Regional Innovation Systems from academic concept to institutionalized practices? On the implementation of VRI in Norwegian regions

Transcription

1 Regional Innovation Systems from academic concept to institutionalized practices? On the implementation of VRI in Norwegian regions Professor Stig-Erik Jakobsen Mohn Centre for innovation and regional development Oslo, March 3, 2017

2 What is a RIS? Several definitions and understandings of RIS in the litterature: Interacting knowledge exploration and knowledge exploitation subsystems, that are connected to other innovation system, and where supporting institutions are stimulating linkages and knowledge flow between the two subsystems (Cooke 2004, Autio 1998) A system consisting of components, linkages and boundaries (Coenen et al 2015) An «institutional infrastructure supporting innovation within the production structure of a region» (Asheim & Gertler 2005: 299). Both formal and informal (norms, practices, attitudes etc.) institutions 2

3 What is missing in the RIS litterature? More insight into the evolution of RIS many analysis are snapshots focusing on the characteristics, and strenght and weakness of particular systems (Isaksen and Trippl 2014:5) The failure to understand the true evolutionary dimension of RIS is a major gap in the litterature (Doloreux and Gomez 2017) we need to know more about how RIS evolve over time A better understanding of development of institutions and learning processes in RIS We need to avoid a narrow understanding of policy initiatives and their effects (Coenen et al 2015) Lack of understanding of how institutions and their role within the innovation system literature ( Coenen et al 2015, Boschma et al 2016)

4 The VRI program; an Norwegian initiative for building RIS structures VRI (Programme for regional R&D and innovation) started in 2007, and has been organized as 15 regional collaboration projects throughout Norway (encompassing all Norwegian counties (19)) Three program periods: VRI1, VRI2, VRI3 Aims to «promote greater regional collaboration between trade and industry, R&D institutions and the government authorities, and to establish close ties to other national and international network and innovation measures» (Program plan) Relies on regional partnerships and each regions define their own project within a national defined framework (Jakobsen et al. 2012) Yearly budget for the program ca 10 mill EUR (each project ca 0,4-0,8 mill EUR pr year, pluss regional funding) The type of RIS structures that can be developed through VRI is primarely a regional supporting structure for innovation, i.e. a regional capacity for supporting learning and innovation (see for instance Asheim and Gerlter 2005) 4

5 RIS development through VRI In this study we have analysed how VRI contribute to how such support structures evolve over time (informal and formal institutions, learning etc) The study is part of the project Exploring the role of VRI in regional innovation system formation and new path development (coordinated by B.T. Asheim) Two papers in progress: Jakobsen and Njøs (2016) Policy for evolution of regional innovation systems: The role of social capital and regional particularities (Submitted to Science and Public policy (invitation to submit a revised version)) Njøs, Fosse and Jakobsen (2017) Actors, levels and capabilities in evolution of regional innovation systems: A policy example (will be submitted to Industry and Innovation)

6 Methods and data collection Document analysis National policy documents All applications (15) for all regions through all program periods (3) 45 applications All final reports for VRI1 and 2 (15+15 documents) 30 final reports Interviews (25 interviews, conducted 2015) Two (key) persons from each VRI region Regional government representative (typically from the County Administration) and R&D representative (regional R&D inst. involved in VRI) Selected in dialogue with project leaders Telephone interviews All data coded in nvivo Nodes/coding based on an abductive approach; pending between theory and data

7 Jakobsen and Njøs: Policy for evolution of regional innovation systems: The role of social capital and regional particularities

8 Development of RIS support structures through VRI In this paper we opertionalize the development of RIS support structure through the concept of regional social capital Regional social capital is a type of informal institution that embodies how people function productively with other people it s part of a region s collective personality out of which innovation takes place (Malecki, 2012: 1033, Nahapiet and Ghosal 1998). According to Nahapiet and Ghosal (1998), there are three different dimension of social capital structural, relational, cognitive.

