Smart specialisation, innovation policy and regional innovation systems: what about new path development in less innovative regions?

By Bjørn T. Asheim. Innovation : The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2018

170 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The paper takes smart specialisation strategies as the point of departure and frame of reference for the discussion of innovation policies and regional innovation systems. It aims to demonstrate that the regional innovation systems approach, representing a dynamic perspective on innovation and learning in the promotion of international competitiveness and economic growth, is an instrumental policy tool for the design and implementation of smart specialisation strategies. Moreover, the paper discusses different types of new path development, especially emphasising development paths that represent transformative activities in the form of path diversification based on unrelated knowledge combinations and new path creation, and how such path development can be achieved. The paper argues that such new path development, implying increased complexity of technology and knowhow but low relatedness, does not constitute a “casino strategy” as argued by Balland et al. (Balland, P.-A., et al. 2017. “Smart Specialisation in the EU: Relatedness, Knowledge Complexity and Regional Diversification.” Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, Utrecht University.), but a transformative activity or long jumps with the potential of “generating new options for subsequent structural transformation” (Hidalgo, C. A., B. Klinger, A.-L. Barabási, and R. Hausmann. 2007. “The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations.” Science 317: 482–487). As such these radical forms of new path development should be in the scope of policy makers even if they represent “high risk/high benefit” alternatives. The analytical framework is applied on a moderate innovative, Eastern European region (Mazovia) of the EU.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Management of Technology and Innovation, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/00c885eafbfe4545cbfac3d94764c3a5895b64e8

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

  1. Huiwen Gong
  2. R. Hassink
  3. Ron A. Boschma
  4. Michaela Trippl
  5. Koen Frenken
  6. Ron Martin
  7. Markus Grillitsch
  8. G. Macleod

In Management of Technology and Innovation

  1. R. Hassink
  2. Huiwen Gong

In Political Science and International Relations

  1. Huiwen Gong
  2. R. Hassink
  3. Ron A. Boschma
  4. Michaela Trippl
  5. Koen Frenken
  6. Markus Grillitsch
  7. Arne Isaksen

Citations in the corpus