Elvira Uyarraa, Chiara Marzocchia, Jens Sörvikb

a Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business Schoolb Smart Specialisation Platform, IPTS, European Commission

Interregional Collaboration in Research

and Innovation Strategies for Smart

Specialization

Aim of the work

How can we better understand ‘outward orientation’ in RIS3?

To what extent have regions worked collaboratively in their innovation policies?

Are there any significant differences across regions?

What motivates regions to work collaboratively?

What are the barriers?

Key principles:

Prioritisation: Vertical (sectoral) and non-neutral choices

Concentration, focus, scale, and scope

Granularity: focus on particular domains with regional growth potential

Entrepreneurial discovery process (bottom-up)

Smart Specialisation as place-based policy which emphasises the principle of

prioritisation in a non-neutral manner and defines a method to identify such desirable areas for innovation policy interventions to overcome fragmentation, poor coordination and insufficient critical mass in R&I investments (Foray 2009; 2014)

Outward looking orientation (connectedness within and between regions)

“ […] Looking beyond the regional administrative boundaries...to identify

competitive advantages through systematic comparisons, mapping the national

and the international context in search of examples to learn from…and

performing effective benchmarking. Moreover, a Region should be able to identify

relevant linkages and flows of goods, services and knowledge revealing possible

patterns of integration with partner regions”

(European Commission 2012 pp19)

We can understand the idea of outward looking orientation as a

continuum or process involving:

• Regional profiling in comparative national & global context

• Identification of complementarities with other regions, mutual

adjustment & sharing of information/good practices

• Set up interregional collaboration frameworks and actions

• Coordinating support instruments

• Joint delivery, joint funding

• Integrated strategies

Information sharing about policies and strategic priorities

Ad-hoc initiatives/ projects

Mutual alignment of programmes & structures

Collaboration in the design and joint delivery (and/or funding) of programmesor actions.

Joint strategy / policy-mix integration

Source: based on Nauwelaers, 2013

Importance of Relatedness & Intra and Inter-regional connectivity (Boschma & Frenken, 2011b; Neffke et al., 2011; Boschma & Iammarino, 2009) and Learning linkages (McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2011)

Regions should exploit global-local links for regional innovation and new path development (Bathlet et al, 2004; Trippl et al, 2015)

Different dynamics of regional integration in global innovation networks & value chains (MacKinnon, 2012, Radosevic & Stancova, 2015)

Regional innovation policies have been dominantly inward-looking (Benneworth& Dassen, 2011)

Incorporate the multi-scalar institutional configurations in which all policymakers are situated (Coe et al. 2004)

Enabling role of cross regional policy alignment and integration: ‘negative’ coordination (mutual adjustment to avoid duplication), ‘positive’ coordination(alignment of policy instruments), ‘policy integration’ (coordination of policy goals) (Peters, 1998; Braun, 2008; Edler, 2010; Candel & Biesbroek, 2016)

The implementation of Smart Specialisation strategies pose fundamental challenges (Morgan, 2013)

Collaboration & Policy Coordination Nexus

Mixed Methods:

(1) Survey

Sampling frame: Smart Specialisation Platform

455 Participants

Response Rate: 110 Respondents (65 Regions & 28 Countries)

• 36% North/Central EU

• 29% Eastern EU

• 35% Southern EU

(2) In-depth interviews (N=14)

Respondents targeted according to geography and asked to elaborate on drivers and barriers in collaboration

Limitations:

Representativeness & Respondent Bias

Potential bias towards those regions ‘happier’ with RIS3

Methodology

Collaboration patterns

Central&North East South Total

Increased 27.27% 23.64% 18.18% 69.09%

Same 10.91% 5.45% 10.91% 27.27%

Don't know 1.82% 0 1.82% 3.64%

Total N 22 16 17 55

Has the intensity of your Region's inter-regional R&I policy collaboration

changed in the last two years?

• 54% of the surveyed

regions have past

experience of

collaboration in R&I*

• In the 69% of those,

collaboration has

increased in the last

two years

• Regions in Central &

North EU Countries

collaborate the most

• Southern EU regions

lagging behind (?)

* R&I policy collaboration understood as one or more regions (within and between countries) coordinating the design, joint

delivery, joint funding and/or management of a particular policy scheme

Central&North East South Total

Yes 21.57% 15.69% 16.67% 53.92%

(N) (22) (16) (17) (55)

Total N 36 30 36 102*

* 8 unidentified countries

Has your Region engeged in Inter-regional collaboration for the delivery of R&I

policies and Strategies?

Instruments

Sharing information 50.00%

Policy peer review/Benchmarking 44.12%

Joint Platforms for R&I dialogue 40.20%

Monitoring and Evaluation of R&I policies 22.55%

Alignment of rules for R&I support 23.53%

Coordination of R&I priorities 21.57%

Development of cross-border R&I strategies 36.27%

Foresight 9.80%

Technical services/ Other business support 21.57%

Mobility schemes between academia and industry13.73%

Other knowledge transfer 14.71%

Research infrastructure 26.47%

Cluster and innovation network initiatives 26.47%

Technology transfer infrastructure 17.65%

Funding for private and collaborative R&D 12.75%

Early stage finance/ Venture capital 8.82%

Public procurement of innovation 9.80%

Setting of standards/ Regulations 2.94%

Information sharing/Analysis

R&I Policy collaboration experiences (last 5 years)

International partners

Funding

Demand side

10.8%

6.4%

39.2%

20.1%Policy instruments

Alignment of

priorities/strategies22.7%

Drivers of collaboration

Three factors emerge as drivers for collaboration in R&I policy:

o Policy learning (interregional learning, other ‘soft’ benefits)

o Critical mass in research (e.g. access to broader research base and knowledge

networks)

o Business Support (improve connectivity, service provision, access to markets)

Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews)

Key drivers

• Learning and sharing good practices, but also driven by new RIS3 mandate

• Benefiting from critical mass and complementary skills, access to researchers, markets, test environments, technology providers

• Different across countries. E.g. policy learning more important in Eastern EU regions

Interregional collaboration mainly on ‘soft’ policy learning/benchmarking activities and projects.

Limited collective efforts in the design, implementation and joint funding of S&I instruments.

Few examples of strategic collaboration e.g. Pilot project between Rumania and North Netherlands.

Some regions starting to be more selective and strategic in their interregional collaboration (Lombardy).

Perceived Barriers by Geographical Area What are in your experience the main barriers to inter-regional R&I policy

collaboration?

• Lack of resources is the most

relevant barrier across all the

Areas

• Insufficient engagement of

regional stakeholders barriers in

Central & North as well as Eastern

Areas – but less so in Southern EU

• Socio-cultural mismatch are

perceived much more strongly in

Central & North Areas

• Eastern Areas: strong legal or

administrative barriers

Relevant Barriers to Inter-Regional Collaboration by Geographical Area

Insufficient engagement of regional stakeholders

Lack of resources (e.g. financial)

Lack of clarity of the objectives

Insufficient political commitment

Asymmetric levels of policy competence

Lack of previous experience in policy collaboration

Asymmetric incentives/ mismatch of objectives

Lack of trust between potential partners

Legal or administrative barriers

Socio-cultural mismatch (language barriers)

Central & North East South

20.0%

37.5%

6.3%

43.8%

8.3%

18.2%

41.7%

6.7%

46.7%

31.3%

43.8% 41.7%

27.3%

53.3%

26.7%

41.7%

53.3%

25.0% 33.3% 6.7%

7.1%

28.6%

21.4%

20.0%

18.8%

31.3%

18.8% 45.5%

16.7%

25.0%

Institutional factors

• Bureaucratic rigidities with funding programmes – mismatch with flexible RIS3

• Non-compatibility in level of policy competences (ES and PT).

• Unwillingness to use funds outside of region (politicians and beneficiaries)

• Difficult shift from projects to working more strategically and on a wider set-up of activities.

• Often objectives unclear

“There is an old fashion way of thinking, key concern is ‘what are the benefits, where is our profit? Who is profiting from it?”

“There is a rule that you can spend a % of your ERDF money on partners outside of your region. But all secretariats and all partners firmly believe they should spend the money in their own region. Nobody is using it”.

Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews)

Relational factors

• Path dependency in relations (Andalusia, Castilla y Leon, Northern Netherlands)

• To form multi stakeholder partnerships takes time, and even more so on an international level (Ex: Vanguard, now 2 years, and still preparing projects)

“There are transaction costs for collaborating and it takes time to find a good partner. It takes time to know if one can work together or not, quite difficult to decide whether it is the right partner. We have established a club of regions, because we have gained experience on how to collaborate.”

Lack of resources and capabilities

• Not enough personnel (Austria; Marche; Lombardy)

• Lack of skills to engage in collaboration projects (Värmland and Dalarna)

• Lack of experience (Malta)

• Lack of good examples, uncertainty on how to do it.

“There are no rules of how to start these interregional collaboration. When you don't have any rules or methodologies, everybody has to find their own way of how to approach this. It is not clear what is allowed, how you should do it and so on and so forth”.

Findings & Preliminary Conclusions (Survey and Interviews)

Elvira Uyarraa, Chiara Marzocchia, Jens Sörvikb

a Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business Schoolb Smart Specialisation Platform, IPTS, European Commission

Interregional Collaboration in Research

and Innovation Strategies for Smart

Specialization

Q: What are the main factors driving inter-regional R&I policy collaboration?

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Share costs  and risks associated with R&I support

Achieve critical mass in research

Access to research expertise

Solve common socio-economic problems

Support industry in exploiting new markets

Support industry in exploiting technological opportunities

Provide better and more integrated services for SMEs

Increase regional visibility through collaboration

Support linkages between R&I and industry

New orientation of regional policy (smart specialisation)

Share experiences and learn from other regions

Don't know / Not applicable Not important Low importance Fairly important Very important

Drivers of collaboration

BarriersWhat are in your experience the main barriers to inter-regional R&I policy

collaboration?

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Socio-cultural mismatch (e.g. language barriers)

Legal or administrative barriers

Lack of trust between potential partners

Insufficient commitment of national stakeholders in one or more ofthe partner regions

Asymmetric incentives/ mismatch of objectives for collaboration

Lack of previous experience in policy collaboration

Asymmetric levels of policy competence

Insufficient political commitment in one or more of the partnerregions

Lack of clarity of the objectives of collaboration

Lack of resources (e.g. financial)

Insufficient engagement of regional stakeholders in one or more ofthe partner regions

Don't know / Not applicable /Not important Low importance Very + fairly important

Barriers –Differences between Collaborating &Not Collaborating Regions

Follow up interviews

Region which has collaborated Not collaborated

North Centre • Dalarna, Sweden• East Sweden/Östergötland• Lower Austria• North Netherlands

• Värmland, Sweden

South • Andalucia, Spain• Castilla y Leon, Spain• Marche, Italy• Lombardy, Italy

• Malta

East • North East Romania• South Moravia-Brno, Czech

Republic

• Lithuania

Polish, UK and French regions pending