9 VRI, RIS and social capital Normann and Fosse (2015) link these three dimension to network building strategies. We can differ between three types of RIS-building strategies: i)structural RIS-strategies; identifying participants (organizations and institutions), motivating them to participate, and involving them in RIS-activity. ii) Relational RIS-strategies: building confidence and trust between the participants (organisations and institutions) iii) Cognitive RIS-strategies: creating a common identity and a common understanding among participants (shared narratives)

10 An ideal path for RIS support structure development. RQ; Can we identify this ideal path at VRI program level (VRI1, VRI2, VRI3) and at the regional project level? Or will there be regional responses that reflect context-specific situations?

11 Investingating the building of RIS support structures Level of analysis Investigate national (program level) strategies for building RIS support structures Investigate regional strategies for building RIS support structures Ilustrate different regional responses through three selected cases ( archetypes ) Data Analysis of available national VRI policy documents Analysis of applications and final reports for regional collaborations projects in VRI Semi-structured interviews with key informants in regional projects

12 Program level development Our investigation of the VRI program shows that program level development is closely linked to the theoretical ideal-type Structural social capital (VRI1) Relational social capital building (VRI 2) Cognitive social capital(vri3). This is not surprising, given that the VRI program was based on an understanding of the importance of giving partnership structures time to mature. In addition, it is logical that the program was initially intended to stimulate partnership formation, whereas the next step was to give these partnerships concrete content. The third and final VRI period is marked by the implicit assumption that both system structures and practices are institutionalized What about the regional strategies?

13 Regional Region level development: Regional OECD typology three GDP cases per employment Nordland Predominantly Nordland rural remote employed persons, index (national total = 100), 2013 % of inhabitants above 16y with long university or university college education (4 years or above) Industry structure 89 4,7 Diversified Rogaland Intermediate 109 8,9 Specialised Agder Intermediate 96 6,0 Specialised Rogaland Agder Source: Wikimedia Commons

14 Developing structural social capital: VRI Nordland VRI1: We have been working a lot on developing Target areas: Aquaculture, experience-based tourism, innovation infrastructure systems, in collaboration cold climates and arenas for The region is portrayed as blossoming and experiencing collaboration, economic and growth that we are capable, as a region, Challenges: Low degree of R&D in reg. industries, poorly to do these developed things. instituttsektor, And then we, of attracting course, score young, skilled labour. Also emphasized industry-specific worse challenges on for instance development of R&D projects with firms. The reason for that is that we are poor at Main aim: To develop stronger and more dynamic regional that other collaborations side of it; we between have underdeveloped actors in triple helix Target areas: renewable energy, suppliers within the petroleum linkages towards industry, the experience-based industries and R&D tourism As in VRI1, these areas are portrayed as representing an institutions. untapped potential, [Regional but they govt. also representative] have specific challenges Increased focus on systemic capabilities VRI2 VRI3 Setting up and developing the partnership Explicitly states that the aim is to develop regional innovation systems wichin the different target areas Target areas: experience-based tourism, Industry, Suppliers to the seafood industry Explicitly stated that an important goal is to institutionalize the RIS structure in participating organizations and institutions Have tended to rely on individual relations previously, lacking institutional embeddedness

15 Developing relational social capital: VRI Rogaland The VRI1 criteria for success is that the competence brokers are active. That is actually something which Rogaland has done differently from the rest of the country.(competence brokers) needs to be energetic and not afraid of taking to firms, and they need to have connections in R&D VRI2 institutions. [Regional govt. repr.] Very similar to VRI1 Rogaland portrayed as a booming region with a strong industrial base The region s competitiveness is reliant upon utilization of already strong resources, e.g. innovation, internationalization and quality of life Coordinated management of innovation tools emphasized as crucial Target areas: Food county Rogaland, Energy county Rogaland, maritime industries Emphasized that Rogaland had an a priori strong, well-functioning partnership Applicaiton framed according to percieved needs within the target areas; industry driven Especially concerned with instruments (in particular competence brokering) To develop an already strong industrial base through nurturing collaboration in triple helix Sub-goal included on developing regional R&D institutions capacity to collaborate with firms and industries Target areas the same as in VRI1, but Health is included as a fourth thematic area Competence brokers are given extended responsibility through also brokering other instruments VRI3 Making the partnership more As one of two goals, RIS development is included explicitly The four efficient sub-goals and are industry-netural trustbased and instead highlight a systemic approach Target areas: Value chain food, Technology with a future In a way, everything that happens in VRI Rogaland happens because of the competence brokers [Regional government representative]

