Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in developing regions

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100175

Abstract

Abstract:

Despite a growing body of literature on smart specialization, the role of public authorities and innovation intermediaries, particularly in developing regions, remains understudied. This research examines one of the first attempts to apply the smart specialization framework to the development of an innovation strategy outside Europe, specifically in the Pernambuco State, Brazil. We focus on two priority areas (clothing and high-tech automotive components) identified by the state government as key targets for pilot policy experimentation and use different methods, such as social network analysis and content analysis, to interview strategic innovation actors for studying the promotion of innovation and regional development in Pernambuco. Findings highlight how regional governance, collaboration, and trust are shaped by public authorities and innovation intermediaries. The study identifies three key challenges in implementing smart specialization strategy in developing regions: i.e., achieving effective decentralization, cultivating an innovation culture, and establishing participatory governance mechanisms. The public sector actors act as crucial knowledge brokers and policy intermediaries, facilitating the linkages and partnerships necessary to overcome these challenges.

Key words: Governance, Smart specialization strategy, Public authorities, Innovation intermediaries, Developing region, Brazil

Hugo PINTO, Manuel LARANJA, Elvira UYARRA. Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in developing regions[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(4): 100175.

Figures/Tables 4

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Table 2

References 64

[1]	Aghion, P., David, P.A., Foray, D., 2009. Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in ‘STIG Systems’. Res. Policy. 38(4), 681-693.
[2]	Balland, P.A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., et al., 2019. Smart specialisation policy in the EU: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Reg. Stud. 53(9), 1252-1268.
[3]	Barbero, J., Diukanova, O., Gianelle, C., et al., 2021. Economic modelling to evaluate smart specialisation: An analysis of research and innovation targets in Southern Europe. Reg. Stud. 56(9), 1496-1509.
[4]	Barca, F., 2009. An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations. [2023-09-19]. https://migrant-integration.ec.europa.eu/library-document/agenda-reformed-cohesion-policy-place-based-approach-meeting-european-union_en.
[5]	Barroeta, B., Prieto, J.G., Paton, J., et al., 2017. Innovation and Regional Specialisation in Latin America. [2023-09-19]. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/w/innovation-and-regional-specialisation-in-latin-america.
[6]	Burt, R.S., 1992. Structural Holes:The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
[7]	Capello, R., Kroll, H., 2016. From theory to practice in smart specialization strategy: Emerging limits and possible future trajectories. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24(8), 1393-1406.
[8]	CGEE (Centre for Management and Strategic Studies), 2015. Socio-economic Characterization of Selected Regions in the State of Pernambuco, European Union. In: Brazil Sector Dialogues Support Project, Center for Strategic Studies and Management. Brasilia, Brazil (in Portuguese).
[9]	Content, J., Frenken, K., 2016. Related variety and economic development: A literature review. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24(12), 2097-2112.
[10]	Crespo, J., Vicente, J., 2015. Proximity and distance in knowledge relationships: From micro to structural considerations based on territorial knowledge dynamics (TKDs). Reg. Stud. 50(2), 202-219.
[11]	Crevoisier, O., 2011. Beyond territorial innovation models: The pertinence of the territorial approach. Reg. Stud. 48(3), 551-561.
[12]	del Castillo, J., Paton, J., 2016. Smart specialisation across the world:The case of Latin America. In: First Smarter Conference on Smart Specialisation and Territorial Development. Sevilla, Spain.
[13]	D’Emery, R., Pinto, H., Nogueira, C., 2017a. RIS3-PE towards a vision of the Smart Specialization Strategy in selected innovative territories of the State of Pernambuco - Knowledge and innovation needs STI Automotive-TI. In: Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal (in Portuguese).
[14]	D’Emery, R., Pinto, H., Nogueira, C., 2017b. RIS3-PE towards a vision of the Smart Specialization Strategy in selected innovative territories of the State of Pernambuco - Needs for knowledge and innovation STI clothing. In: Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal (in Portuguese).
[15]	Fernandes, A.C., 2016. Territorial innovation system or a dimension of analysis in contemporary geography. In: Sposito, E.S., Silva, C.A., Sant’anna Neto, J.L., et al., (eds.). The Diversity of Brazilian Geography. Scales and Dimensions of Analysis and Action. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Consequência (in Portuguese).
[16]	Foray, D., David, P.A., Hall, B.H., 2009. Smart Specialisation - the Concept. [2023-09-19]. http://ec.europa.eu/investinresearch/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf.
[17]	Foray, D., 2014. From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 17(4), 492-507.
[18]	Foray, D., 2016. On the policy space of smart specialization strategies. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24(8), 1428-1437.
[19]	Foray, D., 2018. Smart specialization as a case of mission-oriented policy - A case study on the emergence of new policy practices. Ind. Corp. Change. 27(5), 817-832.
[20]	Foray, D., Eichler, M., Keller, M., 2021. Smart specialization strategies - insights gained from a unique European policy experiment on innovation and industrial policy design. Review of Evolutionary Political Economy. 2, 83-103.
[21]	Gianelle, C., Guzzo, F., Mieszkowski, K., 2020. Smart specialisation: What gets lost in translation from concept to practice? Reg. Stud. 54(10), 1377-1388. doi: 10.1080/00343404.2019.1607970
[22]	Gómez Prieto, J., Demblans, A., Palazuelos Martínez, M., 2019. Smart Specialisation in the World, an EU Policy Approach Helping to Discover Innovation Globally. [2023-09-19]. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/en/w/smart-specialisation-in-the-world-an-eu-policy-approach-helping-to-discover-innovation-globally.
[23]	Hausmann, R., Rodrik, D., 2003. Economic development and self-discovery. J. Dev. Econ. 72(2), 603-633.
[24]	Hausmann, R., Rodrik, D., 2006. Doomed to Choose: Industrial policy as Predicament. [2023-09-19]. https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/publications/doomed-choose-industrial-policy-predicament.
[25]	IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), 2017. IBGE Brazil in Brief - Pernambuco, Panorama. [2023-09-19]. https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/ brasil/pe/panorama (in Portuguese).
[26]	Iga-César, A.C., 2022. The role of leadership capabilities in Smart Specialisation Strategies: Comparative case studies in two Latin American regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 9(1), 223-241.
[27]	Kauffeld-Monz, M., Fritsch, M., 2013. Who are the knowledge brokers in regional systems of innovation? A multi-actor network analysis. Reg. Stud. 47(5), 669-685.
[28]	Kroll, H., 2015. Efforts to implement smart specialization in practice - Leading unlike horses to the water. Eur. Plan. Stud. 23(10), 2079-2098.
[29]	Laranja, M., Pinto, H., 2017. Governance Model, RIS3-PE - Towards a vision of the Smart Specialization Strategy in selected innovative territories of the State of Pernambuco. In: Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal (in Portuguese).
[30]	Laranja, M., Edwards, J., Pinto, H., 2019. Smart specialisation and the complex nature of governance: Perspectives from Portuguese regions for the Post-2020 Period. RSA Regions. 4, doi: 10.1080/13673882.2018.00001036.
[31]	Laranja, M., Edwards, J., Pinto, H., et al., 2020. Implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies in Portugal - An assessment. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, doi: 10.2760/363370.
[32]	Laranja, M., 2021. Translating smart specialisation and entrepreneurial discovery into a process-oriented policy. Reg. Stud. 56(5), 853-865.
[33]	Marinelli, E., Boden, M., Haegemanm, K., 2016. Implementing the entrepreneurial discovery process in Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. In: Kyriakou, D., Palazuelos Martínez, M., Periáñez-Forte, I., et al., (eds.). Governing Smart Specialisation. London: Routledge, 132-155.
[34]	Marques, P., Morgan, K., 2018. The heroic assumptions of smart specialisation:A sympathetic critique of regional innovation policy. In: Isaksen, A., Martin, R., Trippl, M., (eds.). New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems - Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons. Cham: Springer, 275-293.
[35]	Marrocu, E., Paci, R., Rigby, D., et al., 2023. Evaluating the implementation of smart specialisation policy. Reg. Stud. 57(1), 112-128.
[36]	McCann, P., Ortega-Argilés, R., 2016. The early experience of smart specialization implementation in EU cohesion policy. Eur. Plan. Stud. 24(8), 1407-1427.
[37]	McNiff, J., 2013. Action Research Principles and Practice (3^rd ed.). London: Routledge.
[38]	Montero, S., Chapple, K., 2019. Fragile Governance and Local Economic Development: Theory and Evidence from Peripheral Regions in Latin America. Abingdon: Routledge.
[39]	Mora, L., Panori, A., Deakin, M., et al., 2022. Digital meets smart: Towards a technology-enhanced approach to smart specialisation strategy development. Reg. Stud. 56(9), 1421-1428.
[40]	Morgan, K., 2004. The exaggerated death of geography: Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. J. Econ. Geogr. 4(1), 3-21.
[41]	Morisson, A., Panetti, E., 2020. Institutional entrepreneurs and socio-institutional changes in Medellín, Colombia. Regional Studies, Regional Science. 7(1), 35-51. doi: 10.1080/21681376.2019.1703796
