Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Taking into Account the Human Factor in Regional Innovation Systems and Policies

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Innovation is considered a key driver for economic growth and is usually studied in the form of systems, with the regional level being arguably the most important. Despite constantly improving technological infrastructure, the human-related aspects of innovation are still the most important part of the innovation process. The human factor in innovation essentially consists of three components: (1) human capital, which refers to education, knowledge, and skills; (2) social capital, which refers to the strength of social links and social coherence; and (3) psychological capital, which refers to peoples’ values, attitudes, and behaviors. The research findings confirmed this view and showed which specific indicators of the three types of capital had a significant impact on innovation output. A new, extended regional innovation scoreboard emphasizing the human factor, is proposed. Also, based on the findings, and bearing in mind current EU innovation policies, a number of measures are proposed in order to suggest “more human” smart specialization policies in order to increase innovation in European regions and coherence between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adèr, H. J., & Adèr, M. (2008). Advising on research methods: a consultant’s companion. Huizen, the Netherlands: Johannes van Kessel Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agiomirgianakis, G., Asteriou, D., & Monastiriotis, V. (2002). Human capital and economic growth revisited: a dynamic panel data study. International Advances in Economic Research, 8(3), 177–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcomak, I. S., & Ter Weel, B. (2009). Social capital, innovation and growth: evidence from Europe. European Economic Review, 53(5), 544–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albury, D. (2005). Fostering innovation in public services. Public Money and Management, 25(1), 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelidou, M., & Psaltoglou, A. (2017). An empirical investigation of social innovation initiatives for sustainable urban development. Sustainable Cities and Society, 33, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angelopoulos, S., Kitsios, F., & Papadopoulos, T. (2010). New service development in e-government: identifying critical success factors. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 4(1), 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antonelli, G., & Cappiello, G. (2016). Smart development in smart communities. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Asteriou, D., & Agiomirgianakis, G. M. (2001). Human capital and economic growth: time series evidence from Greece. Journal of Policy Modeling, 23(5), 481–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachtler, J., & Turok, I. (2013). The coherence of EU regional policy: contrasting perspectives on the structural funds. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bakx, N. (2007). Which personality traits do innovative people possess? Amsterdam, Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam, Master Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrutia, J. M., & Echebarria, C. (2010). Social capital, research and development, and innovation: an empirical analysis of Spanish and Italian regions. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(4), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basulto, D. (2015). Patents are a terrible way to measure innovation. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 12, 2017 from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/07/14/patents-are-a-terrible-way-to-measure-innovation/?utm_term=.db502c8c2a82

  • Baty, P. (Ed.). (2016). Times Higher Education World University Rankings. The Times in partnership with Elsevier. London: The Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belke, A., Christodoulakis, N., & Gros, D. (2015). Lessons from the Strukturwandel in the Ruhrgebiet: turning Northern Greece into an industrial champion? Study conducted and published by the Stiftung Mercator Foundation. Essen: Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilbao-Osorio, B., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2004). From R&D to innovation and economic growth in the EU. Growth and Change, 35(4), 434–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brons, L. L. (2006). Indirect measurement of regional culture in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 97(5), 547–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capello, R. (2014). Smart Specialisation Strategy and the New EU Cohesion Policy Reform: Introductory Remarks. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Industry and Higher Education, 22(6), 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. (2014). Strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity (SKARSE™) in action. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 203–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2014). Developed democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, democracy, and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Grigoroudis, E. (2016). Using multi-objective mathematical programming to link national competitiveness, productivity and innovation. Annals of Operations Research, 247(2), 635–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Provance, M., & Givens, N. (2011). Knowledge arbitrage, serendipity, and acquisition formality: their effects on sustainable entrepreneurial activity in regions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58(3), 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2015a). Multi-level multi-stage efficiency measurement: the case of innovation systems. Operational Research: an International Journal, 15(2), 253–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015b). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Goletsis, Y. (2016). A multi-level and multi-stage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: a multi-objective DEA approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Ferreira, J., Jalali, M., & Ferreira, F. (2018a). MCDA in knowledge-based economies: methodological developments and real-world applications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2018b). Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the quadruple innovation helix framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018c). The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carbaugh, R. J. (2013). Contemporary economics: an applications approach. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, P. M., & Heckman, J. J. (2003). Human Capital Policy. In IZA (Institute for the Study of Labor) Discussion Paper No.821. Bonn, Germany: IZA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallini, S., Soldi, R., Friedl, J. & Volpe, M. (2016). Using the quadruple helix approach to accelerate the transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth. Brussels: European Union Committee of the Regions.

  • Coffano, M., & Foray, D. (2014). The Centrality of Entrepreneurial Discovery in Building and Implementing a Smart Specialisation Strategy. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2014). The Global Innovation Index 2014: the human factor in innovation. Fontainebleau, Ithaca, and Geneva.

  • Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2016). The Global Innovation Index 2016: winning with global innovation. Fontainebleau, Ithaca, and Geneva.

  • Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dakhli, M., & De Clercq, D. (2004). Human capital, social capital, and innovation: a multi-country study. Entrepreneurship &Regional Development, 16(2), 107–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dominicis, L., Florax, R. J., & De Groot, H. L. (2013). Regional clusters of innovative activity in Europe: are social capital and geographical proximity key determinants? Applied Economics, 45(17), 2325–2335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Didero, M., Gareis, K., Marques, P., & Ratzke, M. (2008). Differences in innovation culture across Europe. Transform, discussion paper, 022780.

  • Dillahunt, T. R. (2014, April). Fostering social capital in economically distressed communities. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 531–540). ACM.

  • Do Carmo Costa, P. (2015). Measuring innovation. A framework for getting it done. Lisbon, Portugal: Exago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doh, S., & Acs, Z. J. (2010). Innovation and social capital: a cross-country investigation. Industry and Innovation, 17(3), 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (2005). Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Norfolk: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2015). The Innovation Union Scoreboard is flawed: the case of Sweden–not being the innovation leader of the EU. In Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, L. (2016). Huge increase in number of graduates ‘bad for UK economy’. The Guardian. Retrieved August 16, 2017 from: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/oct/11/huge-increase-in-number-of-graduates-bad-for-uk-economy

  • Eurostat. (2017). Migration and migrant population statistics. Retrieved February 15, 2018 from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

  • Feldhusen, J. F. (1995). Creativity: a knowledge base, metacognitive skills, and personality factors. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(4), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., & Hollanders, H. (2015). An assessment of the Innovation Union Scoreboard as a tool to analyse national innovation capacities: the case of Switzerland. Research Evaluation, rvu036.

  • Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga, X., Landabaso Belderrain, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, C., Ortega-Argiles, R., & Mulatero, F. (2011). RIS3 guide. Seville: European Commission/Joint Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga, X., Landabaso Belderrain, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, C., & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2012). Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS 3). Brussels: European Union Regional Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerometta, J., Haussermann, H., & Longo, G. (2005). Social innovation and civil society in urban governance: strategies for an inclusive city. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2007–2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D., & Sacerdote, B. (2002). An economic approach to social capital. The Economic Journal, 112(483), F437–F458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2008). Innovation: the history of a category. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper, (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasso, R. (2013). The impact of CEO’s personality traits (Big 5) and human resources management practices on the innovation performance in SMEs. Twente, Netherlands: The University of Twente, Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbig, P. A., & Dunphy, S. (1998). Culture and innovation. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 5(4), 13–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences – comparing values, behaviours, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1) Retrieved, October 23 2016, from. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.

  • Hofstede Insights. (2018). Country comparison. Retrieved, February 15, 2018 from: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/

  • Hofstede, G., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Culture and personality revisited: linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 52–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H. (2003). 2003 European Innovation Scoreboard: Technical Paper No 3 Regional Innovation Performances.Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

  • Hollanders, H., & Es-Sadki, N. (2014). Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) 2014. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H., Es-Sadki, N., & Kanerva, M. (2015). Innovation Union Scoreboard 2015. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H., Es-Sadki, N., & Kanerva, M. (2016). Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS) 2016. Maastricht, Netherlands: Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT).

    Google Scholar 

  • Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends. Aachen, Germany: RWTH Aachen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, M. M. (2002). The weakness of postcommunist civil society. Journal of Democracy, 13(1), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Investopedia. (2016). Human capital. Retrieved, May 3, 2016 from: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/humancapital.asp

  • Jimenez-Jimenez, D., Sanz Valle, R., & Hernandez-Espallardo, M. (2008). Fostering innovation: the role of market orientation and organizational learning. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(3), 389–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, A. (2013). Culture as a possible factor of innovation: evidence from the European Union and neighboring countries. In Re-thinking diversity (pp. 83–107). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

  • Kaasa, A., & Vadi, M. (2010). How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7), 583–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kakderi, C., Psaltoglou, A., & Fellnhofer, K. (2018). Online platforms for collaborative innovation. In 20th conference of the Greek regional scientists (pp. 112–118).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleis Nielsen, R., & Sambrook, R. (2016). What is happening to television news? Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute & University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalisation of innovation networks. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Komninos, N., & Tsamis, A. (2008). The system of innovation in Greece: structural asymmetries and policy failure. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Komninos N., Panori A., Kakderi C., Reid A., Cvijanovićv V., Roman M., Deakin M., Mora L., Tiemann M. & Badii L. (2018a) Online S3 mechanism for knowledge-based policy advice. Report produced in the framework of Horizon 2020 project Online S3: ONLINE Platform for Smart Specialisation Policy Advice.

  • Komninos, N., Kakderi, C., Panori, A., Garcia, E., Fellnhofer, E., Reid, A., Cvijanović, V., Roman, M., Deakin, M., Mora, L., and Reid, A. (2018b). Intelligence and co-creation in smart specialisation strategies: towards the next stage of RIS3. Online S3 white paper. https://www.onlines3.eu/wp-content/onlines3-files/22%20Intelligence%20and%20co-creation%20in%20Smart%20Spec.pdf

  • Landabaso, M. (2014). Guest editorial on research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation in Europe: theory and practice of new innovation policy approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 378–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laznjak, J. (2011). Dimensions of national innovation culture in Croatia: content validity of Hofstede’s dimensions. Drustvena Istrazivanja, 20(4), 1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Innovation and spatial inequality in Europe and USA. Journal of Economic Geography, 13(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Business Horizons, 47(1), 45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). On the path towards open innovation: assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinidis, G. (2017). The importance of man within the system: defining and measuring the human factor in innovation, a review. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8(2), 638–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskell, P. (2001). Knowledge creation and diffusion in geographic clusters. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(02), 213–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Modern regional innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(2), 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meissner, D., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). Value generation from industry-science linkages in light of targeted open innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(2), 295–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monks, J., & Schmidt, R. (2010). The impact of class size and number of students on outcomes in higher education. [Electronic version]. Retrieved, November 8, 2017, from Cornell University, School of Industrial and Labor Relations site: www.digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/workingpapers/114

  • Myers, M., & Tan, F. (2002). Beyond models of national culture in information systems research. Journal of Global Information Management, 10(2), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakata, C., & Sivakumar, K. (1996). National culture and new product development: an integrative review. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, T. (2014). Are patents creative or destructive? Antitrust Law Journal, 79(2), 405.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2017). Population with tertiary education. Retrieved August 16, 2017 from: https://data.oecd.org/eduatt/population-with-tertiary-education.htm

  • Oskam, J., & Boswijk, A. (2016). Airbnb: the future of networked hospitality businesses. Journal of Tourism Futures, 2(1), 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panori, A., Angelidou, M., Mora, L., Reid, A., & Sefertzi, E. (2018). Online platforms for smart specialisation strategies and smart growth. In 20th Conference of the Greek Regional Scientists (pp. 96–103).

    Google Scholar 

  • Papapanagos, H., & Sanfey, P. (2003). Emigration and the optimal speed of transition. Review of International Economics, 11(3), 541–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papapanagos, H., & Vickerman, R. W. (2000). Borders, migration, and labour-market dynamics in a changing Europe. In M. van der Velde & H. van Houtum (Eds.), Borders, regions, and people (Vol. 10, pp. 32–46). European Research in Regional Science.

  • Patterson, F. (2002). Great minds don’t think alike? Person-level predictors of innovation at work. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 17, 115–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peiró-Palomino, J. (2017). The geography of social capital and innovation in the European Union. Papers in Regional Science.

  • Pinto, H. (2009). The diversity of innovation in the European Union: mapping latent dimensions and regional profiles. European Planning Studies, 17(2), 303–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., Nanetti, R. Y., & Pavoncello, F. (1983). Explaining institutional success: the case of Italian regional government. American Political Science Review, 77(01), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2017). Institutions and the entrepreneurial discovery process for smart specialization. Governing Smart Specialisation, 34–48.

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Human capital and growth: theory and evidence. In Carnegie-Rochester Conference series on public policy (Vol. 32, pp. 251–286). North-Holland.

  • Sartori, R., Favretto, G., & Ceschi, A. (2013). The relationships between innovation and human and psychological capital in organizations: a review. The Innovation Journal, 18(3), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saughet, A. (2015). Digital tools for participatory democracy. GovLab – Tandon School of Engineering – NYU. Retrieved, January 12, 2018, from: http://thegovlab.org/digital-tools-for-participatory-democracy/

  • Scheepers, P., Grotenhuis, M. T., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Welfare states and dimensions of social capital: cross-national comparisons of social contacts in European countries. European Societies, 4(2), 185–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoonmaker, M. G., & Carayannis, E. G. (2010). Assessing the value of regional innovation networks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1(1), 48–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (Ed.). (2017). The global human capital report 2017. Cologny, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). The effect of social networking sites and absorptive capacity on SMES’ innovation performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Severijns, J. (2017). Solving contradictions by connectivity: reflections on regional innovation and research policy. A Limburg initiative. Limburg, Netherlands: The Province of Limburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleuwaegen, L., & Boiardi, P. (2014). Creativity and regional innovation: evidence from EU regions. Research Policy, 43(9), 1508–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spady, W. G. (1994). Outcome-Based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, W. (2001). Measuring social capital. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strychalska-Rudzewicz, A. (2015). Cultural dimensions and innovation. Socio-Economic Problems and the State., 13(2), 59–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. Z., & Wilson, S. (2012). Does culture still matter? The effects of individualism on national innovation rates. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The European Commission. (2018). Equal opportunities and access to the labour market. Retrieved, January 12, 2018 from: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/equal-opportunities-and-access-labour-market_en

  • Theodora, Y. C. (2008). An approach to the effects of Greek regional universities on the development of the country regions. In Regional analysis and policy (pp. 249–270). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Verlag, a Springer Company.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, M. (2017). Regional innovation strategies. KnowHub article. Retrieved, December 18, 2017, from: http://www.know-hub.eu/knowledge-base/encyclopaedia/regional-innovation-strategies.html

  • Waldman, P. (2013). Just how bad is television news? Article on the American Prospect. Retrieved August 16, 2017 from: http://prospect.org/article/just-how-bad-television-news

  • Weeks, D. (2016). Climate for creativity and innovation. Retrieved January 21, 2016 from http://www.m1creativity.co.uk/innovationclimate.htm

  • World Bank. (2010). Innovation policy: a guide for developing countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research policy, 35(7), 1083–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    G. Martinidis

  2. School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    N. Komninos

  3. George Washington University School of Business, Washington, D.C., USA

    E. Carayannis

Authors
  1. G. Martinidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Komninos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Martinidis.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Extended Regional Innovation Scoreboard rankings and the difference in ranking from the original RIS
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martinidis, G., Komninos, N. & Carayannis, E. Taking into Account the Human Factor in Regional Innovation Systems and Policies. J Knowl Econ 13, 849–879 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00722-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00722-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation