Insights from Northern European Countries and Regions

  • Tan Yigitcanlar
  • Tommi Inkinen


Cities and regions have a number of different strategies aiming to improve the urban environment and economic activities. The concepts of innovation and smart city development are among the key phrases or catchwords. These strategies apply to similar topics and the goal setting the present is very alike. The cloning idea is visible, even though similarities are probably caused by the European Union level strategies that function as guidelines for national policies and strategies. As stated, environment and sustainability are strongly present in smart city agenda. Therefore, studied strategies expand the smart city definition to include traditional problems of urban growth. This chapter focuses on generating insights from Northern European countries and regions.


Innovation policy Statistics Strategies European Union Estonia Denmark Finland Sweden 


  1. Azadegan, A., & Pai, D. (2008). Industrial awards as manifests of business performance: An empirical assessment. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14, 149–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassett-Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14, 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernier, L., & Hafsi, T. (2007). The changing nature of public entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review, 67, 488–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borins, S. (1998). Innovating with integrity: How local heroes are transforming American government. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borins, S. (2000). What border? Public management innovation in the United States and Canada. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 46–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borins, S. (2001). Innovation success and failure in public management research: Some methodological reflections. Public Management Review, 3, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chari, V. V., Golosov, M., & Tsyvinski, A. (2012). Prizes and patents: Using market signals to provide incentives for innovations. Journal of Economic Theory, 147, 781–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. City of Copenhagen. (2017). The city of Copenhagen’s business and growth policy 2015–2020. Available online
  9. City of Helsinki. (2017). The most functional city in the world. Helsinki city strategy 2017–2021. Available online
  10. City of Stockholm. (2017). Strategi för Stockholm som smart och uppkopplad stad. Available online
  11. City of Tallinn. (2013). Tallinn enterprise and innovation strategy 2014–2018. Available online
  12. Dodge, M., & Kitchin, R. (2001). Mapping cyberspace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Eurostat. (2018). Database. Available at
  14. Georghiou, L., Smith, K., Toivainen, O., & Ylä-Anttila, P. (2003). Evaluation of the Finnish innovation support system. Publications 5. Helsinki: Ministry of Trade and Industry Finland.Google Scholar
  15. Government of Finland. (2006). A renewing, human-centric and competitive Finland. The national knowledge society strategy 2007–2015. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office.Google Scholar
  16. Hisrich, R., Peters, M., & Shepherd, D. (2005). Entrepreneurship (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Inkinen, T. (2005). European coherence and regional policy? A Finnish perspective on the observed and reported territorial impacts of EU research and development policies. European Planning Studies, 13(7), 1113–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inkinen, T. (2015). Reflections on the innovative city: Examining three innovative locations in a knowledge bases framework. Journal of Open Innovation, 1(8), 1–23.Google Scholar
  19. Inkinen, T., & Kaakinen, I. (2016). Economic geography of knowledge intensive technology clusters: Lessons from the Helsinki metropolitan area. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Inkinen, T., & Vaattovaara, M. (2007). Technology and knowledge-based development. Helsinki metropolitan area as a creative region. ACRE report 2.5. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  21. Inkinen, T., & Vaattovaara, M. (2010). Creative urban region in the Nordic country. Combining tradition with development in Helsinki. In K. Metaxiotis, F. J. Carrillo & T. Yigitcanlar (Eds.), Knowledge-based development of cities and societies: Integrated multi-level approaches (pp. 196–210). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  22. Kiuru, J., & Inkinen, T. (2017). Predicting innovative growth and demand with proximate human capital: A case study of the Helsinki metropolitan area. Cities, 64, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kusiak, A. (2007). Innovation: The living laboratory perspective. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 4(6), 863–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic and market orientation effects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61, 753–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Laforet, S. (2009). Effects of size, market and strategic orientation on innovation in non-high-tech manufacturing SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 188–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Makkonen, T., & Inkinen, T. (2013). Innovative capacity, educational attainment and economic development in the European Union: Causal relations and geographical variations. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 1958–1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Makkonen, T., & Inkinen, T. (2014). Innovation quality in knowledge cities: Empirical evidence of innovation award competitions in Finland. Expert Systems with Applications, 41(12), 5597–5604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Makkonen, T., & Inkinen, T. (2015). Geographical and temporal variation of regional development and innovation in Finland. Fennia. International Journal of Geography, 193(1), 134–147.Google Scholar
  29. Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2012). Education or creativity: What matters most for economic performance? Economic Geography, 88(4), 369–401.Google Scholar
  30. OECD. (2018). Programme for international student assessment. Available online
  31. Ramstadt, E. (2009). Expanding innovation system and policy: An organizational perspective. Policy Studies, 30, 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reddick, C. (Ed.). (2010). Comparative e-government: An examination of e-government adoption across countries. Integrated Series in Information Systems, 25. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Rodríguez Bolívar, M. P. (Ed.). (2018). Smart technologies for smart governments. Transparency, efficiency and organizational issues. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  34. Sotarauta, M., & Kautonen, M. (2007). Co-evolution of the Finnish national and local innovation and science arenas: Towards a dynamic understanding of multi-level governance. Regional Studies, 41(8), 1085–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stolarick, K., & Florida, R. (2005). Creativity, connection and innovation: A study of the linkages in the Montréal region. Environment and Planning A, 38, 1799–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wessner, C. (2009). Government programs to encourage innovation by start-ups & SMEs: The role of innovation awards. In S. Nagaoka, M. Kondo, K. Flamm, & C. Wessner (Eds.), 21st century innovation systems for Japan and the United States: Lessons from a decade of change (pp. 77–95). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  37. Weerakkody, V., & Reddick, C. G. (Eds.). (2012). Public sector transformation through e-government: Experiences from Europe and North America. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Maritime Studies, Brahea CentreUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations