Smart Specialisation Strategies and Regional Convergence: Spanish Extremadura after a Period of Divergence

Abstract

Smart specialization strategies are a new EU approach to cohesion policy, meant to deliver growth and development at EU national and regional level. Bearing in mind its focus on place-based development strategies, this paper intends to shed some light on its appropriateness to tackle uneven development and regional growth divergence. The paper showcases Spanish Extremadura growth trajectory. Extremadura is a poor region in the European context that between 2008 and 2014 diverged from the EU average, despite being eligible for EU funding as a convergence region by cohesion policy. In the 2014–2020 programming period, there was a positive dynamic at the beginning, but from 2017 onwards convergence stopped, which indicates that thematic and regional programmes have not delivered results or have not compensated for higher growth level of other Spanish regions. Moreover, research and innovation strategies for smart specialization (RIS3) seem to have limited impacts on place-based economic transformation in less developed regions. From this example, the suitability of the smart specialisation strategy as the core of cohesion policy in the programming period is discussed. It concludes that this strategy is interesting for intermediate development regions with some industrial base but does not seem appropriate as a convergence driver for poorer regions.

S3 and Recovery and Resilience Funds: A Case Study Built on the Experience of 10 Spanish Regions

“…To achieve our goal, we began with a desk review of the literature regarding S3, paying special attention to the aspects related to governance, inter-government coordination, innovative approaches in public intervention and S3 regional ecosystems (Marinelli and Perianez-Forte, 2017 ; Radosevic, 2017 ; Marques and Morgan, 2018 ; Larrea et al, 2019 ; Gianelle et al, 2020 ; Magro et al, 2020 ; Trippl et al, 2020 ; Guzzo and Gianelle, 2021 ; Hegyi et al, 2021 ). We supplemented this review with the literature concerning S3 in Spain which has focused on a number of aspects such as the early challenges of RIS3 in Spain (del Castillo et al, 2015 ); the validity of the RIS3 approach regarding disadvantaged regions (Madeira et al, 2021 ); the role of Universities (Pérez et al, 2017 ); and vocational education and training and RIS3 (Moso-Díez, 2020 ). Very few references were found in the recent literature, however, to multilevel governance between regional S3 strategies and the Resilience and Recovery planning process.…”

The New EU Industrial Policy and Deepening Structural Asymmetries: Smart Specialisation Not So Smart

“…Throughout the budgetary cycle of 2014–2020, more than 200 Smart Specialisation strategies were developed, involving 18 EU Member States and 177 EU regions, as well as six non‐EU countries and 16 non‐EU regions (European Commission, 2020b). With respect to Europe's rapidly deindustrializing south, Smart Specialization has been employed amongst others in the agri‐food and tourism sectors, such as in the Extremadura in Spain, a rural region with no noteworthy industrial development, which after the 2008 financial crisis has diverged drastically from EU and also Spanish averages over a range of economic indicators (Madeira et al, 2021, p. 8). In 2017, a consortium in Tajo‐Salor‐Almonte set up a strategy for the production of the La Torta del Casar , a sheep cheese coagulated with thistle rennet, involving shepherds, cheesemakers, co‐operatives and the Local Action Group for Rural Development.…”

“…The European Commission is well aware that not every region can become the next Silicon Valley through the adoption of Smart Specialisation initiatives (European Commission, 2018a). However, the prominence of Smart Specialisation within cohesion policy necessitates a discussion of whether it is indeed the right strategy for alleviating structural disparities (see also Madeira et al, 2021, p. 6).…”

“…Upgrading existing industrial assets and building on the past, rather than breaking with the past, enjoys primacy. Smart Specialisation also does not necessarily lead to the integration of Industry 4.0‐type technologies, and where it does, developed regions are better positioned to benefit from a research and innovation development strategy (Madeira et al, 2021, p. 15). More generally, technology collaboration and educational and skill hubs tend to be concentrated in the most advanced economies and regions, which is why Smart Specialisation may corroborate a ‘winner takes all’ phenomenon, whereby the agglomeration of industrial activity and the cumulation of technological advances can give rise to vicious circles that can deepen persistent disparities across European regions (Landesmann and Stöllinger, 2018, pp.…”

“…To be fair, there are also analyses that conclude that the effectiveness and value‐added of Smart Specialisation to economic convergence is negligible, if not entirely absent. The reasons for this usually tend to be ascribed to the reluctance, inertia or evasion of Member States to facilitate Smart Specialisation; low (regional) governance capacity and the absence of leadership; centralist government planning cultures; clientelist structures and corruption; or ‘elites’ lacking a genuine commitment to innovation and transparency that is needed for a bottom‐up stakeholder involvement (Brunazzo, 2016; Di Cataldo et al, 2021; Kroll, 2015; Marques and Morgan, 2018; Morgan, 2017; Tömmel, 2016, 2021). The European Commission, in contrast, tends to be portrayed as a benign interlocutor, and its top‐down strategic involvement is considered inevitable in the otherwise voluntary bottom‐up collective social endeavour (Gianelle et al, 2020).…”