Supporting Knowledge and Policy-Based Stakeholders in Delivering Regional Impact: A Tool to Select Regional Scoreboard Indicators

  • Valerie Brett
  • Bill O’ Gorman
  • Óscar Afonso
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the research is to explore how regional stakeholders can improve local and regional innovation policies and the transfer of best practices by devising a technique that ranks the EU Innovation Scoreboard indicators and instructs which indicator, if improved, could have the greatest impact for the region. In the current research the themes selected are Technology Licensing (TL), Spin-Off Creation and Entrepreneurship (SCE) and University-Industry Relations (UIR).

Design/Methodology: The study adopts an empirical methodology, applying statistic and econometric techniques. Each of the five regions in the study had to define their current status (Scenario 0) and the desired improvement they would like to achieve (Future Scenario). The Scenario 0 was based on the level and growth rate of a set of innovation indicators from the EU Innovation Scoreboard that are likely to be influenced by TL, SCE and UIR. The future scenario was defined by considering the effect of the innovation indicators on the Total Factor Productivity (TFP).

Findings: The results from the TFP indicate, for each of the five regions in the study, which EU Innovation indicators should be focused on. For example, in the Southern and Easter region of Ireland the top-ranked indicators are (1) Non-R&D innovation expenditures as % of turnover (U-I Relations Indicator), (2) small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) introducing marketing or organisational innovations as % of SMEs (U-I Relations Indicator), (3) SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs (U-I Relations Indicator). Furthermore, the Southern and Eastern regions of Ireland should then concentrate their efforts on the development of practices and policies that could influence this indicator.

Practical Implications: This study provides guidance and instruction for regions and regional stakeholders on what innovation indicators they should focus on for the development of policies and knowledge transfer practices that can impact performance levels of the EU Innovation Scoreboard Indicators identified as potentially having the greatest impact.

Policy Implications: Regional stakeholders can utilise the approach adopted in this study to understand what innovation indicators from the Innovation Scoreboard they should select in order to deliver the greatest impact for the efforts (within a given theme). This tool can be supportive in the development of regional-based smart specialisations and regional development policy.

Originality/Value: Developing a technique that channels and instructs regional stakeholders where their innovation focus should be in terms of implementing practices and policies that drive innovation and competitive performance.

Keywords

Regional development Knowledge transfer Innovation scoreboard Knowledge economy Total factor productivity Practices and policies Technology licensing Spin-off creation and entrepreneurship University–industry relations 

References

  1. Arancegui M., Querejeta M., Montero, E. (2011). Smart specialisation strategies: The case of the Basque Country, Orkestra working paper series in territorial competitiveness, 2011-R07.Google Scholar
  2. Arnkil, R., Järvensivu, A., Koski, P., & Piirainen, T. (2010). Exploring quadruple helix. Outlining user-oriented innovation models. Working Paper 85/2010, University of Tampere, Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  3. Asheim, B. (1996). Industrial districts as learning regions: A conditions of prosperity. European Planning Studies, 4(4), 379–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B. E., & Gertler, M. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Asheim, T. B., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for the reformed cohesion policy. Brussels: Report to the Commissioner for Regional Policy.Google Scholar
  7. Becattini, G. (1989). Sectors and/or districts: Some remarks on the conceptual foundations of industrial economics. In E. Goodman, J. Bamford & P. Saynor. Small firms and industrial districts in Italy (pp. 123–135)London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Capello, R. (2013). Knowledge, innovation, and regional performance: Toward smart innovation policies introductory remarks to the special issue. Growth and Change, 44(2), 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Camagni R., & Capello R. (2012). “Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Towards smart innovation policies”, proceeds of the 52nd ERSA Conference in Bratislava.Google Scholar
  10. Carayannis, E.G., & Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. Springer Briefs in business, vol. 7. Springer: New York.Google Scholar
  11. CEC – Commission of the European Communities. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, suitable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission, COM (2010) 2020.Google Scholar
  12. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge Economies: Clusters, learning & Co-operative advantage Studies. In International Business & the World Economy. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. David P., Foray D., & Hall B. 2012. Measuring smart specialization. The concept and the need for indicators, in http://cemi.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cemi/files/users/178044/public/ Measuring%20smart%20specialisation.doc.
  15. Dogara, T., Van Oort, F., & Thissen, M. (2011). Agglomeration Economies in European Regions: Perspectives for objective 1 regions. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Socizle Geografie, 102(4), 486–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, suitable and inclusive growth. COM (2010) 2020 final.Google Scholar
  18. Foray D., David P.A., Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation. The Concept, Knowledge Economists Policy Brief No.9. [online] Available from http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/selected_papers_en.pdf. Accessed Dec 2011.
  19. Foray D., Van Ark, B. (2007). “Smart specialisation in a truly integrated research area is the key to attracting more R&D to Europe”, European Commission Expert Group “Knowledge for Growth”, Policy Brief No 1, http://ec.europa.eu/invest-inresearch/pdf/download_en/policy_brief1.pdf
  20. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, C. (1995). The National ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 5–24.Google Scholar
  22. Giannitsis, T. (2009). Technology and specialization: Strategies, options, risks. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, n. 8.Google Scholar
  23. Harrison, B. (1992). Industrial districts: Old wine in new bottles? Regional Studies, 26, 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hauser, C., Tappeiner, G., & Walde, J. (2007). The learning region: The impact of Social Capital and Weak Ties on Innovation. Regional Studies, 41(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huang, K., Yu, C., & Seetoo, D. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 715–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing return and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krugman, P. (1993). First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location. Journal of Regional Science, 33(2), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krugman, P. (1995). Development Geography and Economic Theory. US: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kyriakou, D. (2009). Introduction. In D. Pontikakis, D. Kyriakou, & R. van Bavel (Eds.), The Question of R&D specialisation. Perspectives and policy implications (pp. 11–17). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  30. Lagendijk, A. (2011). Regional innovation theory between theory and practice. In B. Asheim, r. Boschmar, & P. Cooke (Eds.), Handbook of regional innovation and growth (pp. 597–608). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National innovation systems: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  32. Lundvall B-Å. (2004). Why the new economy is a learning economy. DRUID Working Paper No. 02–01.Google Scholar
  33. Lundvall, B.-Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marshall, S. (1890). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  35. McCann P., & Ortega-Argilés R. (2011). Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy, Economic Geography Working Paper 2011: Faculty of Spatial Sciences. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  36. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Modern innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy & Society, 6(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, K. (2007). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 41(1), 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nelson R., & Rosenberg N. (1993). National innovation systems (Ch. 1 – Technical innovation and national systems). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. O’Gorman B., & Donnelly W. (2016). Ecosystems of open innovation: Their applicability to the growth and development of economies within small countries and regions. In U. Hilpert (Ed), Handbook on Politics and Technology. routledge, UK.Google Scholar
  40. Pontikakis, D., Chorafakis, G., & Kyriakou, D. (2009). R&D specialization in Europe: from stylized observations to evidence-based policy. In D. Pontikakis, D. Kyriakou, & R. van Bavel (Eds.), The question of R&D specialisation, JRC, European Commission (pp. 71–84). Brussels: Directoral General for Research.Google Scholar
  41. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (pp. 77–90). Boston: Harvard Business Review.Google Scholar
  43. Sandu S. (2012). Smart specialization concept and the status of its implementation in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 236–242.Google Scholar
  44. Saviotti, P. P. (1997). Innovation systems and evolutionary theories. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation – technologies. Institutions and Organizations, London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  45. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all ? towards a differentiated regional innovation policy Approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Uyarra, E. (2010). What is evolutionary about regional systems of innovation? Implications for regional policy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie Brett
    • 1
  • Bill O’ Gorman
    • 1
  • Óscar Afonso
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Enterprise Development and Regional Economy (CEDRE), Waterford Institute of TechnologyMunsterIreland
  2. 2.University of Porto, Faculty of Economics, and OBEGEF and CEFAGE-UBIPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations