Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Smart Specialisation in Cohesion Economies

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

Abstract

With the rise of the smart specialisation (RIS3) concept, concentrating knowledge resources and linking them to a limited number of priority economic activities have become an important concept in the R&D, innovation and cohesion policies in the European Union. We conclude from the analysis of economic performance and effectiveness of the prior higher education, R&D and innovation policies in selected European small economies and theory that several crucial issues should be considered in translating the RIS3 into effective strategies. RIS3 was born to inform R&D policy making, and it emphasises predominantly R&D-based technological innovation. Yet, it is not sufficient to focus solely on the contribution of R&D to the upgrading of existing industry, when economic cohesion and structural change in industry is sought. Development of an effective RIS3 calls for, especially in the EU cohesion economies, substantial efforts to strengthen higher education, R&D job creation and capability building in future paradigm leading high-tech areas in particular. The role of foreign direct investments and relocation of industry in structural change should also be considered carefully. Finally, proper loop-back mechanisms have to be put in place in order to foster policy learning, and introduction of necessary policy adjustments as RIS3 gets implemented.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akamatsu, K. (1935). Waga kuni yomo kogyohin no susei [Trend of Japanese trade in woolen goods]. Shogyo keizai ronso, 13, 129–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, E., Good, B., & Segerpalm, H. (2008). The GSM story—effects of research on Swedish mobile telephone developments. VINNOVA analysis, 24. Stockholm: VINNOVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernatonyte, D. (2011). Export productivity and specialization patterns of Lithuania. Kaunas: University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cattaneo, O., Gereffi, G., & Staritz, C. (Eds.). (2010). Global value chains in a postcrisis world: a development perspective. Washington: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. A., Freireich, S., Kolar, J., & Nybergh, P. (2012). Peer-review of the Estonian research and innovation system steady progress towards knowledge society. Expert group report prepared for the European Research Area Committee. Tallinn: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Innovation Studies 19/2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cimoli, M. (Ed.). (2000). Developing innovation systems: Mexico in the global context. New York: Continuum-Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: competitive regulation in the New Europe. Geofonwi, 23, 365–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coomans, G. (2004). Atlas of prospective labour supply. Dublin: Geolabour.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler, W., Backhaus, J. G., Burlamaqui, L., Chang, H.-J., Kalvet, T., Kattel, R., Kregel, J., & Reinert, E. S. (2006). Creative destruction management in Central and Eastern Europe: meeting the challenges of the techno-economic paradigm shift. In T. Kalvet & R. Kattel (Eds.), Creative destruction management: meeting the challenges of the techno-economic paradigm shift (pp. 15–30). Praxis Centre for Policy Studies: Tallinn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunning, J. H. (1998). Globalization, technological change and the spatial organization of economic activity. In A. D. Chandler, P. Hagstrom, & O. Solvell (Eds.), The dynamic firm: the role of technology, strategy, organization and regions. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C., & Hommen, L. (2008). Small economy innovation systems: comparing globalisation, change, and policy in Asia and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elg, L., & Håkansson, S. (2012). Impacts of innovation policy—lessons from VINNOVA’s impact studies. Sweden: VINNOVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erawatch. (2012). Country reports 2012 Estonia. http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu.

  • Ernst, D., & Kim, L. (2002). Global production networks, knowledge diffusion and local capability formation. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1417–1429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2002). Innovation tomorrow. DG Enterprise Innovation Papers 28. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). Sixth FP7 monitoring report. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (2013). On-line database. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat.

  • Eurostat (2014). Statistics database. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.

  • Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (Eds.). (2004). The oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., David, P. & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation—the concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief 9. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf.

  • Foray, D., David, P. A. & Hall, B. (2011). Smart specialisation: from academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. MTEI Working Paper. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne. http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/170252/files/MTEI-WP-2011-001-Foray_David_Hall.pdf.

  • Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X.G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, C., Ortega-Argilés, R. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisations (RIS 3). http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=a39fd20b-9fbc-402b-be8c-b51d03450946&groupId=10157.

  • Freeman, C. (1987). National systems of innovation: the case of Japan technology policy and economics performance: lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1995). The national innovation systems in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(1), 5–24.

  • Freeman, C., & Lundvall, B.-Å. (Eds.). (1988). Small countries facing technological revolution. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollanders, H. & Es-Sadki, N. (2013). Innovation union scoreboard. Brussels: European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2013_en.pdf

  • IBS (2011). Mid-term evaluation of the adoption of the EU structural funds 2007–2013 in the fields of research and development, and higher education, http://www.ibs.ee/en/publications/item/109-euroopa-liidu-tõukefondide-perioodi-2007-2013-teadus--ja-arendustegevuse-ning-kõrghariduse-meetmete-rakendamise-vahehindamine.

  • International Trade Centre (2014). Trademap. http://trademap.org.

  • Karo, E. & Kattel, R. (2013). Public management, policy capacity and innovation. Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, 52.

  • Ketels, C. (2012). Sweden’s position in the global economy. Globaliseringsforum.

  • Ketels, C. & Protsiv, S. (2013). Clusters and the new growth path for Europe. Working Paper no 14. http://www.foreurope.eu/fileadmin/documents/pdf/Workingpapers/WWWforEurope_WPS_no014_MS47.pdf.

  • Lember, V., Kattel, R., & Kalvet, T. (Eds.). (2014). Public procurement, innovation and policy. Heidelberg: Springer. International perspectives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemola, T. (2003). Transformation of the Finnish science and technology policy. Science Studies, 1, 52–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R., & Sotarauta, M. (2007). Innovation, universities, and the competitiveness of regions. Helsinki: Tekes. Technology Review 214/2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The Triple Helix University–Industry–Government relations. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, R. G., Carlaw, K. I., & Bekar, C. T. (2005). Economic transformations. General purpose technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundin, P., & Stenlas, N. (2010). Technology, state initiative and national myths in cold war Sweden: an introduction. In P. Lundin, N. Stenlas, & J. Gribbe (Eds.), Science for welfare and warfare. Technology and state initiative in Cold War. Sweden. Sagamore Beach: Science History Publications/USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: from user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., Silverberg, G., Soete, L. (Eds.), Technical Change and Economic Theory. Pinter, London, pp. 349–369.

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National innovation systems: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å., Joseph, K. J., Chaminade, C., & Vang, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of innovation systems and developing countries: building domestic capabilities in a global setting. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maliranta, M., Rouvinen, P., & Ylä-Anttila, P. (2010). Finland’s path to the global productivity frontier through creative destruction. International Productivity Monitor, 20, 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Ciupagea, C., Smith, K., Tübke, A., & Tubbs, M. (2010). Does Europe perform too little corporate R&D? A comparison of EU and non-EU corporate R&D performance. Research Policy, 39, 523–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R., & Dunning, J. H. (2000). Industrial development, globalization and multinational enterprises: new realities for developing countries. Oxford Development Studies, 28(2), 141–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems a comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2012). Science, technology and industry outlook. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2013a). Education at a glance. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2013b). Education indicators in focus. http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N°14%20(eng)-Final.pdf.

  • OECD. (2013c). Reviews of innovation policy: Sweden. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paliokaitė, A. & Kubbo, K. (2013). DG expert group advising on development of smart specialisation in Lithuania. European Commission. Brussels: DG for Research and Innovation.

  • Perez, C. (1983). Structural change and the assimilation of new technologies in the economic and social system. Futures, 15, 357–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: the dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, C. (2006). Respecialisation and the deployment of the ICT paradigm: an essay on the present challenges of globalization. In R. Compañó, C. Pascu, A. Bianchi, J.-C. Burgelman, S. Barrios, M. Ulbrich, & I. Maghiros (Eds.), The future of the information society in Europe: contributions to the debate (pp. 27–56). Seville: European Commission, Directorate General Joint Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, S. (1973). Industrialisation and the European economy. The Economic History Review, 26(4), 636–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, S. (1981). Peaceful conquest: the industrialization of Europe, 1760–1970. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polt, W., Koch, P., & Wolters, A. (2007). Evaluation of Estonian RTDI policy mix. Results of OMC peer review report 2007. Country report for Estonia. Innovation studies 10. Tallinn: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1990). Competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radoševic, S. (1999). Restructuring and reintegration of science and technology systems in economies in transition, Final Report of the TSER Project, contract No: SOE1-CT95-1008.

  • Radoševic, S. & Reid, A. (2006). Innovation policy for a knowledge-based economy in Central and Eastern Europe: driver of growth or new layer of bureaucracy? In: Piech, K. & Radoševic, S. (Eds.), The knowledge-based economy in Central and East European countries; Countries and Industries in a Process of Change, Palgrave Macmillan, 295–313.

  • Reinert, E. S. (1999). The role of the state in economic growth. Journal of Economic Studies, 26(4/5), 268–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinert, E. S. (2007). How rich countries got rich and why poor countries stay poor. London: Constable & Robinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1993). Lesson-drawing in public policy: a guide to learning across time and space. Chatham: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouvinen, P., & Ylä-Anttila, P. (2003). Little Finland’s transformation to a wireless giant. In S. Dutta, B. Lanvin, & F. Paua (Eds.), The global information technology report 2003–2004 (pp. 87–108). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. & Saxenian, A. (2008). A fugitive success: Finland’s economic future. Sitra reports 80.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (3rd ed.). New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, K. (Ed.). (2013). The global competitiveness report. Geneva: World Economic Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1991). The wealth of nations. London: Campbell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Lithuania. (2014). Statistics database. http://www.stat.gov.lt/.

  • Tiits, M. (Ed.). (2013). The competitiveness of the forest and wood industry of Estonia. Tartu: Institute of Baltic Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiits, M. & Kalvet, T. (2012). Nordic small countries in the global high-tech value chains: the case of telecommunications systems production in Estonia. The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 38.

  • Tiits, M., & Kalvet, T. (2013). Intelligent piggybacking: a foresight policy tool for small catching-up economies. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 9(2/3/4), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiits, M., Kattel, R., Kalvet, T., & Kaarli, R. (2003). Competitiveness and future outlooks of the Estonian economy: R&D and innovation policy review. Tallinn: State Chancellery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiits, M., Kattel, R., Kalvet, T., & Tamm, D. (2008). Catching up, forging ahead or falling behind? Central and Eastern European development in 1990–2005. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 21(1), 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Times Higher Education (2014). World University Rankings 2013. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/.

  • Varblane, U., Eamets, R., Haldma, T., Kaldaru, H., Masso, J., Mets, T., Paas, T., Reiljan, J., Sepp, J., Türk, K., Ukrainski, K., Vadi, M., & Vissak, T. (2008). Eesti majanduse konkurentsivõime hetkeseis ja tulevikuväljavaated. Aruande lühiversioon. Tallinn: Eesti Arengufond.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1966). International investment and international trade in the product cycle. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80(2), 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (Ed.). (2009). The evaluation of the Finnish national innovation system—full report. Helsinki: The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, V. (1988). Technology and competitiveness of small countries: a review. In C. Freeman & B.-Å. Lundvall (Eds.), Small countries facing technological revolution (pp. 37–66). London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, L. T. (Ed.). (1972). The product life cycle and international trade. Boston: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ylä-Anttila, P., & Palmberg, C. (2007). Economic and industrial policy transformations in Finland. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 7(3–4), 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research has been co-funded by the European Commission funded GRINCOH (Growth–Innovation–Competitiveness: Fostering Cohesion in Central and Eastern Europe) research project and the European Social Foundation through the Estonian Research and Innovation Policy Monitoring Programme of the Ministry of Education and Science of Estonia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Baltic Studies, Lai 30, Tartu, 51005, Estonia

    Marek Tiits

  2. Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, Tallinn, 19086, Estonia

    Tarmo Kalvet & Imre Mürk

Authors
  1. Marek Tiits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tarmo Kalvet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Imre Mürk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marek Tiits.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tiits, M., Kalvet, T. & Mürk, I. Smart Specialisation in Cohesion Economies. J Knowl Econ 6, 296–319 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0239-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0239-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation