Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions: Governance, Technologies, and Sustainability 3031205766, 9783031205767

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN SUB-NATIONAL GOVERNANCE

Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions Governance, Technologies, and Sustainability Edited by Filipe Teles Carlos Rodrigues Fernando Ramos Anabela Botelho

Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance

Series Editors Linze Schaap, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands Jochen Franzke, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Hanna Vakkala, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland Filipe Teles, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

This series explores the formal organisation of sub-national government and democracy on the one hand, and the necessities and practices of regions and cities on the other hand. In monographs, edited volumes and Palgrave Pivots, the series will consider the future of territorial governance and of territory-based democracy; the impact of hybrid forms of territorial government and functional governance on the traditional institutions of government and representative democracy and on public values; what improvements are possible and effective in local and regional democracy; and, what framework conditions can be developed to encourage minority groups to participate in urban decision-making. Books in the series will also examine ways of governance, from ‘network governance’ to ‘triple helix governance’, from ‘quadruple’ governance to the potential of ‘multiple helix’ governance. The series will also focus on societal issues, for instance global warming and sustainability, energy transition, economic growth, labour market, urban and regional development, immigration and integration, and transport, as well as on adaptation and learning in sub-national government. The series favours comparative studies, and especially volumes that compare international trends, themes, and developments, preferably with an interdisciplinary angle. Country-by-country comparisons may also be included in this series, provided that they contain solid comparative analyses.

Filipe Teles · Carlos Rodrigues · Fernando Ramos · Anabela Botelho Editors

Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions Governance, Technologies, and Sustainability

Editors Filipe Teles University of Aveiro Porto, Portugal Fernando Ramos University of Aveiro and University Portucalense Porto, Portugal

Carlos Rodrigues University of Aveiro Porto, Portugal Anabela Botelho University of Aveiro Porto, Portugal

ISSN 2523-8248 ISSN 2523-8256 (electronic) Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance ISBN 978-3-031-20576-7 ISBN 978-3-031-20577-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Dmitry Merkushin/Alamy Stock Vector This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

This volume stems from the work developed within the framework of a research project focused on understanding the innovation policies in less developed regions in Europe.1 Despite the specific focus on the Portuguese case of lagging regions, it aims at providing conceptual improvements useful to other geographies, as it fosters the debate through the contribution from leading experts in the different topics addressed. From this debate and clash between well-established conceptual frameworks and the experience resulting from several of the case studies, we expect to provide new insights on how to assess the diverse approaches to the processes of territorial innovation in European less developed regions, as well as to the role of communities in such processes. The editors would like to acknowledge and thank all the authors for their contributions for this book. A word of appreciation to the different research centres at the University of Aveiro that provided the support for the research, and to the community of researchers and colleagues involved in the project over the last years. A book is always a collective endeavour, and this volume is ultimately the result of many contributions given to

1 Research Program “CeNTER—Community-led Networks for Territorial Innovation”

(CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), through the ERDF and PT 2020. The funding source had no involvement in the development of the research or in the preparation of this book.

v

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

the initial drafts of the chapters that were presented in multiple formats in different settings. We would like to acknowledge the important role of the main funding partner, the Centro Region managing authority in Portugal, not only for the financial support, but also for its involvement as an active player in discussing results and opportunities stemming from this initiative. The editors would like to thank especially Anna Dabrowska for her attentive reading of the final manuscript. The editors, Filipe Teles Carlos Rodrigues Fernando Ramos Anabela Botelho

Contents

1

Community-Led Innovation: Facts, Rhetoric, and Policy Challenges Carlos Rodrigues and Filipe Teles

1

Part I Models 2

New Models of Innovation in Old Industrial Regions Kevin Morgan and Dylan Henderson

3

On the Performance of Regional Innovation Systems Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, Celeste Varum, and Ana Dias Daniel

4

Social Tipping Dynamics for Disruptive Innovation Policies Towards a Stable Climate Scenario Sara Moreno Pires and Pedro Silva

5

Digital Technologies and Mediation in the Context of Territorial Innovation Oksana Tymoshchuk, Maria João Antunes, Margarida Almeida, Luís Pedro, Fernando Ramos, Eliza Oliveira, and Daniel Carvalho

9 31

77

97

vii

viii

CONTENTS

6

Towards an Integrated Conceptual Framework for Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions: The Sustainable Regions’ Approach Pedro Silva, Sara Moreno Pires, Alexandra Polido, Carlos Rodrigues, and Filipe Teles

113

Part II Tools 7

8

9

Digitalisation in a Multilevel Governance Context: The Case of Cohesion Policy Julie Pellegrin and Louis Colnot Prototyping a Digital Platform to Promote (Hyper)mediation Practices in the Territory Eliza Oliveira, Daniel Carvalho, Fernando Ramos, Luís Pedro, Maria João Antunes, Margarida Almeida, and Oksana Tymoshchuk The Role of Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainability in Urban Systems Transformation Alexandra Polido

141

163

181

Part III Policy and Actors 10

11

12

13

The Role of State and Non-state Actors in Ensuring the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Pedro Marques and Kevin Morgan

199

European Urban Agenda: The Predicaments of Decentralised Coordinative Action Fernando Nogueira

215

Local Development Through Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystems João Almeida, Ana Dias Daniel, and Anabela Botelho

245

Tourism and Development in Lagging Regions Rui Augusto da Costa, José Carlos Silva, and Diana Morais

267

CONTENTS

14

Territorial Cohesion and Innovation: A Needed Dialogue Pedro Chamusca and João Lourenço Marques

Index

ix

285

303

Notes on Contributors

João Almeida holds an M.Sc. in Management, and he is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Business & Economics (University of Aveiro). He is a Research Fellow of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy (GOVCOPP), with a scholarship funded by the Portuguese Science and Technology Foundation (FCT) for his project “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Sustainable Local Development of Portuguese Low-Density Municipalities”. His main research interests are related to entrepreneurship, innovation and local/regional development. Margarida Almeida holds a Ph.D. in Communication Sciences and Technologies and has been developing research activities related to ‘digital inclusion’, ‘media for all’ and ‘communication and health’. She is an Associated Professor at the University of Aveiro and has been involved in different research projects and scientific initiatives related to Digital Media. Maria João Antunes is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication and Art, at the University of Aveiro, Portugal. She holds her Ph.D. in Sciences and Technologies of Communication (2007). She is a member of the Digital Media and Interaction Research Centre (DigiMedia), where she develops research on transmedia-related topics. She is currently director of the degree in Multimedia and Communication Technologies at the UA.

xi

xii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Anabela Botelho is a Full Professor of Economics and currently serves as the Director of the Department of Economics, Management and Industrial Engineering, University of Aveiro, Portugal. A pioneer in the introduction of teaching and research in Experimental Economics in the Portuguese academy, she previously held teaching and/or research positions in several institutions. She has been, since 2019, a member of the Scientific Committee of the Future Forum of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and, since 2008, an effective member of the Portuguese Higher Statistical Council (CSE), nominated by the Portuguese Prime Minister as indicated by the Council of Rectors of Portuguese Universities, and an effective member of the Standing Section of Statistical Confidentiality of CSE. He received her Ph.D. in Economics (1998) from the University of South Carolina, USA, and has published her research in international journals such as Experimental Economics, Games and Economic Behavior, Research in Experimental Economics, Contemporary Economic Policy, Economics of Education Review, Public Choice, etc. Daniel Carvalho holds a graduation in New Communication Technologies and a master’s degree in Multimedia Communication both from the University of Aveiro, Portugal. Currently, he is a research fellow in the project CeNTER and a Ph.D. student in Information and Communication in Digital Platforms Ph.D. programme of the Universities of Aveiro and Porto, Portugal. His research interests focus in user experience and user centred design. Pedro Chamusca holds Ph.D. in Geography at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto and is professionally qualified in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Presently, he is a University Research Associate at the Communication and Society Research Centre (CECS) of the University of Minho, where he develops research on topics related to urban geography, territorial cohesion, GIS, governance, planning, tourism and spatial planning at the University of Minho. He teaches several courses in the Geography Department. He is currently President of the Portuguese Association of Geographers (APG). Louis Colnot is a Researcher and Consultant in the Development and Evaluation Unit of the CSIL—Centre for Industrial Studies (Milan, Italy). He has specialised in regional and local economic development, especially Cohesion Policy, as well as in RDI issues. He has notably

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xiii

been involved in several policy-oriented research and consultancy projects for different institutions, including the European Commission and the European Parliament. Rui Augusto da Costa holds a Ph.D. in Tourism. He is Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism at University of Aveiro. He’s the coordinator of Tourism and Development Research Group in the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy. He develops his research in the planning and project in tourism, networks, governance and public policy and territorial dynamics of investment in the tourism sector. He is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Tourism & Development (SCOPUS) and member of the Organizing Committee of the International Conference INVTUR. Ana Dias Daniel is an Assistant Researcher at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, where she has been lecturing courses on various subjects, such as entrepreneurship, innovation and project management. Also, she is a member of the Research Unit in Governance Competitiveness and Public Policies, and as a researcher her main interests are on management issues related to entrepreneurship, innovation and regional development. She is member of the Editorial Board Member of the Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, and member of the Organizing Committee of the International Conference on Entrepreneurship Education. She is/was also principal investigator of several national projects and European funded projects. Dylan Henderson is a Lecturer at Cardiff University and a member of the Centre for Innovation Policy Research. His research and teaching span business innovation, digital and regional development, where he is interested in the spatial dynamics of business and strategy development within regional ecosystems. His research has been published in a range of leading journals and policy publications and has included research for organisations such as the European Commission, Welsh Government, regional development agencies and universities across Europe. João Lourenço Marques is Assistant Professor at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro, lecturing courses in the domain of the quantitative methods and techniques to support decision-making, in planning and in public policy.

xiv

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Currently, he is integrated member of the Research Unit in Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), coordinating the Group of Systems for Decision Support. In the Research Group on Planning and Innovation (GETIN_UA), he has been conducting and coordinating several research and projects in the fields of strategic spatial planning, decision support systems, spatial competitiveness analysis, demographic dynamics and forecast, econometric and economic models for regional development. He was member of the board of the Portuguese Association of Urban Planners (APU) and of the board of Portuguese Association of Spatial Planners (APPLA). Now he is member of the board of the Portuguese Regional Science Association (APDR). Pedro Marques holds a Ph.D. in Economic Geography from CURDS, Newcastle University and an M.A. from the same University, as well as a B.A. in Sociology awarded by ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon. Currently, he is a research fellow at INGENIO, an institute in Valencia (Spain) specialised in research on innovation and science policy. He is also a visiting fellow at the Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies(CURDS), Newcastle University and an affiliated member at the Centre for Innovation Research at Lund University (CIRCLE). Previously, he has worked at Cardiff University, University of Kiel and Newcastle University. His research interests are in regional development, inequality, politics and development, and innovation. Diana Morais holds a degree in Tourism from the University of Trásos-Montes e Alto and a Master in Tourism Management and Planning from the University of Aveiro. In the professional context, she started in the hotel industry, in the Reception department in different regions of Portugal. Currently, she has recently started her career on board as a Receptionist in a cruise line in the Douro Region. Kevin Morgan is Professor of Governance and Development in the School of Geography and Planning at Cardiff University, where he is also the Dean of Engagement and Co-convenor of the Centre for Innovation Policy Research. His research interests revolve around place-based innovation strategies; multilevel governance systems; sustainable food networks; and the foundational economy. He was part of the Joint Research Council team that co-authored Partnerships for Regional Development—Playbook, the European Commission’s new place-based innovation strategy.

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xv

Apart from his academic work, he has worked with the OECD, the European Commission’ DG Regio and regional governments and development agencies throughout Europe. Fernando Nogueira holds a Ph.D. in Social Sciences. He is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro. He teaches courses in the fields of urban and regional planning, public administration, and public policy, and is presently the Director of the M.Sc. in Urban and Regional Planning. He is a collaborating member of the Research Unit GOVCOPP— Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy, where he has developed research work on governance and territorialised policies, public participation and collaborative decision-making. Eliza Oliveira completed her degree in 2011 at the Federal University of Minas Gerais and holds a master’s degree in Informatics from the Federal University of Paraíba (2015), both in Brazil. Currently, she is a Ph.D. student and researcher at the DigiMedia research centre, where she participated as a fellow in the CeNTER project. Luís Pedro holds a Ph.D. on Didactics. He is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Portugal, where he lectures in Communication Sciences and Technologies undergraduate, graduate and doctoral courses. His research interests are related with participatory and social media development, integration and assessment in educational and training contexts. Julie Pellegrin is Senior Consultant in the Development and Evaluation Unit at CSIL—Centre for Industrial Studies (Milan, Italy). She has a longstanding experience in public policy analysis and evaluation, as well as policy and technical advisory in the fields of local and regional development, Cohesion policy and public policy delivery mechanisms and governance. She has been having research and teaching experience in various European Universities, including University of Milan (IT), Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (FR), Maastricht University (NL) and the University of Birmingham (UK). Sara Moreno Pires is Assistant Professor of Public Policies at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro and a member of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP). She holds a Ph.D. in Applied

xvi

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

Environmental Sciences. Currently, she is the Deputy Director of the ENGO Common Home of Humanity and the scientific coordinator of the Ecological Footprint of Portuguese Municipalities project, awarded in 2022 with the UA prize for Cooperation 2021, for the strong impact in cooperation with society for environmental sustainability. She mainly focuses her research on public policies for urban sustainability, green transition and territorial innovation, with a focus on local governance and sustainability indicators. Alexandra Polido holds a Ph.D. in Environmental and Sustainability Sciences and teaches courses in the field of environment and sustainability strategies. She is a full researcher in the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), where she develops research on environmental policies and planning for sustainable transformation, institutional governance structures and urban systems transformation. She is a fellow of the Robert Bosch Stiftung Postdoctoral Academy for Transformational Leadership (2021–2023). She is funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through CEECIND/01400/2017. Fernando Ramos holds a degree on Electronics and Telecommunications Engineering (1979), a Ph.D. in Electrotechnical Engineering/Telecommunications (1992), and the Aggregate title (habilitation) in Communication and Art/Multimedia Communication (2001), all from the University of Aveiro; Professor at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, since 1982; Full Professor (tenure) in Communication Sciences and Technologies at the Department of Communication and Art (2003– 2021); Invited Full Professor (since September 2021); Rector of the University Portucalense Infante D. Henrique (since September 2021); Author/co-author of more than 230 scientific and technical papers, mainly, for the last 20 years, in the area of Digital Media and Learning and Online Education in Higher Education. Co-author/organiser of 10 scientific books. His main research interests are: Digital Media for Knowledge Building in Connected Communities; Online Education in Higher Education; Digital Media and Territorial Innovation; Learning in Smart Territories; and International Cooperation for Development. Vitor Miguel Ribeiro holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Porto since January 2015, where he developed research work in the area of two-sided markets. Under the ERSE/FEP protocol, signed in

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

xvii

June 2014, he was one of those responsible for preparing the regulation parameters of the electricity sector for the regulatory cycle of 2015–2017. He was also a member of ANACOM’s Council Support Department between April 2015 and October 2016, where he carried out research in the context of infrastructure sharing agreements and regulatory policy on wholesale access markets 3a and 3b. After doing post-doctoral research at the University of Manchester, Aveiro and Porto, he was Assistant Researcher at Fundação Consuelo Vieira da Costa. Since September 2021, he is Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Economics of the University of Porto, where he is responsible to teach Econometrics (undergraduate and graduate levels), Industrial Economics and Regulation of Utilities. His main research interests are regulatory policy, theoretical and empirical studies of multi-sided markets, theoretical and empirical econometrics, efficiency analysis and computer science. Carlos Rodrigues is Associate Professor at the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences of the University of Aveiro (Portugal). He holds the position of head of department since 2015 and the coordination of the University of Aveiro’s Center for Asian Studies and Master in Chinese Studies since 2011. He is a member of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy—GOVCOPP. His research focuses on territorial innovation systems, particularly on the role science, technology and innovation policy and practice play in systemic, territorially based development processes, and Asian studies, particularly in the domains of EU-China relations, and sports, power and development. Pedro Silva holds a Ph.D. in Marketing and Strategy and teaches courses in the field of management. Presently, he is a researcher at CeBER— Centre for Business and Economics Research at University of Coimbra. His research focuses on international business, strategic management, marketing and regional innovation systems. He has authored several articles in international peer-reviewed journals. José Carlos Silva holds a bachelor’s degree in Tourism and a master’s degree in Tourism Management and Planning. He presented a thesis named “The importance of tourism for the development of low-density territories”, focused on the effects that the tourism activity could have in developing and improving territories. He has experience in creating

xviii

NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS

sustainable tourism experiences, developing strategies to improve businesses and in analysing and monitoring investment projects. Currently, he is working as a freelancer in the travel sector. Filipe Teles holds a Ph.D. in Political Sciences and teaches courses in the field of comparative local governance. Presently, he is acting as Prorector for Regional Development and Urban Policies at the University of Aveiro. He is a member of the Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policy (GOVCOPP), where he has developed research work on governance and local administration, territorial reforms and political leadership. He is currently President of the European Urban Research Association (EURA) and member of the Steering Committee of the standing group on Local Government and Politics of the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR). Oksana Tymoshchuk is Assistant Researcher at the Digital Media and Interaction research centre (DigiMedia) with reference UIDP/05460/2020, supported by FCT. She has a degree in educational psychology, a master’s degree in special education, and a Ph.D. in Multimedia in Education. In March 2021, she completed the post-doctoral programme in Communication Sciences and Technologies. Her present research interests are related to Special Needs, Digital Technology, Inclusion and Territorial Innovation. Celeste Varum is CEO of the Matosinhos Future Hub at Galp. She holds a Ph.D. in Economics (2002) and an M.Sc. in International Business and Economic Integration (1996) from the University of Reading (UK). She holds degree in Economics from University of Évora (1995). Associate Professor with Habilitation at the University of Aveiro, where she teaches since 2003. At the University of Aveiro, she has been director or vicedirector of several programmes, such as vice-director of the PHD in Economics and Management Sciences, director of the Economics Master Programme and of the Economics degree, as well as vice-coordinator of the Research Line Competitiveness, Innovation and Sustainability from the Research Unit, GOVCOPP, among others. She has published a number of books and papers in international journals in fields related to dynamics of firms, industries and regions. During her career, she participated in several projects at national and international levels.

List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 Fig. 3.3 Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5

Fig. 3.6 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

Articles published in the RIS, NIS and innovation research fields, by every three years, 1989–2017 Weight of RIS performance articles on NIS articles, by every three years, 1989–2017 Number of RIS performance articles per scientific journal, 1989–2017 Classification of RIS performance literature through co-occurrence analysis, 1989–2017 Evolution of the absolute and relative weight of empirical articles relative to theoretical contributions in the RIS performance research field, 1989–2017 Classification of RIS performance articles by theme, 1989–2017 Summary of social tipping dynamics for disruptive innovation policies towards a stable climate scenario Project implementation roadmap Framework for networking and mediation strategies in territorial innovation Dimensions of territorial innovation in LDRs Planned Cohesion Policy EU funding for digitalisation by type of projects (Source European Parliament 2018) User centered design process Sample of sketches from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user

44 45 46 56

65 67 88 100 108 121 149 166

167

xix

xx

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 8.3

Fig. 8.4

Fig. 12.1

Sample of the wireframes from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user Sample of screens from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Tutorial, main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user The vicious declining cycle of Low-Density Territories (Source Own)

168

168 247

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table Table Table Table Table

3.2 3.3 3.4 6.1 6.2

Table 7.1 Table 7.2

Table 8.1 Table 8.2 Table Table Table Table Table

8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 10.1

Elasticity of RIS performance literature over NIS literature, by every three years, 1989–2017 Test statistics Intra-cluster results Inter-cluster results Views of innovation in territorial innovation models Proposal for an integrated conceptual framework for territorial innovation in less developed regions: the sustainability regions approach Pillars of the Digital Agenda for Europe and their main focus Cohesion Policy’s arrangements potentially contributing to secure the expected benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach towards digitalisation Number of Problems and Average Problem Severity identified by each panel of evaluators Type of violated heuristics and average severity identified by each panel of evaluators Expert’s inputs Priority of the inputs Level of effort for the improvement of the prototype Inputs according to the prototype interface Summary of state and non-state actors’ interests in regional innovation policy in four case studies

46 53 63 63 119

129 146

155 171 173 174 175 175 176 210

xxi

xxii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 11.1 Table 11.2 Table 11.3 Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4

Table Table Table Table

13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8

Table 13.9 Table 13.10

Table 14.1 Table 14.2

ISUDS: Policy design and delivering dimensions Investment Priorities (IP) and thematic allocation of funds in PEDU All PEDU’s implied PI and thematic allocation of funds by agents List of interviewees (Source Own) Characteristics of the Municipality of Penela Characteristics of the Municipality of Fundão Characteristics of the Municipality of Abrantes Characteristics of the Municipality of Castelo Branco Questionnaire structure Territorial distribution per NUT II Importance of Low-Density Territories for development Severity of the problems associated with Low Density Territories Capacity of Low-Density Territories to solve problems Main characteristics of Low-Density Territories Main solutions for Low-Density Territories Main characteristics of municipalities for tourism activity—importance Main characteristics of municipalities for tourism activity—quality Measures that should be taken by the stakeholders of the Low-Density Territories to enable a further development of tourism Guide of questions on Centro Portugal cohesiveness. Source own elaboration Municipalities selected and its participation on the case-study

223 234 235 252 254 256 259 261 272 272 273 274 274 275 277 278 279

281 289 290

List of Maps

Map 7.1 Map 7.2 Map 7.3 Map 7.4

Map 12.1 Map 14.1 Map 14.2 Map 14.3

Case studies of digital projects funded by Cohesion Policy (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018) Cohesion Policy per capita funding for digitalisation (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018) Share of total Cohesion Policy funding for digitalisation (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018) Regional prioritisation of Cohesion Policy investments for digitalisation by broad types of projects (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018) Portuguese LDTs (light green) and case studies selected (dark green) Population density in Portugal (2021) (Source Own elaboration, using INE data) Enterprises density in Portugal (2019) (Source Own elaboration, using INE data) OECD functional areas in the Centro Region of Portug (Source Own elaboration, using OECD data)

143 147 148

151 252 291 292 293

xxiii

CHAPTER 1

Community-Led Innovation: Facts, Rhetoric, and Policy Challenges Carlos Rodrigues and Filipe Teles

Innovation is consensually regarded as a key driver of regional socioeconomic development. This consensus is well evidenced in the literature, namely from the 1990s onwards, and, in addition, it has been underpinning a succession of policy discourses, programmes, and instruments. A persistent science and technology-biased perspective of innovation, in overall terms, did not fade away over time, despite the criticisms targeted at the linear model (Malecki, 2021) and the rise of interactive learning as backbone of innovative processes (e.g. Asheim, 1999; Cooke & Morgan, 1999; Lundvall & Johnson, 1994). Nevertheless, new conceptualisations of innovation gained visibility and new or rekindled perspectives made their way, not only in academia, but also in policy and political settings all

C. Rodrigues (B) · F. Teles Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] F. Teles e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_1

1

2

C. RODRIGUES AND F. TELES

over the world. Social innovation, for instance, has emerged in several continents as a solution for the gaps left by the welfare state waning and the inherent dismissal of the public sector as major provider of basic social services (Starke, 2006). Moreover, sustainability goals have been brought to the forefront of the innovation debate, extending the expectations towards innovation from economic productivity concerns to the wider realm of a (innovation-driven) sustainable development, harmoniously balancing the economic, social, and (mainly) environmental facets of human societies (Polido et al., 2019). This widening conceptual ground gave rise to a reinforced (and broader) idea of innovation as a social and interactive endeavour, thus highly dependent on territorial contexts. The need for place-based inclusive and democratic modus cogitandi and modus operandi (e.g. Barca, 2009) to ignite and sustain innovative dynamics has been put at the heart of innovation policy and practice. Smart specialisation, the inspirational source of EU regional policy since 2010, provides a good illustration of this trend, namely when taking into account the centrality of the socalled entrepreneurial process of discovery. Furthermore, (place-based) innovation policy and practice have been also wrapped up by a fuzzy and shallow discursive veil, full of concepts and buzzwords lacking meaningful substance and thus subject of fragile consensuses. The role of communities in innovation has been particularly vulnerable to this rhetorical entanglement. In fact, there is plenty of evidence (e.g. Raco, 2005) showing the gap dividing a discourse pledging sustainability and inclusiveness and the outcome of subsequent action. Morgan (2004), purposefully, talks about the imbalance of policy design and policy delivery capabilities. Still, it would be unfair to look at the possibility of occurrence of innovation-engaged communities in such a pessimistic vein. Dedicated to community-led innovation, this book grounds this assertion. The book brings together the knowledge stemming from an original research project on territorially based innovation, carried out at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, with the purposeful insights of international acknowledged and leading experts in the field. As a result, by setting well-established conceptual frames of reference against novel perspectives built upon the learning experiences and findings of the project, it provides a fresh approach to innovation and territory, with emphasis on the multifaceted role (local) communities can play in the mitigation of the effects inherent to the organisational and institutional

1

COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION: FACTS, RHETORIC, …

3

vulnerabilities that, in general, affect innovation capacity in less developed territorial contexts. The approach draws on the long-settled assumption that communities are spatially bounded entities that, either in the form of loosely connected individuals or through small, localised networks, either formal or informally, can emerge as innovation agents, thus allowing for enhanced responses to local development challenges. Still, by bringing into play a variety of disciplines, from political science, communication and digital sciences, public administration, geography, economics, and regional and spatial planning, it commingles an obvious conceptual discussion on the role communities play in innovation with a multidisciplinary scrutiny of the ways (i) local innovation ecosystems structure and function; (ii) relevant policy design and implementation processes evolve in a forcibly multilevel framework; (iii) technology-based mediating tools facilitate the creation and consolidation of social networks that support community involvement in innovation; (iv) community-led innovation impacts on local development dynamics; and, finally, (v) community-led innovation contributes for the higher calling for sustainable development and territorial cohesion, namely in the context of less developed regions. Accordingly, this book defies conventional approaches to territorial innovation and sheds light over different aspects of the phenomenon. It reveals facts, policy and delivery challenges, expectations, successes and underachievements, and tensions, pictured with basis on the observation of active community agents engaged in collaborative networking and attempting to take advantage of policy instruments in order to generate a wide range of meaningful innovations. It also puts forward an extended conceptual frame of reference necessary to give meaning to the debate on community-led innovation, encompassing the idea that innovation can occur in territorial contexts other than technologically and economically advanced urban regions, it is not exclusive to high-tech firms and it is not solely about science and technology breakthroughs, and its impact goes beyond economic growth and productivity. Finally, quite obviously, the construction places the local level of policy and practice at the core, thus counteracting the underexplored nature of localness in innovation studies. The book comprises 13 chapters, organised into three parts: models (5 chapters), tools (3 chapters), and policy and actors (5 chapters). The first part underpins a debate on the need to further extend the theoretical and conceptual ground upon which territorially based innovation

4

C. RODRIGUES AND F. TELES

unfolds. Morgan and Henderson, in the first chapter, use social innovation, mission-oriented innovation and foundational economy as models that acknowledge the challenges of engaging in innovation as a placebased process, thus recognising the real needs of society, economy, and the environment. The second chapter, authored by Ribeiro, Varum and Daniel, presents the results of a literature review exercise, focused on regional innovation systems, which soundly confirms the inadequacy of ‘one-size fits all’ approaches to innovation policy and, concomitantly, the unlikely possibility of replicating success cases in different territorial contexts, due to a wide range of specificities. The following chapter, written by Pires and Silva, acknowledges the pressures faced by national, regional, and local policymakers when attempting to design and implement effective innovation policies, powerful enough to respond to current societal challenges, prompting the authors to bring forward the claim for putting forward small changes that can cause disruptive systemic changes through social tipping dynamics. Tymoshchuk, Antunes, Almeida, Pedro, Ramos, and Oliveira e Carvalho propose a conceptual framework to build up hypermediation technological platforms with the capacity to serve as complementary mechanism supporting citizen involvement and active participation in (community-led) innovation. Closing the first part, Silva, Pires, Polido, Rodrigues, and Teles argue in favour of the integration of broader and far-reaching goals in innovation models that are serving as frame of reference for the regional development endeavour, namely in less developed regions, thus going beyond the traditional and prevalent targets of economic competitiveness and convergence. The second part starts with Pellegrin and Colnot’s approach to the ways public policies can impact on digitalisation, namely at the regional level and a multilevel governance dynamic, suggesting, with basis on the analysis of EU cohesion policy, the high relevance of tools favouring collaborative governance. Oliveira, Carvalho, Ramos, Pedro, Antunes, Almeida, and Tymoshchuk, in the seventh chapter, describe the design, development, and validation processes of a prototyped hypermediation platform, which aims at facilitating collaboration among networked agents involved in community-led innovation initiatives. The last chapter of this block, authored by Polido, introduces strategic environmental assessment as a tool capable to support enhanced decision-making processes, bringing sustainability to the forefront of territorially based policies and thus benefits to the environment and communities.

1

COMMUNITY-LED INNOVATION: FACTS, RHETORIC, …

5

The third part opens with Marques’ sound statement that policy is not a technocratic endeavour, but rather the outcome of specific power relations affected by dichotomic tensions between cooperation and conflict, consensus and disagreement, trust and opportunistic behaviour, which, because constantly changing due to endogenous and exogenous pressures. Nogueira’s chapter provides a thorough discussion on integrated urban sustainable development strategies with focus on governance and scope ambiguities, underlining the gap dividing the consensual notion of territorial cohesion as policy artefact and the real capacity of many territorial contexts to materialise it, and claiming for increased and consequent community involvement. On Chapter 11, Almeida, Daniel, and Botelho bring over the challenges faced by rural and low-density territories and, drawing on a case study approach to policy and practices aimed at counteracting decline, highlight the relevance of a multilevel, multiactor, and multifaceted mode to foster innovation and entrepreneurship in those territorial contexts. The problem of low-density territories is also discussed in Costa, Silva and Morais’ chapter, in which the authors shed light over the role tourism activities play in mitigating the development barriers these territories experience, while claiming for a better understanding of the situation and its uniqueness and acknowledging the central part to be played by local governments. The last chapter of the book, authored by Chamusca and Marques, underlines, on the one hand, the value of bottom-up approaches to innovation policy design and implementation and, on the other hand, the need for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, endowed with the capacity to collect, process and model large volumes of data, in order to generate relevant and timely knowledge.

References Asheim, B. T. (1999). Interactive learning and localised knowledge in globalising learning economies. GeoJournal, 49(4), 345–352. Barca, F. (2009). Pursuing equity through place-based development policies: Rationale and the equity efficiency issue. In Proceedings of the OECD/TDPC Symposium on Regional Policy (Vol. 2). Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1999). The associational economy: Firms, regions, and innovation. OUP Catalogue.

6

C. RODRIGUES AND F. TELES

Lundvall, B. Ä., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42. Malecki, E. J. (2021). The geography of innovation. In M. Fischer & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Handbook of regional science. Springer. Morgan, K. (2004). Sustainable regions: Governance, innovation and scale. European Planning Studies, 12(6), 871–889. Polido, A., Pires, S. M., Rodrigues, C., & Teles, F. (2019). Sustainable development discourse in smart specialization strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118224. Raco, M. (2005). Sustainable development, rolled-out neoliberalism and sustainable communities. Antipode, 37 (2), 324–347. Starke, P. (2006). The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Social Policy & Administration, 40(1), 104–120.

PART I

Models

CHAPTER 2

New Models of Innovation in Old Industrial Regions Kevin Morgan and Dylan Henderson

It is no exaggeration to say that regional innovation research has until recently had its gaze overwhelmingly focused on the dynamic regions of the world, with Silicon Valley being the most celebrated example (Breznitz, 2021; Saxenian, 1996). However, this has tended to frame innovation in narrow terms as a linear process relying on science and technology (S&T). More recently, both academic and policy discourses have begun to view innovation in much broader terms, incorporating social and ecological forms of innovation (Coenen & Morgan, 2020; Morgan, 2019). Such developments, we argue, have the potential to offer greater possibilities for old industrial regions to engage in innovation as a place-based process that respects the needs of society, economy and the

K. Morgan (B) School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK e-mail: [email protected] D. Henderson Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_2

9

10

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

environment. In this chapter, we consider three such models—social innovation, mission-oriented innovation and foundational economy—before examining what they might mean for innovation in old industrial regions, taking the Cardiff Capital Region as an example. We conclude by distilling some of the wider implications for theory and practice.

The Advent of New Framings of Innovation and Policy Social innovation emphasises the potential for innovation to address both identified and unmet social needs as well as the aspirations of society (Moulaert et al., 2017). It draws attention to the role of social innovation to contribute towards solutions to grand challenges such as climate change, demographic challenges and health and well-being (Benneworth & Cunha, 2015; Marques et al., 2017). By focusing on societal needs this model of innovation offers the prospect of engaging a greater range of citizens and places in the innovation process than the S&T model. Benneworth and Cunha (2015, p. 512) identify social innovation as a ‘socially innovative practice that delivers socially just outcomes by developing novel solutions in border spanning learning communities thereby; creating social value by promoting community development, hence; forming wider collaborative networks; and challenging existing social institutions through this collaborative action’. This highlights the discursive nature of social innovation, but it also underlines its potential to produce transformative outcomes (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). Although some authors see social innovation as a distinct form of innovation (Moulaert & Mehmood, 2020), it is argued that S&T and social innovation have a potentially complementary role to play in addressing system-wide challenges such as modernisation of public services and supporting societal well-being (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). The inclusion of social innovation in the official guidance for smart specialisation represents an important step in introducing (European) regional bodies to the role of social innovation (Foray et al., 2012a). While the implementation options for social innovation are not clear, proponents have called for bottom-up activity to enable communities to respond to marginalisation and deprivation, while ensuring they benefit (Benneworth et al., 2015). The policy challenge is also one of scaling up and diffusing good practices beyond these localised experiments to secure transformative change. It

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

11

may also require new roles for the state in addressing complex and uncertain social and ecological challenges, acting as a co-producer, targeted finance, procurement and regulation (Healy & Morgan, 2012). This new role for the state, however, will also require new metrics to assess the returns from its purchasing support, based on ‘values for money’ rather than traditional metrics of value for money that emphasise the lowest cost (Morgan, 2019, p. 87). Mission-oriented innovation policy: while the policy options for social innovation remain underdeveloped, mission-oriented innovation policy has emerged as a specific model to address long-term social challenges, but also those related to ecological and economic challenges. These missions were initially created in response to technological challenges, such as the Manhattan project and the Apollo Mission (Mowery et al., 2010). More recent work has broadened the notion of missions to include climate change, environmental degradation, health and wellbeing. Missions can be characterised by the following features: . . . . .

Bold, inspirational with wide societal relevance A clear direction: targeted, measurable, and time-bound Ambitious but realistic research and innovation actions Cross-disciplinary, cross-sectoral, and cross-actor innovation Multiple, bottom-up solutions (Mazzucato, 2018b, pp. 14–15).

The mission-oriented approach to grand challenges calls for the engagement of multiple actors, public, private, and non-profit organisations, and users alongside more decentralised governance arrangements (Borrás & Edler, 2014). This represents a more complex and unstructured process than those of earlier technological missions (Foray et al., 2012b; Wanzenböck et al., 2020). Mission governance also calls for collaboration across multiple policy agendas and administrative boundaries (Weber & Rohracher, 2012). This highlights the complexity of such missions, reflecting multiple demands, strategic direction for action and funding. The addition of multiple interrelated projects within an overarching mission adds further to this complexity, but recognises that a mixed portfolio of projects contributing to a mission can help to mitigate the risks associated with a single, large mission (Bours et al., 2021; Mazzucato, 2018a).

12

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

Government is identified as playing a lead role in most accounts of mission-oriented innovation. This role goes beyond that of mere funder and can include a convening role, brokering and building trust, but also the longer-term willingness to bear uncertainty. Here Mazzucato (2018a) argues that focusing on cross-cutting grand challenges rather than narrow sectoral interests is the most effective way of co-creating missions. This contrasts with ‘picking winners’, with its attendant risks of failure. Instead, mission-oriented innovation policies draw together public and private actors that are ‘willing’ to engage in addressing challenges. Others, however, argue that it is far from clear that mission-oriented innovation policy will be able to avoid ‘regulatory capture’ and sectoral lobbying (Brown, 2021). The ambitious agenda set out for mission-oriented innovation policy represents an important departure from conventional S&T conceptions of the innovation process. This responds to the weaknesses of traditional innovation policies to produce transformative changes (Hassink & Gong, 2019). In addressing this weakness the mission-oriented innovation literature has given greater attention to social and ecological innovation as part of long-term policy endeavours seeking to address grand challenges (Mazzucato, 2018b). However, while proving an attractive model for policymakers its potential to address the challenges of creating and implementing mission objectives, implying that new governance structures, cultures and mechanisms on the part of government may be required (Foray, 2018). Indeed, while mission-oriented innovation policy tends to be viewed as a top-down endeavour, research has also shown how missions can emerge in a self-organised manner in local areas, providing the basis for a ‘gradual, yet in-depth change in a desired direction’, while appearing less threatening to established interests (Bours et al., 2021, p. 2). The foundational economy represents a new model of social innovation that, in contrast to mission-oriented innovation policy, places a firm focus the parts of the economy concerned with the everyday provision of goods and services at the local level (Barbera & Rees Jones, 2020; Bentham et al., 2013). The foundational economy includes providential services like healthcare, primary and secondary education and welfare support, as well as material infrastructure comprising pipes and cables supplying water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, as well as banks, construction and food (Engelen et al., 2017). While seemingly unglamorous these goods and services collectively comprise vital elements of a civilised life

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

13

for all citizens within a local area (The Foundational Economy Collective, 2018). They represent the daily services that are either purchased from household income or delivered free at the point of use to households by public services and private enterprises (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). The everyday nature of the foundational economy services and their localised production and consumption has been identified as an alternative to the competitiveness and growth model for the economy. By their very nature of being everywhere it has been argued that the foundational economy may have the potential to act as a stabiliser of the local economy, with something to offer everyone everywhere (Engelen et al., 2017; Morgan, 2019), immobile and shielded from the global economy through regulations (Barbera et al., 2018). Some estimates suggest that FE employment accounts for more than 40% of jobs in many developed countries. Proponents, however, argue that the metrics used to assess the importance of the foundational economy need to move beyond traditional indicators such as GDP and productivity and consider citizen well-being (Froud et al., 2020). The concept of the foundational economy challenges traditional, neoliberal policy prescriptions for regions based on support for inward investment, hi-tech firms, recognising that such firms do not always diffuse benefits back to their local economies (Froud et al., 2020). Instead of targeting leading firms, the foundational economy reverses this approach and focuses on everyday sectors grounded in the economy and collective consumption of these goods and services. While innovation may be viewed as part of the traditional model of industrial policy, this represents a narrow conception of innovation (Morgan, 2019). Indeed rather than being ‘luddites’ (Coenen & Morgan, 2020, p. 19), foundational services can make use of advanced digital technologies in their delivery to improve service delivery (Hansen, 2021; Reynolds et al., 2021). This may not be the high-tech of Silicon Valley and other technology-based regions, but the adoption, use and diffusion of social innovations to help to improve the services and working conditions of foundational economy employment and citizen well-being (MacKinnon et al., 2021). But notwithstanding these advances in understanding of the foundational economy, the potential role for innovation remains ambiguous (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). Here concerns have been noted that this literature has developed a ‘fixation on technical innovation for productivity gain within social innovation’ (Engelen et al., 2017, p. 420). Elsewhere, broader concerns about the potential for technology-enabled

14

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

automation to impact positively, but also negatively on jobs, have been identified (Arntz et al., 2016; Reynolds et al., 2018). This calls for careful attention to be given to the nature and potential effects of technologies in foundational economy interventions at the regional level. Other major challenges facing the foundational economy include the urgent need to decarbonise key sectors—particularly food and domestic energy—which have high carbon footprints (Gough, 2017; Watkins, 2021). Like other new models of innovation, the foundational economy identifies the role of experimental approaches to inform policy options (Barbera & Rees Jones, 2020; Coenen & Morgan, 2020). Such experimentation is deemed to be particularly important to innovation in the foundational economy given the lack of existing policy models. In this respect, experimentation may open a new brokering role for the public sector, with a focus on the selection and alignment of activities with demand and supply. The challenge of scaling up good practice across a region also remains, with calls for a ‘multilevel policy architecture’ to diffuse such experiments beyond local areas (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). Yet despite the prevalence of experimental approaches to the foundational economy, there are concerns that this may be an overly cautious approach (Froud et al., 2020). Here more mainstream policy options may exist to support the material infrastructure of the foundational economy, such as deployment of broadband to all parts of the region (Reynolds et al., 2021), and measures such as energy efficiency. Indeed, policy may benefit from a judicious mix of experimentalism and broad-based local innovation diffusion.

