Overcoming policy making problems in smart specialization strategies: engaging subregional governments

Innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3): Past, present and future research

“…Smart specialisation did not get originally designed as a strategy but was rather planned on a top-down basis, from the government to the companies (Estensoro & Larrea, 2016;McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2014a). …”

“…According to Estensoro and Larrea (2016), there are inherent difficulties to developing these processes.…”

“…Iacobucci (2014), however, maintains the contrary, thus, concluding that the companies and firms better know the realities of the market than government members of staff are able to spot opportunities. Therefore, even when the stakeholders are invited to participate in the process, a top-down approach is always effectively present in the choices over the "domains" for the specialisations selected, thus, correspondingly always dependent on whoever is leading the strategy-the regional government (Estensoro & Larrea, 2016).…”

“…This implementation problem in conjunction with the lack of capacities of regional actors and administrators to plan the strategic processes inherent to RIS3 also raises concerns (Estensoro & Larrea, 2016). This implementation problem in conjunction with the lack of capacities of regional actors and administrators to plan the strategic processes inherent to RIS3 also raises concerns (Estensoro & Larrea, 2016).…”

“…Originally, the smart specialisation concept emerged from discussions around the differences in trans-Atlantic productivity rates (Foray, David, & Hall, 2009). According to Estensoro and Larrea (2016), this initially focused upon the trans-Atlantic differences observed in terms of the intensity of the ongoing research and development (R&D) and this respectively explained differences in growth. Other authors explained this situation through recourse to the "structural effect," which highlights trans-Atlantic differences in industrial structures.…”