The Discursive Construction of Innovation Policy in Peripheralising Estonia

• Authors: Sebastian Schulz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

An innovation-driven agenda in regional development policy has emerged in the European Union against the backdrop of peripheralisation, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Using a discursive analytical framework, the article investigates the ways in which peripheralisation is manifested through language, practices and power-rationalities in Estonian innovation policy discourse. The analysis is footed on key strategic policy documents and semistructured expert interviews. Findings suggest that Estonian innovation policy’s main narrative of the ‘knowledge-based economy’ accepts growing disparities on sub-national level in order to overcome peripherality at European scale and narrows the range of policy solutions perceived as suitable.

Keywords

EN

discourse; innovation policy; Estonia; peripheralisation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: European Spatial Research and Policy
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 24
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 77-91

Dates

published

2018-01-30

Contributors

author

Sebastian Schulz

• Public Economics and Policy, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Juhan Liivi 4–214, 50409 Tartu, Estonia

References

• APPLICA, ISMERI and WIIW (2006), ‘Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000–2006’ financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 Regions, Working package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis, Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States: Estonia, Applica, Ismeri Europa and wiiw Consortium.
• BACHTLER, J., YUILL, D. and DAVIES, S. (2005), ‘Regional policy and innovation’, EoRPA Paper, 5.
• BACHTLER, J. and McMASTER, I. (2007), ‘EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26 (2), pp. 398–427.
• BARCA, F. (2009), ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’, [in:] HÜBNER D., Independent Report, Prepared at the Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Brussels, European Commission.
• BEETZ, S. (2008), ‘Peripherisierung als räumliche Organisation sozialer Ungleichheit’, [in:] BARLÖSIUS, E. and NEU, C. (eds.), Peripherisierung – eine neue Form sozialer Ungleichheit? Materialien Nr 21, Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
• BOHLE, D. and GRESKOVITS, B. (2007), ‘Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism and neocorporatism: Towards transnational capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe’, West European Politics, 30 (3), pp. 443–466.
• BRENNER, N. (2009), ‘Open questions on state rescaling’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2, pp. 123–139.
• BRISTOW, G. (2010), Critical reflections on regional competitiveness. Theory, policy, practice, New York: Routledge.
• CARTER, H. (2015), ‘Peripheralization through planning: The case of a golf resort proposal in Northern Ireland’, [in:] LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.), Understanding New Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave, pp. 98–111.
• DE BRUIJN, P. and LAGENDIJK, A. (2005), ‘Regional innovation systems in the Lisbon strategy’, European Planning Studies, 13 (8), pp. 1153–1172.
• EHRLICH, K., KRISZAN, A. and LANG, T. (2012), ‘Urban Development in Central and Eastern Europe – Between Peripheralization and Centralization?’, disP – The Planning Review, 48 (2), pp. 77–92.
• EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2007), Cohesion Policy – 2007–2013 – Commentaries and official texts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2015), European Structural and Investments Funds 2014–2020: Official texts and commentaries, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
• EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2016), WP1 Synthesis report ‒ Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007‒2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), Task 3 Country Report Estonia, September 2016.
• FISCHER, F. (2003), Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• FISCHER-TAHIR, A. and NAUMANN, M. (eds.) (2013), Peripheralization – The Making of Spatial Dependencies and Social Injustice, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
• HADJIMICHALIS, C. (2011), ‘Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: Europeans regions after the 2009 financial crisis’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 254–274.
• HAJER, M. a. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• HANSEN, T. and WINTHER, L. (2011), ‘Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 321–339.
• INZELT, A. (2006), ‘Country Profile: Estonia’, [in:] Private Sector Interaction in the Decision Making Processes of Public Research Policies. Study for the European Commission Research Directorate General Directorate M – Investment in Research and links with other policies Open coordination of research policies, Bad Camberg: Proneos.
• KATTEL, R. and PRIMI, A. (2010), ‘The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe compared. Some reflections on why it is not enough to say that innovation matters for development’, Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, 29.
• KÜHN, M. (2014), ‘Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities’, European Planning Studies, 23 (2), pp. 367–378.
• LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.) (2015), Understanding new Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave.
• LEFEBVRE, H. (1991), The production of space, Oxford‒Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2014), Partnership Agreement for the Use of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020, Tallinn.
• NIINIKOSKI, M.L. and KUHLMANN, S. (2015), ‘In discursive negotiation: Knowledge and the formation of Finnish innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 42, pp. 86–106.
• OECD (2016), OECD Regional Outlook 2016 – Productive Regions for Inclusive Societies. Country profile Estonia.
• REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2007), Estonian National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013, Tallinn.
• RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O.B. (2003), ‘Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses’, Urban Studies, 40 (1), pp. 7–22.
• RUTTAS-KÜTTIM, R. and STAMENOV, B. (2016), RIO Country Report 2015: Estonia, Science for Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.
• SECRETARIAT OF THE ESTONIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (2002), Estonian Research and Development Strategy ‘Knowledge-based Estonia 2002–2006’, Riigi Teataja, Part 1, No.97, December 18, 2001, Tallinn.
• SUURNA, M. and KATTEL, R. (2010), ‘Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Science and Public Policy, 37 (9), pp. 646–664.
• SWYNGEDOUW, E., MOULAERT, F. and RODRIGUEZ, A. (2002), ‘Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy’, Antipode, 34 (3), pp. 542–577.
• VANOLO, A. (2010), ‘European Spatial Planning between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion: Shadows of Neo-liberalism’, European Planning Studies, 18 (8), pp. 1301–1315.
• VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary: The Interplay between European and National Discourses of Space’, European Planning Studies, 24 (1), pp. 39–60.
• WEICHHART, P. (2008), ‘Neoliberalism meets Political Economy – Politikversagen, Entdemokratisierung und die vergebliche Hoffnung auf Governance in der Zweiten Moderne’, [in:] BRUCKMEIER, K. and SERBSER, J. (eds.), Ethik und Umweltpolitik – Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven,. München: Pekom, pp. 213–236.
• ŽENKA, J., NOVOTNÝ, J. and CSANK, P (2014), ‘Regional Competitiveness in Central European Countries. Search of a Useful Conceptual Framework’, European Planning Studies, 22 (1), pp. 163–184.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/esrp-2017-0010