Experiences from 16 European regions
working on Smart Specialisation
Michaela Trippl
CIRCLE, Lund University
CRU Seminar: Implementing Smart Specialisation
2 September 2015, Aalborg University, Denmark
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh
Framework Programme for research, technological development and
demonstration under grant agreement number 320131.
SmartSpec
Introduction
Project: “Smart Specialisation for Regional Innovation” (Seventh Framework
Programme) 2014-2016
Eleven Partners (Cardiff (coordinator), CIRCLE Lund, Newcastle, Groningen,
Utrecht, Prague, Padua, Deusto, amongst others)
Research in five WPs:





WP 1: Entrepreneurial Search Dynamics
WP 2: Social Innovation
WP 3: Regions with Less Developed Research and Innovation Systems
WP 4: Underpinning Effective Strategy Design
WP 5: Regional Living Laboratories
SmartSpec
WP5: Aims & Methods
Aims:


Analysis of smart specialization approaches and practices in different regional contexts
in Europe
Comparative assessment of 16 European regions:
 how do different types of regions engage in smart specialization approaches?
 how do these approaches (and barriers to them) differ?

Towards a better understanding of place-based characteristics of smart
specialisation approaches
Mixed-methods approach:




Secondary data analysis
Desk-based analysis of policy documents & evaluative material
In-depth interviews with key stakeholders (160 in Phase I)
Focus group meetings & additional interviews (Phase II)
SmartSpec
Regional
innovation
scoreboard
Unemployment rate
(2012)
(EU-27: 10.4)
GDP per
inhabitant
PPS (2011)
(EU-28: 100)
Scania (South Sweden), SI
Leader
9.9
107
6
27
Tampere (West Finland), FI
Leader
8.5
105
8
66
Bremen, DE
Follower
6.7
158
39
38
More and Romsdal (Vestlandet), NO
Follower
2.9
142
---
---
Navarre, ES
Follower
16.2
124
98
131
Flanders, BE
Follower
4.5
120
48
20,26,35,44
Limburg, NL
Follower
4.9
116
26
17
Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur, FR
Follower
10.1
104
96
125
Zahodna Slovenija, SE
Follower
7.6
100
117
112
Northern Ireland, UK
Follower
7.4
78
43
140
Murcia, ES
Moderate
27.9
79
90
181
South Moravia (Jihovychod), CZ
Moderate
7.6
73
133
168
Basilicata, IT
Moderate
14.5
71
180
227
Vzhodna Slovenija, SI
Moderate
10.0
71
117
155
Lodz, PL
Modest
11.1
60
151
197
Eszak Alfold, HU
Modest
13.9
43
129
231
North East Romania, RO
Modest
15
191
251
SmartSpec
4.3
EQI
RCI 2013
WP 5 Approach
Phase I
Regional
Profiles
Phase II
Analysis of Smart
Specialisation Practices
In-depth review of
key themes
Socio-economic
characteristics
RIS transformation and the
role of universities in S3
Beyond policy-dominated
prioritisation processes in less
developed RIS
Innovation
performance
Intraregional & interregional
connectedness
Social innovation
Economic structure
& Specialisation
Role of institutions,
institutional bottlenecks and
needs for reform
RIS organisations
Governance structures,
policy capabilities &
quality of governance
Role of a strong research sector
in less-developed RIS
Complex evolving multigovernance settings
Multi-level & multi-actor
governance
Internationalisation of S3 & policy
coordination across borders
Role of social innovation in
S3
Policy monitoring
Strategy, implementation
and assessment of S3
SmartSpec
Role of clusters & crossfertilization between clusters
RIS transformation & new path
development
Widening university participation
& involvement of MNCs
Configurations of RIS and
transformation challenges
Regions exhibit distinctive regional innovation system (RIS)
configurations & face unique transformation challenges
regarding their organisational & institutional structures
Three main types of RIS (Isaksen & Trippl 2014; Trippl, Asheim &
Miörner 2015)
 Organisationally thin RIS
 Organisationally thick and specialised RIS
 Organisationally thick and diversified RIS
SmartSpec
RIS with weak innovation capabilities:
organisationally thin RIS
Industrial structures

Dominance of traditional economic activities: agriculture, furniture, food, textile, tourism
(Basilicata, Murcia, Lodz, North East Romania)

Co-existence of large, externally controlled firms (performing low value-added activities) & SMEs
with limited innovation capabilities (Murcia and Basilicata)

Innovative MNC & SMEs with limited innovation capacity and ambitions (Eszak-Alfold)

Few branches with functioning cluster structures (Eszak-Alfold: pharmaceutical & food)
Knowledge & supporting organisations

Presence of universities and research organisations but weak connections to local firms
(inappropriate incentives, reward systems, unfavourable academic mindset, weak technology
transfer structures, mutual mistrust, low demand for university knowledge)

In some regions universities play an important role at a more strategic level (e.g.: involvement in
smart spec strategies: North East Romania, Eszak Alfold)

Support organisations lack size, overlap or are missing (TTOs (Basilicata, North East Romania),
organisations promoting DUI innovation mode of (Murcia)
SmartSpec
RIS with weak innovation capabilities:
organisationally thin RIS
Institutional configurations: variety of systemic and institutional bottlenecks
 Limited tradition of cooperation & low levels of trust among key stakeholders (both
within and between triple/quadruple helix actors) (Murcia, Lodz, Eszak-Alfold)
 Silo approach in government and political instability (Slovenia)
 Weak coordination between support organisations; fragmented institutional support
structures (Basilicata, Lodz)
 Lack of governance mechanisms that allow for the involvement of stakeholders
(Slovenia)
SmartSpec
RIS with strong innovation capabilities:
organisationally thick RIS (diversified / specialised)
Industrial structures
 Regions with highly diversified economic structures: PACA, Scania
 Regions with rather specialised industrial structures (e.g. More and Romsdal (traditional
manufacturing industries); Tampere (mechanical engineering and automation, ICT);
Navarre (automotive industry, agribusiness, machinery)
Knowledge & supporting organisations
 Well endowed with knowledge and support organisations  organisationally thick
structures
 Stronger connections between universities and firms & active involvement in
development of smart spec strategies (exception: PACA: “beyond traditional technology
push models”)
 Missing elements in some regions: basic research (More and Romsdal), competence
centres (Northern Ireland), technology transfer agencies (Bremen)
SmartSpec
RIS with strong innovation capabilities:
organisationally thick RIS (diversified / specialised)
Institutional configurations: favourable institutional set-up but various
coordination failures
 Coordination challenges within complex multilevel governance
systems (Tampere)
 Insufficient collaboration and coordination between knowledge
organisations (More and Romsdal); intermediary/support
organisations (Northern Ireland, Scania, Tampere, Navarre, PACA)
 Weakly developed coordination structures between government
departments (Northern Ireland)
SmartSpec
Smart specialisation
Overview:
 Policy contexts and inclusive governance (forms of involvement on nonpolicy actors)
 Design, implementation and assessment of smart spec strategies

Prioritisation challenges

Implementation challenges

Monitoring and evaluation challenges
 Smart spec: continuity of or break with past practices
SmartSpec
Smart spec: Policy contexts
Smart spec practices take place in fairly different policy contexts (complex multilevel governance
constellations):

Regions located strongly centralized policy contexts: Slovenia, Eszak-Alfold

Regions with some degree of autonomy: e.g. North East Romania, Scania, Basilicata, Lodz, South
Moravia, PACA (strong variation within this group)

Regions with strong autonomy: Navarre, Murcia, Northern Ireland
 Smart spec practices strongly shaped by levels of autonomy & financial resources at the regional level
as well as experiences of policy actors
Key issues:

Sound engagement of various levels of government in regions’ smart spec strategy

Coordination mechanisms to ensure that innovation policies from different administrative levels are
aligned with the regions’ emerging smart spec strategies
SmartSpec
Smart spec: Inclusive governance
Large variety of forms of involvement of non-policy actors

No active involvement of non-policy stakeholders: e.g. Slovenia

Involvement of stakeholders but led by regional authorities (workshops, working groups)


Narrower set of actors (mainly industries, industry panels or cluster organizations): Northern
Ireland and Bremen)

Wide variety of stakeholders: South Moravia, PACA, North East Romania, Murcia, Eszak Alfold
Institutionalized forms of involvement:

Basilicata: partnership among regional stakeholders representing the most important RIS actors
(“partenariato”)

Scania: involvement of key individuals (not only based on their organizational association but on
their personal engagement in innovation issues): Research and Innovation Council FIRS
SmartSpec
Smart spec: Design, implementation and
assessment of smart specialisation strategies
Prioritisation challenges
Use of data to support selection of priorities:

analyses of quantitative data (data routinely collected by statistical agencies, tailored analyses of
socioeconomic factors)

qualitative data (workshops, thematic studies, extensive interviews, expert rounds)
Selected priorities:

Very broad (encompassing all sectors)  no “real” prioritization – lacking concentration of activities
constituting regional strengths (e.g. Slovenia, Murcia)

Identification of the strongest sectors (Eszak Alfold, Lodz)  reflects rent-seeking behaviour, wish
to enhance political legitimacy

Wide priorities, reflecting mainly existing economic structure  path extension (South Moravia,
Bremen, Basilicata)

Prioritization reflects new path development: focus on “arenas” and “growth ecosystems” (Scania,
Tampere)  shift away from sectoral logic to inter-industry cross-overs
SmartSpec
Example: Arena Approach in Scania
(Sweden)
SmartSpec
Source: Söderström et al. (2012: 4)
Example: More and Romsdal
(Norway)
SmartSpec
Smart spec: Design, implementation and
assessment of smart specialisation strategies
Implementation challenges:
In most regions: implementation is still in its infancy
 Regions without an action plan
 Regions with an action plan involving a mix of existing instruments
 Regions with action plan involving a mix of new and existing
instruments
Most regions belong to the group where an action plan has been
formulated in a broad sense and making use of existing policy
instruments, but where implementation in practice still is an open
question
SmartSpec
Smart spec: Design, implementation and
assessment of smart specialisation strategies
Monitoring and evaluation systems
 Monitoring and evaluation practices are lacking in many regions
(Scania, Lodz, Basilicata) but increasing awareness of need for these
practices to be put in place
 Acknowledgement of the need for developing new metrics & output
indicators (E.g.: Tampere: shift to arena-based innovation support
creates data issues in terms of clear metrics for monitoring)
 Some of the plans that are better developed include those for South
Moravia, PACA, Murcia and North East Romania in which clear
monitoring plans, list of indicators and evaluation practices are
covered
SmartSpec
Smart spec: continuity of or break with
past practices?
Smart specialisation has induced changes in innovation policy making in many regions: break
with past practices, but several challenges remain (selection):

Broad based innovation policies: too strong focus on STI policies, underrepresentation
of DUI policies in some regions; consideration of non-technological innovation, service
innovation, public sector innovation, social innovation as key future challenge

Involvement of non-policy stakeholders in smart spec policy processes: clear
evidence for inclusive approaches; need to solve challenges related to vested interests,
institutionalisation of collaboration

Selected priorities for policy intervention: reflect modernisation of existing economic
strengths (path extension) & support for emerging activities (path renewal & creation); but
in some regions: too wide priorities (no ‘real’ prioritisation) & neglect of cross-sectoral
activities based on related variety and combinations of knowledge bases

External connectedness: creation of links with capacity and capability outside the region
is not a widespread phenomenon
SmartSpec
Many thanks for your attention
michaela.trippl@circle.lu.se
SmartSpec