[42]	Moulaert, F., Sekia, F., 2003. Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Reg. Stud. 37(3), 289-302.
[43]	Muscio, A., Reid, A., Leon, L.R., 2015. An empirical test of the regional innovation paradox: Can smart specialisation overcome the paradox in Central and Eastern Europe? J. Econ. Policy Reform. 18(2), 153-171.
[44]	Natalicchio, A., Mora, L., Ardito, L., et al., 2022. Evidence-informed decision-making in smart specialisation strategies: A patent- based approach for discovering regional technological capabilities. Reg. Stud. 56(9), 1442-1453.
[45]	Nogueira, C., Pinto, H., 2017. RIS3-PE towards a vision of the Smart Specialization Strategy in selected innovative territories of the State of Pernambuco - Assessment of resources and problems in the Pernambuco innovation system: Views of key actors. In: Centre for Social Studies, University of Coimbra. Coimbra, Portugal (in Portuguese).
[46]	Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., Morgan, K., 2002. The regional innovation paradox: Innovation policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 27, 97-110.
[47]	Papamichail, G., Rosiello, A., Wield, D., 2023. Addressing public policy implementation challenges in lagging regions through the analytical lens of smart specialisation. J. Knowl. Econ. 14(1), 356-381.
[48]	Pessoa, A., 2014. Smart Specialisation in the EU: Is it a Bridge between Innovation and Cohesion? [2023-09-23]. https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa14p989.html.
[49]	Pinto, H., 2018. RIS3-PE - For a vision of the smart specialisation strategy in selected innovative territories of the State of Pernambuco. In:EU-CELAC cooperation on territorial cohesion - regional innovation systems in the state of Pernambuco (Brazil). Coimbra, Portugal.
[50]	Pinto, H., Nogueira, C., Laranja, M., et al., 2019a. The tropicalization of smart specialization: Initial considerations and systemic innovation failures for the development of a strategy in Pernambuco (Brazil). Portuguese Review of Regional Studies. 50, 103-122 (in Portuguese).
[51]	Pinto, H., D’Emery, R., Nogueira, C., et al., 2019b. Smart specialization and entrepreneurial discovery in Pernambuco: Perspectives of apparel and automotive-IT innovation actors. Revista Brasileira de Inov. 18(2), 299-330 (in Portuguese).
[52]	Pinto, H., Nogueira, C., Cruz, A.R., et al., 2021. The social shaping of innovation: Networks and expectations as connecting dynamics in regional innovation systems. Int. Rev. Sociol. 31(3), 410-431.
[53]	Pinto, H., 2023. Universities and institutionalization of regional innovation policy in peripheral regions: Insights from the smart specialization in Portugal. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract. 16(1), 1-22.
[54]	Polverari, L., 2017. Smart specialisation in 2014-2020 ESI Funds Programmes: Not just a narrative. European Structural and Investment Funds Journal. 5(1), 20-31.
[55]	Rocchetta, S., Ortega-Argilés, R., Kogler, D.F., 2022. The non-linear effect of technological diversification on regional productivity: Implications for growth and smart specialisation strategies. Reg. Stud. 56(9), 1480-1495.
[56]	Ruhrmann, H., Fritsch, M., Leydesdorff, L., 2022. Synergy and policy-making in German innovation systems: Smart specialisation strategies at national, regional, local levels? Reg. Stud. 56(9), 1468-1479.
[57]	SECTI (Secretariat for Science, Technology, and Innovation at the Government of the Pernambuco State). 2017. ECT and I-PE-Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation 2017-2022. In: Secretariat of Science and Technology of the State of Pernambuco. Recife, Brazil (in Portuguese).
[58]	Sotarauta, M., 2018. Smart specialization and place leadership: Dreaming about shared visions, falling into policy traps? Regional Studies, Regional Science. 5(1), 190-203.
[59]	Ter Wal, A.L.J., Boschma, R.A., 2009. Applying social network analysis in economic geography: Framing some key analytic issues. Ann. Reg. Sci. 43(2), 739-756.
[60]	Torre, A., Rallet, A., 2005. Proximity and localization. Reg. Stud. 39(1), 47-59.
[61]	Torre, A., 2019. Territorial development and proximity relationships. In: Capello, R., Nijkamp, P., (eds.). Handbook of Regional and Development Theories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishers, 326-343.
[62]	Trippl, M., Zukauskaite, E., Healy, A., 2020. Shaping smart specialization: The role of place-specific factors in advanced, intermediate and less-developed European regions. Reg. Stud. 54(10), 1328-1340.
[63]	Vallance, P., Blažek, J., Edwards, J., et al., 2018. Smart specialisation in regions with less-developed research and innovation systems: A changing role for universities? Env. Plan. C-Polit. Space. 36(2), 219-238.
[64]	Xu, G.N., Hu, W.J., Qiao, Y.Y., et al., 2020. Mapping an innovation ecosystem using network clustering and community identification: A multi-layered framework. Scientometrics. 124(3), 2057-2081.

Main step	Key learnings	Reference
Selection of priority areas	This was completed in the end of phase 1. An ex-ante selection of sectors with the defect of not having a real participatory process with a bottom-up component, generating sectors and not real priorities of productive activities.	Pinto et al. (2018)
Assessment of systemic innovation failures	Myriad failures were present, but actors demonstrated a preoccupation with the role of the state and public policy.	Nogueira and Pinto (2017); Pinto et al. (2019a)
An initial reflection on the governance model	Defining a governance model appropriate to the context was difficult. The proposed model replicated European experience, but was not implemented, even though some aspects of participation were already in place.	Laranja and Pinto (2017)
Evaluation of innovation needs and potential of strategic players in the selected priority areas	The questionnaires revealed important needs in terms of access to knowledge, in particular in companies from the clothing sector.	D’Emery et al. (2017a, b)
Co-creation sessions for the definition of a roadmap of transformative projects	Key stakeholders were involved in co-creation sessions for the development of action roadmaps. However, there was a bias towards the need for public financial support. Actors found it difficult to think about collective efforts that did not depend on access to large amounts of public spending.	Pinto et al. (2019b)

S3 characteristic	Developed regions	Developing regions
Priority areas	Priority areas are understood as the directions for industrial transformation.	Priority areas are understood as sectors or clusters.
Innovation model	Science, technology, and innovation are the main drivers of S3.	Doing-using-interacting also needs to considered as a main driver to innovation
Governance	Governance is decentralized. Priority areas for niche-discovery and experimentation are co-created through public-private collaboration. The role of public authorities is to facilitate the process.	Governance is centralized. While public consultation processes may support public policy making, the top-down choice of domains for exploration and experimentation dominates. The role of public authorities may have to be driving the process.
Actors	Involving actors from the quadruple helix.	Stronger role of public authorities, universities, and innovation intermediaries.