16 Developing cognitive social capital: VRI Agder VRI1 Main goals were to increase value creation in industries, improve quality of collaboration between firms and R&D inst., and to analyse how knowledge and learning influence innovation activity Explicitly emphasizes how theories on knowledge, innovation [The key to and success value is] creation to ensure were knowledge important all to the project the way. Of course, many of these firms have Target areas: ICT and utilization of ICT knowledge, Process industry and suppliers to the petroleum industry, Culture and experience industries lived their own lives, doing well for long A priori VRI well-functioning partnership periods. And then, all of a sudden, maybe Strong focus on linkages between collaboration and reserach something project happens which makes it hard to continue the momentum. Then we need to be ahead, and send in researchers who speak a Aims are largely in harmony with VRI1; emphasizing language developing which regional this CEO knowledge and others through in the regional firm collaboration and interaction understands. We need to ensure a common Building Agders support as a «regional for knowledge the hub» understanding[regional government innovation Target areas: Energy system and idea technolgy, ICT, Culture, Wild Card representative] Project management by regional R&D inst. VRI2 VRI3 Also here concepts from innovaiton literature are central Application highlights concepts such as path renewal and path creation

17 Regional responses Regional responses deviated from the national path (and ideal path ) towards RIS support structure development The regional cases are focusing on selected social capital dimensions illustrating a certain degree of regional autonomy Still, all three cases appear relatively successful in stimulating regional social capital The observed differences are the result of how the political history of a region influences the implementation of a new innovation instrument (VRI)

18 Regional responses, cont. A new initiative, such as the VRI program, involves the continuation (and even the reinforcement) of past policy instruments Two of our cases Agder and Rogaland appear to have already had wellfunctioning partnerships in place at the outset of VRI1, whereas Nordland focused on developing such partnerships throughout the program period. Our cases illustrates how the regional projects had extended their original strategies, this does not imply that the projects did not change in other ways (i.e. dynamics) We observed changes in the tools that were employed and how they were used, as well as in the target areas that were selected Our cases also reported learning both at the actor level (county administration, R&D institutions, firm) and system level (regional partnership)

19 Policy learning RIS policy should take into account the likelihood that different regions are in different phases when it comes to developing informal and formal institutions for supporting innovation Not only regional differences in industry structure, R&D institutions etc National RIS policy needs to carefully consider the type of social capital that already exist in the region Attempts to develop RIS support structures for innovation by stimulating social capital should be open to addressing these different needs (the particular circumstances in different regions) Distinct national steering can be important for stimulating RIS in regions with very little social capital, but less effective in regions with well-functioning partnerships.

20 Adding to the theory Our study adds to the literature on RIS by illustrating how RIS support structures can evolve over time through policy initiatives. We also provide insights into the development of informal institutions supporting innovation (i.e. regional social capital) A specific focus on the true evolutionary dimension of RIS represents an alternative to the snapshot-oriented studies that have dominated the literature (Isaksen and Trippl, 2014; Doloreux and Gomez, 2016). Policy instrument does not necessarily promote new development paths; instead, they can create dynamics within existing paths ( path plasticity, Strambach and Halkier, 2013) Hence, there is a need for a deeper understanding about how past choices influence subsequent choices and lead to different evolutionary paths toward RIS

21 Thank you!