Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the prospects of a Southeast Asian knowledge economy in light of regional integration processes and the participation of Southeast Asia in global innovation networks.

The evidence base is a combination of quantitative data on R&D investments, patent applications and publications, with qualitative data from 40 semi-structured expert interviews conducted with innovation experts, research managers and policymakers in six ASEAN Member States.

Despite economic growth and increases in R&D inputs and outputs in individual ASEAN Member States, innovation policy at regional ASEAN level remains weak. In addition, the economic integration of the ASEAN Economic Community is progressing slowly. In this environment, evidence is presented for a certain level of regional integration when it comes to the exploitation of knowledge produced within and outside of ASEAN. While a regional market for knowledge exploitation is conceivable, this is not accompanied by the regional integration of knowledge production.

The main practical implication of this argument is the need for ASEAN policymakers to appreciate the disconnection between regional knowledge production and exploitation. This paper offers conceptual tools to engage in ASEAN-level policy discussions on this issue that can help facilitate the best possible regional outcome.

Despite several studies on the ASEAN Economic Community process, there has been no contribution so far that combines a discussion of the economic integration process with a look at the regional knowledge economy and innovation systems. This perspective does not only contribute to innovation systems literature, but also entails important policy lessons.

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.

Purpose – The chapter answers the question if urban regime theory (URT) can provide a useful framework to understand and solve problems of cooperation in regional processes in rural–urban areas.

Methodology/approach – The chapter is a theoretical discussion on problems found in contemporary rural spatial governance.

Findings – URT can provide a framework for understanding the obstacles encountered in regional development and is a promising perspective for the analysis of regional processes. A solution for problems in regional cooperation can be found in so-called ‘vital coalitions’, forms of vital interaction between regional actors, based on energy and productivity, that can create a ‘capacity to act’ in regions that have become ‘gridlocked’ by current procedures and regulations.

Research limitations/implications – A modern URT, applied in a regional context:(1)Can point out ‘how power is organised to act’;(2)Analyses informal networks between actors as bases for cooperation and vitality, and as a possible starting point for new (cultural) counter-regimes and(3)Offers insight into regional complexity and cooperation and into emergent regimes.

Practical implications – Vital coalitions are forms of self-governance, that introduce new agendas and function as forms of niche-innovation in regions. This can lead to the forming of new ‘cultural regimes’ in which the motives and values of civilians are a key element.

Originality/value of the chapter – The value of the chapter lies in the use of concepts in regions from a fresh new perspective, by translating the URT from a local, urban context to a regional rural–urban perspective.

This paper aims to develop a greater understanding of international telecommunications policy diffusion through preliminary, qualitative analysis of an expected utility model. The model is tested through analyses of diffusion of spectrum license allocation policies within and between regions.

A qualitative comparative case method is used. Cases are developed from secondary data from the European Union and South America, and analyzed at the national and regional levels.

The results suggest: the expected utility model can be used for in‐depth qualitative analyses to compare effects of various diffusion mechanisms; diffusion of spectrum license allocation policies at the regional level was more strongly driven by a policy's likely effectiveness, as compared to potential payoffs for policymakers; and conversely, at the national level diffusion was driven by both payoffs for the policymakers and likely policy effectiveness.

The two academic contributions of the paper are its expansion of a unified policy diffusion model to simultaneously account for regional and national levels of governance, as well as for technological change and its application in the telecommunications domain. Practical contributions include providing a framework for systematic analysis of a telecommunications policy's benefits for the public as well as policymakers.

The build-up of large-scale COVID-19 testing required an unprecedented effort of coordination within decentralized healthcare systems around the world. The aim of the study was to elucidate the challenges of vertical policy coordination between non-political actors at the national and regional levels regarding this policy issue, using Sweden as our case.

Interviews with key actors at the national and regional levels were analyzed using an adapted version of a conceptualization by Adam et al. (2019), depicting barriers to vertical policy coordination.

Our results show that the main issues in the Swedish context were related to parallel sovereignty and a vagueness regarding responsibilities and mandates as well as complex governmental structures and that this was exacerbated by the unfamiliarity and uncertainty of the policy issue. We conclude that understanding the interaction between the comprehensiveness and complexity of the policy issue and the institutional context is crucial to achieving effective vertical policy coordination.

Many studies have focused on countries’ overall pandemic responses, but in order to improve the outcome of future pandemics, it is also important to learn from more specific response measures.

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.

During the 1990s, most European countries have increased their interest in the direction of industrial districts, clusters and local production systems as an integral part of their industrial policy. At the same time, there have been significant changes in the consideration of industrial policy in Europe. The aim of this paper is to analyze two basic approaches in the development of cluster initiatives in the formation of cluster policy.

This paper analyzes two basic approaches in the development of cluster initiatives in the formation of cluster policy: top‐down and bottom‐up approach. The analysis also points to the diversity of national approaches in terms of policy clusters, but in the same time at some common trends.

The development of cluster policy is still at an early stage in most countries. There are also significant differences among the countries of Eastern and Western Europe. Among those countries that have adopted the policy of the cluster after 2000, are mostly small countries in terms of population and/or geographical size of countries in Eastern Europe.

Policies that encourage cluster formation have to be developed, particularly in developing countries and countries in transition that are seeking their place in the international market.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the distinction between smart specialisation and smart specialisation policy and it studies under what conditions a smart specialisation policy is necessary.

A conceptual framework is built based on historical evidence of successful dynamics of structural changes at regional level qualified as “smart specialisation”. The identification of market and coordination failures that are likely to impede the occurrence of spontaneous process of smart specialisation makes a good case for a smart specialisation policy.

The paper highlights important design principles for the policy process that should help to minimise potential risks of policy failures and policy capture.

The paper does assess the effect of smart specialisation on innovation and growth at regional level because it is too early to observe and measure effects. The paper confines itself to conjectures about the effects of such a policy.

The paper makes recommendations and explains some of the practicalities about the implementation of the policy at regional level.

The paper is one of the first dealing with the topic of smart specialisation policy.

Decentralization is a widespread and international phenomenon in public administration. Despite the interest of public management scholars, an in-depth analysis of the interrelationship between two of its forms – deconcentration and devolution – and its impact on policy and management capacities at the local level is seldom investigated.

This article addresses this gap by examining the implementation of deconcentration and devolution processes in France and Italy in the cultural field, combining the analysis of national reform processes with in-depth analyses of two regional cases. The research is the result of document analysis, participatory observation and semi-structured interviews.

The article reconstructs the impacts of devolution and deconcentration processes on the emergence of policy and management capacity in two regions (Rhone-Alpes and Piedmont) in the cultural sector. The article shows that decentralization in the cultural sector in France and Italy is the result of different combinations of devolution and deconcentration processes, that the two processes mutually affect their effectiveness, and that this effectiveness is deeply linked to the previous policy and management capacity of the central state in a specific field/country.

The article investigates decentralization as a result of the combination of deconcentration and devolution in comparative terms and in a specific sector of implementation, highlighting the usefulness of this approach also for other sectors/countries