It is still disputed whether foresight exercises should be based on top-expert assessments or on a broader base of less specialised experts, and whether the self-rating of experts is an acceptable method. Using the German 1993 and the Austrian 1998 Technology Delphis, this study addresses both questions: Self-rating is in fact an appropriate method for selecting experts. But the assessment of self-rated top-experts tend to suffer from an optimism bias, due to the experts' involvement and their underestimation of realisation and diffusion problems. The degree of optimism is positively correlated with the degree of self-rated knowledge, and it is more pronounced for the least pioneering and for organisational innovations. Experts with top self-ratings working in business have a stronger optimism bias than those working in academia or in the administration. Consistent with the insider hypothesis, they are most optimistic with regard to realisation, innovativeness, and potential leadership in economic exploitation. Given the optimism bias, foresight exercises should base their panels on a fair mixture of experts of different grades, with different types of knowledge and affiliation, and not only on top specialists of the respective field. Delphi-type exercises, therefore, offer an advantage relative to forum groups or small panels of specialists.

No abstract

Modelling the path of the regional product cycle and adding dynamic and stochastic aspects suggests the likelihood of multiple equilibria; bunches of divergent paths of the product cycle may result, depending on starting conditions and parameter size. Narrow clusters of traditional products based on localisation economies, for instance, are quite likely to age, following the traditional bell-shaped path: accelerating expansion, congestion and Saturation, sclerosis and decline. Clusters based on urbanisation economies, on the other hand, face a much lower probability of aging, and if they do, they tend to pass the stages more slowly; their greater adaptability results from the higher information density of the region. Regions characterised by coexistence of several clusters are the ones most likely to avoid aging. Neither theoretical arguments nor historical examples, however, can be found in favour of a regional cycle in literal sense: a new product cycle following the declining one necessarily or at least with some likelihood.

It is still disputed whether foresight exercises should be based on top-expert assessments or on a broader base of less specialised experts, and whether the self-rating of experts is an acceptable method. Using the German 1993 and the Austrian 1998 Technology Delphis, this study addresses both questions: Self-rating is in fact an appropriate method for selecting experts. But the assessment of self-rated top-experts tend to suffer from an optimism bias, due to the experts' involvement and their underestimation of realisation and diffusion problems. The degree of optimism is positively correlated with the degree of self-rated knowledge, and it is more pronounced for the least pioneering and for organisational innovations. Experts with top self-ratings working in business have a stronger optimism bias than those working in academia or in the administration. Consistent with the insider hypothesis, they are most optimistic with regard to realisation, innovativeness, and potential leadership in economic exploitation. Given the optimism bias, foresight exercises should base their panels on a fair mixture of experts of different grades, with different types of knowledge and affiliation, and not only on top specialists of the respective field. Delphi-type exercises, therefore, offer an advantage relative to forum groups or small panels of specialists.