilities and the ability to innovate. In particular, we need to better understand the interactions between internal and external knowledge, and how these influence innovation outcomes under different conditions. This edited volume, Managing Knowledge, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation, provides an opportunity to combine contemporary interests in Open Innovation with the classic notion of absorptive capacity, to better understand how organisations can manage the absorption and exploitation of inbound external sources of knowledge in order to innovate.

This volume discusses how different geographical spaces can enhance or hinder the capacity of a variety of organizational settings to achieve economic value creation in the pursuit of sustainable regional development. In order to provide the most comprehensive picture of new sources of value creation for sustainable transitions, the book collects contributions that tackle this issue from a variety of perspectives, and adopts a systemic approach where macro, meso and micro-levels of analysis are intertwined in three sections. This multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approach comes from scholars operating in the fields of planning, economic geography, social entrepreneurship and organizational management. The first section of the book adopts a macro-level approach linking sustainability to the regional development theme, and addresses how organizations work between different social interests to produce outcomes not previously realized. The second section of the book focuses on the spatial dimensions of sustainable development, with particular clusters, industrial districts and regions considered as relevant units of analysis (meso-level analysis). The third section of the book is dedicated to a micro-level approach, illustrating how to drive social entrepreneurship activities, which are based upon sustainable business models centered in the creation of a shared value. The book is geared towards scholars working on sustainable development issues intersecting the disciplines of regional studies, economic geography and management, and will appeal to geographers and researchers in economic development, business innovation, and sustainability transitions.