Implications for Old Industrial Regions Although old industrial regions and other ‘left behind places’ have not been at the forefront of research in recent decades (MacKinnon et al., 2021), the particular innovation challenges facing such regions have recently come to the fore in research. Among other things, this has highlighted the presence of declining or mature industries and limited innovation capability amongst SMEs, all of which are reflected in limited levels of business R&D activity, skilled human capital and low levels of absorptive capacity (Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie, 2019). All these factors have been found to contribute towards ‘lock in’ of economic activity, policies, fragmentation of linkages and organisational weakness (Grabher, 1993; Henderson, 2020; Tödtling & Trippl, 2005).

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

15

The traditional policy repertoire for old industrial regions has included inward investment, infrastructure provision, skills and business support (MacKinnon et al., 2021). While innovation policies have been developed in such regions (not least through programmes such as smart specialisation), the new models of innovation offer possibilities for old industrial regions to develop a social form of innovation that is better attuned to their place-based context and challenges (Morgan, 2019). In this respect, they highlight the potential of directionality and user perspectives in innovation policy, offering old industrial regions an opportunity to ensure that social, economic and environmental challenges are given prominence in place-based policies for innovation. This framing may include elements of traditional science, technology and innovation support, alongside social innovation and ecological innovation. As noted above, the spatially dispersed nature of the foundational economy, for example, provides a way of targeting support for innovation on the needs of citizens, business and the environment. The new models of innovation show that novel technology solutions may not be the most important form of innovation in old industrial regions, lacking, as many do, high-tech firms. Instead, it offers possibilities for old industrial regions to diffuse existing technologies in their economies (Reynolds et al., 2021). Such technologies, however, are ‘nested in a wider process of industrial transformation and institutional adaptation’ (Coenen et al., 2015, p. 862). In the digital sphere, for example, old industrial regions face both opportunities from such technologies (as has been highlighted during the pandemic), but also possible regional disruptions. Here research has highlighted the potential for big tech monopolies to suck economic value out of less developed regions, and concentrate this in leading tech regions (Feldman et al., 2021). The lack of headquarters in less developed regions has also been cited as a factor limiting investment in novel green energy initiatives (Jones & Munday, 2020). The multiscalar nature of governance for innovation may provide additional challenges for deploying new models of innovation policy in old industrial regions. Here the growing complexity of policies and levels of governance have been found to present coordination challenges in such regions (Magro et al., 2014; Nilsson & Moodysson, 2014). The broad range of actors associated with policies for social and ecological innovation also require policymakers to find new ways of interacting with users in the design and delivery of such policies in old industrial regions. Introducing

16

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

such policies, however, faces barriers, given the dominance of the narrow S&T narrative in many regions (Coenen & Morgan, 2020; Henderson, 2020). For all the potential benefits offered by the new models of innovation for old industrial regions a number of uncertainties remain. Firstly, while these models might offer a more inclusive basis for innovation, institutional capacity and the ability to design and implement innovation initiatives in old industrial regions have been identified (Hassink & Kiese, 2021). This is further reflected in the general constraints in the availability of funding for education, health and social care in the public sector (Coenen & Morgan, 2020). Second, although experiments have been identified as providing a basis for learning and feedback, there is a challenge of moving beyond this to scaling up successful examples. This is an area where good practice has been noted as a ‘bad traveller’. Third, social innovation may provide an attractive policy recipe, but this may not be able to redress the dominance of the S&T policy narrative (even in old industrial regions). In this respect, regional innovation policy prescriptions have been found to persist over time with agents activity seeking to support their maintenance (Henderson, 2020). In light of these challenges and the multilevel governance arrangements characterising regional innovation policy, the question remains how and whether place-based actors in old industrial regions can harness these new innovation models to produce transformative improvements to social outcomes and address the real needs of citizens.

Innovating in the Periphery---The Cardiff Capital Region The Cardiff Capital Region (CCR) has sought to combine social as well as technological innovation in a regional development strategy that departs in fundamental ways from traditional regional policy in the UK. In this section, we address two of the most prominent aspects of this strategy: the CCR governance system, which represents a form of institutional innovation and the CCR development strategy, which we discuss with reference to the CCR’s three thematic priorities—innovation, infrastructure and challenges.

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

17

Fashioning Regional Capacity: The Rise of the Cardiff Capital Region The launch of the Cardiff Capital Region in 2013 signalled a new era of collaboration among the ten municipalities that created the city-region because it symbolised a decisive break with a long history of conflict and mistrust between the city and its surrounding region. Few cities have been as dependent on their regional hinterland as Cardiff, the Welsh capital. Without the dramatic growth of the coalfield in the South Wales valleys subregion, there would have been no commercial logic to build port facilities in the city and, without export facilities, Cardiff would never have become a ‘coal metropolis’ in the early years of the twentieth century (Daunton, 1977). Although the city and the valleys were mutually dependent from the outset, the nature of this relationship changed radically after 1920, when the coalfield peaked in employment terms. Thereafter the economic flows from the valleys to the city were decreasingly of products in search of an export market and increasingly of people in search of a labour market as Cardiff’s economy became more diversified and less dependent on the coalfield. If the centre of economic gravity was shifting from the coalfield to the coast, politicians in the coalfield were loath to acknowledge the fact. Instead of capitalising on the growing interdependence between the city and the region, politicians in the valleys were more likely to frame their interests in parochial and self-referential terms. Framing regional development as a zero-sum game, they saw Cardiff’s gains as the valleys’ losses, even though their respective labour markets were becoming increasingly entwined (Morgan, 2014). The concept of the city-region eventually made its political debut in 2004, when it was positively endorsed in the Wales Spatial Plan as a strategy for South East Wales: The coastal zone is now the main economic driver, and its competitiveness needs to be sustained to help raise the economic potential of Wales as a nation. The heavy commuting flows between the Valleys and the coast mean that the area functions as an interdependent but unplanned urban network… This needs to be built on constructively, making Cardiff the focal point of a coherent and successful urban network in South East Wales, enabling it to share its prosperity…The area will function as a single networked city-region on a scale to realise its international potential, its national role and to reduce inequalities. (Welsh Government, 2004)

18

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

However, almost a decade lapsed before any real progress was made in creating “a single networked city-region” in South East Wales and even then it took two extra-regional factors to disrupt the political status quo in the region. The formation of the Manchester city-region in 2011 was the first external shock to the regional status quo, not least because it provided compelling evidence that city-regionalism had established itself on the UK political agenda in the UK. Ten local authorities had forged a new strategic entity, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA), to promote economic development and to create a more strategic space for the purposes of strategic planning for transport and the like. The rise of the GMCA triggered the second external shock as it persuaded the Welsh Government to launch a Task & Finish Group to explore the potential of city-regionalism in Wales and the final report recommended the formation of two new city-regions in South East Wales and Swansea Bay. As well as identifying potential economic benefits, the report argued that a city-region approach would also allow for a more strategic approach to planning, learning and skills, transport and housing allocation, all of which needed to be planned on a regional rather than a local scale (Haywood, 2012). The formation of the Cardiff Capital Region in 2013 was facilitated by the financial incentive of a City Deal, one of the many such local deals that central government was offering to city-regions throughout the UK (Beel et al., 2021; Waite & Morgan, 2018). In the case of the CCR, the City Deal was worth a total of £1.2 billion over twenty years, funded by £500 m from UKG, £500 m from Welsh Government and £120 m from the borrowing capacity of the ten local authority members. Although the financial incentive of the City Deal helped the ten municipalities to create a new regional institution—in the form of a Regional Cabinet—there were still many political challenges to be overcome before a truly effective governance system could emerge among ten municipalities with such widely different socio-economic circumstances. One of the earliest political challenges revolved around the voting system: Should it be based on one member one vote, as the smaller municipalities wanted, or should voting rights be differentially weighted according to population size, as the larger municipalities preferred? This combustible issue of voting rights had the potential to undermine all the political goodwill that had been carefully crafted in preceding years, even though nine of the ten municipalities were controlled by the same party, the Labour Party. In the event, an effective regional governance

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

19

system was fashioned through two key political decisions. Firstly, the voting rights issue was eventually resolved in favour of one member one vote regardless of the size of the authority and its financial contribution, an outcome that secured the commitment of the smaller municipalities. Secondly, each of the municipal leaders was allocated a thematic portfolio in the Regional Cabinet in addition to their local mandate, a decision that nurtured regionalism and tempered tribalism. An independent assessment of the CCR City Deal noted that these institutional innovations helped to create “a network rather than a hierarchy” (SQW, 2020, p. 22). If a strong political consensus has been forged within the CCR region, the same cannot be said of the other partners in the City Deal. Unlike the City Deals in England, which are based on a bilateral partnership between central government and the local leaders of the city-region, the City Deals in Wales are part of a trilateral arrangement as the Welsh Government and the UK Government are also partners (Waite & Morgan, 2018). Although these two governmental partners are part of the wider governance system—as they have to approve the CCR’s funding through a series of gateway reviews that assess progress against agreed targets— they are embroiled in deep political arguments, with the result that the CCR finds itself caught in the middle because it needs to maintain good relations with both its higher level partners. The basic political conflict revolves around “the new centralism”, whereby the UK Conservative government is retaining for itself the powers that were repatriated from Brussels after Brexit—even though many of these powers were meant to be devolved to the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This post-Brexit political battle means that London and Cardiff are both designing innovation and economic development policies for the CCR region; but these policies are being designed and delivered in parallel policy silos, making a mockery of the integrated regional development strategy that was recommended for Wales by a recent OECD review (OECD, 2020). To appreciate the relationship between CCR and the Welsh Government, it is necessary to understand that there are now two models of devolution in the UK: the traditional model of national devolution, involving the powers that have been devolved from London to the devolved nations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the subnational model, which involved devolution of powers and functions within Wales to groups of municipalities that form the four new regions of Wales. Being the largest and best resourced, the CCR often finds itself at the

20

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

forefront of the argument that the Welsh Government needs to control less and devolve more. The CCR summarised this view in its submission to a public consultation exercise on the future of regional development policy in Wales: Welsh Government should not be at the centre of everything – leading policy, managing delivery and evaluating outcomes. This is not the function of a modern, agile and interventionist government. WG must practice more networked and facilitative leadership and develop its convening role. This would mean ceding control – but ultimately increasing influence. This needs a new kind of trust, respect and subsidiarity which is better described as ‘regionalism’ – a spirit of partnership and flexibility, than ‘regionalisation’ – which sounds more authoritarian, rigid and top-down. We have to shift from a focus on doing the same old things a little better to doing fundamentally better things. This will mean developing a greater appetite for innovation, adaptation and experimentation and recognising that whilst not everything will work and there will be failure – failure by omission or ‘standing still’ is the more significant risk. (Cardiff Capital Region, 2020)

The CCR case underlines the importance of framing regional development policies in multilevel polity terms because regional actors need to negotiate with and mobilise resources from other levels of government, a point to which we return in the conclusions. The Real World of Regional Innovation Policy When we turn from the world of regional governance to the real world of regional innovation policy, we encounter one of the biggest challenges facing less developed regions: the challenge of prioritisation. Who will be responsible for identifying the priorities? Which metrics will be used to do so? What projects are likely to be the most impactful in terms of jobs and GVA? And where should investments be targeted, in the areas of greatest social need or the areas of greatest economic potential? These are some of the most difficult questions that arise when a new regional innovation strategy is being designed, as the experience of smart specialisation strategies demonstrated (S3 Platform). In the case of the CCR, the prioritisation was a deliberative process conducted at two levels: (a) the generic deliberation process involving all three partners was designed to set targets, milestones and the rules of the

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

21

game and (b) the granular deliberation process within the CCR itself was designed to identify thematic areas and concrete projects. In the generic deliberation process, the three partners—UKG, WG and the CCR—agreed the broad targets and the gateway process for assessing progress against the targets. The key targets that were finally agreed upon were that the City Deal should aim to achieve a 5% uplift in regional gross value added (GVA) and create an additional 25,000 jobs over its twentyyear lifetime. To meet these targets the City Deal secured £1.2 billion, of which £734 m is ringfenced for the South Wales Metro, a mass transit system to integrate the city and its region, leaving a Wider Investment Fund of £495 million to fund the CCR’s key priorities. The granular deliberation process has been conducted within the CCR system, which consists of the ten municipal leaders in the Regional Cabinet, supported by the CCR executive officers and by the Economic Growth Partnership (EGP), composed of the representatives of business, third sector, education and local government. The EGP’s role is to advise the CCR Regional Cabinet on investment decisions, using its expertise to identify those projects that fit the CCR’s objective of creating a more innovative region with sustainable jobs and resilient communities. Through a combination of commissioned research and its own engagement activity, the CCR identified three key thematic priorities for its Wider Investment Fund—innovation, infrastructure and challenge. On the innovation front the largest and most controversial investment to date has been the Compound Semiconductor Cluster (CSC) project, where £38.4 million was advanced towards the costs of a compound semiconductor foundry at Imperial Park, Newport, an investment that is being matched with investment from IQE plc, a commercial manufacturer of semiconductor wafers, which occupies the foundry. These priority investment decisions are driven by a combination of short-term and long-term rationales. In the short term, the CSC project was deemed to be important in securing IQE’s ongoing investment in the region as there was a very high risk that investment could have been lost to an alternative site in the United States had the Newport site not been made available. But this was not a case of traditional regional policy using grants to lure branch-plant factories, a strategy that was littered with failures such as Inmos and LG Electronics. The longer-term rationale is for the project to secure substantial commercial investment in manufacturing and development and to support the development of a wider ‘cluster’ of compound semiconductor activity in South Wales, linked with academic expertise at

22

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

Cardiff University and a concentration of related firms that both produce and apply the compound semiconductor technologies that are used in a wide array of applications. Since the initial investment the CSC project has leveraged a series of additional investment, most notably the Compound Semiconductor Applications Catapult, which is part of the UK-wide network of Catapult Centres. The independent assessment of the CCR strategy said that it “provides translational research facilities to accelerate the commercialisation of compound semiconductors in a series of application areas, including healthcare, energy, transport, space and defence and security” (SQW, 2020). The CSC was launched in 2016 with UK Government funding of £50 million and, while it has a UK-wide remit, it was located in Cardiff in recognition of Cardiff University’s research capabilities and the presence of IQE and other compound semiconductor firms in the area. Time alone will tell whether the CSC investment will help to nurture a compound semiconductor cluster in the region as such clusters are notoriously difficult to cultivate. All that can be said for the moment is that, while the CCR has certainly made a bold decision, it has sought to manage the risk in ways that radically depart from traditional regional policy (a) by embedding the project in a wider series of ecosystem investments that straddle the full spectrum from R&D to commercial-scale manufacture and (b) by using its funds as an investment rather than a grant to ensure these funds can be recycled to support the growth of other CCR clusters in MedTech, cyber security and fintech. Although the South Wales Metro is the largest single infrastructure investment in the CCR, it actually sits outside the City Deal due to its ringfenced budget of £734 m. But the City Deal has designed a series of Metro Plus investments to create a more integrated Metro transport network, including park and ride schemes, new bus and rail interchanges and improved stations and the like. Another significant component of the infrastructure theme is affordable housing, and here the Housing Catalyst Fund aims to address market failure in meeting housing need by providing funding support to catalyse development in underserved areas. Digital infrastructure is another key priority and here the CCR is working with the UK and Welsh governments to deliver gigabit connectivity across the region in as short a timeframe as possible. Of all the thematic priorities, the most novel is the challenge priority. The Challenge Fund is actually the most radical part of the CCR City

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

23

Deal as it aims to help public services to source solutions to societal challenges. The concept of the CCR Challenge Fund has been shaped by a number of different perspectives on social innovation theory and practice, notably the Nesta Challenge Prize; the Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) and GovTech; and the new mission-oriented innovation literature (Mazzucato, 2021). The purpose of such a challenge programme, according to the CCR, is to demonstrate how applying innovation to societal challenges can promote novel solutions and radical improvements. It also aims to provide an important counter to the more conventional approaches of ‘allocating’ R&D funding or grants which often fail to provide the appropriate incentives for deeper experimentation. The CCR was pressed by the UK Treasury about the Challenge Fund, especially as to whether it would meet the conventional metrics of the City Deal template, and CCR officers did well to defend their commitment to the concept. But the CCR had to defend the concept within the parameters of the City Deal, even though they thought these metrics were too narrow. This delicate political balancing act clearly emerged when the CCR made its business case for the Challenge Fund: GVA, jobs and private leverage are the key objectives most frequently associated with City and Growth Deals. Challenge funds still deliver on these – but intentionally don’t start out with the answer, the amount or a specific project. Instead, they start with data and a problem statement. Through exploration, the answer, solution or project is arrived at. The process drives innovation and unlocks added value for both the problem owner and problem solver(s). It is unlocking the added value, development of the innovative end outcome and the creative processes therein, that contribute to City Deal objectives. The focus of the proposed programme is to re-build local economies for a post-Covid world, through solving societal challenges that have economic impact and potential commercial-scale opportunities. (Cardiff Capital Region, 2020)

The Challenge Fund aims to build local resilience in the CCR economy, a regional economy that has been rendered more vulnerable by the twin effects of Brexit and COVID-19. Focusing on local community wealth building is also timely because it coincides with the Welsh Government’s new commitment to the Foundational Economy, which aims to re-build community infrastructure and support more creative locally grown public services. The themes of the Challenge Fund have been determined through dialogue with the municipal members of the

24

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

CCR, a deliberative process that produced three themes: (a) decarbonisation, specifically in relation to improving air quality and transport (b) health and well-being, particularly focusing on the interplay of health and food; and (c) enhancing and transforming communities, which aims to repurpose town centres and high streets that have been decimated by social and technological change (CCR—Challenge Fund: https://www. cardiffcapitalregion.wales/project-hub/challenge-fund/). While these three themes are aligned with the Foundational Economy approach to local development, an approach that sets a premium on social infrastructure and the collective consumption of goods and services that are essential to human well-being, the Challenge Fund also requires the selected projects to commercialise their results by finding a route to market, a metric that disqualifies projects that solely aim to meet social or ecological criteria. Although the Challenge Fund is a very new place-based innovation programme, it is already possible to identify three problems which need to be resolved if it is to have any discernible impact: . the capacity deficit: municipalities and other public sector bodies have struggled to find the time and resources to develop challenge proposals, a problem compounded by the demands of the pandemic and a decade of austerity budgets imposed by successive Conservative governments; . the capability deficit: knowledge of and experience in challengeoriented innovation is in short supply on the part of institutions and citizens, particularly in less developed regions and deprived communities; and . the coordination deficit: CCR micro-missions are heavily dependent on the commitment and resources of the multilevel polity, which includes the UK Govt in London, but the new centralism of UKG is undermining the devolution settlements in devolved nations like Wales and Scotland, rendering it difficult if not impossible to synchronise place-based innovation policy.

Conclusions and Implications By focusing on old industrial regions, this chapter has consciously departed from the vast corpus of literature on place-based innovation, which is overwhelmingly focused on more advanced regions. But a

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

25

growing body of literature is beginning to demonstrate that innovation is not confined to advanced regions and nor is it a wholly urban phenomenon (Eder, 2018; Shearmur, 2017). Indeed, it is now possible to discern a significant shift in the cognitive landscape of innovation studies as innovation becomes framed in far more capacious terms than the narrow and exclusive domain of science and technology. The advent of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, stressing human development in the broadest sense of the term, is now regarded as the most compelling terrain of mission-oriented innovation policy, and this in turn is changing the way we conceive of the agents of innovation. Although firms remain the primary agents in this new cognitive landscape, we are also witnessing a rapidly growing interest in social innovation, public sector innovation and municipal innovation, highlighting a wide array of other agents of innovation. This is the cognitive context in which we understand what is happening in old industrial regions like the Cardiff Capital Region, where new forms of place-based innovation policy are being designed and tested. From the particular experience of the CCR region, we distil three implications that have a more general resonance for the theory and practice of place-based innovation. First, research on less developed regions runs the risk of “blaming the victim” if it fails to sufficiently frame place-based development in multiscalar terms. This underlines the need to situate subnational actors and processes in the context of the multilevel governance system. In the case of the CCR, for example, we saw that its new innovation strategy has been stymied by the fact that higher levels of government, in Wales and the UK, have constrained its room for manoeuvre in two specific ways: by setting narrow commercial metrics to its social innovation strategy and by failing to synchronise their own policies for the CCR region. In other words, the multilevel polity can frustrate as well as foster regional development (Marques & Morgan, 2021). While the public sector may have limited capacity to address these frustrations, we demonstrate that regional officials may be able to craft narratives to support activities that support new models of innovation in the face of traditional conceptions of the innovation process—a case in point being CCR’s rebuttal of pure GVA narratives when it made the case for the Challenge fund. Second, the literature on place-based innovation needs to acknowledge the importance of social innovation and the foundational economy because, when we change the lens, it can sometimes be the case that laggards become leaders and vice versa in the sense that innovative forms

26

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

of social and ecological development can occur in less developed regions even though such regions lack the wherewithal (such as high-tech firms) to innovate in the conventional S&T fashion. Breznitz highlighted this potential in his compelling case study of the “rustbelt” city of Hamilton in Ontario, where the health system was used to leverage new forms of development (Breznitz, 2021). The case of the CCR also highlights how a strategy that judiciously melds place-based STI and social innovation policy may offer better opportunities for old industrial regions because these should not be seen as mutually exclusive options. Third, the success of mission-oriented innovation policy is predicated on the institutional capacity of the state and the public sector. However, the micro-missions of the CCR Challenge Fund revealed serious capacity, capability and coordination problems and these need to be given far more prominence in the academic literature on mission-oriented innovation policy because theorists tend to downplay the critically important issues of public sector skill sets on the one hand and the capacity for citizen engagement on the other (Heslop et al., 2019). Addressing these deficits will enhance the potential of place-based policies to respond to the new models of innovation and the real problems faced by firms and citizens in old industrial regions. It also helps scholars and policymakers to better understand the limits of rationalist conceptions of the regional development process by highlighting the political tensions and policy trade-offs associated with managing place-based innovation projects in the real world of multilevel polities.

