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.

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.

Policy entrepreneurs often experience thorny dilemmas, finding themselves between the “rock and a hard place” or, as the Italian equivalent idiom would have it, between the “hammer and the anvil.” Crisis and the associated problems that arise often bring changes in politics and policy in its wake, and this begs the question of what are the resources and assets required to operate successfully as a place-based public policy entrepreneur. The role of policy entrepreneurs has been studied over many years with one of the most influential theories being the multiple streams approach (MSA) originally devised in the 1980s which sought to counter perceptions of the random or “garbage can” nature of policymaking and implementation. MSA describes a more rational process where policy entrepreneurs shape “windows” of opportunity where streams of problem, policy, and politics are brought together to create innovative responses to situations in society. The authors explore these ideas through the lens of a longitudinal case study of Labor Market policy interventions (including the role of a personal budget system for education and training called “Dote”) in the Lombardy Region, Italy, using MSA as an analytical framework. This case suggests that the pressing need to move away from short-term structural responses to complex social issues is potentially addressed by an emerging approach for the parallel deployment of sociotechnical platform infrastructure resources and superstructure. Adoption of the approaches outlined here afford streaming opportunities on which policy entrepreneurs can dynamically bring the multiple streams of problem–policy–politics together across political cycles in a more persistent and sustainable way.

This chapter is an exploratory piece to comprehend how national policies react to regional policy solutions designed to cope with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It uses data from the national strategic plans for HIV/AIDS from 13 of 15 Caribbean Community (CARICOM) members to illustrate how they interpret the regional response to the pandemic. In drawing upon the existing literature on transfer, it focuses on what I term cooperative policy transfer – explore how policy concepts flow back and forth between the national and regional levels through cohesive harmonization – to understand how new policy trends emerge. A cross-sectional analysis based on a content analysis reveals the emergence of three new policy trends distinct to the region that guide HIV/AIDS education: (i) creating a multisectoral approach; (ii) setting international targets; and (iii) establishing regional benchmarks. These new trends are identified as what I call the rise of new mutualism in education. The chapter concludes that the national and regional policy responses to HIV/AIDS in CARICOM countries, centered on new mutualism, became a rallying cry based on the belief that the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) can only function if CARICOM countries combine their resources to reverse the effect of HIV/AIDS on national educational systems.

In this chapter, the authors discuss how the features of the business landscape affect policies aiming to promote regional development. Regional development policies have been central in the European Union and at the single-country level. Measures taken to promote development in a geographical area, based on the concept of clusters and (national or regional) innovation systems, often fall short of their objectives. That is discussed against the findings on features of the business landscape that emphasise its heterogeneity and the importance of specific couplings within and across geographical areas. Prior Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) research emphasised the importance of firm-specific linkages to places and across places. One consequence is the relatedness of one place with other places, which implies that crossing the (imaginary) boundaries of a place appears to be the essence of business activity. The chapter concludes by highlighting how regional policies can benefit from acknowledging and taking into account firm-specific interdependences.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to advance understanding of regional industry or innovation clusters and the opportunities that the cluster framework provides policymakers for delivering economic impact, clarifying economic priorities, and coordinating disparate programmatic efforts, and to articulate some basic principles for formulating cluster strategies.

Methodology/approach – As the cluster concept enters its third decade and the body of related literature reaches a new level of maturity a consensus has emerged among academics and policy thinkers on the economic benefits of clusters. In fact, clusters have emerged as major focus of economic and policy discussion just now – in what the authors dub a “cluster moment” – by dint of their demonstrated practical impact, their value in paradigm discussions, and their potential utility in policy reform. The chapter reviews the benefits of clusters and traces their ascendance – and re-emergence post-recession – among policy thinkers.

Findings – New research confirms that strong clusters tend to deliver positive benefits to workers, firms, and regions. As a paradigm, they reflect the nature of the real economy and as a matter of policymaking, clusters provide a framework for rethinking and refocusing economic policy. In pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies, policy leaders should not try to create clusters; use data to target interventions, drive design, and track performance; focus initiatives on addressing discrete gaps in performance or binding constraints on cluster growth; maximize impact by leveraging pre-existing cluster-relevant programs; align efforts vertically as well as horizontally; and let the private sector lead. All three tiers of the nation's federalist system have distinct and complementary roles to play in advancing the cluster paradigm.

Research limitations/implications (if applicable) – The paper includes no new/original data.

Practical implications (if applicable) – Given that clusters have emerged as a major focus of economics and policy, this chapter lays out a core set of general principles for pursuing cluster-based economic development strategies – and for avoiding common pitfalls – to which policymakers can adhere.

Originality/value of paper – The chapter advances cluster thinking and cluster strategies as a paradigm with the potential to accelerate regional economic growth and assist with the nation's needed restructuring and rebalancing toward a more productive post-recession economy.