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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
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.
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.
Asheim, B. (1996). Industrial districts as learning regions: A conditions of prosperity. European Planning Studies, 4(4), 379–400.
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.
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.
Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for the reformed cohesion policy. Brussels: Report to the Commissioner for Regional Policy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CEC – Commission of the European Communities. (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, suitable and inclusive growth. Communication from the Commission, COM (2010) 2020.
Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.
Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge Economies: Clusters, learning & Co-operative advantage Studies. In International Business & the World Economy. London, Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, suitable and inclusive growth. COM (2010) 2020 final.
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.
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
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology and economic performance: Lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.
Freeman, C. (1995). The National ‘National System of Innovation’ in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 5–24.
Giannitsis, T. (2009). Technology and specialization: Strategies, options, risks. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, n. 8.
Harrison, B. (1992). Industrial districts: Old wine in new bottles? Regional Studies, 26, 469–483.
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.
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.
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing return and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499.
Krugman, P. (1993). First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location. Journal of Regional Science, 33(2), 129–144.
Krugman, P. (1995). Development Geography and Economic Theory. US: MIT Press.
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.
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.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National innovation systems: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Lundvall B-Å. (2004). Why the new economy is a learning economy. DRUID Working Paper No. 02–01.
Lundvall, B.-Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42.
Marshall, S. (1890). Principles of economics (8th ed.). London: MacMillan.
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.
McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Modern innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy & Society, 6(1), 1–30.
Morgan, K. (2007). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 41(1), 147–159.
Nelson R., & Rosenberg N. (1993). National innovation systems (Ch. 1 – Technical innovation and national systems). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillian.
Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and the new economics of competition (pp. 77–90). Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Sandu S. (2012). Smart specialization concept and the status of its implementation in Romania. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 236–242.
Saviotti, P. P. (1997). Innovation systems and evolutionary theories. In C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of innovation – technologies. Institutions and Organizations, London: Pinter.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all ? towards a differentiated regional innovation policy Approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203–1219.
Uyarra, E. (2010). What is evolutionary about regional systems of innovation? Implications for regional policy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20, 115.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 6.1: List of Innovation Indicators for All Regions
Sales of new to market and new to firm innovation as a % of turnover
Non-R&D innovation expenditure as % of turnover
Knowledge-intensive services exports as % total of service exports
Venture capital (early stage, expansion and replacement) as % of GDP
SMEs introducing marketing or organisational innovation as % of SMEs
Community designs per billion GDP (in PPS€)
SMEs introducing product or process innovation as % of SMEs
Medium- and high-tech products as a % total of products exports
SMEs innovating in-house as % of SMEs
Innovative SMEs collaborating with others as % of SMEs
PCT patent applications per billion GDP (in PPS€)
PCT patent applications in societal challenges per billion (in PPS€)
Percentage youth aged 20–24 having attained at least upper secondary-level education
License and patent revenues from aboard as % of GDP
Community trademarks per billion GDP (in PPS€)
Percentage population aged 30–34 having completed tertiary education
New doctorate graduates (ISECD 6) per 1000 population aged 25–34
Public R&D expenditure as % of GDP
Sales of new market and new firm innovations as % turnover.
Note
-
1.
Classification categories are based on the Innovation Scoreboard 2012. The European Innovation Scoreboard 2016 has re-classified the Innovation Follower category as Strong Innovators.
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brett, V., Gorman, B.O., Afonso, Ó. (2017). Supporting Knowledge and Policy-Based Stakeholders in Delivering Regional Impact: A Tool to Select Regional Scoreboard Indicators. In: De Oliveira Monteiro, S., Carayannis, E. (eds) The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus. Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55577-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55577-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-55576-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-55577-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)