External dimensions of smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for trans-regional and transnational collaboration in the EU-13 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Governance of Smart Specialisation: Experiences of Four European Regions
Europolity: Continuity and Change in European Governance, 2016
In the present article we compare four European regional development models in order to conclude on good practices on smart specialisation. The concept of smart specialisation (European Commission, 2008, Foray et al., 2009, S3 Platform, 2016) has been placed at the core of the European regional development strategies and it brought the focus on local endowments, international network orientation of the regions and their potential for excellence globally. That encouraged the regions' governments to align their actions to the general consent and to adopt place-based policies which foster innovation. The analysis draws from four European regions, each with a different innovation performance, according to the Regional Innovation Scoreboard: South-East Ireland is an Innovation Follower, Castilla de la Mancha, Spain and Central Hungary, are moderate innovators, while Bucharest-Ilfov in Romania is a modest innovator. Their different level of development gives a broader perspective on t...
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2018
The paper takes smart specialisation strategies as the point of departure and frame of reference for the discussion of innovation policies and regional innovation systems. It aims to demonstrate that the regional innovation systems approach, representing a dynamic perspective on innovation and learning in the promotion of international competitiveness and economic growth, is an instrumental policy tool for the design and implementation of smart specialisation strategies. Moreover, the paper discusses different types of new path development, especially emphasising development paths that represent transformative activities in the form of path diversification based on unrelated knowledge combinations and new path creation, and how such path development can be achieved. The paper argues that such new path development, implying increased complexity of technology and knowhow but low relatedness, does not constitute a "casino strategy" as argued by Balland et al. (Balland, P.-A., et al. 2017. "Smart Specialisation in the EU: Relatedness, Knowledge Complexity and Regional Diversification." Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, Utrecht University.), but a transformative activity or long jumps with the potential of "generating new options for subsequent structural transformation" (Hidalgo, C. A., B. Klinger, A.-L. Barabási, and R. Hausmann. 2007. "The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations." Science 317: 482-487). As such these radical forms of new path development should be in the scope of policy makers even if they represent "high risk/high benefit" alternatives. The analytical framework is applied on a moderate innovative, Eastern European region (Mazovia) of the EU.
2017
The paper aims at investigating how EU Regions should incorporate the place-based approach (Barca, 2009) to plan their Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) within the current Programming Period 2014-2020. Smart Specialisation Strategies become a key factor to stimulate private investment, and "should be integrated into regional development strategies in order to ensure an effective partnership between civil society, businesses and public authorities at regional, national and European levels" (EC, 2010). The link envisaged between S3 and place-based approach is based on their characterization of a development policy, and on the value of the different geographical, social, economic features that territories can express (Foray, 2000). The transformation of these two theoretical approaches into policy is recognizable in two drivers for programming the Agenda 2020. The first is the Theory of Change, which implies the use of "indicators" related to the value that different territories can express to control and measure the expected change. The second is more related to stimulate at regional level an integrated approach to reach a critical mass of the investment effects/impacts. The MAPS-LED Research Project (Horizon2020) perspective is described as a way to investigate how is possible to regenerate local economic areas through S3 considering place-based approach.
Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform: Towards Smart Innovation Policies
Seminal Studies in Regional and Urban Economics, 2017
The present debate on regional policy design to fit the Europe 2020 Agenda calls for additional reflections on the way sectoral policies, like innovation policies, can be translated appropriately into a regional setting. The paper enters the debate on smart specialization strategies by stressing the need to overcome the simplistic dichotomy between core and periphery in the Union, between an advanced 'research area' (the core) and a 'co-application area' of general purpose technologies to local technological specificities (the periphery). The geography of innovation is much more complex than a simple core-periphery model, and the logical pathway towards innovation is much more complex than the linear model of R&D-invention-innovation direct link: the innovation patterns are differentiated among regions, according to their regional context conditions. The identification of specific 'innovation patterns' is necessary to design 'smart innovation' policies. The paper presents a critic to the smart specialization debate, suggests a new taxonomy of European innovative regions based on their innovation patterns, and proposes innovation policies for each regional mode of innovation.
Entrepreneurial Discovery Process and Regional Development: new knowledge emergence, conversion and exploitation, 2019
The first phase of smart specialisation focused on development of regional place-based strategies, including analysis of regional domains, governance, priorities and monitoring, enabling entrepreneurial discovery processes. Based on evaluations of results from this period, the next step is to grow larger, stronger and more dynamic regional and transnational innovation eco-systems. This is achieved by connecting regional partnerships to macro-regional and European knowledge networks, such as transnational thematic partnerships. This chapter documents key steps made by the European Commission, regional partners and clusters in organising these networks, through scoping, mapping, monitoring and multi-level systems of governance. The relation between these transnational networks and the experiments with pilots undertaken in 2018 is mentioned. Various cases, such as textile, agriculture, photonics and 3D printing are used as examples. The chapter presents a conceptual framework for analysing how this experiment may have impacts on transnational learning, entrepreneurial discovery processes and innovation ecosystems through the concepts of regional knowledge space, relational knowledge space and third space. A successful case of institutionalisation, co-management of a knowledge commons within photonics, is presented.
The paper aims at investigating how EU Regions incorporated the place-based approach (Barca, 2009) to plan their Research and Innovation Smart Specialisation Strategy (RIS3) within the current Programming Period 2014-2020. According with Barca, “a place-based policy is a long-term strategy aimed at tackling persistent underutilisation of potential and reducing persistent social exclusion in specific places through external interventions and multilevel governance. It promotes the supply of integrated goods and services tailored to contexts, and it triggers institutional changes.” According with European Commission (2010) about “Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020”, the development of S3 is crucial “to maximize the impact of Regional Policy in combination with other Union policies”. Smart specialization strategies become a key factor to stimulate private investment. And “they should be integrated into regional development strategies in order to ensure an effective partnership between civil society, businesses and public authorities at regional, national and European levels”. If we consider the theoretical background on S3 (Foray, 2000) as “a process addressing the missing or weak relations between R&D and innovation resources and activities on the one hand and the sectoral structure of the economy on the other” the link between S3 and place-based approach is envisaged is twofold: the former is based on their characterization of a development policy, the latter is based on the value of the different geographical, social, economic features that each territory can express. The transformation of these two theoretical approaches in a policy, within the cohesion policy reform, is recognizable in two drivers for programming the new Agenda 2020. The first is the Theory of Change as a fundamental approach to be followed in building the programming process (why those output/results are necessary to reach the “change”). This implies the use of “indicators” as expression of the policy and related to the value of different territories can express to control and measure the expected change. The second is more related to stimulate at regional level an integrated approach to reach a critical mass of the investment effects/impacts. The current phase of monitoring of the RIS3 through the Sevilla Platform, allows comparing the regional response to the integrated approach envisaged in the link of place- based and smart specialization policies.