Smart specialisation in European regions: issues of strategy, institutions and implementation

Abstract

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.

Tourism Diversification and Its Implications for Smart Specialisation

“…It includes prioritisation of policy domains for securing competitiveness and ensuring sustained mechanisms for new bottom-up initiatives whereby local entrepreneurs are identified as the leading actors. The new prioritised domains emerge out of re-combining existing productive resources, activities and knowledge and are based on the concept of RV [27,97]. Tourism is a prioritised area or activity, and its prioritisation should consider its nature of collaboration and entrepreneurship.…”

“…They are not only the most dominant and regionally embedded but also likely to stimulate high growth and further relatedness between sectors leading to further diversification [17]. The new agenda is now considered both a necessary and effective means of encouraging policy makers in the European Economic Area and other OECD countries, e.g., Australia, the United States, Korea and Singapore, to reform their regional development approach [27].…”

Openness and Continuous Collaboration as the Foundation for Entrepreneurial Discovery Process in Finnish Regions

“…They need to engage in an interactive dialogue with regional stakeholders. Furthermore, they need to change the logic from absorption of funds and the accounting of expenditures, towards facilitating strategy process and working towards the goals, objectives and performance set there (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2014). It is critical of policymakers to develop new incentives for entrepreneurs and other regional stakeholders to discover together new domains and new mechanisms to detect novel ideas, support experimentation, build inter-regional linkages and new educational programs (OECD, 2014).…”

“…The regional stakeholders need together to discover new activities and areas, while the government assesses the outcomes of their work and empowers the actors most capable of realizing this potential (Hausmann & Rodrik, 2003;McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2014;OECD, 2014).…”

“…The EU regions need to identify the key activities, areas or technological domains, in which they can have a competitive advantage, also globally, and to focus their innovation efforts in these areas (OECD, 2014). The smart specialization policy aims to support local entrepreneurship and innovation based on strategies, which are both realistic and appropriate in the regional context (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2014). …”