Purpose – 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. Design/methodology/approach – 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. Findings – 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. Research limitations/implications – 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. Practical implications – 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. Originality/value – 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 work focuses on the study of the relationship between ownership and control structure of the company and its innovative activity. Its aim consists of analysing the role that may be played by determinants within the company related to ownership structure when the decision to incur research and development activities is taken as well as on the output of this innovative process. Among these determinants we may think of issues such as who owns the firm and how the control of decision-making is distributed, the nature of this control and the level of concentration of ownership, among others. The study is carried out for the year 2001 using a representative sample of Spanish manufacturing industries.Keywords: ownership and control structure, research and development, agency theory.JEL classifications: D210, O310, G320.Resumen: Este trabajo se centra en el estudio de la relación entre la estructura de propiedad y control de la empresa y la actividad innovadora de la misma. Se pretende analizar el papel que pueden desempeñar ciertos determinantes internos a la empresa relacionados con la estructura de propiedad tanto en la decisión de incurrir en gastos de I+D como en el resultado innovador obtenido por la empresa. Del análisis realizado se podrán extraer conclusiones sobre el efecto que ciertos mecanismos adoptados para paliar los problemas de agencia surgidos por la no identidad entre propiedad y control en puestos de toma de decisiones tienen en la gestión de actividades innovadoras en la empresa. El estudio se realiza para el año 2001 tomando una muestra representativa de las industrias manufactureras españolas.

No abstract

This paper presents a regional application of the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Index (GEDI) methodology of to examine the level of entrepreneurship across Hungary's seven NUTS-2 level regions between 2006 and 2012. The Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index (REDI) has been constructed for capturing the individual efforts, and their contextual features, of entrepreneurship across regions. The REDI method builds on a Systems of Entrepreneurship Theory and provides a way to profi le Regional Systems of Entrepreneurship. Important aspects of the REDI method include the Penalty for Bottleneck analysis, which helps in identifying constraining factors in Regional Systems of Entrepreneurship, and Policy Portfolio Optimisation analysis, which helps policymakers consider trade-offs between alternative policy scenarios and associated allocations of policy resources. The paper describes the entrepreneurial disparities amongst Hungarian regions and provides public policy suggestions to improve the level of entrepreneurship and to optimise resource allocation over the 14 pillars of entrepreneurship in the seven Hungarian regions.