Interregional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization

Transcription

1 Interregional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization Elvira Uyarra a, Chiara Marzocchi a, Jens Sörvik b a Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School b Smart Specialisation Platform, IPTS, European Commission

2 Aim of the work How can we better understand outward orientation in RIS3? To what extent have regions worked collaboratively in their innovation policies? Are there any significant differences across regions? What motivates regions to work collaboratively? What are the barriers?

3 Smart Specialisation as place-based policy which emphasises the principle of prioritisation in a non-neutral manner and defines a method to identify such desirable areas for innovation policy interventions to overcome fragmentation, poor coordination and insufficient critical mass in R&I investments (Foray 2009; 2014) Key principles: Prioritisation: Vertical (sectoral) and non-neutral choices Concentration, focus, scale, and scope Granularity: focus on particular domains with regional growth potential Entrepreneurial discovery process (bottom-up) Outward looking orientation (connectedness within and between regions) [ ] Looking beyond the regional administrative boundaries...to identify competitive advantages through systematic comparisons, mapping the national and the international context in search of examples to learn from and performing effective benchmarking. Moreover, a Region should be able to identify relevant linkages and flows of goods, services and knowledge revealing possible patterns of integration with partner regions (European Commission 2012 pp19)

4 We can understand the idea of outward looking orientation as a continuum or process involving: Regional profiling in comparative national & global context Identification of complementarities with other regions, mutual adjustment & sharing of information/good practices Set up interregional collaboration frameworks and actions Coordinating support instruments Joint delivery, joint funding Integrated strategies Information sharing about policies and strategic priorities Ad-hoc initiatives/ projects Mutual alignment of programmes & structures Collaboration in the design and joint delivery (and/or funding) of programmes or actions. Joint strategy / policy-mix integration Source: based on Nauwelaers, 2013

5 The implementation of Smart Specialisation strategies pose fundamental challenges (Morgan, 2013) Collaboration & Policy Coordination Nexus Importance of Relatedness & Intra and Inter-regional connectivity (Boschma & Frenken, 2011b; Neffke et al., 2011; Boschma & Iammarino, 2009) and Learning linkages (McCann & Ortega- Argilés, 2011) Regions should exploit global-local links for regional innovation and new path development (Bathlet et al, 2004; Trippl et al, 2015) Different dynamics of regional integration in global innovation networks & value chains (MacKinnon, 2012, Radosevic & Stancova, 2015) Regional innovation policies have been dominantly inward-looking (Benneworth & Dassen, 2011) Incorporate the multi-scalar institutional configurations in which all policymakers are situated (Coe et al. 2004) Enabling role of cross regional policy alignment and integration: negative coordination (mutual adjustment to avoid duplication), positive coordination (alignment of policy instruments), policy integration (coordination of policy goals) (Peters, 1998; Braun, 2008; Edler, 2010; Candel & Biesbroek, 2016)

6 Methodology Mixed Methods: (1) Survey Sampling frame: Smart Specialisation Platform 455 Participants Response Rate: 110 Respondents (65 Regions & 28 Countries) 36% North/Central EU 29% Eastern EU 35% Southern EU (2) In-depth interviews (N=14) Respondents targeted according to geography and asked to elaborate on drivers and barriers in collaboration Limitations: Representativeness & Respondent Bias Potential bias towards those regions happier with RIS3

7 Collaboration patterns 54% of the surveyed regions have past experience of collaboration in R&I* In the 69% of those, collaboration has increased in the last two years Regions in Central & North EU Countries collaborate the most Southern EU regions lagging behind (?) Has your Region engeged in Inter-regional collaboration for the delivery of R&I policies and Strategies? Central&North East South Total Yes 21.57% 15.69% 16.67% 53.92% (N) (22) (16) (17) (55) Total N * * 8 unidentified countries Has the intensity of your Region's inter-regional R&I policy collaboration changed in the last tw o years? Central&North East South Total Increased 27.27% 23.64% 18.18% 69.09% Same 10.91% 5.45% 10.91% 27.27% Don't know 1.82% % 3.64% Total N * R&I policy collaboration understood as one or more regions (within and between countries) coordinating the design, joint delivery, joint funding and/or management of a particular policy scheme

8 Instruments R&I Policy collaboration experiences (last 5 years) International partners Information sharing/analysis Sharing information 50.00% Policy peer review/benchmarking 44.12% Joint Platforms for R&I dialogue 40.20% Monitoring and Evaluation of R&I policies 22.55% 39.2% Alignment of priorities/strategies Alignment of rules for R&I support 23.53% Coordination of R&I priorities 21.57% Development of cross-border R&I strategi 36.27% Foresight 9.80% 22.7% Policy instruments Technical services/ Other business suppor 21.57% Mobility schemes between academia and i 13.73% Other knowledge transfer 14.71% Research infrastructure 26.47% Cluster and innovation network initiatives 26.47% Technology transfer infrastructure 17.65% 20.1% Funding Funding for private and collaborative R&D 12.75% Early stage finance/ Venture capital 8.82% 10.8% Demand side Public procurement of innovation 9.80% Setting of standards/ Regulations 2.94% 6.4%

