Search results

The purpose of this paper is to reveal the paradox between diversification and specialization from a dynamic perspective. More precisely, this paper will analyze the impact of diversification and specialization as well as their interaction on regional innovation in different development stages.

Based on the principles of new economic geography and innovation geography, data from 30 provinces from 2001 to 2017 was used to explore the relationship. Least squares regressions with fix effect were used to examine the hypotheses.

The results show that both diversification and specialization have a significant and positive impact on regional innovation. The interaction of diversification and specialization also significantly and positively impacts regional innovation. The effect of industrial agglomeration is heterogeneity under different development stages.

This paper verifies the positive role of diversification and specialization and their interaction in promoting regional innovation. The impact of industrial agglomeration on innovation is dynamic and changes with the regional development process. Emerging economies should make appropriate industrial agglomeration strategies according to their development stages.

This paper introduces diversification, specialization and their interaction into the research framework at the same time to analyze their impact on innovation performance which deepened the research of industrial agglomeration. Taking China as an example, this paper also examines the impact of industrial agglomeration on regional innovation in different development stages that expands the dynamic perspective of industrial agglomeration.

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 understand how the different stakeholders assess the adequacy of smart specialization policies defined for their regions.

This paper has followed a quantitative methodology through the application of questionnaire surveys to stakeholders of the various territorial regions in Portugal.

As a result, from the “resource-based view” approach applied to the various regions, the attained results highlight that the suitability of smart specialization policies defined for the Portuguese regions is not unanimous among its stakeholders.

The research can be used as a tool to assist regional policymakers in strategic reflection when defining and adjusting smart specialization strategies in their territories.

The purpose of this paper is to assess how national and regional authorities in south-east Europe in a period of crisis perceive and set in motion research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3) and the options that these strategies offer to overcome the current fiscal and development crisis.

The paper starts with a literature review on the guiding principles of smart specialisation strategies and the differences from previous rounds of regional innovation strategies. Evidence on smart specialisation efforts is provided by cases studies in Greece, Slovenia, and Cyprus, focusing on the elaboration of such strategies in three countries with precarious innovation systems under severe conditions of crisis. The case studies are organised around key aspects of the smart specialisation logic, such as the selection of specialisation priorities, bottom-up governance, private sector leadership, and engines of innovation and competitiveness.

The paper explores the obstacles encountered in running effective RIS strategies under crisis conditions. The paper highlights the main challenges to address, such as the readiness and credibility of public authorities to design and implement sound RIS3 strategies, the willingness of companies to be involved in strategic planning, the availability of private investment funds, innovation and diversification during a crisis, and the drivers of specialisation that could lead to competitiveness and growth. In the conclusions the paper identifies three routes towards smarter productive diversification and five critical stages in the entrepreneurial discovery process.

The paper has both practical and theoretical significance. It focuses on the main challenges of smart specialisation and offers guidance in the elaboration of RIS3 in peripheral EU economies. On the other hand, it proposes a model for the entrepreneurial discovery process, based on the assessment of areas and futures of productivity and added-value increase, as productive diversification and crisis exit route.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of regional concentration patterns within ten new European Union (EU) member states, EU10, and make comparisons with EU15 and the US economy.

Industrial specialization and clusters are measured as employment in the intersection between a sector (three‐digit NACE data) and a particular region (NUTS 2 level), with a total of 38 sectors and 41 regions within EU10. Regional cluster size and degree of specialization is measured along 3D: absolute number of employees (>10,000 jobs is used as cut‐off for a regional cluster), degree of specialization (regional sector employment is at least two times expected levels) and degree of regional market labor dominance (>3 per cent of total employment in a particular sector). Each of these three measures of cluster size, specialization and labor market focus are classified with a “star”. The largest and most specialized clusters receive three stars.

EU10 exhibits 19 three‐star regional clusters, which display high values for each of the three measured parameters. In addition, there are 92 two‐star regional clusters and 313 one‐star regional clusters. The analysis also suggests that regional concentration in EU10 is clearly lower than in the USA, and slightly lower than in the old EU member states. In a few cases – IT, biopharmaceuticals and communications equipment – where the total size of the cluster is small, and there is little historical legacy in Eastern Europe, the EU10 exhibits higher geographical concentration than EU15.

Overall, the economies of EU10 exhibit a pattern of geographical concentration close to a random distribution, i.e. the process of regional concentration and redistribution of industry is in a very early phase. If Europe is to build a more competitive economy, industrial restructuring towards larger clusters must be allowed and pushed by policy makers both at the national and EU levels.

Policymakers must be well informed about geographical concentration patterns of industry. The research offers a consistent methodology of mapping regional clusters and geographical concentration patterns across sectors.

This paper is the first in measuring regional concentration patterns in Europe at this fine level, and is based on a new methodology developed by Professor Michael E. Porter at Harvard University. The paper has also introduced a new method of ranking clusters according to the star model.

“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 paper uses institutional theory to analyze the structure of the sustainability assurance market (SAM) at a global level. The purpose of this paper is to determine if regional differences affect industry specialization in this market.

Using a sample of 3,657 sustainability reports (SRs) with assurance statements, the authors study the global and regional specialization of assurers by breaking down the sample into three main regions. The authors approach industry specialization using previous methodologies applied to the financial audit market, and explain differences statistically significant among regions.

The authors find different industry specialists depending on the geographical region in which the audit firm is located. The Europe, Middle Eastern and Africa region has the highest number of industry specialists and the Asia-Pacific region the lowest. Notwithstanding the global participation of Big 4 firms, assurance specialization depends on the country where the company is located.

The paper reveals the need to include regional differences in the analysis of the SAM at the international level.

The study shows an in-depth study of the SAM that may be useful for assurers, to decide strategic actions in industries and countries and for regulators, to control the risk of monopolistic/oligopolistic markets.

The study presents a novel approach to the analysis of the assurance market for SRs, by studying it from the supply point of view. The analysis provides a measure of specialization that may help understand the structure of the SAM.

This study investigates the existence of Marshall, Jacob and Porter’s type of externalities in Mexico. We measure the impact of industrial specialization, competition and diversity on employment growth for the period 2004 to 2008.

The analysis is based on data from 41 highly dynamic industrial clusters originally obtained by applying Porter’s (1998) methodology. We use a cross-section specification estimated via instrumental variables and two-stage least square estimation (2SLS) to control for endogeneity.

On average, we find that industrial specialization exerts a negative impact on employment growth within states and within clusters, indicating that traded industries in Mexico carry very little innovation, operate in early stages of the life cycle, face high costs of employment reassignation or exhibit low adaptability. A negative impact of specialization on employment conforms with Jacobs (1969) type of externalities and confirms what other studies have found in France (Combes, 2000), Korea (Lee et al., 2005) and the USA (Delgado et al., 2014). The authors also find that competition generates more employment.

Industrial data at the sub-branch level were obtained from the Economic Census (EC) of the National Institute of Geography and Statistics (INEGI). The EC information for 2004 was still not fully compatible with the North America Industry Classification System (NAICS), with 262 of the 309 data at the fourth-digit level aligned to the USA. In addition, industrial information from the EC is recorded every four years, which prevents this study to use panel data techniques and it makes it impossible to use time series methods.

Policymakers can clearly identify competition forces having a significant impact on employment growth. This can orient policymakers to implement measures to encourage the development of some of these clusters, as well as to identify some of the sources that drive specialization, competition and diversity.

This paper contributes to the debate on the existence of Marshallian (MAR), Jacobian and Porter externalities. This is the first study using the definition of traded clusters in Mexico, which allows the authors to identify how specialization, competition and diversity forces drive the dynamics of regional employment growth.

The purpose of this paper is to study the specialization of regional clusters and their innovative behaviour, in a particular Portuguese region.

A regional case study (Region Centro of Portugal) is used, employing secondary and primary data in order to measure specialized critical mass of a region's clusters and analyze their innovative behavior following the European Cluster Observatory (ECO) methodology.

Combining the different nature of data (primary and secondary), this paper identifies the specialized critical mass of a region's cluster, makes statements about the role of clusters in a regional context, and demonstrates how a regional clustering approach is important to understanding the innovative process. Based on an empirical survey, three types of clusters were found: basic, intermediate and advanced.

Among the research limitations is the undersized sample of primary data which does not allow deep findings to be drawn about the innovative behavior of the clusters in a general way. Therefore, future research should focus on this area, extending the empirical analysis presented here to add qualitative indicators on innovative behaviour, to calculate the impact of absorptive capacity in the case of regional clusters.

This study provides a consistent methodology of cluster operation which could be useful for undertaking comparative work within regions' clusters across different sectors and countries, to reinforce the importance of the current discussion of policy clusters, and to identify specific requirements and needs of each cluster in order to improve the quality of decision making and to draw some policy implications.

This paper is the first to measure specialized critical mass of a region's clusters at the enterprise level and to explain cluster innovative behaviour, combining primary and secondary, based on ECO criteria. Furthermore, it provides initial empirical evidence and an amount of significant findings to support managers and policymakers in the understanding of regional and innovation clustering of small to medium‐sized enterprises.

The aim of this paper is to outline what the intended benefits the smart specialization strategy (S3) is meant to create, and through what policy measures; that is, to shed light over what underpinnings S3 is based on, and if the measures based on these can affect the relations between “academia, businesses, and local authorities” – where the public and the private actors might have partly overlapping interests, but with different needs and rationales.

The research design of this paper is based on the industrial marketing and purchasing network approach, that is, the empirical observation that business exchange has a content, which affects and gives imprints on the actors engaged in the exchange. To determine whether the S3 strategy in general, and in the two investigated regions in particular, can affect the embedding of innovations in using, producing and developing settings, and if so how, this study applied the actors–resources–activities model. In addition to investigation of the S3 strategy in general, two case studies were conducted, one each in two European Union regions with rather different business and academic research characteristics: the Marche region in Italy and the Uppsala region in Sweden.

The S3 measures rest on the judgement of which “domains” to support can be made by policy actors without deeper analysis of how the assumed firms representing these domains are related in terms of how resources are combined and activated. Instead, the S3 policy analysis is based on local policy organizations desk table investigations of what appears as innovative. Hence, in practice, the key S3 measure is still to transfer knowledge from the public to the private sector. This entails that support in terms of how to create change in established resources interfaces, which is a main source of innovation to which both established and emerging localized firms are related, remains out of policy sight.

The ambition with this paper is to discuss what changes S3 – with the ambition to develop and match academic research to business needs – implies and what underpinnings it is resting on. Hence, the focus is directed to what new types of policy arrangements are supposed to result in what types of benefits – and last but not least, the ability for these to interfere with businesses which are interconnected across spatial borders.