Implementing a smart specialisation strategy: an evidence-based approach

2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Kotnik ◽  
Tea Petrin

Smart specialisation is now a major idea behind the European Commission’s cohesion policy reforms in the field of innovation, and it must be applied by European Union member countries in order to secure funding under the 2014–2020 European Union budget, even though the concept itself has only recently emerged. The success of translating this policy into practice depends on a thorough analysis of regions’ and countries’ potential for innovation based on empirical evidence. Currently, countries use a wide array of methods to define priority areas, but these have, for the most part, failed to address the challenges of this process. This article explores the data that can be used in the prioritisation process of developing a smart specialisation strategy. The approach follows the main recommendations for profiling regions and countries, uses data already available at the national statistical offices, and is based on indicators that can be grasped intuitively by policymakers. It includes data on each relevant aspect of smart specialisation, that is, economic, scientific and technological specialisation, as well as the entrepreneurial discovery process. This article demonstrates the approach using a case with Slovenian data; the results suggest that it can be an effective tool for narrowing down a list of industries to be considered for a smart specialisation strategy. Points for practitioners A smart specialisation strategy will be a precondition for using European Union regional and investment funds during 2014–2020 in order to support research and innovation investments. The success of translating this policy into practice depends on a thorough analysis of regions’ and countries’ potential for innovation based on empirical evidence. A ready-to-use methodology for narrowing down a list of industries to be considered for a smart specialisation strategy is proposed, and is demonstrated using the example of Slovenia.

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 772-783 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rune Dahl Fitjar ◽  
Paul Benneworth ◽  
Bjørn Terje Asheim

Abstract This article develops a model for a regional responsible research and innovation (RRI) policy, integrating existing European Union policies on RRI, and on research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). RRI and RIS3 are central concepts in the EU’s innovation policy agenda, but there are tensions between the two approaches. The place-based approach inherent in RIS3 is missing from RRI, which has a fuzzy concept of geographical scale and is vulnerable to mismatches between the scale of innovations and of the associated governance networks involved in the innovation process. Meanwhile, the multitude of visions, values and stakeholder perceptions embodied in the RRI concept is countered by the more optimistic and unitary imagining of a regional future in RIS3. We highlight that Europe’s innovation challenges can only be resolved by leveraging the strengths of both types of innovation policy.


2017 ◽  
Vol 82 ◽  
pp. 3-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Geitzenauer ◽  
Marieke Blondet ◽  
Jessica de Koning ◽  
Francesca Ferranti ◽  
Metodi Sotirov ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Katerina Pantazatou

The European Union funds constitute the main budgetary instrument for the Union to promote its policy goals. The European Union Funds or European Structural and Investment Funds (generally, either EU funds or ESI funds) finance projects that pertain to a large array of areas, including regional and urban development, employment and social inclusion, maritime and fisheries policies, research and innovation, and humanitarian aid. Part of such funding is directed towards the Member States, whereas another part is intended for third countries.


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Mejlgaard ◽  
Carter Bloch ◽  
Emil Bargmann Madsen

Abstract The objective of this article is to contribute to the emerging attempts to foster empirical, quantitative approaches to Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), and to provide a low-resolution map of the European RRI landscape, which can serve as a vehicle for international learning. The article presents indicators of RRI aimed at characterising countries. It examines the empirical structure of the data collected in the ‘Monitoring the evolution and benefits of Responsible Research and Innovation’ (MoRRI) project and reports patterns across Europe. Factor analysis is applied to identify 11 empirically-anchored dimensions of RRI. Based on indices for these dimensions, cluster analysis reveals four distinct clusters of countries. These results point to diversity regarding the empirically-manifest components of RRI as well as diversity in the RRI profiles of the 28 European Union Member States.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-56
Author(s):  
Krystyna Romaniuk

The contemporary era is characterized by revolutionary changes in the economy, technological progress, social and political life. Globalization exerts pressure on businesses and entire economies to increase their competitive strength which is defined as the ability to create knowledge. Knowledge creation and management became the new management paradigms. The responsibility for knowledge creation rests mainly upon the research and development sector. The aim of this study was to rank European Union Member States based on the level of knowledge created by their respective research and development sectors and to identify knowledge creation leaders. The analysis relied on EUROSTAT data for 2007-2011 and linear ranking methods with a reference standard. Our results indicate that Western European and Scandinavian countries are the leaders in the area of knowledge creation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 163
Author(s):  
Celeste Perrucchini ◽  
Hiroshi Ito

Empirical evidence suggests an overall convergence in terms of GDP and per capita income occurring among the European Union (EU) Member States. Nevertheless, economic inequalities have been increasing at the regional level within European Union countries. Through the review of relevant literature, this study analyzes the increasing inequalities from an economical point of view, focusing on Italy and the UK as examples. First, a general overlook of the empirical evidence of the GDP and per capita income at national and sub-national levels will be presented. Second, an explanation of the possible causes of the results will be proposed through the use of economical and sociological theories. The findings of this research might uncover the relative inefficacy of EU Cohesion policies and point towards the necessity for deeper and more thoughtful measures to continue the convergence of Member States while preserving internal equilibria. This paper ends with discussions for the future directions of the EU.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 3033
Author(s):  
Kutay Cingiz ◽  
Hugo Gonzalez-Hermoso ◽  
Wim Heijman ◽  
Justus H. H. Wesseler

This paper measures the development of the national income share of the bioeconomy for 28 European Union Member States (MS) and 16 industries of BioMonitor scope from 2005 to 2015. The paper proposes a model which includes the up- and downstream linkages using Input-Output tables. The results show that for the majority of the MS the value added of the up- and downstream sector is at the band of 40%–50% of the total bioeconomy value added and has on average increased since the financial crisis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document