Search results

“It should also be noted that the objective of convergence and equal distribution, including across under-performing areas, can hinder efforts to generate growth. Contrariwise, the objective of competitiveness can exacerbate regional and social inequalities, by targeting efforts on zones of excellence where projects achieve greater returns (dynamic major cities, higher levels of general education, the most advanced projects, infrastructures with the heaviest traffic, and so on). If cohesion policy and the Lisbon Strategy come into conflict, it must be borne in mind that the former, for the moment, is founded on a rather more solid legal foundation than the latter” European Commission (2005, p. 9)Adaptation of Cohesion Policy to the Enlarged Europe and the Lisbon and Gothenburg Objectives.

This chapter addresses the topic of ‘localisation policies’ (measures and incentives for attracting and developing companies) in relation to the actual subjects of such policies, their aims and targets. The existence of business relationships and networks, and the ubiquity of interaction processes make contemporary policy measures problematic in all these three aspects. Conceiving the business landscape as interactive and heterogeneous business networks leads the authors to argue that policy measures become ineffective when these neglect the networked nature of the business landscape. It is argued that localisation policies consist of multiple initiatives and involve ‘a network of policy actors’, rather than only one institution. Acknowledging the plurality of policy actors and means leads to focus on the need to orchestrate multifaceted localisation policies. Incentives, regulatory frameworks and public investments are some of the elements of the toolbox of localisation policy. The authors also argue that the business network perspective translates into the need to tailor policy measures differentiated for specific companies.

This chapter reviews and critiques the recent evolution of place-based entrepreneurship policy in the United Kingdom, in particular the governance of policies targeted at the regional level to promote economic development and competitiveness. The focus of the chapter is the evolution occurring from 1997, when the Labour government came to power, through to the period leading to the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government, which came to power in 2010.

A review and critique of key academic and policy-based literature.

The chapter shows the way in which governance systems and policies aimed at stimulating entrepreneurship have permeated regional development policy at a number of levels in the United Kingdom. In general, the overarching themes of enterprise policy are similar across the regions, but the difference in governance arrangements demonstrates how emphasis and delivery varies.

Place-based enterprise policy needs long-term commitment, with interventions required to survive changes in approaches to governance if they are to prove effective; something which has been far from the case in recent years. Whilst the analysis is drawn from the case of the United Kingdom, the lessons with regard to the connection between regional modes of governance and effective policy implementation are ones that resonate across other nations that are similarly seeking to stimulate the development of entrepreneurial regions.

Evidence of ongoing disparities in regional economic development and competitiveness, linked to differences in regional business culture, suggest the continuance of market failure, whereby leading regions continue to attract resources and stimulate entrepreneurial opportunities at the expense of less competitive regions.

The time period covered by the chapter – 1997 onwards – forms an historic era with regard to changing regional governance and enterprise policy in the United Kingdom, with the emergence – and subsequent demise – of regional development agencies (RDAs) across English regions, as well as the introduction of regional governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which were handed certain powers for economic and enterprise development from the UK central government.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the historical trends and status of the national development of artificial intelligence (AI) from a nationwide perspective and to enable governments at different administrative levels to promote AI development through policymaking.

This paper analyzed 248 Chinese AI policies (36 issued by the state agencies and 212 by the regional agencies). Policy bibliometrics, policy instruments and network analysis were used to reveal the AI policy patterns. Three aspects were analyzed: the spatiotemporal distribution of issued policies, the policy foci and instruments of policy contents and the cooperation and citation among policy-issuing agencies.

Results indicate that Chinese AI development is still in the initial phase. During the policymaking processes, the state and regional policy foci have strong consistency; however, the coordination among state and regional agencies is supposed to be strengthened. According to the issuing time of AI policies, Chinese AI development is in accordance with the global situation and has witnessed unprecedented growth in the last five years. And the coastal provinces have issued more targeted policies than the middle and western provinces. Governments at the state and regional levels have emphasized familiar policy foci and played the role of policymakers, along with regional governments that also functioned as policy executors as well. According to the three-dimension instruments coding, the authors found an uneven structure of policy instruments at both levels. Furthermore, weak cooperation appears at the state level, while little cooperation is found among regional agencies. Regional governments cite state policies, thus leading to the formation of top-down diffusion, lacking bottom-up diffusion.

