Regional Innovation Systems and regional disparities in the Euro area: insights for regional innovation policy

Author(s):  
Óscar Rodil-Marzábal ◽  
Xavier Vence-Deza
2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iryna Kristensen ◽  
Walter Scherrer

We discuss which systemic functions can be implemented in regional innovation systems by using public private partnerships (PPP) as a vehicle of governance in innovation policy. We analyze PPPs in the field of regional innovation policy in which Swedish municipalities and regional authorities have been involved. We find that such PPPs are able to address knowledge related systemic goals of regional innovation policy more comprehensively than entrepreneurial goals; that PPPs tend to address the quantitative dimensions of systemic goals of regional innovation policy better than qualitative dimensions; and that there is considerable variation how PPPs address innovation-related goals across types of regions and industries involved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 987-1003
Author(s):  
Dorota Ciołek ◽  
Anna Golejewska ◽  
Adriana Zabłocka-Abi Yaghi

The literature emphasises the role of regional and local innovation environment. Regional Innovation Systems show differences in innovation outputs determined by different inputs. Understanding these relationships can have important implications for regional and innovation policy. The research aims to classify Regional Innovation Systems in Poland according to their innovation capacity and performance. The analysis covers 72 subregions (classified as NUTS 3 in the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) in 2004–2016. Classes of Regional Innovation Systems in Poland were identified based on a combination of linear and functional approaches and data from published and unpublished sources. It was assumed that innovation systems in Poland differ due to their location in metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions, thus, the Eurostat NUTS 3 metro/non-metro typology was applied for this purpose. Panel data regressions as models with individual random effects were estimated separately for metropolitan and non-metropolitan groups of subregions. The study identified common determinants of innovation outputs in both NUTS 3 types: share of innovative industrial enterprises, industry share, unemployment rate, and employment in research and development. Next, NUTS 3 were classified within each of two analysed types in line with output- and input-indices, the latter being calculated as non-weighted average of significant inputs. Last, the subregions were clustered based on individual inputs to enable a more detailed assessment of their innovation potential. The cluster analysis using k-means method with maximum cluster distance was applied. The results showed that the composition of the classes identified within metropolitan and non-metropolitan systems in 2004– 2016 remains unstable, similarly to the composition of clusters identified by inputs. The latter confirms the changes in components of the capacity within both Regional Innovation System types. The observed situation allows us to assume that Regional Innovation Systems in Poland are evolving. In further research, the efficiency of Regional Innovation Systems should be assessed, taking into account the differences between metropolitan and non-metropolitan regions as well as other environmental factors that may determine the efficiency of innovative processes.


Author(s):  
V. Pchelintsev

The paper examines governmental strategies, main actors and instruments of innovation policies shaping innovation-driven economy in Finland, with particular attention to the regional scale. The analysis focuses on how the regional innovation systems approach became a framework for the design of innovation policies. An innovation system involves cooperation between firms and knowledge creating and diffusing organizations, – such as universities, colleges, training organizations, R&D-institutes, technology transfer agencies. Innovations are considered as interactive learning process. Cooperation and interaction between regional/local and national/international actors is necessary to combine both local and non-local knowledge, skills and competences. The key elements of the policy environment, as well as implementation of the main regional innovation policy instruments – the Centers of Expertise Programme and Regional Centre Programme – are described.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-55
Author(s):  
Viktorie Klímová ◽  
Vladimír Žítek

Abstract Concepts of national and regional innovation systems can serve as an analytical framework forming the empirical base for innovation policy creation. It is possible to distinguish various types of these systems. One of these typologies is based on the assessment of innovation deficiencies. There are three types of regions: metropolitan, peripheral, and old industrial. Metropolitan regions can be characterized by a high level of research, innovation, and patent activity. The aims of this paper are to find relevant indicators that can be used as the basis for defining metropolitan regional innovation systems and using them for the identification of Czech metropolitan regions. The results of the point method combined with the cluster analysis showed that the capital city, Prague, as well as the South Moravian, Pardubice, Central Bohemian, Pilsen, and Liberec Regions can be defined as metropolitan regions.


2014 ◽  
Vol 718 ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
Svetlana Radchenko ◽  
Jozef Zajac ◽  
Marek Kočiško ◽  
Zuzana Hutyrová ◽  
Jan Zajac ◽  
...  

This article discusses the role of regions in the innovative development of the country, regional innovation policy objectives, status of regional innovation systems in the regional economy and the factors influencing the formation of regional innovation capacity. The article discusses about global innovation policy and innovation potential of Slovakia.


Baltic Region ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 92-106
Author(s):  
Anna A. Mikhaylova

Amid growing inter-state competition, national innovation policies are increasingly seeking to promote the development of regional innovation systems to intensify innovative processes and to enhance the economic competitiveness of territories. An efficient regional innovation policy requires a territorial adaptive approach to the development of mechanisms for innovating socio-spatial systems. These mechanisms should take into account the specific features and inalienable resources of territories. Whereas regional innovation systems are becoming increasingly acknowledged in public administration as versatile, the stage of a system life cycle, which is an equally important factor, often escapes managerial attention. In this article, I analyse the innovation system of the Kaliningrad region at its inception. The Kaliningrad case is of considerable interest for a study into the patterns and characteristics of the governance of innovation systems — a management paradigm aimed to promote regional development during a change in their functioning mode. In this work, I analyse the current structure of the Kaliningrad regional innovation system, of which some elements date back to the Soviet period, paying particular attention to the subsequent change in the framework conditions. I show that a new innovation trajectory requires taking into account the economic and geographical position of the region, its level of socio-economic development and economic specialization. My findings could contribute to both improving the national policy on managing innovation processes in Russian regions and developing the concept of regional innovation systems as regards research into their life cycle stages.


Author(s):  
Philip Cooke

The chapter explores the processes by which regional administrations displaying various statutory capabilities and weaknesses have demonstrated accomplishment, creativity, and innovativeness in the face of having to operate in centralised, relatively un-devolved, and non-federal national states. The focus is on a few exemplars of creative regional policy activity from contrasting regional settings in Sweden and Portugal in pursuit of improved innovation accomplishment drawn entirely from the apparently ever-centralising EU. A key reason for this is that in the EU all regions receiving regional assistance from Brussels were required in 2013 to draw up Regional Innovation Strategies if they were to qualify for regional resource transfers from Brussels. So these and other regions are behaving, in innovation terms, according to a logic of uniform rules from both Brussels and their own centralised states. They are thus doubly constrained in their quest for regional innovation policy assistance but their responses display enormous variety and creativity. The chapter proceeds by, first, outlining the rules of the RIS3 then, second, theorising ongoing processes. In the third and fourth sections, there is concentration on regional innovation policy formation in Sweden and Portugal, with preliminary drawing of contrasts and comparisons. Then, in the final section, a brief discussion and conclusions profile can be found.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document