References Arntz, M., Gregory, T., & Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries. OECD Publishing. Barbera, F., Negri, N., & Salento, A. (2018). From individual choice to collective voice: Foundational economy, local commons and citizenship. Rassegna Italiana Di Sociologia, 59, 371–397. Barbera, F., & Rees, J. I. (2020). The foundational economy and citizenship: Comparative perspectives on civil repair. Policy Press. Beel, D., Jones, M., & Jones, I. (2021). City regions and devolution in the UK: The politics of representation. Policy Press. Benneworth, P., Amanatidou, E., Edwards-Schachter, M., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2015) Social innovation futures: Beyond policy panacea and conceptual ambiguity. TIK working paper series.

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

27

Benneworth, P., & Cunha, J. (2015). Universities’ contributions to social innovation: Reflections in theory & practice. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(4), 508–527. Bentham, J., Bowman, A., De La Cuesta, M., Engelen, E., Ertürk, I., Folkman, P., Froud, J., Johal, S., Law, J., & Leaver, A. (2013). Manifesto for the foundational economy. Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change. Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (2014). Introduction: On governance, systems and change. In S. Borrás & J. Edler (Eds.), The governance of socio-technical systems (pp. 1–22). Edward Elgar Publishing. Bours, S. A. M. J. V., Wanzenböck, I., & Frenken, K. (2021). Small wins for grand challenges: A bottom-up governance approach to regional innovation policy. European Planning Studies, 30(11), 2245–2272. Breznitz, D. (2021). Innovation in real places: Strategies for prosperity in an unforgiving world. Oxford University Press. Brown, R. (2021). Mission-oriented or mission adrift? A critical examination of mission-oriented innovation policies. European Planning Studies, 29(4), 739–761. Cardiff Capital Region. (2020, May 18). A framework for regional investment in Wales. Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Martin, H. (2015). Path renewal in old industrial regions: Possibilities and limitations for regional innovation policy. Regional Studies, 49(5), 850–865. Coenen, L., & Morgan, K. (2020). Evolving geographies of innovation: Existing paradigms, critiques and possible alternatives. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift Norwegian Journal of Geography, 74(1), 13–24. Daunton, M. J. (1977). Coal metropolis, Cardiff 1870–1914. Leicester University. Eder, J. (2018). Innovation in the periphery: A critical survey and research agenda. International Regional Science Review, 42(2), 119–146. Engelen, E., Froud, J., Johal, S., Salento, A., & Williams, K. (2017). The grounded city: From competitivity to the foundational economy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 10(3), 407–423. Feldman, M., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2021). Regional income disparities, monopoly and finance. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(1), 25–49. Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialization strategies as a case of mission-oriented policy—A case study on the emergence of new policy practices. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 817–832. Foray, D., Goddard, J., Goenaga Beldarrain, X., Landabaso, M., McCann, M., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, K., & Ortega-Argilés. (2012a). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisations (RIS 3)’, Publications Office. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2776/65746

28

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012b). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs? Research Policy, 41(10), 1697–1702. Froud, J., Haslam, C., Johal, S., & Williams, K. (2020). (How) does productivity matter in the foundational economy? Local Economy, 35(4), 316–336. Gough, I. (2017). Heat, greed and human need. Edward Elgar. Grabher, G. (1993). The weakness of strong ties: The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In G. Grabher (Ed.), The embedded firm: On the socioeconomics of industrial networks (pp. 255–277). Routledge. Hansen, T. (2021). The foundational economy and regional development. Regional Studies, 56(6), 1033–1042. Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies, 27 (10), 2049–2065. Hassink, R., & Kiese, M. (2021). Solving the restructuring problems of (former) old industrial regions with smart specialization? Conceptual thoughts and evidence from the Ruhr. Review of Regional Research, 41(2), 131–155. Haywood, E. (2012). The city region task and finish group report. Cardiff. Healy, A., & Morgan, K. (2012). Spaces of innovation: Learning, proximity and the ecological turn. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1041–1053. Henderson, D. (2020). Institutional work in the maintenance of regional innovation policy instruments: Evidence from Wales. Regional Studies, 54(3), 429–439. Heslop, J., Morgan, K., & Tomaney, J. (2019). Debating the foundational economy. Renewal: A Journal of Social Democracy, 27 (2), 5–12. Jones, C., & Munday, M. (2020). Capital ownership, innovation and regional development policy in the economic periphery: An energy industry case. Local Economy, 35(6), 545–565. MacKinnon, D., Kempton, L., O’brien, P., Ormerod, E., Pike, A., & Tomaney, J. (2021). Reframing urban and regional ‘development’ for ‘left behind’ places. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 15(1), 39–56. Magro, E., Navarro, M., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2014). Coordinationmix: The hidden face of STI policy. Review of Policy Research, 31, 367–389. Marques, P., & Morgan, K. (2021). Getting to Denmark: The dialectic of governance & development in the European periphery. Applied Geography, 135, 102536. Marques, P., Morgan, K., & Richardson, R. (2017). Social innovation in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a contested concept. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(3), 496–512. Mazzucato, M. (2018a). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. Mazzucato, M. (2018b). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union. European Commission.

2

NEW MODELS OF INNOVATION IN OLD INDUSTRIAL REGIONS

29

Mazzucato, M. (2021). Mission economy: A moonshot guide to changing capitalism. Allen Lane. Morgan, K. (2014, March 28). Putting Cardiff and the Valleys on the map together. Agenda: The Journal of the Institute of Welsh Affairs. https://www.iwa.wales/agenda/2014/03/putting-cardiff-and-thevalleys-on-the-map-together/ Morgan, K. (2019). The future of place-based innovation policy (as if ‘lagging regions’ really mattered). In M. Barzotto et al. (Eds.), Revitalising lagging regions, regional studies policy impact books. (Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 79–89). Moulaert, F., & Mehmood, A. (2020). Towards a social innovation (SI) based epistemology in local development analysis: Lessons from twenty years of EU research. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 434–453. Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., Maccallum, D., & Leubolt, B. (2017) Social innovation as a trigger for transformations—The role of research. Publications Office of the European Union. Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., & Martin, B. R. (2010). Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won’t work). Research Policy, 39(8), 1011–1023. Nilsson, M., & Moodysson, J. (2014). Regional innovation policy and coordination: Illustrations from southern Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 147–161. OECD. (2020). The future of regional development and public investment in Wales, United Kingdom. https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/the-futureof-regional-development-and-public-investment-in-wales-united-kingdom-e6f 5201d-en.htm. Accessed 29 January 2022. Reynolds, L., Henderson, D., & Roche, N. (2018). Digital technologies and future opportunities for the foundational economy in Wales, Cardiff . https:// www.cardiff.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1386522/New-Foundatio nal-Economy_v9-LR-DH-NR.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2022. Reynolds, L., Henderson, D., Xu, C., & Norris, L. (2021). Digitalisation and the foundational economy: A digital opportunity or a digital divide for lessdeveloped regions? Local Economy, 36(6), 451–467. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2019). Innovating in less developed regions: What drives patenting in the lagging regions of Europe and North America. Growth and Change, 50(1), 4–37. Saxenian, A. (1996). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press. Shearmur, R. (2017). Urban bias in innovation studies. In H. Bathelt, P. Cohendet, S. Henn, & L. Simon (Eds.), The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation. Edward Elgar Publishing. SQW. (2020, April). Independent evaluation of local growth interventions one year out report for Cardiff Capital Region.

30

K. MORGAN AND D. HENDERSON

The Foundational Economy Collective. (2018). Foundational economy: The infrastructure of everyday life. Manchester University Press. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. Waite, D., & Morgan, K. (2018). City deals in the polycentric state: The spaces and politics of metrophilia in the UK. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26(4), 382–399. Wanzenböck, I., Wesseling, J. H., Frenken, K., Hekkert, M. P., & Weber, K. M. (2020). A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: Alternative pathways through the problem–solution space. Science and Public Policy, 47 (4), 474–489. Watkins, J. (2021, September). The impact of regulation in the foundational economy, Institute of Welsh Affairs Report. Cardiff. https://www.iwa.wales/ wp-content/media/IWA-The-impact-of-regulation-in-the-foundational-eco nomy.pdf. Accessed 29 January 2022. Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037–1047. Welsh Government. (2004). People, places, futures: The Wales Spatial Plan. https://senedd.wales/media/tnzpppnr/bus-guide-n00000000000000 00000000000025860-english.pdf

CHAPTER 3

On the Performance of Regional Innovation Systems Vitor Miguel Ribeiro, Celeste Varum, and Ana Dias Daniel

Introduction It is consensual in the academic literature that innovation leads to wealth creation and economic growth (OECD, 2007, 2015). In turn, economic growth depends on the capacity of regions to support innovative firms, institutions and people (Chung, 2002). The seminal work of Cooke (1992) coined the term Regional Innovation System (RIS) to highlight the role of regions as a critical nexus for innovation-based economic growth. In subsequent years, other researchers have explored the concept

V. M. Ribeiro Faculdade de Economia, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] C. Varum · A. D. Daniel (B) GOVCOPP, DEGEIT, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] C. Varum e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_3

31

32

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

and highlighted the fact that: ‘(…) the region is increasingly the level at which innovation is produced through regional networks of innovators, local clusters and cross-fertilising effects of research institutions ’ (Lundvall & Borrás, 1997, p. 39). Rooted from the National Innovation System (NIS) approach (Freeman, 1982; Lundvall, 1992), the concept of RIS inspired a large body of research. Although there is no universally accepted definition, a RIS can be described as a combined set of public and private interests, formal institutions and other organisations that operate according to favourable arrangements for the generation, use and dissemination of knowledge. Since the RIS literature was largely inspired by the NIS literature, theoretical contributions were initially focused on understanding whether a region seeking to improve its efficiency and innovation levels should or not implement specific policies aimed at supporting either topdown or bottom-up processes (Cooke et al., 1997). Despite the relevance of national policies for the improvement of innovation support structures, true innovation hot spots emerge regionally where firms, universities, government and civil society directly interact (Cooke, 2001). Consequently, the need to complement the top-down policy principle with adequate bottom-up approaches is justified, on the one hand, by the fact that the latter constitutes a key tool to boost the concentration of innovative and efficient economic activities as well as geographical proximity and interaction between different elements within local communities (Asheim & Coenen, 2006; Nilsson & Moodysson, 2014) and, on the other hand, by the recent ascent of smart specialisation practices particularly, though not exclusively, in Europe (Foray, 2009). Notwithstanding, RIS policies are dependent on the comprehension of regional dynamics and limitations of policymaking and regional actors (Tödtling & Trippl, 2005), which implies that the replication of success cases may not necessarily ensure similar results in alternative regions due to the diversity of contexts and specificities of regions (Uyarra, 2010). Overall, the absence of a consensual agreement among specialists on the type of policy actions that should be applied at the regional level has implied a significant attention from scholars and practitioners on the measurement of RIS performance not just to ensure the comparison of regions in a given time period, but also to assess the performance of a given region over time (Uyarra et al., 2017). The research focused on RIS performance aims at evaluating, on the one hand, whether investments effectively support local innovation and, on the other hand, how well

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

33

inputs are converted into outputs (Cooke et al., 1997). These inferences constitute a fundamental necessity to guarantee the correct adjustment and efficacy of RIS policies, appropriate definition of strategies, clear identification of priorities and achievement of specific innovation targets (Asheim et al., 2015). Moreover, policymakers tend to intervene based on the information provided by the assessment of RIS performance (Lengyel & Leydesdorff, 2015). As such, this study presents a systematic review on the performance of RIS with the objective of mapping the scientific production of this research field from 1989 to 2017. We start by formulating the following first research question: (I) what are the general characteristics of RIS performance literature? To meet this objective, we: 1. Characterise RIS performance literature in terms of temporal evolution, main outlets and most cited authors; 2. Analyse the profile of researchers who have contributed for the development of RIS performance literature to understand whether this research field is characterised by an internal paradox.1 In the last decade, the body of literature surrounding the RIS approach has changed drastically due to the production of a large and heterogeneous amount of scientific articles that addressed this multifaceted and vast phenomenon not only from a theoretical point of view, but also at the empirical level (Zabala–Iturriagagoitia et al., 2007). In a first review, Doloreux and Parto (2005) clarify that the majority of studies were primarily concerned with theoretical aspects of RIS. However, in a study focused on the period [1998, 2015], Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017) reveal that approximately 85% of RIS performance articles correspond to empirical contributions. Nevertheless, Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017) also claim that empirical contributions are still insufficient and 1 RIS performance literature is aligned with the vision of evolutionary theory since its main contributors disseminate the theoretical idea of unquestionable need to constantly strengthen collaborations among actors, networks and institutions to ensure sustainable development and growth at the regional level (Isaksen et al., 2018). Consequently, the RIS performance field is said to be characterised by an internal paradox if its main contributors exhibit an individualistic nature or, similarly, a strong willingness to exhibit Smithian selfishness in their research practices rather than promoting collaborative research networks.

34

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

incomplete, which means that a complementary review seems to be important not only to investigate whether this pattern is applied to a broader period [1989, 2017], but also to provide a deeper insight on the type of existing empirical studies focused on RIS performance. As such, this study also complements Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017) by presenting an extensive review on the empirical research applied to RIS performance, namely by clarifying the type of analytical approaches, methods and indicators used in this research field in addition to discussing whether empirical studies are aligned with theoretical arguments disseminated by the RIS literature. Consequently, this study addresses two specific research questions: (II) Which analytical approaches and methods are most used in empirical analysis applied to RIS performance? (III) Are the most frequent indicators used by empirical studies focused on RIS performance aligned with RIS theory? To meet these objectives, we: 3. Classify RIS performance literature by type (theoretical or empirical) and theme (policy-oriented, technology transfer, regional issues, historical accounts, meta-literature or formal); 4. Identify analytical approaches and methods in empirical studies focused on RIS performance; 5. Develop a survey of most commonly adopted indicators to measure RIS performance; 6. Discuss main results. The remainder of the study is structured as follows. First, the methodology is described. Second, general and specific patterns of RIS performance literature are analysed. Thereafter, main conclusions are inferred.

Methodology Qualitative Procedure Bibliometric studies are becoming increasingly prominent in multiple research fields due to their fundamental role in the promotion, organisation and dissemination of scientific knowledge (Ribeiro & Cirani, 2013). This study combines bibliographic and bibliometric techniques (Silva &

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

35

Teixeira, 2009).2 The qualitative protocol consists of two steps: selection of the relevant articles representative of RIS performance literature and implementation of a conceptual framework to detail the quantitative protocol. A systemic search of the relevant literature was developed by means of a data collection from SciVerse Scopus. To capture core contributions, we restrict the focus on articles and used as search keywords: ‘regional innovation system’, ‘performance measure’ and ‘efficiency measure’. The search was based on three dimensions: title, abstract and keywords.After screening the initial sample, the final list is composed by 234 articles published between 1989 and 2017.3 Quantitative Procedure The quantitative procedure is divided into distinct two parts. The first analyses general patterns, while the second finds specific patterns. General patterns are organised as follows. Firstly, the distribution of scientific publications by year and journal is described. The temporal overview of RIS performance literature requires not only to detail how scientific publications vary over time, but also to gauge the substitutability or complementarity in relation to the NIS literature.4 The notability of RIS performance literature requires to infer which scientific journals 2 Carter and Barker (2013) define bibliography as a qualitative discipline that aims to organise contributions of a given research field (enumerative bibliography) and provide a systematic description of contributions as objects (descriptive bibliography). Appio et al. (2016) define bibliometric analysis as a quantitative discipline that pretends to analyse bibliographic data derived from scientific publications of a given research field. 3 To test if the set of articles is representative of the existing RIS literature, a similar procedure is performed in the Web of Science and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ( IEEE) conference databases. Repeating the extraction procedure in alternative databases is a necessary step in bibliometric analysis to avoid type-II errors (i.e. underprovision or under-enforcement of relevant information) due to the exponential increase of the size of databases in recent years (Fayyad et al., 1996). In order to identify key indicators applied to the measurement of RIS performance, the latest European Union (EU) Regional Innovation Scoreboard (EU, 2017) is exogenously incorporated on the final list of articles being, thus, considered for the direct inspection analysis aimed at finding specific patterns. This allows to have a clear idea on whether the empirical literature focused on RIS performance adopts or not regional indicators documented in EU (2017). 4 The comparison of RIS and NIS literatures required the construction of two additional databases. The first one, using as search keyword ‘national innovation system’, captures the relevant NIS literature. The second one, using as search keyword ‘innovation’, captures

36

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

disseminate its implicit knowledge. MS Excel 2013 is used to develop both tasks. Secondly, intrinsic characteristics of RIS performance literature are clarified. In particular, we focus on identifying most cited articles and, afterwards, on analysing the profile of main contributors to RIS performance literature. The former task requires the extraction of information from SciVerse Scopus and use of MS Excel 2013 to obtain a ranking of citations, while the latter one requires to perform a multidimensional analysis (MDA) based on a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) followed by a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis (HCA) (Hotelling, 1933).5 PCA is a multivariate statistical method whose main objective is to define the underlying structure in a certain data matrix. Its main advantage is to reduce a broad set of original variables into a smaller number of latent factors designated by hypothetical non-observable variables that summarise the explanatory capacity of the broad set of original variables. A successful PCA ensures data compression, while keeping a high level of explanatory and predictive power. In the context of this study, PCA facilitates the interpretation of relations between different clusters of authors due to the reduced number of latent factors. HCA is a multivariate statistical method used to aggregate related observations. The process of hierarchical cluster formation starts from a single group that is sequentially fragmented at each new time step in order to combine similar observations into a homogeneous cluster, while keeping the persistence of heterogeneity between different clusters. Hence, the goal of this technique is to increase both the within-group homogeneity and between-group heterogeneity (Blei & Lafferty, 2009). Given the large number of linkage methods and dissimilarity measures in HCA, it is often difficult to decide which one is the best option. According to Mather (1976), there are two relevant criteria to understand which technique should be applied. A first criterion is to use the technique that holds the highest cophenetic correlation. Values above 0.75 are considered good and validate the analysis (Mather, 1976). A second criterion is to use the technique that holds the lowest delta statistic. Since this measure is

the relevant literature on the field of innovation. The extraction procedure was similar to that applied to RIS performance literature. 5 According to Yang and Meho (2006), Web of Science should not be used alone for finding citations to authors or titles since Scopus and Google Scholar can help on identifying a considerable number of valuable citations not found in Web of Science.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

37

opposed to the degree of resemblance captured by the cophenetic correlation, values nearby 0 are considered desirable (Mather, 1976). Mather (1976) suggests that the average linkage method and Euclidean distance are the safest techniques to use since these usually produce a higher cophenetic correlation and a lower delta statistic. In turn, the optimal number of clusters is determined by a stopping rule. Calinski-Harabasz (CH) evaluation criterion was adopted because it is best suited for HCA with squared Euclidean distances. Based on Calinski and Harabasz (1974), an optimal CH index requires a large between-cluster variance (SSB ) and a small within-cluster variance (SSW ) since this is given by6 SS B n−k , × SSW k−1 where k is the number of clusters and n is the total number of observations. In other words, the optimal number of clusters is given by the highest CH value. Large values of the CH pseudo-F stopping rule index indicate a distinct cluster structure, whereas small values indicate a less clearly defined cluster structure. Main advantages of HCA include the logical structure, ease of interpretation and exposition of clear conclusions. In turn, main disadvantages include the need to develop additional tests to ensure the reliability of results (e.g. split the initial sample of authors into two or more subsamples and develop two independent clustering runs) in addition to the relatively unstable and potentially unreliable conjecture of the analysis due to the fact that the first aggregation of authors constrains the remaining ones (Yim & Ramdeen, 2015). In the context of this study, HCA allows to extrapolate different clusters of authors and subsequently test whether there are statistically significant differences between final groups. The combination of PCA with HCA allows to overcome two debilities associated with co-citation analysis (CA). First, it allows to introduce multiple attributes or covariates, whereas CA finds the relationship between authors merely based on the network of citations observed in a given research field.7 Second, it allows to capture the locus of each author 6 SSB is computed by considering the total sum of squares (TSS) minus SSW. For a given dataset, TSS is the squared distance of all data points from the dataset’s centroid being, therefore, independent relatively to the number of final clusters. 7 Usually, researchers rely on CA to understand the profile of contributors in a given research field, particularly after the availability of VOSviewer and CitNetExplorer. The

38

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

within a given research field, whilst CA is unable to provide this kind of information.8 Analysing whether there is a strong or weak willingness to engage in a collaborative network is a relevant research question in the context of RIS performance due to the following argument. The neoclassical theory, particularly after Smith (1776)’s manuscript ‘The Wealth of Nations’, assumes rationality in the behaviour of agents, which means that social welfare maximisation is ensured if each individual, in the pursuit of own interests, maximises only the respective indirect utility. Egoism as a promoter of social welfare maximisation acquired a stronger relevance after Arrow (1951)’s contribution. Accordingly, the author demonstrates the impossibility for two agents to maximise a joint utility without observing a reduction in the indirect utility of, at least, one of the parties. Thus, a collective of individuals is not expected to behave and present the same kind of coherence relatively to a single agent (Mas-Colell et al., 1995). Therefore, in light of the neoclassical theory, each author does not have the incentive to engage in a collaborative research network. In turn, the evolutionary theory emerged precisely to criticise the orthodoxy of the neoclassical theory (Nelson & Winter, 1982). Its establishment in the economic mainstream was, therefore, based on the ground that the behaviour of agents may not be necessarily rational. Therefore, in light of the evolutionary theory, each author has the incentive to collaborate with research peers. RIS performance literature is aligned with the vision of the evolutionary theory since it disseminates the idea of incontestable need for constantly strengthening the collaboration between actors, networks and institutions to ensure that sustainable development and growth hold at the regional level (Isaksen et al., 2018). Consequently, it follows that the RIS performance field is characterised by an internal paradox if main contributors exhibit an individualistic nature or, similarly, a strong willingness to be selfish in their research conduct. On the contrary, the RIS performance field is not characterised by an internal paradox if main contributors exhibit a collaborative nature or, similarly, a strong willingness to engage in research networking. Thus, the choice in favour of PCA combined with HCA allows to identify whether the internal paradox is former provides a static or spatial view of CA, while the latter provides a dynamic or temporal view of CA (Van Eck & Waltman, 2018). HCA allows to simultaneously capture both types of views due to the incorporation of multiple covariates. 8 Locus corresponds to the positioning of an author with respect to the willingness to collaborate with other researchers from the field.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

39

verified in the RIS performance field, while CA is unable to do it. In fact, CA takes as a given that research networking is a status quo, which may not be verified in reality. The representative sample considered for PCA and HCA is composed by all authors who had at least two published articles in the RIS performance field (n = 75). The original set is constituted by the following variables: number of internal citations (IC), number of external citations (EC), number of publications (PU), average length of articles (LE), dummies for single publication (SP) and co-authorship (CA), maturity or research experience of author i (MA), number of journals where author i has scientific publication (JO) and location of author i (LH). The descriptive information, summary statistics and correlation matrix related to the set of original variables are compiled so as to provide the reader with all details related to the analysis to be performed. IBM SPSS Statistics 17.0 software was used to obtain several statistical test results. Specific patterns are organised as follows. Firstly, RIS performance literature is classified by type through a term co-occurrence map based on text data extracted from VOSviewer 1.6.8 software (Van Eck & Waltman, 2009, 2011, 2018; Waltman et al., 2010). This procedure allows to cluster the diversity of content among different scientific articles within a given research field and, afterwards, it permits the identification of statistical significant relationships (Khasseh et al., 2017). Two main reasons justify this option. On the one hand, due to the premise that existing terms in the title and abstract of scientific articles adequately describe the intellectual core of a given research field. On the other hand, the procedure allows to identify the most relevant type of analysis (e.g. empirical or theoretical) in relative terms and over time (Zong et al., 2013). After finding representative clusters, a measure of intra- and intercluster diversity is provided to analyse scientific articles from a quantitative point of view based on the link value associated to terms. Two main goals are expected to be satisfied. On the one hand, we aim at understanding by how much and to what extent the knowledge base that characterises each cluster is diverse such that intra-cluster analysis is performed through a measure of diversity, evenness and richness. The concept of diversity, which historically emerged from the field of information theory, is frequently applied to several strands of research (e.g. ecology). Accordingly, a ‘sample of species’ is viewed as a ‘message’, while the ‘number of individual organisms’ corresponds to ‘pieces of information’ (Maurer & McGill, 2011). In the context of this study, a ‘sample of species’ refers to

40

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

‘words that belong to a given cluster’, while ‘number of individual organisms’ represents the ‘number of links associated with words or terms’. As clarified in Appio et al. (2014) and Appio et al. (2016), a general measure of information content for an infinitely large set of symbols is the Renyi entropy of order α. The value of interest for this study is the limit of the equation when α approaches 1 (Hill, 1973). This implies that the Shannon-Wiener diversity index is computed for each cluster as follows9 : . H' = Ri = − pi ln pi , i

where p i represents the proportion or relative weight of the link of word i. According to Margaleff (1972) and May (1975), the index value usually satisfies 1 ≤ H’ ≤ 4.5 and only in rare cases the ceiling is surpassed. Moreover, we follow Appio et al (2014) and Appio et al. (2016) by considering two additional measures to assess intra-cluster diversity. First, we consider richness (S), which corresponds to the total number of words identified in a given cluster. Second, we consider evenness (E), which corresponds to the ratio of the observed diversity (H' ) in relation to the maximum diversity (Hmax ). Formally, evenness is given by E=

H' , Hmax

In turn, maximum diversity is given by Hmax = ln S where S represents the richness of terms in a given cluster. According to Pielou (1969), the index satisfies 0 ≤ E ≤ 1 such that the ceiling represents a situation in which all species are equally abundant. To compute the three indices, we collect all terms of each cluster, harmonise their names and calculate their relative abundance. On the other hand, we pretend to conclude whether a given cluster is more diverse relative to others such

9 Although the equation is written with natural logarithms, the base of the loga-

rithm used when calculating the Shannon entropy can be chosen freely. Shannon (1948) discusses logarithm bases 2, 10 and e, and these have become the most popular bases in applications that use the Shannon entropy. Each log base corresponds to a different measurement unit, which have been called binary digits (bits), decimal digits (decits) and natural digits (nats) for the bases 2, 10 and e, respectively.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

41

that inter-cluster analysis is performed through Hutcheson (1970)’s ttest to check for differences in diversity between clusters. Accordingly, the diversity between clusters is compared by considering the null hypothesis ‘two Shannon diversity indices come from two communities with equal species diversity’ (Magurran, 1988). Therefore, not rejecting the null hypothesis implies the presence of two homogeneous clusters or, similarly, absence of inter-cluster diversity since both clusters share homogenous knowledge bases. In opposition, rejecting the null hypothesis implies having two clusters sharing heterogeneous knowledge bases such that both clusters represent two different paradigms. Final results indicate that not all pairs of clusters have statistically significant differences. When that is the case, we fall into a situation in which VOSviewer identifies two distinct clusters from a qualitative point of view, but ex-post statistical tests reveal no significant differences between them. This implies that a research strictly based on the qualitative output provided by VOSviewer can generate a biased interpretation of results. Hence, this circumstance reflects at least three debilities associated with the exclusive use of VOSviewer in the context of co-occurrence analysis. First, although the software identifies two distinct clusters from a qualitative point of view, such finding may not be confirmed from a statistical point of view. Consequently, there is the risk of considering that scientific articles holding a distinct nature are similar, which implies that the exclusive use of qualitative analysis potentiates the persistence of type-I errors. Second, although the mining routine runs over the existing text data in the title and abstract of scientific articles, VOSviewer is unable to allocate scientific articles among several clusters with full accuracy because its mining routine does not cover the full extent (e.g. introduction, development and conclusion) of scientific articles. From a technical point of view, this implies the need to complement the qualitative and quantitative analysis with a direct inspection applied to the entire corpus of RIS articles. The main argument behind the need to observe the full content of scientific articles is that, despite VOSviewer is outstanding in facilitating the majority of analytical tasks, it does not constitute a perfect substitute of human perception. Mathematically speaking, the exclusive use of VOSviewer is only a necessary condition rather than a necessary and sufficient condition to properly segment RIS performance articles by type. Third, the classification of main methods in addition to the identification of most relevant indicators used in empirical analysis focused on RIS performance requires a direct inspection due to the impossibility to

42

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

extract this kind of information by resorting to the use of VOSviewer. As such, a direct inspection is developed to classify RIS performance articles by type, which is materialised into a graphical representation after the development of an algorithm implemented in Wolfram language using the Mathematica software and then complemented by the provision of global and local centrality measures that capture the strength of the links of the network of RIS performance articles (Gan & Wang, 2015). According to Freedman (1977), the main advantage of including Social Network Analysis (SNA) measures is the fact that it constitutes a reliable approach not only due to the robust and variety of centrality measures that can be used, but also because of its flexibility on analysing ex-ante or ex-post split sample outcomes being, therefore, perfectly adaptive to any improvement on criteria applied to clustering formation. Its main disadvantage is the difficulty to interpret the final results. After confronting the evolution of theoretical and empirical articles over time, an increasing relevance of empirical articles in detriment to theoretical articles is observed, which justifies the need to clarify the type of empirical analysis being carried out in this research field. Hence, main methods and indicators that characterise the empirical RIS performance literature are also identified. Finally, RIS performance literature is classified by theme based on Teixeira (2013)’s proposal. In her study, NIS articles are segmented as policy-oriented (whose aim is to identify best practice policies and/or best practice behaviour among peers), conceptual and/or critical meta-literature (whose aim is to provide a critical analysis on the NIS concept and its use in theory and policy), research-oriented (whose aim is to analyse, verify and measure the development stage of a given NIS) and a residual category labelled ‘others’. Within the broad research-oriented group, Teixeira (2013) makes a distinction between three sub-groups: articles focused on science and technology issues, studies reflecting on policies and those concerned with science-industry and technology transfer issues. The residual category ‘others’ is composed by several sub-groups such that the allocation of articles depends on whether these are focused on historical accounts, globalisation issues, or if they have a formal nature (i.e. analytical models). We adapted the previous classification proposal to the scope of our study by considering the following groups: (i) policy-oriented, (ii) conceptual and/or critical meta-literature, (iii) science-industry and technology transfer issues, (iv) historical accounts, (v) formal models and (vi) region-oriented or, similarly, regional issues. Consequently, the classification considered here

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

43

embodies three main differences relatively to Teixeira (2013)’s proposal. First, the broad research-oriented group is only captured through point (iii). Second, research-oriented articles reflecting on policies are captured through point (i) instead of considering a specific subgroup for their assessment. Third, the subgroup ‘globalisation issues’ is replaced by the subgroup ‘regional issues’. The first change is justified by the fact that the segmentation between articles focused on science-industry and technology transfer issues against articles focused on science and technology makes less sense in the context of a given RIS due to the local nature of the interaction process between actors, networks and institutions. The second change is justified, on the one hand, by the need to harmonise the number of articles focused on policy issues into a single group and, on the other hand, by the low representativeness of research-oriented articles whose main focus relies on policy issues. The third change reflects that, in general, cross-border issues are still strongly marginalised by RIS performance literature (Makkonen et al., 2018).

General Patterns Articles Figure 3.1 shows that, although the trend in the absolute number of RIS performance published articles is irregular, the increase of publishable academic research focused on RIS performance occurred since the early 1990s after Cooke (1992)’s seminal contribution. According to Doloreux and Parto (2005), the NIS literature triggered the RIS literature. In line with Teixeira (2013), an interesting pattern arising in the NIS literature is that, although the absolute number of NIS articles has been consistently growing since the 1990s, their relative importance on the innovation field has been decreasing since the observed peak in the period [1995, 1997]. The downward adjustment is particularly pronounced after the period [2001, 2003], which may indicate some exhaustion of scientific and political interest on the NIS literature (Teixeira, 2013). In opposition, the trend in the absolute number of RIS performance articles has been non-monotone since it increased until the period [2004, 2006] and decreased in the period [2007, 2009], having increased again in the period [2010, 2012] to decrease persistently in subsequent periods. However, their relative importance on the innovation field seems to have an unclear trend given that it decreased from the

44

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Fig. 3.1 Articles published in the RIS, NIS and innovation research fields, by every three years, 1989–2017

period [1992, 1994] to the period [2001, 2003], while it increased since the period [2007, 2009] until its peak period [2016, 2017] where RIS performance represents 0.92% of innovation articles. Figure 3.2 clarifies that the weight of RIS performance literature on NIS literature is characterised by a U-shape. Except for the period [2004, 2006], the relative weight of RIS performance articles decreased until the period [2007, 2009], while it increased substantially thereafter, having stabilised around 70% after 2013. However, the previous result does not necessarily imply the presence of substitutability between both strands of research. To instigate in which period complementarity or substitutability prevailed, we resort to the concept of elasticity. From a theoretical point of view, a positive (negative) elasticity reflects complementarity (substitutability) between both types of literature, respectively. Furthermore, an elasticity above (below) the unit value reflects a strong (weak) variability of RIS performance articles for a given change of 1% in NIS articles. Contrary to the argument exposed in Doloreux and Parto (2005), complementarity between NIS and RIS research was not always verified. Table 3.1 clarifies that the substitutability between both types of literature occurred only in the period [2004, 2006]. The cause for this surprising

45

[2016,2017]

[2013,2015]

[2010,2012]

[2007,2009]

[2004,2006]

[2001,2003]

[1998,2000]

[1995,1997]

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

[1992,1994]

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

[1989, 1991]

Weight of RIS performance articles on NIS articles

3

RIS/NIS (%)

Fig. 3.2 Weight of RIS performance articles on NIS articles, by every three years, 1989–2017

result is related to the fact that, from 2005 to 2007, three articles had an undeniable importance in boosting a greater independence for the RIS performance literature: Guan and He (2005), Buesa et al. (2006) and Zabala–Iturriagagoitia et al. (2007). These have promoted a positive variability of RIS performance articles, while the evolution of NIS articles followed an opposing trend. Nevertheless, as observed through the inelastic nature of the relationship between both research fields, the substitutability was merely weak. In particular, a decrease of 1% in NIS articles implied an increase of 0,69% in RIS performance articles. In the remaining periods, complementarity between both types of literature is acknowledged. Interestingly, the complementarity does not exhibit a similar magnitude throughout the entire period of analysis. In the first three periods, the positive elasticity was inelastic such that given a raise of 1% in NIS articles, the increase in RIS performance articles was below 1%, while the positive elasticity became elastic after the period [1998, 2000] such that given a raise of 1% in NIS articles, the increase in RIS performance articles was above 1%. The elasticity value for the period [2007, 2009] is particularly high (εRIS,NIS = 97,90), being justified by the extremely large increase in the number of RIS performance articles

46

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Table 3.1 Elasticity of RIS performance literature over NIS literature, by every three years, 1989–2017 [1989, 1991]

[1992, 1994]

[1995, 1997]

[1998, 2000]

[2001, 2003]

[2004, 2006]

[2007, 2009]

[2010, 2012]

[2013, 2015]

0.857

0.375

0.330

1.933

13.867

−0.690

97.900

4.266

1.005

from the period [2007, 2009] to the period [2010, 2012], while the number of NIS articles remained relatively stable. Scientific Journals RIS performance articles are spread over 111 scientific journals. Figure 3.3 clarifies that almost 75% of the scientific journals only published a single article focused on RIS performance, whereas approximately 13% published at least four articles. We present the list of scientific journals that accommodate 75% of the representative sample of RIS performance articles. It clarifies that outlets with the highest number of scientific articles focused on RIS performance are the Technological Forecasting and Social Change (16 articles), Regional Studies (15 articles) and Research Policy (13 articles). Journal of the Knowledge Economy is the unique scientific journal created after 2000 positioned at the top ten ranking. In addition, all scientific journals have a high impact factor and present an interesting CiteScore. Around 70% of scientific articles were published in journals with impact factor greater than 1 and, if the interval is slightly relaxed to 0.9, the percentage increases to approximately 85% thereby reflecting that a significant number of RIS performance articles have a moderate

4.5%

12.6%

Jornals with one RIS performance article Jornals with two RIS performance articles

8.1%

Jornals with three RIS performance articles 74.8%

Jornals with four or more RIS performance articles

Fig. 3.3 Number of RIS performance articles per scientific journal, 1989–2017

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

47

impact. These findings suggest that international journals with considerable reputation and broad acceptance by the scientific community are receptive to the publication of RIS performance articles. Therefore, an increasing number of published articles in combination with a strong perceived scientific quality of the field constitute relevant explanations for the strong prominence of RIS performance literature.10 Authors First, we present the list of RIS performance articles whose number of citations is greater than 60, which corresponds to 9% of the total sample of articles. These were predominantly published in 2005 (~20%), 2002 (~15%) and 2004 (~15%). Main outlets for RIS knowledge dissemination are Research Policy (~30%) and Journal of Technology Transfer (~20%), as well as Technovation and Regional Studies (~10%). However, despite being the most cited, these articles do not necessarily guarantee that the respective authors are the most influential contributors in the RIS performance field. Hence, the profile of RIS contributors should be analysed bearing in mind the objective of finding clusters of authors, as well as the motivation to understand whether the practical conduct of RIS contributors is aligned with the theoretical idea of necessity to reinforce networking that is disseminated by this research field. Thereafter, we start by determining the number of principal components (PC) in which the initial set of independent variables can be compressed. According to the Kaiser’s rule, a given component is adopted if its eigenvalue is greater than one. The non-rotated component matrix is useful in determining how many components to retain. The optimal number of components is, a priori, equal to 3. One can observe that the set of variables tend to load heavily onto the first component, as this explains approximately 41% of the original variance. The purpose of rotating components is to get the original variables loading very high or very low on each component. Thus, a rotation of components should be

10 The majority of scientific journals that publish RIS performance articles belong to a cluster composed by Regional Innovation, Innovation and Geographical Economics fields. Nevertheless, the topic has also been covered by specialised journals (e.g., International Journal of Technology Management, Scientometrics) and journals with general scope (e.g. Journal of European Public Policy).

48

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

carried out for a matter of robustness and interpretation of results. Specifically, a Varimax rotation type is considered since the pattern obtained through this procedure is more robust than the one resulting from alternative options (Buesa et al., 2010). Moreover, this procedure assures maximum orthogonality between components, which is important for cases in which further statistical analysis is going to be developed. Statistical results legitimise the prior use of PCA. Latent components retain nearby 71% of the total variance, that is, there is a scarce 29% loss of the original information thereby reflecting a high degree of preservation of the explanatory power of the original set of variables. This is also observed through the communality, which is the opposite of uniqueness. It corresponds to the proportion of variance of a variable that is accounted for by all final components taken together. A very low communality indicates that a variable may not belong to any component, while the opposite is applied to a very high communality. In general, all communalities are high or, similarly, the unexplained variance per original variable is low, which guarantees the reliability of results. In addition, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy holds all values above 0.5, which confirms the validity in using PCA. Finally, the validity of PCA is also based on the inherent logic behind the extracted components since these should be consistent and interpretable in accordance with the conceptual framework of the study under scrutiny. In other words, each PC should be labelled with a ‘name’ that clearly expresses its content. The model lends on easy interpretation given that original variables are not saturated in more than one factor, except for PU and MA. Based on the original variables that compose each PC, we labelled component 1 (2) [3] as ‘Reputation’, (‘Internal Resilience’), [‘External Resilience’], respectively. The first component is positively characterised by variables that define the reputation of RIS contributors: number of publications (PU), number of citations within the sample of RIS performance articles (IC), overall number of citations (EC), number of journals containing publications of RIS contributors (JO) and research experience of authors (MA). The second component is characterised by the internal resilience faced by authors to ensure a publication in the RIS performance field. This component is positively affected by the representative variable of publication holdings under a standalone basis (SP) since the development of an article under this circumstance usually requires a greater focus, concentration and individual work. This component is negatively affected by the representative variable of collaboration with multiple co-authors

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

49

(CA) since the development of an article under this circumstance may be subject to a phenomenon described as a ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ situation.11 Potential inertia can be justified by the fact that all authors individually review the study in addition to providing suggestions and improvements that, despite enhancing its quality, may generate inconvenient delays or the presence of some conflict of interest among co-authors. This component is positively affected by the representative variable of the location of authors (LH) since the degree of difficulty in developing an article in a peripheral region is greater relatively to the degree of difficulty in developing an article in Europe, which corresponds to the continent where RIS literature initially emerged (Isaksen et al., 2018). Hence, the more distanced an author is from Europe, the greater the respective internal resilience. The third component is characterised by the external resilience on RIS literature since it captures the lack of openness by third parties, namely international journals, on accepting RIS contributions. Consequently, a greater external resilience is materialised by the lower the number of scientific publications secured by RIS contributors (PU). Similar holds when the average number of pages written by RIS contributors (LE) increases due to the reduced availability of space for alternative types of research or additional RIS contributions. Finally, considering that international journals seek for innovative content, it is clear that the external resilience increases as the maturity of RIS literature (MA) increases. The idea is that all authors receive a score associated with each latent component and, from this point, their distribution can be easily observed in a factorial plan. Summarising, main drivers of authorship profile in the RIS performance literature, which will be used as inputs for HCA, are: i. Overall reputation of RIS contributors (Reputation); ii. Internal willingness to write about RIS (Internal Resilience); iii. External willingness to reject RIS contributions (External Resilience). Based on Mather (1976), average linkage is considered as linkage method and squared Euclidean distance (L2squared) is assumed as the 11 The development of an article on a standalone basis simplifies the drafting process, but it may also harm the ability to discuss and include different perspectives, both in terms of ideas and ways of exploring data.

50

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

dissimilarity measure in HCA. Regarding the stopping rule for HCA, we conclude that the highest CH value occurs under the persistence of two clusters thereby suggesting that the optimal number of clusters is 2. Consistency is evaluated through the cophenetic correlation coefficient. It takes a value of 0.79, which implies that the use of average linkage and squared Euclidean distance is legitimised. Authors belonging to cluster 1 were labelled as ‘Leaders’ since this group corresponds to the most influential authors in the RIS performance field, while those belonging to cluster 2 were labelled as ‘Followers’ since this group corresponds to authors with less influence in the RIS performance field. Leaders, which correspond to 9.33% of the total sample of authors, are expected to be extremely prone on exacerbating either individualism or intra-group network effects (i.e. establishment of collaborations with authors of the same cluster). Authors falling into this cluster may bear the conviction that the RIS performance research requires a strategic substitutability between inter-group networking and individual effort due to the fact that they are the most influential researchers in the RIS performance field, even when they develop a scientific article on a standalone basis. However, this does not imply that leading authors do not engage in multiple collaborations with less influential researchers. Therefore, either strategic substitutability or strategic complementarity can be observed. Followers, which correspond to 90.67% of the total sample of authors, may instead consider that RIS performance research requires the exacerbation of inter-group network effects. Accordingly, authors falling into this cluster are expected to believe on the need of a strategic complementarity between inter-group networking and individual effort since they experience more difficulties to become influential in the RIS performance field when they work on a standalone basis. Although strategic complementarity between inter-group networking and individual effort is expected to occur, strategic substitutability is very unlikely for authors in the follower condition. In turn, descriptive statistics provide relevant information. They show the magnitude of the difference between clusters and allow to observe which cluster has a higher mean. Members of cluster 1 are characterised by high reputation and low resilience, regardless whether it is internal or external. In opposition, members of cluster 2 are characterised by low reputation and high resilience, regardless whether it is internal or external. The absolute mean value of the reputation enjoyed by members of cluster 1 is approximately ten times greater than that enjoyed by members of

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

51

cluster 2. Authors in the leader condition are benefiting nearly ten times more the amount of reputation when compared to authors in the follower condition. Interestingly, similar proportion is applied to the internal and external resilience, but with the proviso that signs are reversed. The mean (internal or external) resilience faced by members of cluster 1 is negative, while the members of cluster 2 face a positive mean (internal or external) resilience. Hence, authors in the leader condition are benefiting nearly ten times less resilience when compared to authors in the follower condition. Thenceforth, a statistical analysis is conducted to test for cluster differences on reputation and (internal and external) resilience. Firstly, depending on the indication provided by the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality and bearing in mind that both clusters are independent, we consider either the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test when a quantitative measure is not normally distributed or the parametric Student’s t-test for normally distributed quantitative measures. We clarify the type of distribution associated with each variable. The p-value of the variable reputation at cluster 1 is 0.648, while its p-value at cluster 2 is 0.002. Although this result means that we can reject the alternative hypothesis and conclude that the data comes from a normal distribution in cluster 1 for a critical p-value of 0.05, the opposite is applied to cluster 2. Ceteris paribus, this suggests that the parametric (non-parametric) test should be applied to cluster 1 (2), respectively. However, such a result is inconsistent to evaluate the mean difference of the variable reputation between clusters. This is because the number of observations is too low at cluster 1 (n = 7), thus, it follows that the non-parametric test is also advised to evaluate the mean difference of the variable reputation. Mutatis mutandis, similar argument is applied to the variable internal resilience. The p-value of the variable external resilience at cluster 1 (2) is 0.058 (0.574), respectively. For a critical significance level of 0.05, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the variable follows a normal distribution in both clusters and, thus, the parametric test is applied to external resilience. Secondly, results are exposed in Table 3.2. The Mann-Whitney test output implies the conclusion of rejecting the null hypothesis if p < 0.05. By focusing on reputation, we conclude that there is a statistically significant difference between the underlying distributions of the reputation scores of leaders and the reputation scores of followers (z = −4.298, p = 0.000). Hence, authors belonging to cluster 1 rate reputation more favourably than authors belonging to cluster 2. This result seems to reveal an important paradigm in the entry mode adopted by researchers focused

52

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

on RIS performance literature. The optimal entry strategy in this research strand requires the establishment of inter-group collaborations mostly driven from the contact of followers with leaders to ensure that their studies receive scientific visibility due to the fact that leaders benefit from reputation effects, while followers do not. Researchers in the RIS performance field have attempted to speed the publication process by pooling their individual talent into larger collaborations. This conduct kept the reputation of RIS performance literature in a restrictive number of prominent authors. Furthermore, the institutionalisation of the Bologna Process in Europe during 2009 has contributed to the increase in the number of master and doctoral dissertations focused on RIS performance. Consequently, experienced researchers play an important role in supporting the research of new talents, which has allowed an exponential increase in the number of RIS performance articles since 2010. In opposition, no statistically significant difference is found between the underlying distributions of the internal resilience scores of leaders and followers (z = −0.164, p = 0.870). Hence, populations of each cluster rate internal resilience similarly. This result suggests that all contributors in the RIS performance field transversely suffer from internal resilience. With the stronger complexity of this research field, it becomes increasingly difficult for individual researchers to conduct groundbreaking research by their own, so that internal resilience is expect to hold at the individual level. This new reality opens the opportunity for strengthening scientific collaborations. Despite this need, effective partnerships are often hard to find. Two of the most difficult barriers to research collaboration are the concern with the ownership of results and the effective internalisation of co-responsibility in final results as well as in the project’s success, which suggests that internal resilience also holds at the group collaboration level. One way to prevent these concerns is to establish an open dialogue before the initiation of a joint project. Ex-ante communication ensures that all members involved in a co-joint study are aware of their rights and duties before the effectiveness of participation. Since the RIS performance literature is expected to evolve towards this trend, any barrier must be actively disaggregated to foster and strengthen collaborations in this research field. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test is considered to compare the means of the normally distributed dependent variable for the two independent clusters. We want to test whether the mean for external reputation is the same for leaders and followers. Since standard deviations for the two clusters are similar (1.060 for leaders and 1.083 for

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

53

Table 3.2 Test statistics a. Non-parametric

Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W(1) Z Asymptotic sig. (2-tailed)

Reputation

Internal Resilience

2 2348 −4.298 0.000

229 257 −0.164 0.870

b. Parametric External Resilience Levene’s test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F

Sig

t

Df

Sig (2tailed)

Equal 0.122 0.728 −2.221 73 0.029 variances assumed Equal −2.262 7.352 0.056 variances not assumed(2)

Mean Std. Error Lower Difference Difference

Upper

−0.953

0.429

−1.809 −0.098

−0.953

0.421

−1.940 0.034

Notes (1) Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test and respective W statistic can be neglected since two independent, instead of paired, clusters are evaluated. (2) Welch and Brown-Forsythe are robust tests for equality of means. The respective statistic is asymptotically F distributed and equal to 5.115

followers), we can use the equal variances assumed test or, equivalently, the Levene’s test for equality of variances to determine whether both groups have similar or different amounts of variability between scores. The ‘Sig.’ column in Table 3.4 shows that the p-value is greater than 0.05, which means that the variability of the external resilience scores in the two clusters is not significantly different. The t-test for equality of means shows a result indicating that there is a statistically significant difference between the mean external resilience score for leaders and

54

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

followers (t = −2.221, p = 0.029).12 Hence, leaders have a statistically significantly lower mean score on the external resilience (−0.864) than followers (0.089), which may reflect some privileged treatment given to leaders by international journals. However, the application of the Welch and Brown-Forsythe robust t-tests for equality of means implies a diametrically opposite result to the previous one since the p-value turns to be greater than the critical significance level ( p = 0.056). Consequently, after taking into account the dichotomy between both results, we conclude that uncertainty prevails as to whether international journals are exempted from the provision of privileged treatment to the niche of leading authors focused on RIS performance. Finally, one main difference must be highlighted after confronting results of this study with the ones emerging from Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017). In their study, Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017) claim that the lack of exposure and impact of RIS research can be related to the absence of a cohesive group of scholars who drive the field. However, our review on general patterns concludes that precisely the opposite occurs. Firstly, results show that the exposure and impact of RIS performance research seems to be underestimated by Doloreux and Porto Gomez (2017). Secondly, results indicate that there is a network of leading researchers focused on RIS performance who drive the field, regardless whether prominent authors in the early period of the RIS debut have retired or moved into other fields, and regardless whether new scholars entering the field have proposed new approaches that the geography literature can already explain. Finally, the statistical analysis corroborates that there is no internal paradox in the RIS performance field given that followers seek leaders’ reputation and the observation of scientific articles published in the RIS performance field allows to infer that leading contributors seem to be open to collaborative research with less experienced researchers thereby suggesting a consistency between the theory disseminated by the field and professional conduct of the field’s main contributors.

12 Similar holds with analysis of variance (ANOVA) since F = 4.934 for p = 0.029.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

55

Specific Patterns Classification of RIS Performance Articles by Type RIS performance literature is classified by type through a co-occurrence analysis. This means that the most relevant terms of the title and abstract of RIS performance articles are shown by means of a term co-occurrence map based on text data extracted from VOSviewer 1.6.8 software. The network visualisation map exposed in Fig. 3.4 only shows the 50 terms with strongest link to have a more elegant presentation of the final clusters. It is important to highlight that each dot on the map represents a word and the area of each dot denotes how many times a certain word appears in the title and abstract of RIS performance articles. We labelled the four clusters automatically identified by the VOSviewer 1.6.8 software as follows: • Cluster 1 (Case studies): terms representative of case studies (in green); • Cluster 2 (Benchmarking): terms representative of benchmarking articles (in yellow); • Cluster 3 (Theory): terms representative of theoretical articles (in blue); • Cluster 4 (Scoring): terms representative of scoring articles (in orange). Let us start by providing a qualitative analysis focused on the different perspectives related to each cluster. The esoteric circle of Cluster 1 accommodates the analysis of different RIS around the world. Firstly, this group reflects that RIS experiences vary across regions since it contains case studies and surveys applied to different regions being, therefore, essentially descriptive and focused on local-specific strategies to promote regional innovation, growth and development. On the one hand, this implies that the report of real experiences at the local level serves as a basis for the continuous improvement of RIS policies. On the other hand, this suggests that some research is focused on characterising observable differences in different RIS. Consequently, it is not surprising that approximately 49% of the terms in cluster 1 correspond to regions of a country or countries. The relevance of ‘Norway’ should be highlighted since

Fig. 3.4 Classification of RIS performance literature through co-occurrence analysis, 1989–2017

56 V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

57

several authors that contribute for this strand of literature are established in this country. Secondly, terms such as network, industry, internationalisation or science-park justify that regional innovation is unlikely to occur under an isolated environment. On the one hand, it requires the inclusion of interactive learning in local communities embedded by specific sociocultural characteristics. On the other hand, it demands openness of organisations and institutions to external actors in order to foster knowledge inflows and valorisation of endogenous resources. This implies that networks need to be continuously established and strengthened to stimulate innovation activities. Thus, the community of terms in cluster 1 seems to reflect the need to support bottom-up processes. Thirdly, although conceptualisations of RIS vary across regions, this cluster also clarifies that the observed heterogeneity is often mitigated because different RIS are composed by three common elements: actors, networks and institutions.13 Another relatively homogeneous result applied to different RIS is that local initiatives are often dependent on a single element (e.g. science and technology parks (STP)) or characteristic (e.g. public funding). Gkypali et al. (2016) use the concept of RIS to introduce a methodological approach to evaluate the contribution of STP on the performance of RIS from Southern European countries to conclude that the contribution of STP to RIS performance diminishes over time mostly due to their structural characteristics and ex-post capture (i.e. the excessively high path dependence with respect to public financial resources for STI activity).14 Terms representative of Cluster 2 gravitate around the goal of assessing RIS performance thereby justifying the reason for labelling this group as benchmarking. Efficiency, either static or dynamic, constitutes the objective function to be maximised. This then implies that specialists in this domain mostly reflect on the need of caution with respect to the application of scarce inputs into alternative ends and evaluate the impact of the

13 Key actors are the public and private firms, industries and organizations that support both knowledge and infrastructure (e.g. knowledge transfer agencies). 14 The success of a RIS is estimated as a function of idiosyncrasies, role of government expenditures on R&D and underlying complexity of knowledge production and management, under an alternative set of restrictions imposed by fiscal consolidation, thus, dependent on the preferences of the authority that designs and implements Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) policies.

58

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

inappropriate use of resources within a given RIS to ensure that inefficiencies at the local level are avoided. ‘China’ stands out as the relevant term because the majority of benchmarking studies are developed in this national jurisdiction. Cluster 3 consists of theoretical contributions that constitute the background of RIS literature. Firstly, the community of terms summarises main concepts embedded in the intellectual development of this research field. In general, they represent technological, institutional and societal capabilities at the regional level. In particular, they are employed by theoreticians to conceptualise the notion of RIS (Cooke, 1992). The RIS approach is based on different variants of innovation systems (e.g. national, technological, sectoral) whose theoretical foundations result from different schools of economic thought, but especially from evolutionary theory (Malerba, 2002). As a result, these approaches consider that innovation is a function of non-linear and cumulative learning processes shaped by formal and informal institutions at different territorial levels (Asheim & Isaksen, 1997). Secondly, this group confirms a strong link between RIS and Helix models. The concept of RIS was initially built upon a ‘Double Helix’ model in which the interplay between ‘University’ and ‘Industry’ is highlighted to guarantee social welfare gains at the local level. Early research focused on this link suggests the formation of spillovers due to the tacit knowledge and physical proximity between both elements (Asheim & Gertler, 2005). Recently, following the premise that university in straight collaboration with industry can stimulate the local economic development, Slavtchev (2013) studies whether these interactions are truly local. The author provides evidence that the spatial pattern of the university–industry link is result of a complex matching process of appropriate partners such that results indicate that the individual and relational characteristics of actors, institutional factors and the type of knowledge play a role in their collaboration and, consequently, the university–industry link may not be local. This result may justify the absence of ‘Double Helix’ as a relevant term in cluster 3, as well as the reduced interest of RIS contributors on this bilateral relation. However, the ‘Triple Helix’ model proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) constitutes a relevant term of this cluster. It introduces ‘Government’ as an intermediate actor that strengthens the network of institutional collaborations within a given region. Implicitly, the transition to the ‘Triple Helix’ model reflects that innovation is dependent on a surrounding system of institutional, local, social and cultural standards

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

59

that require some form of mediation. Explicitly, it reflects the necessity to expand the accumulated knowledge of resources, while improving static and dynamic capabilities (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997). A key argument of the RIS literature is that innovation policy should be local-based, which means that specificities of regions should not be neglected (Asheim et al., 2011). Therefore, customised interventions seem to be needed due to the distinctive nature of regions (Isaksen, 2001). If the goal of policymakers is to prevent the accumulation of imbalances between regions, then personalised programmes should rely on actions that effectively promote structural change (Uyarra & Flanagan, 2010). Consequently, it is not surprising that recent years have been marked by the development of institutional frameworks that include ‘Government’ as the designer and implementer of RIS policies (Coenen et al., 2017). The ‘Quadruple Helix’ model, which also appears as a relevant term in cluster 3, expands the previous model by adding ‘Civil Society’. Carayannis and Campbell (2010) consider that it corresponds to the societal elite of well-educated and well-informed consumers that participate in the innovation process by being active, demanding and imaginative. Moreover, this element is also composed by other types of intermediate organisations (e.g. consultants and technological institutes) that have an important role to ensure the proliferation of innovation activities (Carayannis et al., 2017). Recently, a fifth element has been incorporated in the integrated Helix approach. Carayannis et al. (2012) consider that the ‘Quintuple Helix’ model is a new subsystem for innovation in which ‘nature’ is a central component for the success of the innovation process. The premise is that, currently, economic realities move much faster than political ones, thus, it is important to accept that economic interdependences require quicker, stronger and more coherent reactions from policymakers and actors, so that the ‘natural environment’ must be taken into account in the formulation of RIS policies. Interestingly, the ‘Quintuple Helix’ model does not emerge as a relevant term in cluster 3. On the one hand, this may suggest that the conceptual notion still needs further maturation to be widely accepted by the mainstream. On the one hand, it can signify that ‘nature’ is not materialised yet in a significant number of RIS. Thirdly, cluster 3 reveals that the RIS approach is strongly connected to other territorial innovation models, namely creative innovative milieu, industrial district and cluster. These models have tried to offer profound explanations not only on the irregular geography of innovation, but also

60

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

on factors and processes that shape the generation of spillovers and innovation capabilities at the regional level (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003) by sharing the common interest of explaining how socio-economic, cultural and institutional factors enable or constrain the circulation of knowledge and coordination of economic activities (Isaksen et al., 2018). Fourthly, cluster 3 clarifies several conceptual advances established within the RIS literature, particularly in terms of knowledge base. Asheim and Gertler (2005) distinguish between three types of knowledge bases: analytical (or science-based), synthetic (or experience-based) and symbolic (or artbased). The differentiated knowledge base (DKB) approach has been continuously advanced since then (Asheim et al., 2011).15 Recently, Boschma (2018) presents an agenda for future research on this subject. The author argues that early DBK 1.0 studies were predominantly focused on the varying nature of learning and innovation between activities shaped by the underlying knowledge base. Then, the author critically reviews the claim of a link between knowledge bases and RIS to rather highlight that recent DKB 2.0 studies devote attention to the role of multiple institutional players on the dynamics of knowledge.16 Fifthly, cluster 3 confirms that absorptive capacity, which is a concept introduced by Cohen and Levinthal (1990), is frequently used in the RIS literature to define the ability of a firm to recognise the value of a new, though external, assimilated information applied into a final end. Nevertheless, absorptive capacity is also dependent on the prior knowledge held by firms since both the individual and organisational levels influence decisions related to the allocation of scarce resources. This concept also assumes utmost importance in the context of RIS because of the impact of structural funds (i.e. absorptive capacity at the subsidiarity scheme level) on local territories. This is periodically evaluated either to identify whether convergence objectives are achievable or to observe whether the formulation, implementation and execution of RIS policies are being efficiently developed. 15 Asheim and Gertler (2005) consider that this concept aims at contesting the excessive narrow view of R&D on regional innovation since it refers to the critical degree of knowledge needed for the proliferation of innovation activities at the firm and regional levels. 16 On the one hand, this can be achieved through the incorporation of evolutionary concepts (e.g. variety or horizontal differentiation). On the other hand, this can be achieved by researching combinations and proximity forms within and between knowledge bases for learning and innovation of firms, industries and regions (Boschma, 2018).