The paper contributes to the literature by characterizing policy patterns from both external attributes and semantic contents, thus revealing features of policy distribution, contents and agencies. What is more, this research analyzes Chinese AI policies from a nationwide perspective, which contributes to clarifying the overall status and multi-level relationships of policies. The findings also benefit the coordinated development of governments during further policymaking processes.

The purpose of this paper is to show that the approaches to smart specialisation being adopted in different European Union (EU) regions are likely to be heavily shaped by the institutional and governance context, as well as the regional economic specifics. Along with the specific regional economic characteristics, these institutional variations mean that there is no single smart specialisation template or blueprint which can be transplanted onto every region. Rather, regions have to work within their own governance frameworks to find their best solutions.

As evidence of this, the authors analyse the possibilities and challenges faced by four different sets of regional examples in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain. Using OECD, EU and other official national documents and publications, the authors are able to explain the ways in which the governance set-ups vary enormously across these different arenas although they do share some certain common features with the other examples on a case-by-case basis.

The policy architecture within which the smart specialisation agenda will be operating is very different in each national or regional case. As such, in addition to the regional economic specifics, the smart specialisation challenges faced by different regions are likely to differ significantly due to governance issues as well as variations in the regional economic conditions. This is because the possibilities for different regional actions depend heavily on the governance relationship between the regional and the local governance remits.

The argument presented here are necessarily in part speculative in that while they are based on a regional systems-of-innovation conceptual framework which links institutions, innovation and regional development, the actual smart specialisation implementation processes are still in their infancy, so that the actual outcomes remain to be seen in the long run.

The analysis here helps to situate smart specialisation discussions in the national-regional institutional and governance context. This also serves to frame how smart specialisation priority-setting processes are likely to be undertaken and helps to consider how such activities may play out in other regions with different institutional settings.

This is one of the few papers that explicitly examine specialisation issues in a governance and institutional setting. In reality, the success or otherwise of smart specialisation agenda will be heavily shaped by how the governance and institutional issues are addressed. Good analysis and data gathering is essential, but good governance for policy design, monitoring and evaluation can potentially also provide a crucial advantage to smart specialisation actions. In contrast, poor governance may undermine good smart specialisation intentions and analyses.

This paper aims to contribute to understanding regional competitiveness policy-making and the role academic organisations can play in that process. Competitiveness policies have evolved in the past decades from a single to a multiple-domain field, which has made the policy-making process more complex by adding more actors with their particular experience and view. This complexity, together with the relevance of overcoming traditional policy implementation failures, pleads for a new approach to competitiveness policy-making, in which academic organisations can act as “anchor institutions”. This framework is based on the adaptive implementation concept.

The paper uses the Basque case to analyse the role of universities in competitiveness policy-making and focuses on a specific academic organisation, which has contributed through different projects to regional policy-making. Evidences from those projects through different policy phases are included in the case.

The case shows how academic organisations might play a key role in fostering an adaptive implementation approach in competitiveness policy-making at the regional level and which specific characteristics these organisations should develop to fulfil this role.

This paper brings together two important issues for regional competitiveness: the importance of policy implementation and the particular role of engaged universities in such a process.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the framework of the EU cohesion policy 2014-2020 with respect to its potential to secure not only the resources necessary for climate action in EU regions but also an integrated climate adaptation approach. It also examines the prospects for Greek regions with respect to climate adaptation.

Using the regional policy approach as it is generally formulated and applied in the context of the EU cohesion policy, this paper seeks to identify the policy objectives, the funding opportunities and the conditionalities for climate adaptation action. It also examines the above-mentioned elements for Greek regions.

The context of the EU cohesion policy constitutes a necessary but not sufficient condition for developing and implementing successful regional adaptation strategies. The process and content of regional policies are of significant importance in order for this context to be fully exploited.

Since this is the first time that climate adaptation at the regional level is directly addressed by cohesion policy, there is not much evidence on this issue, at least for Greek regions.

The approach followed in this paper may constitute a useful contribution to the formulation of regional adaptation strategies. This is of particular importance as climate adaptation, together with risk prevention, is one of the key thematic objectives of the EU cohesion policy 2014-2020.

This paper makes an original contribution by introducing and explaining a new challenging issue for the regional policies agenda, namely, the climate adaptation strategy, and stresses the need for a comprehensive approach to it, especially for Greek regions.

Entrepreneurship is increasingly recognised as a crucial element in fostering economic development and growth, especially at the regional level. The purpose of this paper is to examine the evolution of regional enterprise policies and associated governance mechanisms in the UK to address the following questions: How are evolving systems of regional governance in the UK impacting on the capability of regional policy to foster entrepreneurship? To what extent does enterprise policy form a key part of the overall economic development strategy of regions? and are different forms of regional enterprise policy and priorities emerging?

The study draws on a series of key interviews with policy makers across the regions of Wales, Scotland and England (using the case study of the Yorkshire and the Humber region). The approach adopted in this study facilitates an exploration of the perspectives of those responsible for the formulation and delivery of such support. The paper seeks to ascertain and analyse policy maker opinion on the nature of previous policy, as well as future requirements if policies are to become more effective. It focuses on the period from 1997, with the election of the Labour Government, and the period from 2010 to 2015 represented by the Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition Government.

The paper finds that regional entrepreneurship differentials emerge due to the spatial and place-based nature of three underlying factors: first, the nature of markets; second, the nature of innovation systems; and third, the nature of place-based cultures, communities and the institutions they establish. In the regions studied, failings and limitations in these factors suggest two potential requirements: first, the introduction of public policy in the form of a range of interventions and support mechanisms, second, the introduction of a system of policy governance to establish appropriate interventions and support mechanisms. In the case study regions, clear attempts have been made to address each of the three limiting factors through a range of policy and governance systems, but due to a complex range of issues these have often achieved limited success.

From an intellectual perspective, the paper positively points toward the establishment of governance and policy frameworks that have been both led and informed by the theory underpinning an explanation of regional differentials in entrepreneurial capacity and capability. However, from a more applied perspective it questions the effectiveness and strategic implementation of the policy frameworks and the sustainability of the associated governance mechanisms.

Despite the critical role of the policy environment in facilitating the advancement of building information modeling (BIM) as a systemic innovation to reshape traditional facility design, construction and operation processes, scant scholarly attention has been paid to systematically investigating how and why complex BIM policies are concretely and gradually implemented in different regional contexts from a dynamic policy diffusion perspective. This study aims to empirically investigate how different types of BIM policy instruments are dynamically implemented in heterogeneous regions over time and how the diffusion of BIM policies across different regions is comprehensively impacted by both internal efficiency needs and external legitimacy pressures.

This study employed a positivist research paradigm in which BIM policy data from 182 prefecture-level and above cities in China during 2011–2022 were analyzed with quantitative approaches for theory verification. Based on the content analysis of the evolutionary characteristics of the adopted BIM policy instruments in heterogeneous regions over time, the event history analysis (EHA) method was then used to further examine the mechanisms underlying the diffusion of BIM policies across different regions.

The content analysis results show that while environmental instruments (such as technological integration and goal planning) are the primary policy instruments currently adopted in China, recent years have also witnessed increasing adoptions of supply-side instruments (such as fiscal support and information support) and demand-side instruments (such as demonstration projects and tax incentives). After controlling for the impacts of regional fiscal and technical resources, the EHA results illustrate that BIM policy adoption positively relates to regional construction industry scale but negatively relates to regional industry productivity and that compared with public pressures from industry participants, vertical pressures from the central government and horizontal pressures from neighboring regions are more substantial drivers for policy adoption.

As an exploratory effort of using a dynamic policy diffusion perspective to systematically investigate how BIM policies are adopted in heterogeneous regional contexts to facilitate BIM advancement, this study not only characterizes the complexity and dynamics of BIM policies but also provides deepened understandings of the mechanisms underlying policy adoption in the conservative construction industry. The findings hold implications for how multifarious policy instruments can be more effectively and dynamically adopted to facilitate the advancement of BIM and related technologies as innovative solutions in the construction domain.

This chapter aims to enrich knowledge about cluster initiatives acting as intermediaries primarily between members in a cluster or in regional context. This is a practically oriented manuscript written to contribute to refinement of existing policies by proposing recommendations based on recent empirical studies regarding funding, actors’ and activities’ content, as well as cluster initiatives’ assessment. It is proposed that public support should be balanced, targeting new as well as established, well-functioning cluster initiatives. Furthermore, regional authorities should encourage multifaceted collaboration (e.g., Triple Helix), stimulate variation in activities to maximize the benefit of cluster initiatives as well as define and communicate success factors that make it possible to evaluate cluster initiatives from a holistic perspective. These recommendations are primary aimed for regional authorities and reflect a bottom-up perspective where both logic of initiatives’ actions and their development are captured. Yet, even national authorities can make use of the recommendations in this chapter to improve governance of cluster initiatives and to determine further directions of regional policies.