Download Innovating for what?

WIRE: Week of Innovative Regions in Europe
Granada, 15th-17th March 2010
Reglab Annual Conference
Norrköping 2 February 2011
Regions and Innovation
Policy
Claire Nauwelaers
Claire Nauwelaers
Regional Development Policy
Innovation Unit
Competitiveness and Regional Governance Division
Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate
OECD OCDE
The challenges for regional innovation
policies:
an EU-OECD project
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 organise complementarity/synergies between
policies at various levels of government?
How effective are innovation policies by, for, in regions?
OECD PUBLICATION ON
“REGIONS AND INNOVATION POLICIES”
Volume I. Strategies, Governance and Challenges
1. WHY REGIONS MATTER FOR INNOVATION POLICY
2. ROAD MAPS AND STRATEGIC POLICY MIXES
3. MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE
4. POLICY ADVICE
Volume II. Agencies, Instruments, Country
Information
5. MAXIMISING THE IMPACT OF INNOVATION
AGENCIES
6. POLICY INSTRUMENTS FOR REGIONAL INNOVATION
7. COUNTRY INFORMATION
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 potential
3. 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 in
STI policy competences and
resources
Significant control of STI powers
and/or resources by regions
Some decentralisation of STI
powers and/or resources to regions
No
decentralisation
of STI powers
Regional
innovation
strategies
Innovation
Projects only
Federal countries
Countries with
elected regional
authorities
Countries with non
elected regional
level / decentralised
State agencies
Austria, Belgium,
Italy, Spain
Germany, Australia, UK (Scotland, Wales,
Canada, Switzerland,
Northern Ireland)
United States, Brazil
Mexico
France, Netherlands, UK (English regions),
Poland, Sweden
Sweden (except pilot
(pilot regions),
regions), Korea
Denmark
(autonomous
regions), Norway
Denmark ,Portugal
Hungary, Ireland,
(autonomous
Portugal (mainland)
regions), Slovak
Republic, Turkey,
Czech Republic
Chile, Japan
Greece, Finland,
Luxembourg, Iceland,
New Zealand,
Slovenia
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
Sources
OECD SURVEY OF MULTI –LEVEL GOVERNANCE
OF INNOVATION POLICY 2010
New research (in house, outside)
Survey
content
OECD Survey
on multi-level governance of STI policy
OECD Territorial Reviews
– Roles, budgets and challenges at different levels
• Globalisation and Regional
– Multi-level governance
coordination
Economies
(several case studies)
– Instruments•used
at different
levels
North
of England,
UK
– Regional dimension
of national
• Piedmont,
Italy STI policies
– Future trends
• expected
15 Mexican States
• Catalonia,
Spain
Responses from 21 OECD
countries and
4 non-OECD countries
• Basque Country, Spain
• Switzerland
RESPONSES TO OECD SURVEY
• Information sharing across levels of government difficult
• Capacity problems at sub-national level to formulate / deliver policy
• Financial resources insufficient for certain regions/localities to
actively participate and implement strategic plans
• Administrative boundaries at regional and city/local level an
impediment to policy efforts
• Policy silos at supranational/national level undermining efforts to
coordinate at the sub-national level
• Inefficiencies due to programmes proliferation from different levels
• Gaps in allocation of responsibilities: some policy areas uncovered at
any level of government
0
5
10
15
20
Australia
Austria
Federal
0
Belgium
5
10
Canada
Australia
15
20
25
30
25
30
NUMBER OF
INSTRUMENTS USED
BY NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL
GOVERNMENTS
Mexico
Austria
Switzerland
Belgium
Czech Republic
Canada
Denmark
Some instruments are more frequent
at regional level, some at national
level, and many at both levels.
Mexico
Unitary,
Switzerland
elected
regions
Czech Republic
France
Netherlands
Poland
Denmark
Spain
France
Sweden
Netherlands
Finland
National
Instruments
reported in common
Regional
are
notinstruments
necessarily a duplication.
Common
They may be complementary:
• Shared financing
National
• Different target groups
Regional
Common instruments
and purposes
Poland
Hungary
Spain
Unitary,
administrative
Sweden
regions
Korea
Norway
Finland
Portugal
Hungary
UK (England)
Korea
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.
.
CO-ORDINATION TOOLS CAN ADDRESS DIAGNOSED
MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE CHALLENGES
Multiple tools are used in
any given country (generally
4 or more)
Regular dialogue and
consultation rated most
important among tools
Number of multi-level
governance co-ordination tools
used in a given country
Most important co-ordination tool
Number of responding countries
Number of
countries
8
9
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of coordination tools
Note: Responses available for 22 countries.
Source: OECD Survey on the Multi-level Governance of Science,
Technology and Innovation Policy.
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.
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
Knowledge hubs
Industrial Production zones
Peripheral Regions
Knowledge Hubs
Small sized knowledge
intensive capital districts
Regional knowledge and
technology hubs
Industrial Production
Zones
Core manufacturing and
service providers
Skill-intensive production
centres
Service and rural production
centres
Old manufacturing centres
Peripheral Regions
Low populated peripheral
regions in rich countries
Structural inertia/deindustrialising regions
Rural 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
Zones
Core manufacturing and
service providers 5
Skill-intensive production
centres 4
Service and rural production
centres 1
Old manufacturing centres 9
France (metropolitan):
Peripheral Regions
Low populated peripheral
regions in rich countries
Structural inertia/deindustrialising regions 1
Rural low populated regions
21 regions belong to 6 types
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
VARIETY IN INNOVATION SYSTEMS
15
46.58 top OECD value
Germany- intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Innovation indicator index (OECD median = 1)
13
Baden Wurttemburg
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
11
Germany:
Baden-Wurttemberg and
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania
9
7
5
3
OECD
Median= 1
1
-1
Tertiary
educational att.