9 Drivers of collaboration Three factors emerge as drivers for collaboration in R&I policy: o o o Policy learning (interregional learning, other soft benefits) Critical mass in research (e.g. access to broader research base and knowledge networks) Business Support (improve connectivity, service provision, access to markets)

10 Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews) Key drivers Learning and sharing good practices, but also driven by new RIS3 mandate Benefiting from critical mass and complementary skills, access to researchers, markets, test environments, technology providers Different across countries. E.g. policy learning more important in Eastern EU regions Interregional collaboration mainly on soft policy learning/benchmarking activities and projects. Limited collective efforts in the design, implementation and joint funding of S&I instruments. Few examples of strategic collaboration e.g. Pilot project between Rumania and North Netherlands. Some regions starting to be more selective and strategic in their interregional collaboration (Lombardy).

11 Perceived Barriers by Geographical Area What are in your experience the main barriers to inter-regional R&I policy collaboration? Relevant Barriers to Inter-Regional Collaboration by Geographical Area Central & North East South Insufficient engagement of regional stakeholders Lack of resources (e.g. financial) Lack of clarity of the objectives Insufficient political commitment Asymmetric levels of policy competence Lack of previous experience in policy collaboration Asymmetric incentives/ mismatch of objectives Lack of trust between potential partners Legal or administrative barriers Socio-cultural mismatch (language barriers) 43.8% 41.7% 26.7% 43.8% 41.7% 53.3% 31.3% 41.7% 53.3% 37.5% 25.0% 27.3% 33.3% 46.7% 6.7% 6.3% 18.8% 31.3% 18.8% 18.2% 16.7% 25.0% 45.5% 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 20.0% 20.0% 8.3% 6.7% Lack of resources is the most relevant barrier across all the Areas Insufficient engagement of regional stakeholders barriers in Central & North as well as Eastern Areas but less so in Southern EU Socio-cultural mismatch are perceived much more strongly in Central & North Areas Eastern Areas: strong legal or administrative barriers

12 Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews) Institutional factors Bureaucratic rigidities with funding programmes mismatch with flexible RIS3 Non-compatibility in level of policy competences (ES and PT). Unwillingness to use funds outside of region (politicians and beneficiaries) Difficult shift from projects to working more strategically and on a wider setup of activities. Often objectives unclear There is an old fashion way of thinking, key concern is what are the benefits, where is our profit? Who is profiting from it? There is a rule that you can spend a % of your ERDF money on partners outside of your region. But all secretariats and all partners firmly believe they should spend the money in their own region. Nobody is using it.

13 Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews) Relational factors Path dependency in relations (Andalusia, Castilla y Leon, Northern Netherlands) To form multi stakeholder partnerships takes time, and even more so on an international level (Ex: Vanguard, now 2 years, and still preparing projects) There are transaction costs for collaborating and it takes time to find a good partner. It takes time to know if one can work together or not, quite difficult to decide whether it is the right partner. We have established a club of regions, because we have gained experience on how to collaborate. Lack of resources and capabilities Not enough personnel (Austria; Marche; Lombardy) Lack of skills to engage in collaboration projects (Värmland and Dalarna) Lack of experience (Malta) Lack of good examples, uncertainty on how to do it. There are no rules of how to start these interregional collaboration. When you don't have any rules or methodologies, everybody has to find their own way of how to approach this. It is not clear what is allowed, how you should do it and so on and so forth.

14 Interregional Collaboration in Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization Elvira Uyarra a, Chiara Marzocchi a, Jens Sörvik b a Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School b Smart Specialisation Platform, IPTS, European Commission

15 Drivers of collaboration Share experiences and learn from other regions New orientation of regional policy (smart specialisation) Support linkages between R&I and industry Increase regional visibility through collaboration Provide better and more integrated services for SMEs Support industry in exploiting technological opportunities Support industry in exploiting new markets Solve common socio-economic problems Access to research expertise Achieve critical mass in research Share costs and risks associated with R&I support Don't know / Not applicable Not important Low importance Fairly important Very important Q: What are the main factors driving inter-regional R&I policy collaboration?

16 Barriers What are in your experience the main barriers to inter-regional R&I policy collaboration? Insufficient engagement of regional stakeholders in one or more of the partner regions Lack of resources (e.g. financial) Lack of clarity of the objectives of collaboration Insufficient political commitment in one or more of the partner regions Asymmetric levels of policy competence Lack of previous experience in policy collaboration Asymmetric incentives/ mismatch of objectives for collaboration Insufficient commitment of national stakeholders in one or more of the partner regions Lack of trust between potential partners Legal or administrative barriers Socio-cultural mismatch (e.g. language barriers) Don't know / Not applicable /Not important Low importance Very + fairly important

17 Barriers Differences between Collaborating &Not Collaborating Regions

18 Follow up interviews Region which has collaborated North Centre Dalarna, Sweden East Sweden/Östergötland Lower Austria North Netherlands South Andalucia, Spain Castilla y Leon, Spain Marche, Italy Lombardy, Italy Not collaborated Värmland, Sweden Malta East North East Romania South Moravia-Brno, Czech Republic Lithuania Polish, UK and French regions pending