Six critical questions about smart specialization

By R. Hassink, Huiwen Gong. European Planning Studies, 2019

186 citations recorded by the source corpus.

ABSTRACT During the last five years, we can observe a soaring academic interest in the concept of smart specialization. A burgeoning literature emerged both conceptually and empirically. In this paper, we pause for a while and take stock of six critiques so far identified in this emerging literature. The aim is to provide a critical lens for future research on smart specialization strategies and processes. We argue that: (1) Smart specialization is a confusing concept, as what it really means is diversification; (2) It is largely predicated on a conventional science and technology (S&T) model of innovation and regional economic development, whereas socio-ecological innovation and social innovation, have only been implicitly mentioned, at best; (3) It is the continuation of cluster policies, rather than a brand-new policy instrument; (4) It contains a delusional transformative hope, although the entrepreneurial discovery process could very likely lead to lock-ins; (5) Structurally weak regions might be less likely to benefit from smart specialization; and 6) more rigorous measurements of smart specialization are still needed. By engaging systematically with these six issues, we not only aim to improve the effects of smart specialization as a policy programme, but also to contribute to its conceptual advancement.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/48bcb7be17167971f02d48df066b46055c3350ed