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

61

Cluster 4 is composed by words representative of the scoring approach. Two main terms should be highlighted: smart specialisation and Regional Innovation Scoreboard. Firstly, although the RIS approach is subject to criticism, it has also been considered the basis for addressing regional development in light of smart specialisation (Belussi & Trippl, 2018). This term refers to the capacity of regions to discover new domains or to strengthen existing ones based on local resources and competences particularly, though not exclusively, in less favourable regions (Trippl et al., 2016). The RIS3 strategies aim at encouraging the identification of regional opportunities that truly induce structural change. Smart specialisation, which has become a prominent tool in the context of the EU cohesion policy (Foray, 2014), can target the mixed integration of existing specialisations with new ones or it may foster either specialisation or diversification in peripheral regions. On the one hand, this means that smart diversification may be considered the appropriate expression in some regional cases to express the current specialisation of territories (Asheim et al., 2011). On the other hand, this means that smart specialisation is conceived not only to support R&D and innovation activities, but also to ensure that each region is directly capable of satisfying the primary needs of citizens and, therefore, becoming competitive in the context of a globalised economy (Capello, 2014). A key aspect involves the entrepreneurial discovery process that reveals the magnitude whereby a given region exploits its primary needs (Malecki, 2011). Old approaches to the prioritisation problem and concentration of resources are based on robust theories that are strongly technocratic. However, these have neglected an essential component—Civil Society entrepreneurial knowledge—which combines science and technology, market potential and a whole set of inputs to proliferate market- or citizen-oriented economic growth. The internalisation of this key aspect is expected to effectively enable synergies between developed and underdeveloped branches of the local economic activity, while promoting new fields of action and radical innovations at the regional level. Nevertheless, several authors suggest that the implementation of smart specialisation practices is neither easily nor straightforwardly achieved (Rodríguez-Pose et al., 2014). Actions to ensure a greater involvement of different actors and a stronger mobilisation of the Civil Society are then mandatory to ensure social welfare maximisation (Foray & Rainoldi, 2013). Secondly, it is now comprehensible the inclusion of the EU Regional Innovation Scoreboard (EU, 2017) study in our review since cluster 4 is also characterised by the terms

62

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

‘Europe’ and ‘Regional Innovation Scoreboard’. Moreover, EU (2017) constitutes the basis for the choice of regional indicators to perform econometric or computational analysis. Thirdly, although RIS conceptualisations were initially focused on domestic regions of EU Member States (Doloreux & Porto Gomez, 2017), recent snapshots are characterised by the application of RIS approach into alternative contexts such as crossborder regions (Isaksen et al., 2018), which justifies the appearance of ‘cross border innovation’ as a relevant term. After having qualitatively identified four clusters and their internal content, a measure of intra- and inter-cluster diversity is provided to analyse final groups from a quantitative point of view. First, we show the descriptive statistics of knowledge bases—links of the representative terms—of each cluster and, thereafter, intra-cluster results are summarised in Table 3.3. One can observe that only the diversity value of cluster 4 falls below the threshold 3.5. This implies that the scoring cluster is characterised by a high degree of informational condensation or, similarly, it relies on very low diverse sources of information to formulate theories and interpretations, which means that the underlying knowledge base is quite homogeneous. In turn, the other clusters are characterised by a low degree of informational condensation or, similarly, they rely on very high diverse sources of information to formulate theories and interpretations, which means that the underlying knowledge base of clusters 1, 2 and 3 is quite heterogeneous. However, the value of diversity is higher than 4 only in the clusters case studies and theory. The high value of diversity in the case studies cluster is justified by specificities of each region, whereas the high value of diversity in the theory cluster is justified by the multidisciplinarity implicit in RIS theory. Concerning the evenness, results indicate a moderately high apportionment among categories in all clusters, thus, all links of terms are equally abundant in each cluster. Regarding richness, clusters 1 and 3 contain the highest number of terms (84), while cluster 4 has the lowest value (24). The relevant question is then to understand whether the two clusters with the highest value of diversity (C1 and C3) are statistically significant different from each other. Inter-cluster diversity results are clarified in Table 3.4. One can observe that all pairs of clusters have a highly significant difference, except the one composed by clusters 1 and 3. Consequently, there are statistically significant differences between clusters C1 and C2, C1 and C4, C2 and C3 and C3 and C4, which implies that the diversity of the knowledge base in these cases is a

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

Table 3.3 Intra-cluster results

63

Cluster

H’ (Shannon’s diversity)

E (evenness)

S (richness)

C1: case studies C2: benchmarking C3: theoretical C4: scoring

4.377

0.988

84

3.973

0.987

56

4.378

0.988

84

3.123

0.983

24

Table 3.4 Inter-cluster results H’1 H’1 H’2 H’3 H’4

1 1.960*** (88.846) [18092] 1.960 (0.102) [23086] 1.960*** (202.934) [5890]

H’2

H’3

H’4

1 1.960*** (90.263) [17792] 1.960*** (132.355) [6605]

1 1.960*** (204.621) [5728]

1

Notes Estimates without parenthesis or brackets, t statistics in parenthesis, degrees of freedom in brackets, significance of the pseudo-values represented by *** (0.01), ** (0.05) and * (0.1)

remarkable sign of heterogeneity. However, no evidence is found in favour of significant differences between clusters C1 and C3. Thus, we provide statistical evidence that case studies and theory clusters are not significantly different. This result is justified by the fact that the words representative of each cluster are strongly correlated or, similarly, due to the fact that both clusters share a homogeneous knowledge base. Note, however, that a researcher is able to identify either cases in which a given article corresponds to a case study or cases in which a given article corresponds to a theoretical article through a direct inspection, regardless whether both clusters share a common language. Hence, a direct inspection is performed as well as the respective classification of RIS performance articles. Main findings are summarised as follows. Firstly, four different communities of RIS performance articles

64

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

are found. These reveal that 20.51% of RIS performance articles correspond to case studies (n = 48), 15.38% follow the scoring approach (n = 36), 4.27% adopt the benchmarking approach (n = 10), and the remaining 59.83% correspond to theoretical articles (n = 140). Secondly, different centrality measures were computed to observe the most relevant RIS performance articles. Two main conclusions are highlighted. On the one hand, RIS performance articles with higher centrality measures belong to clusters representative of theory and case studies, particularly scientific articles developed in the early rollout of RIS performance literature, that is, in the 1990s and early 2000s. On the other hand, RIS performance articles with higher centrality measures are characterised by the engagement of leader authors regardless whether the scientific article is developed in co-authorship or not. This suggests that leading authors have a strong influential power on this research field. Knowing that the total number of theoretical RIS articles is equal to 140, while the total number of empirical RIS articles is equal to 94, thus, approximately 60 and 40% of the total sample of RIS articles, Fig. 3.5 shows that the total number of RIS performance articles increased from the first half to the second half of the period of analysis. However, despite theoretical contributions dominate in absolute value, the relative weight of empirical studies increased 3 percentage points (p.p.), while the relative weight of theoretical studies decreased 3 p.p. from the period [1989–2003] to the period [2004–2017]. This suggests the presence of a gradual substitutability between theoretical and empirical studies and, therefore, the need to justify the rise of empirical studies focused on RIS performance literature. The increasing relative weight of empirical studies on RIS literature justifies the need to provide a deeper insight on the type of methods employed by researchers within each analytical approach (case study, benchmarking, scoring) taken by empirical studies focused on RIS performance in addition to providing a survey of the most frequently used indicators per analytical approach is also provided. Four main conclusions are highlighted. First, the multiplicity and heterogeneity of output indicators are superior under the scoring approach. Second, whatever the analytical approach pursued by the econometrician, patents are the most broadly adopted indicator to measure RIS performance. Third, the scoring approach attributes more relevance to high-technology exports, sales of new innovative products

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

65

Fig. 3.5 Evolution of the absolute and relative weight of empirical articles relative to theoretical contributions in the RIS performance research field, 1989–2017

and employment in knowledge-intensive activities, while the benchmarking approach attributes more relevance to scientific publications. Finally, the survey of indicators confirms that the research field is characterised by a dichotomy between theoretical and empirical contributions since the survey of most used indicators suggests that empirical studies tend adopt those capable of capturing the impact of top-down processes on regional innovation, while theoretical contributions disclose the need to use indicators that capture the impact of bottom-up processes due to the ascent of smart specialisation practices at the territorial level. This may

66

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

result from the difficulty related to the measurement of regional performance at lower levels of territorial scale (e.g. municipal, parish), which means that efforts should be developed to overcome it. Classification of RIS Performance Articles by Theme Following Teixeira (2013), RIS performance literature was also classified by theme or topic. Figure 3.6 shows that approximately 48% of the theoretical articles are descriptive, either focused on policy-oriented topics (20%) or relying on technology transfer issues (28%). These themes, however, have a reduction of importance over the period of analysis. From the period [1989, 1994] to the period [2013, 2017], the weight of descriptive technology transfer and policy-oriented articles decreased about 24 and 18 p.p., respectively. In contrast, papers related to regional issues registered a remarkable increase: from a null share in the period [1989, 1994], it reached 21% fourteen years later in the period [2013, 2017]. This evolution can be explained by the strong scientific and political interest that the triple, and quadruple helix models have raised (Lengyel & Leydesdorff, 2015). Historical accounts were also subject to growth, namely up to around 18% in the most recent period. This result can be explained by the interest of researchers on explaining past events relying on RIS performance theories (Reid & Ramani, 2012). The stronger relevance of historical accounts and the higher adoption of regional theories highlight the gradual transition towards a dynamic and evolving nature of systems and subsequent recognition of multiple sources of knowledge for innovative activities (Lundvall, 1992). Hence, our results focused on RIS performance have a strong resemblance with Teixeira (2013)’s results applied to the NIS literature.

Conclusions This study reviews the scientific production of RIS performance research from 1989 to 2017 based on general and specific patterns related to the past research conducted in this research field. In general, the evolution in the absolute number of articles focused on RIS performance has been non-monotone, the presence of complementarity between the literature covering NIS and RIS was not always verified due to a negative elasticity between both strands of research in the period [2004, 2006], RIS research has a high level of receptivity

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

67

Fig. 3.6 Classification of RIS performance articles by theme, 1989–2017

by international journals and leading contributors seem to be open to collaborative research with peers and less experienced researchers, which suggests a consistency between the theory disseminated by the field and the professional conduct of main contributors. In particular, empirical analysis is gaining preponderance in relation to the theoretical analysis. As a result, empirical studies were subject to a deeper classification based on three distinct analytical approaches—case studies, benchmarking and scoring—resulting from a co-occurrence analysis of text data and then, within each one of these, main methods and indicators to measure RIS performance were identified. This was complemented by a direct inspection that allowed to conclude that a trend towards the adoption of CIIs. Moreover, scoring articles use more indicators and cover a higher number of dimensions relative to benchmarking articles, but efforts seem to be currently developed to reduce this gap.

68

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Acknowledgements This chapter was developed under the support of the Research Program “CeNTER Community-led Territorial Innovation” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), PT2020. This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the Scientific Employment Stimulus—Institutional Call—reference CEECINST/00026/2018.

References Appio, F. P., Cesaroni, F., & Di Minin, A. (2014). Visualizing the structure and bridges of the intellectual property management and strategy literature: A document co-citation analysis. Scientometrics, 101(1), 623–661. Appio, F. P., Martini, A., Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2016). Unveiling the intellectual origins of Social Media-based innovation: Insights from a bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 108(1), 355–388. Arrow, K. J. (1951). Individual values and social choice. Wiley. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (1997). Location, agglomeration and innovation: Towards regional innovation systems in Norway? European Planning Studies, 5(3), 299–330. Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2006). Contextualising regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: On knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 163–173. Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional innovation systems: Theory, empirics and policy. Regional Studies, 45(7), 875–891. Asheim, B. T., Coenen, L., & Moodysson, J. (2015). Methods and applications of regional innovation systems analysis. In C. Karlsson, M. Andersson, & T. Norman (Eds.), Handbook of research methods and applications in economic geography (pp. 272–290). Edward Elgar. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092. Belussi, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Industrial districts/clusters and smart specialisation policies. In Agglomeration and firm performance (pp. 283–308). Springer. Blei, D., & Lafferty, J. (2009). Topic models. In A. Srivastava & M. Sahami (Eds.), Text mining: Classification, clustering, and applications (pp. 71–94). Taylor and Francis Group. Booysen, F. (2002). An overview and evaluation of composite indices of development. Social Indicators Research, 59(2), 115–151.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

69

Boschma, R. (2018). A concise history of the knowledge base literature: Challenging questions for future research. In A. Isaksen, F. Tödtling, & M. Trippl (Eds.), New avenues for regional innovation systems-theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons (pp. 23–40). Springer. Buesa, M., Heijs, J., Pellitero, M. M., & Baumert, T. (2006). Regional systems of innovation and the knowledge production function: The Spanish case. Technovation, 26(4), 463–472. Buesa, M., Heijs, J., & Baumert, T. (2010). The determinants of regional innovation in Europe: A combined factorial and regression knowledge production function approach. Research Policy, 39(6), 722–735. Calinski, T., & Harabasz, J. (1974). A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Communications in Statistics, 3(1), 1–27. Capello, R. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU cohesion policy reform: Introductory remarks. Scienze Regionali, 1, 1–9. Carayannis, E. G., & Provance, M. (2008). Measuring firm innovativeness: Towards a composite innovation index built on firm innovative posture, propensity and performance attributes. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1), 90–107. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1(1), 41–69. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–12. Carayannis, E. G., Goletsis, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2015). Multi-level multi-stage efficiency measurement: The case of innovation systems. Operational Research, 15(2), 253–274. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., & Goletsis, Y. (2016). A multilevel and multistage efficiency evaluation of innovation systems: A multiobjective DEA approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 62, 63–80. Carayannis, E. G., Acikdilli, G., & Ziemnowicz, C. (2017). Schumpeter in the context of international trade dynamics, challenges, opportunities, and the Quadruple/Quintuple innovation helixes. In Proceedings of the AIB-Midwest 2017 Conference (pp. 1–9). Carter, J., & Barker, N. (2013). ABC for book collectors. Oak Knoll Press and British Library. Chen, K., & Guan, J. (2012). Measuring the efficiency of China’s regional innovation systems: Application of network data envelopment analysis (DEA). Regional Studies, 46(3), 355–377.

70

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Chung, S. (2002). Building a national innovation system through regional innovation systems. Technovation, 22(8), 485–491. Coenen, L., Asheim, B., Bugge, M. M., & Herstad, S. J. (2017). Advancing regional innovation systems: What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table? Environment and Planning c: Politics and Space, 35(4), 600–620. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 1288–1352. Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum, 23(3), 365–382. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industry and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974. Demidenko, E. (2013). Mixed models: Theory and applications with R. Wiley. Deprins, D., Simar, L., & Tulkens., H.(2006). Measuring labor-efficiency in post offices. In Public goods, environmental externalities and fiscal competition (pp. 285–309). Springer. Doloreux, D., & Parto, S. (2005). Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues. Technology in Society, 27 (2), 133–153. Doloreux, D., & Porto Gomez, I. (2017). A review of (almost) 20 years of regional innovation systems research. European Planning Studies, 25(3), 371– 387. Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions, and organizations. Psychology Press. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Introduction to special issue on science policy dimensions of the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 24(1), 2–5. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. European Union (EU). (2017). Regional innovation scoreboard. Retrieved from the European Commission’s website: http://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/doc uments/23881 (30 June 2017) Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Lindgren, B., & Roos, P. (1992). Productivity changes in Swedish pharmacies 1980–1989: A non-parametric Malmquist approach. International applications of productivity and efficiency analysis (pp. 81–97). Springer. Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996). From data mining to knowledge discovery in databases. AI Magazine, 17 (3), 37–47.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

71

Foray, D. (2009). Understanding smart specialisation. The Question of R&D Specialisation, JRC, 19–28. Brussels, European Commission. Foray, D., & Rainoldi, A. (2013). Smart specialisation programmes and implementation (S3 Policy Brief Series No. 2) (14 pp.). Foray, D. (2014). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Routledge. Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41. Freeman, C. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. Francis Pinter. Gan, C., & Wang, W. (2015). Research characteristics and status on social media in China: A bibliometric and co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1167– 1182. Gkypali, A., Kokkinos, V., Bouras, C., & Tsekouras, K. (2016). Science parks and regional innovation performance in fiscal austerity era: Less is more? Small Business Economics, 47 (2), 313–330. Guan, J. C., & He, Y. (2005). The performance of Chinese regional innovation system evaluation based on data envelopment analysis. Studies in Science of Science, 23(2), 265–272. Hill, M. O. (1973). Diversity and evenness: A unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology, 54(2), 427–432. Hollanders, H., & Celikel-Esser, F. (2007). Measuring innovation efficiency. Retrieved from: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/portal/files/1522179/ guid-46a68016-6c74-4576-b337-e00c41715756-ASSET1.0 (30 June 2017). Hotelling, H. (1933). Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. Journal of Educational Psychology, 24, 417–441. Hutcheson, K. (1970). A test for comparing diversities based on the Shannon formula. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 29(1), 151–154. Isaksen, A. (2001). Building regional innovation systems: Is endogenous industrial development possible in the global economy? Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 24(1), 101–120. Isaksen, A., Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Innovation policies for regional structural change: Combining actor-based and system-based strategies. In A. Isaksen, F. Tödtling, & M. Trippl (Eds.), New avenues for regional innovation systems-theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons (pp. 221–238). Springer. Kaasa, A. (2009). Effects of different dimensions of social capital on innovative activity: Evidence from Europe at the regional level. Technovation, 29(3), 218–233. Khasseh, A. A., Soheili, F., Moghaddam, H. S., & Chelak, A. M. (2017). Intellectual structure of knowledge in iMetrics: A co-word analysis. Information Processing and Management, 53(3), 705–720.

72

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lovell, C. A. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge University Press. Lengyel, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The effects of FDI on innovation systems in Hungarian regions: Where is the synergy generated? Regional Statistics, 1(1), 2–24. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: An analytical framework. Francis Pinter. Lundvall, B. A., & Borrás, S. (1997). The globalising learning economy: Implications for innovation policy. European Communities. Magurran, A. E. (1988). Why diversity? Ecological diversity and its measurement (pp. 1–5). Springer. Malecki, E. J. (2011). Connecting local entrepreneurial ecosystems to global innovation networks: Open innovation, double networks and knowledge integration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 14(1), 36–59. Martinelli, F. (2012). Social innovation or social exclusion? Innovating social services in the context of a retrenching welfare state. In H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (Eds.) Challenge social innovation (pp. 169–180). Springer. Malerba, F. (2002). Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2), 247–264. Makkonen, T., & van der Have, R. P. (2013). Benchmarking regional innovative performance: Composite measures and direct innovation counts. Scientometrics, 94(1), 247–262. Makkonen, T., Williams, A. M., Mitze, T., & Weidenfeld, A. (2018). Science and technology cooperation in cross-border regions: a proximity approach with evidence for Northern Europe (pp. 1–19). European Planning Studies. Margalef, R. (1972). Homage to Evelyn Hutchinson, or why there is an upper limit to diversity. In E. S. Deevey (Ed.), Growth by intussusception (pp. 213– 235). Archon Books. Mather, P. M. (1976). Computational methods of multivariate analysis in physical geography. Wiley. Mas-Colell, A., Whinston, M. D., & Green, J. R. (1995). Microeconomic theory. Oxford University Press. Maurer, B. A., & McGill, B. J. (2011). Measurement of species diversity. In Biological diversity: Frontiers in measurement and assessment (Vol. 5, pp. 368– 378). Oxford University Press. May, R. M. (1975). Patterns of species abundance and diversity. Ecology and Evolution of Communities, 1, 81–120. Moon, H. S., & Lee, J. D. (2005). A fuzzy set theory approach to national composite S&T indices. Scientometrics, 64(1), 67–83.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

73

Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37 (3), 289–302. Mumford, M. D. (2002). Social innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 253–266. Nelson, R., & Winter, S. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press. Nilsson, M., & Moodysson, J. (2014). Regional innovation policy and coordination: Illustrations from Southern Sweden. Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 147–161. OECD. (2007). Innovation and growth. Rationale for an innovation strategy. OECD. OECD. (2015). OECD Innovation Strategy 2015. An Agenda for Policy Action. In OECD reviews of innovation policy (pp. 395–423). OECD. Pielou, E. C. (1969). An introduction to mathematical ecology. An introduction to mathematical ecology. Willey-Interscience. Reid, S. E., & Ramani, S. V. (2012). The harnessing of biotechnology in India: Which roads to travel? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(4), 648–664. Ribeiro, H. C. M., & Cirani, C. B. S. (2013). Análise da produção científica da revista de administração e inovação. RAI Revista De Administração e Inovação, 10(4), 208–228. Rodríguez-Pose, A., Di Cataldo, M., & Rainoldi, A. (2014). The role of government institutions for smart specialisation and regional development (S3 Policy Brief Series No. 4) (20 pp.). European Commission. Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2002). State-of-the-art report on current methodologies and practices for composite indicator development. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michaela_Saisana/publication/305 392511_State-of-the-art_report_on_current_methodologies_and_practices_ for_composite_indicator_development/links/578ccb9708ae59aa668146a3. pdf (30 June 2017). Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27 , 379–423. Silva, S. T., & Teixeira, A. A. (2009). On the divergence of evolutionary research paths in the past 50 years: A comprehensive bibliometric account. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 19(5), 605–643. Slavtchev, V. (2013). Proximity and the transfer of academic knowledge: Evidence from the spatial pattern of industry collaborations of East German professors. Regional Studies, 47 (5), 686–702. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London.

