Search results

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.

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 set out the process by which a smart specialisation strategy was developed for a small, peripheral economy in the European Union, the Republic of Malta. It assesses the applicability of the approach in the context of a micro-economy with an industrial structure based on a small number of foreign direct investments and a predominance of micro-enterprises.

The paper follows an action research approach by presenting as a case study the process by which the strategy for Malta was assessed and developed through successive rounds of engagement with business and other actors with the application of scenarios and other prioritisation approaches to facilitate its development. An initial consultation with 20 public sector and representative organisations was followed by a general business workshop and 21 sectoral focus groups.

Lack of critical mass can be mitigated by maximising the generic use of available skills and competences. Given the higher vulnerability to external shock in micro-economies, strategies need to have a high degree of flexibility and adaptability. Greater internationalisation provides the main response to peripherality.

The approach can be applied more generally for micro-economies and in some aspects to other countries or regions lacking critical mass in research and innovation assets or facing peripherality.

The smart specialisation approach had not been applied in these circumstances and hence the findings allowed the concept to be extended and adapted to deal with the issues raised.

Higher education institutions (HEIs) have multiple roles including teaching, research and more recently projects for the benefit of local communities. From a management and leadership perspective, the formation and implementation of strategic plans and the collaboration with stakeholders have traditionally been based on formal agreements based on existing operational organizations and structures. Their strategic plans and collaborations with stakeholders are now evolving to become more organic and collaborative. They have become essential participants of the innovation and learning ecosystems and knowledge intensive communities as shown here in the case of Finland and Australia. New businesses and regions, especially in Europe and non-European Union countries such as Australia, are encouraged to identify and develop their own competitive advantages by analyzing their strengths and strategic potential growth areas.

This so-called Smart Specialization (RIS3) strategy brings HEIs together with the local authorities, business companies and civil society to co-operate in order to prioritize research and development (R&D) investment in the region. The need for Smart Specialization also challenges HEIs to rethink their visions and renew the present siloed and closed-ended practices.

This chapter examines and compares the management and leadership of the HEIs as actions are undertaken to effectively lead the Finnish and Australian HEIs toward their visions. These case studies demonstrate approaches which influence good institutional governance and management. It describes how LAB-ammattikorkeakoulu (LAB University of Applied Sciences) in Finland, and Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in Australia have implemented a RIS3 strategy, notably in health and well-being and agricultural (R&D) projects. These enhance the scope of accountability and participation of stakeholders. The chapter provides practice-based evidence to policy makers in higher education regarding HEIs’ responsible contribution to society.

This Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management sheds new light on the burning issue of Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3), both in terms of their policy formulation and their practical implementation in the field. This new policy approach refers to the process of priority setting in national and regional research and innovation strategies in order to build “place-based” competitive advantages and help regions and countries develop an innovation-driven economic transformation agenda. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This is an important topic both in the current debate about a new industrial policy for Europe and as a policy option for a successful crisis exit strategy led by public investments in the real economy. Moreover, smart specialisation is promoted by the European Commission as an ex ante conditionality for all regions in Europe to receive European Structural and Investment Funds in the field of innovation. Thus, it has become a pre-requisite for accessing fresh funds for investing in badly needed innovation-driven productivity growth throughout the European Union (EU).

The six papers in this Special Issue are the fruit of ground-breaking research and policy testing by nearly 20 leading academics and policy makers throughout the EU. They explore the early smart specialisation concept and its further developments, examine the methodological tools at its disposal and advance specific policy proposals and governance considerations based on actual experimentation in the field.

All these make the present Special Issue of the European Journal of Innovation Management an important research milestone. This Special Issue is the fruit of a call towards the European academic and research community to help shaping and advancing the smart specialisation concept and thus contribute to better position regions and countries in the global economy through innovation-driven policies.

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.

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 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.

The purpose of this paper is to present a new methodology to assess the outward connectivity among regional economies in the European Union (EU) and derives policy lessons for the design of regional innovation and competitiveness-enhancing strategic frameworks, with particular reference to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3).

The authors study the network of inter-regional trade flows in the EU25 in the year 2007. Trade data are taken from the PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency database and mapped onto weighted directed networks in which the nodes represent regions and the links are flows of goods. The authors measure several structural characteristics of the networks, both global properties and centrality indicators describing the position of individual regions within the system.

European regions appear to be mostly integrated in the European single market. Strengths and weaknesses of individual regions are discussed based on rankings obtained from network centrality indicators. Specific policy implications in the context of RIS3 are derived in the case of the Spanish region of Andalusia.

The authors show the potential of the methodology for providing a new family of indicators of the external connectivity of regional economies that can be used by regions wishing to develop their own RIS3 for 2014-2020, as required by the EU in the context of the new cohesion policy framework.

The characteristics of a EU-wide inter-regional network of trade flows are obtained and thoroughly discussed for the first time. A unique and original instrument suitable for inter-regional comparison is developed and tested.

This paper aims to evaluate whether the integration of smart specialization strategies (S3) into clusters significantly impacts their efficiency for countries that still do not implement this policy. This study tests three effects: whether the kind of policies envisaged through an S3 strategy impacts cluster’s efficiency; whether this impact changes with the technological intensity of the clusters; to determine which S3 is more suitable for sub-clusters at different levels of technological intensity.

The Mexican economy is taken as case of study because it has a proper classification of its industries intro Porter’s cluster’s definition but still does not adopt the S3 policy. Through data envelopment analysis (DEA), this study evaluates the cluster’s efficiency increment when variables representing the S3 elements are included.

The results show that strategies following the S3 had a significant impact in all clusters, but when clusters were classified by technological intensity, the impact on efficiency is higher in clusters in the medium low-tech group.

According to the results in the DEA, it can be concluded that these S3 strategies have the potential to increase the clusters’ productivity significantly. These results make convenient the adoption of the S3 policy by countries that already count with a properly cluster definition.

These findings contribute to the lack of studies that analyze the join implementation of S3 on clusters.