Social Indicators Research

, Volume 146, Issue 1–2, pp 221–247 | Cite as

Which are the Factors Influencing Innovation Performances? Evidence from Italian Cohesion Policy

  • Roberta ArbolinoEmail author
  • Raffaele Boffardi
  • Luisa De Simone


Our paper aims at evaluating the role that the local administrations play on Italian regional innovation performance, by using a revised version of Regional Innovation Scoreboard. Carrying out a panel data analysis and a logistic regression, the analysis is based on a combined approach towards institutions, involving socio-political aspects, considered by the institutional quality index, and the capability of regional administrators of expending Structural and Cohesion Funds, by a quantitative index. Firstly, a panel data analysis helped us to highlight the role of institutions and which sectoral themes of EU investments affected the most regional innovative performances in the time span 2007-2015. Secondly, the logistic regression captures which investment is more likely to affect innovation performances within Italian Regions. The results underline that major effect on innovation performance derive from the combined effect of high quality institutions and efficient public expenditure.


Innovation Institutional quality Efficiency Local management Cohesion funds 


  1. Agovino, M., Casaccia, M., & Crociata, A. (2016). Effectiveness and efficiency of European Regional Development Fund on separate waste collection: Evidence from Italian regions by a stochastic frontier approach. Econ: Polit. Scholar
  2. Andrew, J. P., De Rocco, E. S., & Taylor, A. (2009). The innovation imperative in manufacturing. Boston Consulting Group. Scholar
  3. Anokhin, S., & Schulze, W. S. (2009). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and corruption. Journal of Business Venturing,24, 465–476.Google Scholar
  4. Archibugi, D., & Filippetti, A. (2011). Is the economic crisis impairing convergence in innovation performance across Europe? Journal of Common Market Studies,49(6), 1153–1182.Google Scholar
  5. Asatryan, Z., Heinemann, F., & Pitlik, H. (2016). Reforming the public administration: The role of crisis and the power of bureaucracy. European Journal of Political Economy. Scholar
  6. Banca D’Italia. (2015). Economie regionali. L’economia delle regioni italiane. Dinamiche recenti e aspetti strutturali, Numero 43-Dicembre 2015.Banca d’Italia (2016), Economie Regionali. L’economia delle regioni italiane. Dinamiche recenti e aspetti strutturali, Numero 43-Dicembre 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent Report Prepared at the Request of DanutaHübner. Bruxelles: Commissioner for Regional Policy.Google Scholar
  8. Billon, M., Marco, R., & Lera-Lopez, F. (2016). Innovation and ICT use in the EU: An analysis of regional drivers. Empirical Economics. Scholar
  9. Binder, M. (2013). Innovativeness and subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research,111, 561–578. Scholar
  10. Brasoveanu, I. V., Silvestru, I. C., Pavel, A., & Onica, D. (2011). Structural and cohesion funds: Theoretical and statistical aspects in Romania and Eu. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences,33(E/2011), 30–48.Google Scholar
  11. Čadil, J., Mirošník, K., & Rehák, J. (2017). The lack of short-term impact of cohesion policy on the competitiveness of SMEs. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship,35, 991–1009. Scholar
  12. Capello, R. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU cohesion policy reform: Introductory remarks. ScienzeRegionali,1(1), 5–13. Scholar
  13. 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, 212–239.Google Scholar
  14. Castaldo, A., Fiorini, A., & Maggi, B. (2017). Measuring (in a time of crisis) the impact of broadband connections on economic growth: an OECD panel analysis. Applied Economics. Scholar
  15. Chakravorti, B., & Chaturvedi, R. S. (2017). Digital planet 2017. How competitiveness and trust in digital economies vary across the world. Medford: The Fletcher School, Tufts University.Google Scholar
  16. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2010). Mapping quality of government in the European Union: A study of national and sub-national variation. QoG Working Paper Series 2010 (pp. 22).Google Scholar
  17. Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Dijkstra, L. (2012). Regional governance matters: A study on regional variation in quality of government within the European Union Member States. Regional Studies,48, 68–90.Google Scholar
  18. Cleantech Group, & WWF. (2017). The Global Cleantech Innovation Index 2017. Which countries look set to produce the next generation of start-ups?. Google Scholar
  19. Commission, E. (2014). Programming period 2014-2020 monitoring and evaluation of european cohesion policy European Social Fund Guidance document on indicators of public administration capacity building—Final—June 2014 indicators of public administration capacity. Building,1, 1–16.Google Scholar
  20. Commission of the European Communities. (2003). Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (2003/361/EC).Google Scholar
  21. Commonwealth of Australia. (2016). Australian innovation system report 2016. Office of the Chief Economist.Google Scholar
  22. Cooke, P., & De Propris, L. (2011). A policy agenda for EU smart growth: the role of creative and cultural industries. Policy Studies,32(4), 365–375.Google Scholar
  23. Cornell University, INSEAD, & WIPO. (2017). The Global Innovation Index 2017: Innovation Feeding the World. Ithaca.Google Scholar
  24. Coy, P., & Lu, W. (2015). The Bloomberg Innovation Index. Bloomberg. Available at:
  25. Dellmuth, L. M., Schraff, D., & Stoffel, M. F. (2017). Distributive politics, electoral institutions and European structural and investment funding: Evidence from Italy and France. JCMS,55(2), 275–293. Scholar
  26. Deloof, M., & La Rocca, M. (2015). Local financial development and the trade credit policy of Italian SMEs. Small Business Economics,44, 905–924. Scholar
  27. Dotti, N. F. (2016). Unwritten factors affecting structural funds: The Influence of Regional political behaviours on the implementation of EU cohesion policy. European Planning Studies,24(3), 530–550. Scholar
  28. Dumitru, N. (2017). The role of financial instruments and their impact on the SME sector. Ovidius University Annals Economic Sciences Series,XVII, 556–561.Google Scholar
  29. Dutrénit Bielous, G., Zaragoza López, M. L., Saldívar Chávez, M. A., Solano Flroes, E., & Zúñiga-Bello, P. (2014). Ranking Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Google Scholar
  30. Dutta, S., Bruno, L., & Wunsch-Vincent, S. (2015). The Global Innovation Index 2015. Stronger Innovation Linkages. (ISBN 978-2-9522210-8-5).Google Scholar
  31. European Commission. (2016a). European Innovation Scoreboard 2016, Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Ref. Ares(2016):3366176, July 13, 2016.Google Scholar
  32. European Commission. (2016b). Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2016, Directorate-General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, Ref. Ares(2016)3366176, July 13, 2016.Google Scholar
  33. Farole, T., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, institutions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies,49(5), 1089–1111. (ISSN0021-9886).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fukuyama, F. (2000). Social capital and the civil society. IMF working paper number 74. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF).Google Scholar
  35. Getler, M. S. (2010). Rules of the game: The place of institutions in regional economic change. Regional Studies,44(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequence of modernity. Oxford: Polity.Google Scholar
  37. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association. (2017). The global report 2016/2017 global entrepreneurship monitor.Google Scholar
  38. Global Intellectual Propriety Centre. (2017). The roots of innovation. U.S. Chamber International IP Index (5th ed.), February 2017.Google Scholar
  39. Gupta, V., Agarkhedkar, S., & Sahney, S. (2015). The role of social networks in diffusing innovation within organisations. International Journal Innovation and Learning,18(2), 185–197.Google Scholar
  40. Hlaváček, P., & Siviček, T. (2017). Spatial differences in innovation potential of central European regions during post-transformation period. Journal of International Studies,10(2), 61–73. Scholar
  41. Hudson, J., & Minea, A. (2013). Innovation. Intellectual property rights, and economic development: A unified empirical investigation, world development,46, 66–78.Google Scholar
  42. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law,3(2), 220–246.Google Scholar
  43. Kyriacou, A. P., & Roca-Sagalés, O. (2012). The impact of EU structural funds on regional disparities within member states. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy,30(2), 267–281.Google Scholar
  44. Lee, S., Nam, Y., Lee, S., & Son, H. (2016). Determinants of ICT innovations: A cross-country empirical study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,110(2016), 71–77.Google Scholar
  45. Lucas, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics,22, 3–42.Google Scholar
  46. Malagueño, R., Lopez-Valeiras, E., & Gomez-Conde, J. (2017). Balanced scorecard in SMEs: Effects on innovation and financial performance. Small Business Economics. Scholar
  47. Massachusetts Technology Innovation Institute. (2016). The Massachusetts innovation economy annual index. Westborough: Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.Google Scholar
  48. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2013). Modern regional innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economics and Society,6, 187–216.Google Scholar
  49. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2015). Smart Specialization, regional growth and applications to European union cohesion policy. Regional Studies,49(8), 1291–1302. Scholar
  50. Mets, T., Kelli, A., Mets, A., & Tiimann, T. (2016). From patent counting towards the system of IP strategic indicators. InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics,27(3), 316–324.Google Scholar
  51. Mihailescu, G. (2012). Two eastern European countries with different paths: Why polish manage to efficiently absorb the European money while Romania remains with its funds blocked, published within the project “Poor governance in public spending in Romania between 2004 and 2012”, conducted by SAR (Romanian Academic Society) with the support of Open Society Foundations.Google Scholar
  52. Milio, S. (2007). Can administrative capacity explain differences in regional performances? Evidence from structural funds implementation in Southern Italy. Regional Studies,41(4), 429–442.Google Scholar
  53. Mohl, P., & Hagen, T. (2010). Do EU structural funds promote regional growth? New evidence from various panel data approaches. Regional Science and Urban Economics,40(2010), 353–365.Google Scholar
  54. Moodysson, J., & Zukauskaite, E. (2014). Institutional conditions and innovation systems: On the impact of regional policy on firms in different sectors. Regional Studies,48, 127–138. Scholar
  55. Nifo, A., & Vecchione, G. (2014). Do institutions play a role in skilled Migration? The Case of Italy, Regional Studies,48(10), 1628–1649. Scholar
  56. Nifo, A., & Vecchione, G. (2015a). Measuring institutional quality in Italy. Rivista economica del Mezzogiorno,29(1–2), 157–182.Google Scholar
  57. Nifo, A., & Vecchione, G. (2015b). Measuring institutional quality in Italy. Rivista economica del Mezzogiorno,29(1–2), 157–182.Google Scholar
  58. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. North, D. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2017). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2017: The digital transformation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Scholar
  61. Owen, R., Ntoko, A., Zhang, D., & Dong, J. (2002). Public policy and diffusion of innovation. Social Indicators Research,60, 179–190. Scholar
  62. Pater, R., & Lewandowska, A. (2015). Human capital and innovativeness of the European Union regions. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,28(1), 31–51. Scholar
  63. Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri. (2008). Il sistema di classificazione dei progetti nel CUP. Dipartimento per la Programmazione e il Coordinamento della Politica Economica: Classificazione CPV a parte.Google Scholar
  64. Prokop, V., & Stejskal, J. (2017). Different approaches to managing innovation activities: An analysis of strong, moderate, and modest innovators. InzinerineEkonomika-Engineering Economics,28(1), 47–55.Google Scholar
  65. Pupo, V., & Aiello, F. (2012). Structural funds and the economic divide in Italy. Journal of Policy Model.,34, 403–418.Google Scholar
  66. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do Institutions Matter for Regional Development? Regional Studies,47(7), 1034–1047. Scholar
  67. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di-Cataldo, A. (2015). Quality of government and innovative performance in the regions of Europe. Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography,15(4), 673–706.Google Scholar
  68. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, F., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth,9, 131–165.Google Scholar
  69. Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy,94, 1002–1037.Google Scholar
  70. Romero, I., & Fernández-Serrano, J. (2014). The European cohesion policy and the promotion of entrepreneurship. The case of Andalusia, Investigaciones Regionales,29(2014), 215–236.Google Scholar
  71. Rossi, M. (2015). The role of venture capital funds in financing innovation in Italy. Constraints and challenges for innovative small firms. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business,7, 162–180. Scholar
  72. Schwab, K., & Sala-i-Martín, X. (2017). The global competitiveness report 2016–2017. Cologny: World Economic Forum.Google Scholar
  73. Sivak, R., Caplanova, A., & Hudson, J. (2011). The impact of governance and infrastructure on innovation. Post-Communist Economies,23, 203–217.Google Scholar
  74. Smeriglio, A., Bachtler, J., De Francesco, F., Olejniczak, K., & Thomson, R. (2015). Administrative capacity-building and EU Cohesion Policy. EPRC, Sch. Gov. Public Policy.Google Scholar
  75. Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics,70, 65–94.Google Scholar
  76. Streeck, W. (1991). On the institutional conditions of diversified quality production. In E. Metzner & W. Streeck (Eds.), Beyond Keynesianism: Socio-economics of production and full employment (pp. 21–61). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  77. Surubaru, N. (2017). Administrative capacity or quality of political governance? EU Cohesion Policy in the new Europe, 2007–13. Regional Studies,51(6), 844–856. Scholar
  78. Tebaldi, E., & Elmslie, B. (2013). Does institutional quality impact innovation? Evidence from cross-country patent grant data. Applied Economics,45(7), 887–900. Scholar
  79. Terracciano, B., & Graziano, P. R. (2016a). EU cohesion policy implementation and administrative capacities: Insights from Italian regions. Regional & Federal Studies. Scholar
  80. Terracciano, B., & Graziano, P. R. (2016b). EU cohesion policy implementation and administrative capacities: Insights from Italian regions. Regional & Federal Studies. Scholar
  81. The World Bank. (2017). World development indicators 2017. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
  82. The World Bank Institute. (2017). Measuring knowledge in the world's economy, knowledge assessment methodology and knowledge economy index. Knowledge for development program.,,
  83. Tiits, M., Kalvet, T., & Murk, I. (2015). Smart specialisation in cohesion economics. Journal of the Knowledge Economics,6, 296–319.Google Scholar
  84. Truong, Q., & Rowley, C. (2016). The network-based economy in Vietnam: Business network in context and over time. In Business networks in East Asian capitalisms: Enduring trends, emerging patterns (pp. 307–329) September 20, 2016. Scholar
  85. UNESCO. (2017). Summary report of the 2015 UIS innovation data collection.
  86. Vasilescu, L. (2014). Accessing finance for innovative eu smes-key drivers and challenges. Economic Review: Journal of Economics & Business/Ekonomska Revija: Casopis za Ekonomiju i Biznis,12, 35–47.Google Scholar
  87. Wamser, G., Woon Nam, C., & Schoenberg, A. (2013). The Lisbon agenda and innovation-oriented cohesion policy: A new challenge for economic integration among the EU Regions. Journal of Economic Integration,28(1), 37–58. Scholar
  88. Wojnicka-Sycz, E., & Sycz, P. (2013). Public innovation policy and other determinants of innovativeness in poland. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal,21(3), 1.Google Scholar
  89. World Economic Forum. (2016). Global agenda council on the economics of innovation. Evaluation of Leading Indicators of Innovation.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Naples “L’Orientale”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations