Smart Specialization and EU Eastern Innovation Cooperation: A Conceptual Approach

• Authors: Gunnar Prause
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The concept of smart specialization as a policy approach for regional development through increased regional productivity and competitiveness in the European context is actively discussed (European Union, 2009; OECD, 2014). Meanwhile, smart specialization has found its way into EU cohesion policy as well as into the European Commission’s Innovation Union flagship programme. In Eastern Europe, economic growth came to a sudden halt during the financial crisis in 2008/2009, leading to mass unemployment, economic decline and shrinking public spending. The economic downturn in Russia after 2008 was triggered by the outflow of capital and avoided large-scale social consequences. The paper highlights the main conceptual aspects of the smart specialization approach in the European Union and its implications on future EU Eastern Innovation cooperation with a special focus on EU’s largest Eastern partner Russia.

Keywords

EN

EU Eastern cooperation; Innovation Policy; regional development; smart growth; smart specialization

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Baltic Journal of European Studies
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 4
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 3-19

Dates

published

2014-06-01

online

2014-05-17

Contributors

author

Gunnar Prause

• Department of Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology Akadeemia tee 3, Tallinn 12618, Estonia

References

• Acs, Z. (2002), Innovation and the Growth of Cities, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• Anselin, L.; Varga, A. & Acs, Z. (1997), ‘Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations/ Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 422-448.
• Archibugi, D.; Filippetti, A. & Frenz, M. (2013a), ‘Economic crisis and innovation: Is destruction prevailing over accumulation?’ Research Policy, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 303-314.
• -(2013b), ‘The impact of the economic crisis on innovation: Evidence from Europe,' Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 80, no. 7, pp. 1247-1260.
• Barca, F. (2009), An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hubner, Commissioner for Regional Policy. Brussels: European Commission.
• Belyakov, V.; Izosimova, A.; Koski, A.; Prause, G. & Rudzite, M. (2010), ‘Promoting Dynamic Interaction of Universities and Regional Stakeholders,' in J. W. Kramer, G. Prause & J. Sepp (eds.) Baltic Business and Socio-Economic Development 2007. Thud International Conference Tallinn, Estonia. June 17-19, 2007. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, pp. 401-444.
• Bluhm, K.; Demmler, R; Martens, B. & Trappmann, V. (2008), Fach- und Fiihningsb‘afte in mittelstandischen Unternehmen: Bedarf Rekrutierung und Bindung. Institut for Soziologie. Working Papers: Economic Sociology Jena, vol. 6.
• Bussmann, K. & Werle, M. (2004). ‘Kriminalitat - Standortfaktor for betriebliche Entscheidungen?’ Neue Kriminalpolitik, no. 3. pp. 90-95.
• Brandt, A. (2010). Branchenspezifische Standortfaktoren.‘ RegioVision, vol. 3.
• Camagni, R. & Capello, R. (2013), ‘Regional Innovation Patterns and the EU Regional Policy Reform,’ Growth and Change, vol. 44. no. 2, pp. 355-389.
• Capello, R. & Lenzi C. (2012), ‘Territorial patterns of innovation: A taxonomy of innovative regions in Europe,’ The Annals of Regional Science, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 119-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-012-0539-8[Crossref]
• Carlino, G.; Cliatterjee, S. & Hunt, R. M. (2007), ‘Urban density and the rate of invention,’ Journal of Urban Economics, vol. 61, no. 3. pp. 389-419.
• Ciccone, A. & Hall, R. (1996). 'Productivity and the Density' of Economic Activity,’ Ameiican Economic Review, vol. 86. no. 1, pp. 54-70.
• Chinitz, B. (1961), ‘Contrasts in the agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh,’ Ameiican Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 279-289.
• Clark, B. R. (2001), 'The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy, and Achievement.' Higher Education Management vol. 13. no. 2, pp. 9-24.
• Cooke, P. & Morgan, K. (1998). The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions, and Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• David. P.: Foray, D. & Hall, B. (2009), Measuring Smart Specialisation: Hie Concept and the Need for Indicators. Knowledge for Growth Expert Group. Retrieved from http://cemi.epfl.ch/files/content/sites/cemi/files/users/178044/public/Measuring%20smart%20specialisation.doc [accessed Apr 2014]
• Duranton. G. & Puga, D. (2001). ‘Nursery Cities: Urban Diversity. Process Innovation, and the Life Cycle of Products.' American Economic Review, vol. 91, no. 5, pp. 1454-1477. [Crossref]
• EC (2003), Die Role of the Universities in the Europe of Knowledge. Communication from the Commission Brussels. C0\l(2003)58 final. 05.02.2003.
• -(2010), Regional Policy Contributing to Smart Growth in Europe, Brussels: European Commission.
• Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Hehx of University- Industry Government Relations.' Social Science Information, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 293-337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002[Crossref]
• EU (2009), Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisations (RIS 3). Research policy, Luxembourg: European Union.
• Filippetti, A. & Archibugi, D. (2011). 'Innovation in times of crisis: National Systems of Innovation, structure, and demand/ Research Policy', vol. 40. no. 2. pp. 179-192.
• Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community' & Every-day Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Fujita, M. & Krugman, P. (2004). ‘The new economy geography: Past, present and the future.' Papers in Regional Science, vol. 83. no. 1. pp. 139-164.
• GEM (2011), ‘Russia," Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2011. GEM 2011 Global Report. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
• -(2014), ‘GEM Global Report.' Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2013, London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association.
• Goddard, J. (2000), Die Response of HEIs to Regional Needs, Paris: OECD.
• Hadjimichalis. C. & Hudson, R. (2007), ‘Rethinking Local and Regional Development: implications for radical political practice in Europe/ European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 14. no. 2. pp. 99-113.[Crossref]
• Hansmann, K. & Hock. M. (2001), Standort Norddeutschland. Hamburg: Universitat Hamburg.
• Hirsikoski, A.; Koski, A. & Prause, G. (2009), ‘‘Promoting Universities’ 3rd Task- Recommendations for University-Business Cooperation." in G. Prause & T. Muravska (eds.) Baltic Business and Socio-Economic Development 200S, Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag. pp. 351-367. Baltic Journal of European Studies Tallinn University of Technology (ISSN 2228-0588), Vol. 4, No. 1 (16) 17
• Iaininarino, S. & McCann, P. (2006), ‘The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers.' Research Policy, vol. 35. no. 7. pp. 1018-1036.
• Innovation Union Scoreboard (2013), Innovation Union Scoreboard. Brussels: European Union.
• Jaffe, A.; Trajtenberg, M. & Henderson, R. (1993), Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations.' Hie Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 108. no. 3. pp. 577-598.
• Kröhnert, S.; Morgenstern, A. & Klingholz, R. (2007), Talente, Technology.» und Toleranz - wo Deutschland Zukunft hat. Berlin: Berlin-Institut fur Bevolkerung und Entwicklung.
• Krugman, P. (1991). ‘Increasing returns and economic geography.' Journal of Political Economy', vol. 99. no. 3. pp. 483-499.
• Martens. B.; Michailow, M. & Schmidt, R.. eds. (2003), Managementkulturen im Umbruch, Sondeiforschungsbereich 5S0, vol. 10.
• McCann, P. (2008). ‘Globalisation and economic geography: the world is curved, not flat.' Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society’, vol. 1. no. 3. pp. 351-370.
• McCann, P. & Acs, Z. (2011), Globalisation: countries, cities and multinationals.' Regional Studies, vol. 45. no. 1. pp. 17-32.
• McCann, P. & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2013), ‘Modern regional innovation policy.' Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, vol. 6. no. 2. pp. 187-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rst007 [Crossref]
• -(2014. in press). ‘Smart Specialisation. Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy.' Regional Studies, http://dx.doi.org10.1080/00343404.2013.799769[Crossref]
• Meier zu Köcker, G. (2008). Clusters in Germany: An Empirical-based Insight Hew on Emergence, Financing, Management and Competitiveness of the Most Innovative Clusters in Germany. Berlin: Institate for Innovation and Technolog}- & Initiative Competence Networks Germany.
• Niebuhr, A. (2006). ‘Migration and Innovation. Does Cultural Diversity Matter for Regional R&D Activity?' HWWI Research Paper, vol. 3, no. 1. Hamburg: Hamburg Institute for International Economics.
• OECD (2010), Typology• of regional innovation systems, Paris: OECD.
• -(2011), Teiritorial Outlook, Paris: OECD.
• -(2014), Innovation-driven Growth in Regions: The Role of Smart Specialisation, Paris: OECD.
• van Oort, F. (2004), Urban Growth and Innovation: Spatially'Bounded Externalities in the Netherlands, Aldershot: Ashgate.
• Porter, M. E. (1990), Hie Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: The Free Press. -(2000). ‘Location. Competition and Economic Development: Local Networks in a Global Economy.' Economic Development Quarterly. vol. 14. no. 1. pp. 15-34.
• Prause, G. (2014. in press). ‘University - Business Interaction in Times of Demographic Change.’ Innovations.
• Prause, G. & Himke, K. (2012), ‘University - Business Interaction in the Context of Demographic Change,’ in T. Muravska & G. Prause (eds.) European Integration and Baltic Sea Region Studies: University-Business Partnership through the Triple Helix Approach. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, pp. 188-199.
• Prause, G. & Winkler, K. (2011). “Universities’ third task: On the way towards the entrepreneurial university - A German Case Study, ’ in G. Prause. U. Venesaar (eds.) University-Business Cooperation: Tallinn 2011. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts- Verlag. pp. 52-63.
• Radosevic, S. (2002). ‘Regional innovation systems in Central and Eastern Europe: determinants, organizers and alignments,’ The Journal of Technology Transfer. vol. 27. no. 1, pp. 87-96.
• Sternberg, R. (2011). ‘Interregional Disparities. Entrepreneurship, and EU Regional Policy.’ in M. Minniti (ed.) The Dynamics of Entrepreneurship. Evidence from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Data. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 153-80.
• Thurner, T. (2014. in press), “Innovation in turbulent times - Russia’s North-Western Federal District and the financial crisis,” Regional Studies.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/bjes-2014-0001