Skip to main content

Intermediating Smart Specialisation and Entrepreneurial Discovery: The Cases of Estonia and Helsinki-Uusimaa

Journal of the Knowledge Economy volume 13, pages 541–573 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

During the EU Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014–2020, smart specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery as the key tools for drafting the smart specialisation strategies have been at the centre of the European Union’s regional and innovation policy. This article analyses the differences in how the smart specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery process have been organised in two regions with different well-being levels and innovation capacities: Estonia and Helsinki-Uusimaa region in Finland. We show that both regions have formally adopted rather generic smart specialisation strategies and specialisations. While the Estonian approach to smart specialisation has remained formalistic and technocratic, Helsinki-Uusimaa has developed a more systemic approach where other national and regional strategies define more clearly the direction for economic development and the role of smart specialisation strategy is to provide complementary leverage via access to EU regional funds. In this paper, we argue that one of the crucial reasons for the differences stems from the organisation of innovation systems and the role of intermediary organisations. In Helsinki-Uusimaa, different intermediary organisations play a more active role in RDI policy by bringing together a variety of stakeholders and helping to co-shape a common understanding of the direction of development and launching different cooperation initiatives. While different intermediary organisations also exist in Estonia, they are not focussing on building networks and establishing a common understanding of the direction of economic development. The article emphasises the importance of clear strategic directionality for RIS3 and the role of intermediary organisations that help to maintain a common understanding among different stakeholders about the chosen direction for development through creating the dynamics of interaction between them.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. According to Statistics Finland

  2. Statistics about the population and GDP per capita PPS of Helsinki-Uusimaa region and Estonia was extracted from Eurostat.

  3. Regulation (EC) No 1059/2003

  4. Local Government Organisation Act (RT I 1993, 37, 558) §6

References

  • Aranguren, M., & J., Magro, E., Navarro, M., Wilson, J., W. . (2019). Governance of the territorial entrepreneurial discovery process: Looking under the bonnet of RIS3. Regional Studies, 53(4), 451–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). The role of public open innovation intermediaries in local government and the public sector. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), 311–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachtler, J., & Downes, R. (1999). Regional policy in the transition countries: A comparative assessment. European Planning Studies, 7(6), 793–808.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradford, N., & Wolfe, D. A. (2013). Governing regional economic development: Innovation challenges and policy learning in Canada. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(2), 331–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, D., & Ornston, D. (2018). The politics of partial success: Fostering innovation in innovation policy in an era of heightened public scrutiny. Socio-Economic Review, 16(4), 721–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breznitz, D., & Ornston, D. (2013). The revolutionary power of peripheral agencies: Explaining radical policy innovation in Finland and Israel. Comparative Political Studies, 46(10), 1219–1245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, W., & S. . (1993). Economic transition in Estonia. Journal of Economic Issues, 27(2), 493–503.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2014). Manufacturing by design: The rise of regional intermediaries and the re-emergence of collective action. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7(3), 433–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, T., Ginalski, S., Mach, A., Rebmann, F. (2009) “Networks of coordination: Swiss business associations as an intermediary between business, politics and administration during the 20th century.” Business and Politics, 11:4, Art. 4

  • De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A., & Orsi, L. (2017). The impact of intra- and interregional knowledge collaboration and technological variety on the knowledge productivity of European regions. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 117, 108–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation approaches – Their emergence and characteristics. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation – Technologies, institutions and organizations (pp. 1–35). London: Pinter Publishers/Cassell Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenberger, P., & Ginalski, S. (2017). ’Si vis pacem, para bellum’ – The construction of business cooperation in the Swiss machinery industry. Socio-Economic Review, 15(3), 615–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estonian Development Fund (2013) “Smart Specialisation – Qualitative Analysis.” Accessed at http://www.arengufond.ee/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Estonia_Smart_Specialisation_Qualitative_Analysis.pdf on November 1, 2019

  • Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (2014) “Knowledge-based Estonia: Estonian Research and Development and Innovation Strategy 2014–2020.” Accessed at https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/estonian_rdi_strategy_2014-2020.pdf on November 1, 2019

  • European Commission (2020a) “European Innovation scoreboard 2020.” Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed at https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/42981 on December 17, 2020

  • European Commission (2020b) European Social Index Scorecards. Accessed at https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/maps/social_progress2020/#2 on December 29, 2020

  • European Commission (2019) “Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2019.” Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed at https://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/policy/innovation/regional_en on December 17, 2020

  • Finnish Government (2019) Programme of Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s Government 2019. Accessed at https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-programme on January 7, 2021

  • Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialization strategies as a case of mission-oriented policy – a case study on the emergence of new policy practices. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 817–832.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D. (2016). On the policy space of smart specialization strategies. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1428–1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D. (2009) „Understanding ‘smart specialisation’,“ in Pontikakis, D., Kyriakou, D., van Bavel, R. (eds.) The Question of R&D Specialisation: Perspectives and Policy Implications.

  • Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B.H. (2011) “Smart specialization: From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation.” MTEI Working Paper, 2011–001.

  • Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation – The concept (p. 9). No: Knowledge Economists Policy Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., & Van Ark, B. (2007). Smart specialization in a truly integrated research area is the key to attract more R&D to Europe (p. 1). No: Knowledge Economists Policy Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillies, J., Leimann, J., & Peterson, R. (2002). Making a successful transition from a command to a market economy: The lessons from Estonia. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10(3), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72, 603–633.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council (2017) “Helsinki Smart Region – Strategy update 2018–2020.” Accessed at https://www.uudenmaanliitto.fi/files/21305/Helsinki_Smart_Esite_englanti.pdf on November 1, 2019

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, D. (2016). Changing of the guard: Trends in corporatist arrangements in 42 highly industrialized societies from 1960 to 2010. Socio-Economic Review, 14(1), 47–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, M., & J., Frenken, K. . (2019). Cross-specialisation policy: Rationale and options for linking unrelated industries. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(2), 195–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E. (2019) “The Future and Societal Importance of Estonian Research and Development.” In Niinemets, Ü., Karo, E., Kattel, R., Villems, R. (eds.) Estonian Research 2019. Estonian Research Council: Tartu, Tallinn, Brussels, 49–62.

  • Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2015). Economic development and evolving state capacities in Central and Eastern Europe: can ‘smart specialization’ make a difference? Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(2), 172–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2010a). Coordination of innovation policies in the catching-up context: A historical perspective on Estonia and Brazil. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 3(4), 293–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., & Kattel, R. (2010b). The copying paradox: Why converging policies but diverging capacities in Eastern European innovation systems? International Journal of Institutions and Economies, 2(2), 167–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., Kattel, R., & Cepilovs, A. (2017). “Can smart specialization and entrepreneurial discovery be organized by the government? In S. In Radosevic, A. Curaj, R. Gheorghiu, L. Andreescu, & I. Wade (Eds.), Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe” (pp. 269–292). Advances in the Theory of Smart: Specialization. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karo, E., Kattel, R., Lember, V., Ukrainski, K., Kanep, H., Varblane, U. (2014) “Nutika spetsialiseerumise võimalused ja väljakutsed Eestis teadus-, arendus- ja innovatsioonipoliitika kujundamisel ja juhtimisel 2014–2020.” Accessed at http://tips.ut.ee/index.php?module=32&op=1&id=3658 on November 1, 2019

  • Kattel, R. (2004) “Governance of innovation policy: the case of Estonia.” Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 8:4, 397−418

  • Kitson, M. (2019). Innovation policy and place: a critical assessment. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(2), 293–315.

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG (2016) “EU Funds in Central and Eastern Europe: Progress Report 2007–2015.” Accessed at https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/pdf/2016/06/EU-Funds-in-Central-and-Eastern-Europe.pdf on November 5, 2019

  • Kroll, H. (2017) “The challenge of smart specialisation in less favoured regions.” Arbeitspapiere Unternehmen und Region, No. R1/2017, Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe

  • Kroll, H. (2015). Efforts to implement smart specialization in practice – Leading unlike horses to the water. European Planning Studies, 23(10), 2079–2098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakou, D. (2017). Smart specialisation concepts and significance of early positive signals. European Structural and Investment Funds Journal, 5(1), 4–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B. Å. (1985) “Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction.” Industrial Development Research Series, No. 31. Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.

  • Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the european union: A problem-solving approach to fuel innovation-led growth. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazzucato, M. (2014) “A mission-oriented approach to building the entrepreneurial state.” A “think piece“ for the Innovative UK

  • McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and application to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Transforming European regional policy: A results-driven agenda and smart specialization. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 405–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihkelson, P., Rebane, T., Peters, E., Lember, K. (2013) “Klastriprogrammi vahehindamine.” Accessed at https://www.eas.ee/images/doc/sihtasutusest/uuringud/ettevotlus/klastriprogrammi-vahehindamine-2013.pdf on November 1, 2019

  • Ojamäe, K., Visnapuu, L. (2015) “Klastriprogrammi vahehindamise kvalitatiivne analüüs.” Accessed at https://www.mkm.ee/sites/default/files/klastriprogrammi_vahehindamise_kvalitatiivne_analuus.pdf on November 1, 2019

  • Ornston, D. (2012). When small states make big leaps: Institutional innovation and high-tech competition in Western Europe. New York: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Argilés, R. (2012). The transatlantic productivity gap: A survey of the main causes. Journal of Economic Surveys, 26(3), 395–419.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raagmaa, G., Kalvet, T., & Kasesalu, R. (2014). Europeanization and de-Europeanization of Estonian regional policy. European Planning Studies, 22(4), 775–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S. (2017) “Assessing EU smart specialization policy in a comparative perspective.” In Radosevic, S., Curaj, A., Gheorghiu, R., Andreescu, L., Wade, I. (eds.) Advances in the theory of smart specialization. Academic Press, 1–36

  • Research and Innovation Council of Finland (2017) “Vision and road map of the Research and Innovation Council Finland.” Accessed at https://valtioneuvosto.fi/documents/10184/4102579/Vision_and_roadmap_RIC.pdf/195ec1c2-6ff8-4027-9d16-d561dba33450/Vision_and_roadmap_RIC.pdf on November 5, 2019

  • Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D., Hausmann, R. (2006) “Doomed to choose: Industrial policy as predicament.” Accessed at http://j.mp/2oWZa7W on November 5, 2019

  • Schienstock, G. (2007). From path dependency to path creation: Finland on its way to the knowledge-based economy. Current Sociology, 55(1), 92–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohet, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26(3), 283–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smedlund, A. (2006). The role of intermediaries in a regional knowledge system. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 204–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sootla, G., & Kattai, K. (2018). Institutionalization of subnational governance in Estonia: European impacts and domestic adaptations. Regional & Federal Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2018.1511979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, P., & Nilgo, H. (1995). Chapter 5: Budget Reform. In O. Lugus & G. A. Hachey (Eds.), Transforming the Estonian Economy (pp. 92–125). Estonian Academy of Sciences: Tallinn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorhallsson, B., & Kattel, R. (2013). Neo-liberal small states and economic crisis: Lessons for democratic corporatism. Journal of Baltic Studies, 44(1), 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tokumaru, N. (2018) “Transforming the role of public policies for innovation: The role of institutional foundations in Finland as a Nordic state.” In Boyer R., Uemura H., Yamada T., Song L. (eds.) Evolving Diversity and Interdependence of Capitalisms: Transformations of Regional Integration in EU and Asia. Evolutionary Economics and Social Complexity Science, Vol 11. Springer: Tokyo, 235–258

  • Tomson, E. (1999) Eesti Majandusajalugu 20. sajandil. Tartu: Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus

  • Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trippl, M., Zukauskaite, E., & Healy, E. (2019). Shaping smart specialization: the role of space-specific factors in advanced, intermediate and less-developed European regions. Regional Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1582763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uppenberg, K. (2009). Innovation and economic growth. EIB Papers, 14(1), 10–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdmaa, K., Pugh, R., & Müür, J. (2020). Challenges with strategic place-based innovation policy: Implementation of smart specialization in Estonia and Wales. European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1767541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: California, Sage Publications.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Dr. Erkki Karo and Dr. Chris Giotitsas for their valuable comments.

Funding

The research for this study was partially supported by the European Regional Development Fund, Interreg Baltic Sea Region Programme [project no. #R044] and by the European Commission through the H2020 project Finest Twins (grant No. 856602).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance; Smart City Center of Excellence, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086, Tallinn, Estonia

    Jaanus Müür

Authors
  1. Jaanus Müür
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jaanus Müür.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendix. List of interviews

Appendix. List of interviews

Interview 1—Official, Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council

Interview 2—Senior manager, Forum Virium Helsinki

Interview 3—Senior manager, Helsinki Business Hub

Interview 4—Senior consultant, Demos Helsinki think-tank

Interview 5—Senior official, Helsinki Economic Development Department

Interview 6—Official, traffic engineer, Helsinki Urban Environment Division; Project Manager working with mobility solutions, FVH

Interview 7—Official working with smart and clean solutions, Helsinki Economic Development Department

Interview 8—Official working with digitalisation issues, Helsinki Economic Development Department

Interview 9—Senior official, Tallinn Enterprise Department; Official working with smart city initiatives, Tallinn Enterprise Department

Interview 10—Official, Tallinn Strategic Planning Division

Interview 11—Specialist and one of the authors of Tartu and South Estonia RIS3 Strategy, Tartu Business Advisory Service

Interview 12—Official and one of the authors of Tartu and South Estonia RIS3 Strategy, Tartu City Department of Business Development

Interview 13—Entrepreneur and business consultant, previously a senior manager in the Estonian Development Fund who was involved with the analysis of RIS3 growth areas in Estonia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Müür, J. Intermediating Smart Specialisation and Entrepreneurial Discovery: The Cases of Estonia and Helsinki-Uusimaa. J Knowl Econ 13, 541–573 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00757-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00757-2

Keywords

  • Economic development
  • Innovation
  • Regional economies
  • Technological change
  • Industrial relations