wire: week of innovative regions in europe granada, 15th-17th march 2010 claire nauwelaers...
TRANSCRIPT
WIRE: Week of Innovative Regions in Europe Granada, 15th-17th March 2010
Claire NauwelaersInnovation Unit
Competitiveness and Regional Governance DivisionPublic Governance and Territorial Development
Directorate
OECDThe challenges for regional innovation policies: an EU-OECD project
Reglab Annual ConferenceNorrköping 2 February 2011
Regions and Innovation Policy
Claire NauwelaersRegional Development Policy
OCDE
WHY WORRY ABOUT INNOVATION AND REGIONS?
• Innovation has received increased priority to address not only productivity gaps, but also societal challenges in the move towards smart, sustainable and inclusive societies
• Regions are called as innovation mobilisers in their countries. Two moves: attention to territories in national innovation policies; more stress on innovation in regional development policies
• The adoption of a broader concept of innovation gives a chance to regions that are not at the technology frontier
How to organisecomplementarity/synergies between policies at various levels of government?
How effective are innovation policies by, for, in regions?
Volume I. Strategies, Governance and Challenges1. WHY REGIONS MATTER FOR INNOVATION POLICY2. ROAD MAPS AND STRATEGIC POLICY MIXES3. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE4. POLICY ADVICE
Volume II. Agencies, Instruments, Country Information
5. MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF INNOVATION AGENCIES
6. POLICY INSTRUMENTS FOR REGIONAL INNOVATION7. COUNTRY INFORMATION
OECD PUBLICATION ON“REGIONS AND INNOVATION POLICIES”
OPENING THE BLACK BOX OF POLICIES:IDENTIFYING RELEVANT POLICY SPACES
Potential and limits for innovation policy in regions
1. Variety of institutional arrangements 2. Different types of innovation potential3. Diversity in regional development & innovation strategies
Three dimensions to take into account
Innovating for what? Building on current advantages Supporting socio-economic transformation
Catching up: towards creation of knowledge-based capabilities
Importance of setting policy priorities
DIVERSE REGIONS, DIVERSE POLICY RESPONSES
• S&T–driven innovation /application , adaptation of knowledge• Specialisation of productive fabric• Potential niches for smart specialisation• Innovation driven by large incumbents/New firms• Density of local linkages, regional cohesion, social capital• Orientation and strength of global linkages• Specific RIS bottlenecks: human capital, finance, etc.• Institutional competences of the region in innovation• Formal powers versus effective powers and budgetary means• Intensity and quality of public commitment to innovation
• Development choices, strategic priorities, future visions…
DIFFERENCES IN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
Degree of devolution inSTI policy competences and
resourcesFederal countries
Countries with elected regional
authorities
Countries with non elected regional
level / decentralised State agencies
Significant control of STI powers and/or resources by regions
Austria, Belgium, Germany, Australia,
Canada, Switzerland, United States, Brazil
Italy, Spain UK (Scotland, Wales,
Northern Ireland)
Some decentralisation of STI powers and/or resources to regions
Mexico France, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden (pilot regions),
Denmark (autonomous
regions), Norway
UK (English regions), Sweden (except pilot
regions), Korea
No decentralisation of STI powers
Regional innovation strategies
Denmark ,Portugal (autonomous
regions), Slovak Republic, Turkey, Czech Republic
Hungary, Ireland, Portugal (mainland)
Innovation Projects only
Chile, Japan Greece, Finland, Luxembourg, Iceland, New
Zealand, Slovenia
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Sources� New research (in house, outside)
� OECD Survey on multi-level governance of STI policy
� OECD Territorial Reviews• Globalisation and Regional
Economies (several case studies)• North of England, UK
• Piedmont, Italy• 15 Mexican States
• Catalonia, Spain• Basque Country, Spain
• Switzerland
OECD SURVEY OF MULTI –LEVEL GOVERNANCEOF INNOVATION POLICY 2010
Survey content
– Roles, budgets and challenges at different levels– Multi-level governance coordination– Instruments used at different levels – Regional dimension of national STI policies– Future trends expected
Responses from 21 OECD countries and 4 non-OECD countries
RESPONSES TO OECD SURVEY
• Informationsharingacross levelsof governmentdifficult
• Capacity problemsat sub-national level to formulate/ deliverpolicy
• Financial resources insufficient for certain regions/ localities toactivelyparticipateand implementstrategicplans
• Administrative boundaries at regional and city/ local level animpediment to policyefforts
• Policy silos at supranational/national level undermining efforts tocoordinateat thesub-national level
• Inefficienciesdueto programmesproliferationfromdifferent levels
• Gaps in allocation of responsibilities: some policy areas uncovered atany level of government
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Mexico
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Finland
Hungary
Korea
Norway
Portugal
UK (England)
National
Regional
Common instruments
Federal
Unitary, elected regions
Unitary, administrative regions
Note: National refers to the number of instruments used at national level, regardless of whether used at other levels. Regional refers to instruments reported at regional level, regardless of whether used at other levels. Common instruments refers to the number of instruments reported at both national and regional levels.
.
NUMBER OF INSTRUMENTS USED
BY NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS
Some instruments are more frequent at regional level, some at national level, and many at both levels.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Mexico
Switzerland
Czech Republic
Denmark
France
Netherlands
Poland
Spain
Sweden
Finland
Hungary
Korea
Norway
Portugal
UK (England)
National
Regional
Common instruments
Instruments reported in common are not necessarily a duplication. They may be complementary:
• Shared financing• Different target groups
and purposes
CO-ORDINATION TOOLS CAN ADDRESS DIAGNOSED MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Notes: 24 reporting countries (20 OECD, 4 non-OECD countries), one country reported two top tools.
Source: OECD Survey on the Multi-level Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy.
Most important co-ordination tool
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1 2 3 4 5 6
Number of countries
Number of coordination tools
Note: Responses available for 22 countries.
Source: OECD Survey on the Multi-level Governance of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy.
Number of multi-level governance co-ordination tools used in a given country
Regular dialogue and consultation rated most important among tools
Multiple tools are used in any given country (generally 4 or more)
A COMPLEX DIVISION OF LABOUR
Source: Technopolis et al. (2006) Strategic Evaluation on Innovation and the knowledge based economy in relation to the Structural and Cohesion Funds, for the programming period 2007-2013: Synthesis Report. A report to the European Commission, Directorate General Regional Policy, Evaluation and additionality, 23 October 2006.
TYPOLOGY OF OECD REGIONS DISPLAYS VARIETY
Peripheral Regions
Industrial Production zones
Knowledge hubs
Knowledge Hubs Small sized knowledge intensive capital districts Regional knowledge and technology hubs
Industrial Production ZonesCore manufacturing and service providers Skill-intensive production centresService and rural production centresOld manufacturing centres
Peripheral RegionsLow populated peripheral regions in rich countries Structural inertia/de-industrialising regionsRural low populated regions
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
TYPOLOGY OF OECD REGIONS: WITHIN COUNTRY DIVERSITY
Knowledge Hubs Small sized knowledge intensive capital districts Regional knowledge and technology hubs 1
Industrial Production ZonesCore manufacturing and service providers 5Skill-intensive production centres 4Service and rural production centres 1Old manufacturing centres 9Peripheral RegionsLow populated peripheral regions in rich countries Structural inertia/de-industrialising regions 1Rural low populated regions
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
France (metropolitan): 21 regions belong to 6 types
VARIETY IN INNOVATION SYSTEMS
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Tertiary educational att.
Students in tertiary edu.
Business R&D (% GDP)
Government R&D (% GDP)
Higher Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT (million
inhabitants)
High-technology employment
GDP per worker
Inno
vatio
n in
dica
tor i
ndex
(OEC
D m
edia
n =
1)
Germany- intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Baden Wurttemburg
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
OECD Median= 1
46.58 top OECD value
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Tertiary educational att.
Students in tertiary edu.
Business R&D (% GDP)
Government R&D (% GDP)
Higher Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT (million
inhabitants)
High-technology employment
GDP per worker
Inno
vatio
n In
dica
tor I
ndex
e (O
ECD
med
ian
= 1)
USA - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Massachusetts
Mississippi
OECD Median= 1
46.58 top OECD and USA value
Germany:Baden-Wurttemberg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
United States:Massachusetts and Mississippi
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Tertiary educational att.
Students in tertiary edu.
Business R&D (% GDP)
Government R&D (% GDP)
Higher Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT (million
inhabitants)
High-technology employment
GDP per worker
Inno
vatio
n In
dica
tor I
ndex
(OEC
D m
edia
n =
1)
South Korea - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Chungcheong Region
Jeju
OECD Median= 1
46.58 top OECD value
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
Tertiary educational att.
Students in tertiary edu.
Business R&D (% GDP)
Government R&D (% GDP)
Higher Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT (million
inhabitants)
High-technology employment
GDP per worker
Inno
vatio
n In
dica
tor I
ndex
(OEC
D m
edia
n =
1)
Portugal - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Lisbon
Norte Region
OECD Median= 1
46.58 top OECD value
South Korea:Chungcheong and Jeju Regions
Portugal:Lisbon and the Norte Regions
VARIETY IN INNOVATION SYSTEMS
A KEY REGIONAL ASSET: HUMAN CAPITAL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 20,000 40,000 60,000
% o
f lab
our
forc
e w
ith t
ertia
ry e
duca
tion
2007
(Re
gion
s, T
L2)
Regional GDP per Capita, 2009 US$ constant PPP, constant 2000 prices
USA (States)
Canada (Provinces)
Germany (Regions)
Mexico (States)
Spain (Regions)
Other OECD Regions (20 countries)
Note: The District of Columbia (US) does not appear in the chart for ease of display. Its GDP per capita (over USD 130 000) is more than double the value of top OECD regions. Source: Calculations using data from the OECD Regional Database.
GDP per capita and skilled labour force intensity: a virtuous relationship
VARIETY IN R&D FINANCING MODELS ACROSS OECD REGIONS
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Shar
e of
bus
ines
s inv
estm
ent o
n to
tal R
&D
ex
pend
iture
, 200
7-TL
2 Re
gion
s
R&D investment as % of GDP, 2007 Regions TL2
USA (States)
Germany (Regions)
Canada (Provinces)
South Korea
Other OECD Countries (TL2 regions)
BUSINESS-LED R&D MODEL
PUBLIC DRIVEN R&D MODEL
Massachusetts
Capital Region
Baden-Wuerttemberg
OECD Average
New Mexico
Maryland
Berlin
KansasNevada
Source: OECD Regional Database.
BETWEEN AND WITHIN COUNTRY HETEROGENEITY IN R&D EFFORTS
R&D as % of GDP TL2 regions, 2007 (or latest available year)
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
REGIONAL NETWORK OF CO-INVENTORSGREEN PATENT APPLICATIONS
Hokuriku (Japan), Baden-Wurttemberg (Germany) and California (US), 2005-2007
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
IDENTIFYING POLICY MODELS
• Policy question: how to prioritise between various possible regional policy objectives ?
• Answer: identifying typical policy models - and associated policy instruments portfolios (traditional, emerging, controversial) – away from the “supply-matching-demand” model, achieving a balance between knowledge creation-absorption-diffusion :
• “Entrepreneurial” model• “Node in global hub” model• “Absorptive capacity” model• “Innovation ecosystem” model• “S&T co-generation” model•…
POLICIES VERSUS POLICY MIXES
Components of a “constructed” policy mix Framework
RIS Characteristics
Broad Policy Objectives
Policy impacts
RDTI policy instrument
R&D policy instrument
R&D policy instrument
RDTI&D policy instrument
RDTI policy instrument
RDTI policy instrument RDTI policy
instrument
RDTI policy instrument
RDTI policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument
Other policy instrument Other
policy instrument
Governance
European
Source: www.policymix.eu
NationalRegional
DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING SMART POLICY MIXES
Knowledge Generation Knowledge DiffusionKnowledge Exploitation
Traditional instruments
Technology funds, R&D incentives/supports/grantsSupport to scientific research and technology centres, Support to infrastructure developmentHuman capital for S&T
Science ParksTechnology Transfer Offices and schemes, Technology brokersMobility schemes, talent attraction schemesInnovation awards
IncubatorsStart ups supportinnovation services (business support and coaching)Training and awareness-raising for innovation
Emerging Instruments
Public private partnerships for innovationResearch networks/poles
Innovation Voucher Certifications/accreditations
Industrial PhDsSupport to creativityInnovation benchmarking
Competitiveness polesCompetence centres
New generation of scientific and technological parks and clustersVenture and seed capital
Guarantee schemes for financing for innovation
Controversial instruments
Cross-border research centres
Open source-Open science Markets for knowledge
Regional Industrial Policy;Innovation oriented public procurement
Synergies between policy instruments and between policy areas
Balance within a policy mix: targeting firms and systems, local and global dimensions
Horizontal coordination
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Land-Use ZoningTransportation
Natural Resources
Building
Renewable Energy
Waste and Water
0
1
2High impact
Medium impact
Neglible impact
Climate change policy packages
Source: OECD (2009), “Cities and climate change” Working Paper
SEEKING POLICY COMPLEMENTARITIES
EVALUATION TO BE DEVELOPED
• Traditional performance indicator benchmarking– Regional Innovation Scoreboard type indicators– Need to develop metrics for broad innovation
• Lack of policy indicators (intensity , direction)• Evaluations of individual programmes necessary…• … but evaluation of policy mix rarely performed• Evaluations of actors promoting innovation
– Innovation agencies , intermediaries and others
Need for more Strategic policy intelligence and improved capacities (in-house, outside)
TOWARDS « BORDERLESS » INNOVATION POLICIES FOR REGIONS
1. The need for borderless content of innovation policies
– “Hidden” forms of innovation, beyond R&D-driven innovation, should be stimulated through mixes of instruments from various policy areas: education, S&T, environment, infrastructure, etc.
2. The need for borderless territory for innovation policies
– Innovation does not stop at administrative borders: cross-border collaborations in policies are called for to target functional areas
– RIS are not “small NIS”: complementarities need to be ensured between policies and instruments at various levels
SUMMING UP:
THREE KEY ARGUMENTS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE INNOVATION POLICIES IN AND FOR REGIONS
1. Variety in innovation policy models
2. Openness (content, space) of policies
3. Policy learning and experimentation