Students in
tertiary edu.
Business R&D
(% GDP)
15
Government
R&D (% GDP)
Higher
Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT
(million
inhabitants)
High-technology GDP per worker
employment
46.58 top OECD and USA value
USA - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Innovation Indicator Indexe (OECD median = 1)
13
Massachusetts
Mississippi
11
United States:
Massachusetts and Mississippi
9
7
5
3
OECD
Median= 1
1
-1
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 GDP per worker
employment
VARIETY IN INNOVATION SYSTEMS
15
46.58 top OECD value
South Korea - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
Innovation Indicator Index (OECD median = 1)
13
Chungcheong Region
Jeju
11
9
South Korea:
Chungcheong and Jeju Regions
7
5
3
OECD
Median= 1
1
-1
Tertiary
educational att.
Students in
tertiary edu.
Business R&D
(% GDP)
15
Government
R&D (% GDP)
Higher
Education R&D
(% GDP)
Patents PCT
(million
inhabitants)
46.58 top OECD value
Portugal - intra regional variation
OECD - intra regional variation
13
Innovation Indicator Index (OECD median = 1)
High-technology GDP per worker
employment
Portugal:
Lisbon and the Norte Regions
Lisbon
Norte Region
11
9
7
5
3
OECD
Median= 1
1
-1
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 GDP per worker
employment
A KEY REGIONAL ASSET: HUMAN CAPITAL
% of labour force with tertiary education
2007 (Regions, TL2)
GDP per capita and skilled labour force intensity: a virtuous relationship
60
USA (States)
50
Canada (Provinces)
40
Germany (Regions)
30
Mexico (States)
20
Spain (Regions)
10
0
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
Other OECD Regions
(20 countries)
Regional GDP per Capita, 2009
US$ constant PPP, constant 2000 prices
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.
VARIETY IN R&D FINANCING MODELS ACROSS OECD REGIONS
100
Share of business investment on total R&D
expenditure, 2007- TL2 Regions
BUSINESS-LED R&D MODEL
90
Capital Region
80
Kansas
Nevada
Baden-Wuerttemberg
Massachusetts
70
USA (States)
60
PUBLIC DRIVEN R&D MODEL
Germany (Regions)
50
Canada (Provinces)
40
Berlin
30
South Korea
Maryland
20
New Mexico
10
OECD Average
0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R&D investment as % of GDP, 2007 Regions TL2
Source: OECD Regional Database.
7.0
8.0
Other OECD Countries
(TL2 regions)
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-INVENTORS
GREEN 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 creationabsorption-diffusion :
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Entrepreneurial” model
“Node in global hub” model
“Absorptive capacity” model
“Innovation ecosystem” model
“S&T co-generation” model
…
POLICIES VERSUS POLICY MIXES
National
Broad Policy
Objectives
Governance
European
RIS
Characteristics
Other
Other
policy
policy
instrument Other
instrument
policy
RDTI policy instrument
RDTI policy instrument
tru
me
RDTI policyRDTin
Other
I sp
olic
ynt
instrument instrumeR
&
D
p
o
lic
y
policy
nt
instrument
instrument
R
D
T
I&
D
Other
Other policy
p
o
lic
y
policy
instrument
RDTI policy
instrument
instrument
R
&
D
p
o
lic
y
instruR
mD
eT
ntI policy
instrument
instrument
Policy impacts
Source: www.policymix.eu
Regional
DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING SMART POLICY MIXES
Traditional
instruments
Knowledge Generation
Knowledge Diffusion
Technology funds, R&D
incentives/supports/grants
Support to scientific
research and technology
centres,
Support to infrastructure
development
Human capital for S&T
Science Parks
Technology Transfer
Offices and schemes,
Technology brokers
Mobility schemes,
talent attraction
schemes
Innovation awards
Public private partnerships Innovation Voucher
for innovation
Certifications/accredit
Research networks/poles
ations
Emerging
Instruments
Controversial
instruments
Knowledge
Exploitation
Incubators
Start ups support
innovation services
(business support
and coaching)
Training and
awareness-raising
for innovation
Industrial PhDs
Support to creativity
Innovation
benchmarking
Competitiveness poles
Competence centres
New generation of scientific and technological parks and clusters
Venture and seed capital
Guarantee schemes for financing for innovation
Cross-border research
centres
Open source-Open
science Markets for
knowledge
Synergies
between policy
instruments and
between policy
areas
Balance
within a policy mix:
targeting firms and
systems, local and
global dimensions
Horizontal
coordination
Regional Industrial
Policy;
Innovation oriented
public procurement
Source: Regions and Innovation Policy OECD 2011
SEEKING POLICY COMPLEMENTARITIES
2High impact
1Medium impact
Land-Use Zoning
Transportation
0Neglible impact
Natural Resources
Building
Renewable Energy
Waste and Water
Climate change policy packages
Source: OECD (2009), “Cities and climate change” Working Paper
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