ABSTRACT
There is a large literature emerging both from academic and policy circles on the concept and application of smart specialisation in European regions (Foray et al. 2012; Thissen et al. 2013; McCann and Ortega-Argilés 2015; Foray 2015; McCann 2015). Smart specialisation was introduced into the reformed EU Cohesion Policy as a method helping to prioritise investments in innovation and knowledge-related activities, and the overall format in which the approach is implemented in EU Cohesion Policy is under the heading of ‘RIS3’, the acronym for Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (Foray et al. 2012). The timeliness of RIS3 is underscored by the extremely tight budget conditions facing many EU regions and member states. Resource allocation decisions are always complex and challenging, and the influences on resource allocations decisions are multifaceted in nature. However, in many parts of Europe the pressures on public policy resource allocation decisions have never been greater than they are now. Yet, as the Barca (2009) report explained, competing and diverse interests, many of which are political in nature, often lead to a lack of resource concentration on key priorities, thereby limiting the potential impacts of policy actions and interventions. As such, a policy prioritisation methodology which is amenable to different regional contexts and which is also consistent with the fundamental premises of Cohesion Policy was much-needed, and smart specialisation was identified as reflecting both of these key features (McCann and Ortega-Argilés 2013a, b). As such, the RIS3-smart specialisation agenda sits within the overall set of reforms to EU Cohesion Policy, and on various dimensions can be seen as one of the key aspects of the reforms. Yet, this is not a European issue per se, in that the thinking underpinning smart specialisation is consistent with the many recent worldwide developments in thinking regarding modern regional policy and regional innovation policy (McCann and Ortega-Argilés 2013c) across many different subjects, disciples and policy arenas which previously were largely scattered and fragmented (OECD 2013). This smart specialisation-type thinking builds on different lines of scientific enquiry including the related variety literature (Frenken et al. 2007; Neffke et al. 2011), the structure-competition-trade literature (Thissen et al. 2013), the connectivity and global value-chains literatures (Los et al. 2015, Timmer et al. 2013), the systems-of-innovation literature (Cooke et al. 2004), the Triple Helix-type literatures regarding university-industry linkages
(Ponds et al. 2010, Goddard et al. 2011), and also many of the institutions and governance literatures (Valdaliso and Wilson 2015) underpinning the learning region arguments (Morgan 1997). However, the smart specialisation approach puts an overall logical framework and discipline onto these different literatures and insights and as such, groups them into an integrated whole which ought to be amenable to policy debates and decision-making. The idea of smart specialisation is one of the most important EU’s policy attentions focussing on the overcoming of fragmentation – fragmentation across countries and regions, all inhabiting small specialisations compared to US or Chinese economies, varying over institutions and cultures, embedded in relatively small cities within the EU countries. Smarts specialisation strives for excellence and newly developed, diversified niche markets and multilevel cooperative structures across industry, knowledge institutes and government as a potential catalyst for economic development after recent years of austerity, while simultaneously urban policies (‘Urban Agenda’) and corridor policies (TEN-T) strive for connectivity, complementarities and developing polycentric urban interaction for competitive, smart and inclusive growth, urgent cohesion and migration policies strive for redistribution and creation of economic and social opportunities, while networking policies on knowledge (ERA), trade (TTIP) and FDI are pursued for cross-regional economic linkages within and outside Europe. Yet, the identification and exploitation of regional endogenous development opportunities based on smart evolution, diversification and specialisation are at the core of this overcoming-fragmentation disadvantages process in Europe, as it potentially creates long-run and self-sustaining developments. Other policies, mostly based across various directorate generals in the European Commission, ideally should align.