74

V. M. RIBEIRO ET AL.

Speroni, R. M., Trindade, E. P., Macedo, M., Gauthier, F. A. O., & Bastos, R. C. (2017). Usando dados ligados na representação de indicadores da inovação regional. Navus-Revista De Gestão e Tecnologia, 7 (3), 95–103. Teixeira, A. A. (2013). Evolution, roots and influence of the literature on National Systems of Innovation: A bibliometric account. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(1), 181–214. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. Trippl, M., Asheim, B., & Miörner, J. (2016). Identification of regions with lessdeveloped research and innovation systems. Innovation Drivers and Regional Innovation Strategies, 40, 23–29. Uyarra, E. (2010). What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 20(1), 115–139. Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2010). From regional systems of innovation to regions as innovation policy spaces. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy, 28(4), 681–695. Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Magro, E., Wilson, J., & Sotarauta, M. (2017). Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning. Environment and Planning c: Politics and Space, 35, 559–568. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2011). Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.2058. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2018). VOSviewer manual. Retrieved from: http://www.vosviewer.com (25 July 2018). Waltman, L., Van Eck, N. J., & Noyons, E. C. (2010). A unified approach to mapping and clustering of bibliometric networks. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 629–635. Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43(1), 1–15. Yim, O., & Ramdeen, K. T. (2015). Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 11, 8–21. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Voigt, P., Gutiérrez-Gracia, A., & Jiménez-Sáez, F. (2007). Regional innovation systems: How to assess performance. Regional Studies, 41(5), 661–672.

3

ON THE PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

75

Zong, Q. J., Shen, H. Z., Yuan, Q. J., Hu, X. W., Hou, Z. P., & Deng, S. G. (2013). Doctoral dissertations of Library and Information Science in China: A co-word analysis. Scientometrics, 94(2), 781–799. Zukauskaite, E., Trippl, M., & Plechero, M. (2017). Institutional thickness revisited. Economic Geography, 93(4), 325–345.

CHAPTER 4

Social Tipping Dynamics for Disruptive Innovation Policies Towards a Stable Climate Scenario Sara Moreno Pires and Pedro Silva

Introduction There is a growing awareness that innovation policies should go beyond technological innovation and include user-driven, socio-ecological and institutional innovation to address the major societal challenge of climate change (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Kivimaa & Kern, 2016; Pires et al., 2020). National, regional, and local governments thus face an enormous pressure to design and implement effective policies for

S. M. Pires (B) GOVCOPP (Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies), Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] P. Silva CeBER, Department of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_4

77

78

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

today’s challenges (Teles, 2016). The European Union (EU) has been supporting regional transformations through policies focusing on innovation, research, entrepreneurship, and territorial cohesion. Regional innovation policies such as Smart Specialization Strategies (S3) aimed to be powerful policies to contribute to economic, social, and territorial development by reducing disparities between regions while integrating Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) and practices (Polido et al., 2019). However, despite the effort, some authors argue that these policies did not yield the expected results (Kroll, 2019), and that the structural funds to support innovation were not able to create a virtuous circle capable of allowing a convergence in a more sustainable development among the various EU countries and regions (Muscio et al., 2015). This can be explained by the traditional excessive focus on economic growth and technological innovation that became too narrow to promote the necessary changes (Eder, 2019; Fagerberg, 2017). Recent research shows this lack of alignment between EU regional innovation policies and critical SDGs (Polido et al., 2019), and also a lack of evidence of these policies to anticipate a transition to sustainability (Pires et al., 2020). Kattel and Mazzucato (2018) point towards the lack of an innovation roadmap to rethink the role of governmental public policy in the economy and the associated organizational forms that may constitute dynamics and explorative policies towards a climate safe development trajectory. As a result, the EU has recently recognized the need to change the directionality of innovation policies towards the inclusion of sustainability concerns, namely by framing the newer mission-oriented Smart Specialisation Strategies for Sustainability (S4) (SSP, 2021). S4 address the need to guide transformative innovation in a systemic approach, while connecting investment with regulation and reforms (SSP, 2021). The rapid and intense deterioration of global environmental conditions since ‘the Great Acceleration’ of the 1950s (Ramos et al., 2018; Steffen et al., 2015) provides today enough evidence to sustain that society is “pushing the Earth into a planetary terra incognita” (Steffen et al., 2007, p. 614) that may not allow for sustainable and thriving human societies and well-being in a near future (Steffen et al., 2018; Wackernagel et al., 2017). As humanity approaches a point of no return in climate change and other planetary thresholds, these warnings of the Earth system science bring intricate and novel institutional and political challenges. One can thus understand the difficulties of the current

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

79

European innovation policies in promoting the necessary changes in an urgent timeframe considering these global implications. Path-dependency and incremental changes are more characteristics of our societies (with the exception of extreme situations, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis) and policies. However, prompt or abrupt transformations (such as progresses towards climate change mitigation), although difficult to occur, can nevertheless take place under certain conditions. Thus, it is important to understand how policymakers can proactively look for, and identify such settings and incentives to promote rapid social positive changes. Set against this background, the concept of tipping dynamics, understood as small and nonlinear dynamics that trigger disruptive and big system changes (Otto et al., 2020) frames this chapter’s rationale. These tipping dynamics can be observed in natural systems (as the ones described by Lenton, 2016), but also in the socio-economic systems or in the socio-ecological systems (as examples in adaptive governance processes as argued by Folke et al., 2005) and can lead to a new and qualitatively different state of the social system (Milkoreit et al., 2018). Based on this concept, public policy interventions can be tailored and designed to promote social tipping dynamics. Innovation policies may enable or encourage big disruptive system changes through small changes, and push society away from a ‘hothouse’ Earth scenario towards a stable climate one. Through the positive-feedback mechanisms that small actions can have towards sustainability transition, it can be possible to guide faster and stronger changes. Therefore, this chapter discusses key public policy sectors, interventions, and actors’ agency in innovation policies that can be shaped as social triggers for disruptive changes towards a stable climate Scenario, particularly in the case of EU less developed regions.

The Earth Tipping Points, Social Tipping Dynamics and European Innovation Policy Challenges A major challenge for the EU and the society at large is to fight climate change and mitigate the harmful human consequences on the stability of the Earth System (Steffen et al., 2018). This will imply, among other societal changes, a complete decarbonization of the global energy, transport, industrial production, land use and food production systems (Otto et al., 2020). An arising question is how these tasks can be accomplished in a narrowing time horizon when we are approaching a point of no

80

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

return towards a ‘hothouse’ Earth scenario (Steffen et al., 2018). For example, the current rates of use of carbon energy may not be compatible with the established goals in the Paris Agreement, and it is likely that as these changes scale up, further and stronger resistance will occur due to the inherent inflexibility of the political and economic decisionmaking systems (Geels, 2014; Kuzemko et al., 2016), and also the need for new technological demand (Heard et al., 2017; Sinn, 2017). Clearly, the traditional technological progress development and the carbon pricing alone will not be sufficient for either a rapid or an abrupt decrease in greenhouse gas emissions (Tvinnereim & Mehling, 2018). Additionally, how can society tackle and make traceable to those who are responsible the three pervasive “undetectable” features of Nature, namely mobility, silence and invisibility? (Dasgupta, 2021). The consequences of actions which damage Nature are often untraceable. Can innovation policies contribute to transform this? Can disruptive actions push faster for a stable climate scenario? From this, it is evident today that key areas such as fossilfuel energy (Otto el. al, 2020), unsustainable food systems (EAT–Lancet Commission, 2019) and nature invisibility or lack of biosphere stewardship (Dasgupta, 2021; Rockström et al., 2021) are the main drivers for pushing natural systems beyond the boundaries of a stable climate. Therefore, they have a much higher trigger potential that any other sectors to also revert the Earth system damages caused by our societies. We will explore them further in the next section. Despite these challenges, scientific evidence has shown that large changes may occur under very specific natural, socio-economic and socioecological circumstances. In this context, increasing attention has been put in the concept of social tipping dynamics as nonlinear mechanisms behind major disruptive system changes (Otto et al., 2020). Milkoreit et al. (2018) highlight how small disruptive social changes may trigger fast transformations and lead to a new social system state. Otto et al. (2020) note that social tipping dynamics can manifest themselves as spreading processes in social networks (Centola et al., 2018; Lehmann & Ahn, 2018) of behaviours, knowledge, technology and social norms (Nyborg et al., 2016; Schleussner et al., 2016). Two examples can be given on how small changes generated strong social impacts that spread to the society at large and affected the established systems. The 2008 global financial crisis showed how a quick change in the market value for assets in a single company, sector and country quickly spread and disrupted the global financial system, triggering several changes at an individual level,

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

81

including new investment and consumption behaviours and new collective policy responses (Campello et al., 2010). More recently, the COVID19 pandemic, with the origin in one city and in one country, quickly acquired a global scale and prompted deep business and societal changes. For example, the European power markets witnessed high price increases; in the education system, colleges and universities went online, changing parents, students and teachers’ lives very rapidly; and industries such as the semiconductor ones highly increased their returns whereas others lost more than 90% of their profits in 2020 (McKinsey, 2021). This shows how some changes can lead to different social system states and, analogously, how social tipping dynamics can contribute to a rapid transition of the world. Unfortunately, most social abrupt changes have been historically associated with wards, mobs, and collapse (Sztompka, 2000). This is the reason why it is of crucial importance for these changes to be in line with the SDGs so they can be understood as having a positive impact for the society (Otto et al., 2020). Social tipping dynamics do not necessarily require major events to take place. For example, Otto et al. (2020) argue that business or technological changes require only up to 20% of market share to break the boundary and scale up into a dominant pattern. Perhaps more important than the share of the market or the share of the population are the characteristics of the target population. In other words, influential, well-connected people, trendsetters, group leaders and opinion-makers can have a high social impact and establish trends. Once triggered and in motion, these processes can be irreversible and difficult to stop, very much like spreading behaviours that can be observed in human behaviour (Centola et al., 2018; Lehmann & Ahn, 2018; Otto et al., 2020). Although tipping dynamics may appear easy to start considering that social systems are partially open to change (at least to a certain degree), it should be noted that these social systems often have self-stabilizing and self-reinforcing mechanisms that oppose to change and support path-dependency, including investment, cultural and political inertia mechanisms from deep-rooted traditions and existing power structures (Otto et al., 2020; Schreyögg & Sydow, 2011; Tàbara & Pahl-Wostl, 2007). Overall, social tipping dynamics can be understood as ‘game-changers’ and as initial steps that can contribute towards a faster socio-economic transformation of the society. For that reason, policymakers need to learn and understand how to put them into practice to

82

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

promote change and quickly move towards a more sustainable and fair society. Regardless the discrepancy between traditional innovation policy in Europe and the actions needed to address sustainability (Ghosh et al., 2021), some authors note the increasing interest on understanding a new generation of policy mixes in innovation studies to foster sustainability transitions in the EU (Kern et al., 2019; Kivimaa & Kern, 2016; Weber & Rohracher, 2012). Fagerberg (2018) investigates policy mixes for disruptive sustainability interventions which combine policy approaches, methods, and the expertise from the research team members on innovation. Ghosh et al. (2021), building on sustainability transitions research, address key transformative outcomes to evaluate and reformulate policies and support policy agents to transform their ways of thinking and operation in advancing transformative change. The development of disruptive policy frameworks and governance arrangements that challenge existing systems can be facilitated by “opening up and unlocking regimes” (Ghosh et al., 2021, p.743). Kivimaa and Kern (2016, p. 205) propose policy mixes for disruptive innovations that include “elements of ‘creative destruction’, involving both policies aiming for the ‘creation’ of new and for ‘destabilising’ the old” that can help to expand European innovation policy debates. The following section debates key trigger sectors with a large potential for activating social tipping dynamics and create a qualitative shift in the actual socio-economic landscape. Then, based on these opportunities, key policy interventions and the main actors and agency that can put them into practice are discussed.

Key Sector Opportunities for Social Tipping Dynamics in Territorial Innovation One of the recent transformations of the EU innovation policy framework has been the introduction of ‘mission-oriented innovation policies’ (MOIPs), as a new type of systemic intervention or guidance to tackle increasing societal challenges (Larrue, 2021). The origin of this MOIP concept was a first mention made in the 1960s to ‘mission-orientation’ applied to support certain type of economic activities (Larrue, 2021). Weinberg (1967) argued at that time in favour of “Mission-oriented R&D”, defined as “big science deployed to meet big problems” assuming that it would be needed to redirect attention towards societal issues in

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

83

some key sectors, such as pollution and energy (Larrue, 2021, p. 14). The evolution of the concept of mission-oriented innovation policies since then is well analysed by Larrue (2021). It has moved from sector-oriented to more qualified policy frameworks to enable a worldwide green transition. Nevertheless, this chapter goes back to Weinberg’s arguments to claim for the need to guide transition in sectors that we know now that are the main drivers for pushing natural systems beyond the boundaries of a stable climate. As we argued before, these key sectors have a higher trigger potential that any other sector to promote a fast and disruptive transition to revert the collapse of Earth system stability: sustainable food systems, carbon and fossil-free energy systems, and biosphere stewardship are the key trigger sectors for innovation policies that can be engines for spreading processes in social norms and values and guide a faster societal transformation. One field presenting a key and strategic opportunity for the trigger of social tipping dynamics is the food system. Food systems can inevitably contribute to more sustainable, resilient, inclusive and healthy socioecological and socio-economic systems. This is why they have been at the forefront of the United Nations’ SDGs and of the policy objectives for the EU Green Deal, its Farm-to-Fork Strategy, or the EU Food 2030 Research and Innovation Policy Framework (EC, 2020a). Food system policies need to be linked with multiple sectors including the primary production, food processing, retail and distribution, packaging, waste and recycling, catering services, and consumption. Research and innovation on food are crucial to stabilize the Earth system dynamics that are most affected by the way we produce, distribute and consume food (EAT–Lancet Commission, 2019). It calls for innovation efforts in different areas and across disciplines through interconnected policies to foster new business models, products and empowering communities (EC, 2020a). Cross-sectorial links for the innovation policy are strong with the agricultural and rural development policies, reinforcing the urban–rural interlinkages and therefore constituting the ideal stimulus conditions for disruptive innovation in regions, particularly in less developed ones. Another field of opportunity for a rapid change and the one more generally consensual (even since the arguments of Weinberg in the 1960s, stated above) is the energy system and to make it carbon free and fossil free. This can be attributed to the key role that energy production systems have in decarbonization processes. As Otto et al. (2020) argue, a condition still holding the adoption of fossil-fuel-free energy technologies are

84

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

the (small) financial returns that their production may bring comparatively with the production of energy from fossil fuels. However, this is a process already in motion with renewable energy prices decreasing over the last years and turning into one of the cheapest sources of energy in many regions (Otto et al., 2020). Nevertheless, despite these positive steps, the costs related with the adaptation of existing infrastructures and supply and demand support services to meet the requirements of renewable energy sources are still too high. The challenge is how will the costs of adapting energy infrastructures offset the costs of infringement (Otto et al., 2020). In this sense, the decentralization of the global energy production and storage systems to local power generation can provide crucial opportunities for a carbon free and fossil-free energy system, particularly for some European less developed regions. Also, strongly related with this sector and with innovation policies are both the buildings and construction (responsible for 20% of all carbon emissions globally) and the transport industries (responsible for almost a quarter of Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and the main cause of air pollution in cities) (COM, 2016), the two of them with a strong link to circular economy challenges. A third key field of action is the natural capital sector, namely the opportunities for preserving and restoring the regeneration of ecosystems, halting biodiversity decline and foster reforestation to avoid the real risk of ecosystems collapse. Earth’s ecosystems have played a central role in keeping our planet’s climate system stable throughout the last 11,700 years, through for instance carbon sequestration by vegetation, soils, and the oceans (Rockström et al., 2021). The Dasgupta’s Report on The Economics of Biodiversity (Dasgupta, 2021) clearly states that the open-access character of many ecosystem services and the fact that accounting prices are not echoed in market prices makes public policies extremely relevant. In particular, public financial flows through multiple mechanisms, incentive structures change on innovation policies and financial de-risking can increase the amount of private finance invested in natural assets. This can be achieved by reinforcing research and innovation and other economic incentives for more sustainable production or consumption patterns (SDG12), helping to reflect the social value of natural assets in market prices and generating revenue that can be used to support conservation and restoration initiatives (Dasgupta, 2021, p. 467). Dasgupta insists that simultaneously to public support, financial market innovations have also been growing to support private investments directly in natural assets and in their sustainable use (Dasgupta,

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

85

2021). This is vital to enable a deep system change in markets and in the economy, particularly for less “economically developed” regions that are also usually more “nature rich” regions. Innovation policies can be, therefore, at the centre of this typing dynamic. Finally, considering that these three trigger fields are fundamental to stimulate new conditions for rapid transformation, it is essential to refer to education as perhaps the most powerful tool to change societies, behaviours, and mentalities. As Dasgupta (2021, p. 485) put it, “to pursue a sustainable future will require a transformative change in our mode of thinking and acting”. There are various examples that can illustrate some of the opportunities for a sector with a long-term perspective such as the education system, that can provide social tipping dynamics room to promote strong and fast social changes. For example, some courses briefly include an analysis of climate change in schools or at universities (Plutzer et al., 2016), however, there is still a lack of more structured, extensive and deeper approach to education to these topics (Otto et al., 2020). As Dasgupta (2021, p. 495) notes “our increasing detachment from Nature has accompanied the increasing detachment from Nature of economic reasoning. There is every reason universities should require new students to attend a course on basic ecology”. For example, this lack of nature knowledge broker on the causes, impacts and solutions for climate change constituted one of the main barriers in the United Kingdom for the commitment to climate actions (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Ecological education can be a powerful tool to implement changes in the systems of norms and values, i.e. our cultural support. From an ethical point of view, keep consuming world’s resources and avoid meeting with climate agreements can be considered immoral and should carry a burden comprising all (Lenferna, 2018). Not only that, but more than often, climate change has an even more negative effect on the ones that are most fragile such as woman, children (Otto et al., 2020) or in the poorest countries and regions of the world. Culture, norms and values hold a great power and history has proven countless times how social values and norms strongly influence human behaviours (Nyborg, 2016). Considering the complexity of the challenges it is of particular importance to discuss the policy interventions, the key actors and the agency (particularly if we aim to avoid the capture of the mission agenda by existing powerful actors) to foster the pursuit of disruptive innovation

86

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

across sector boundaries (Larrue, 2021), which is the goal of the next section.

Policy Interventions, Actors and Agency for Disruptive Sustainability and Territorial Innovation The crucial trigger mechanisms in innovation policies able to promote disruptive changes require the participation of a large spectre of actors. Some may have a stronger agency to implement disruptive policies in the short-term than others, such as International Organizations, the EU Commission, national governments, large companies, central banks or financial supervisors (Otto et al., 2020). To complement the usual triple helix approach to innovation, where universities and Research and Technology Centres play a pivotal role jointly with the governmental and industrial institutions, a n-tuple helix of actors is now advanced for the capacity to innovate for a sustainability transition (see Chapter 6 of this book). One of the trigger interventions are legal actions. According to Magalhães et al. (2020), the international recognition of a stable climate on Earth as an intangible global common—a common heritage of humankind—could provide an innovation in the international legal system that would allow to give value to the work of nature without destroying it, and to account for the benefits made by each country or economic activity on the common heritage. Thus, this legal recognition would make possible to include the provision of a ‘stable climate’ in the economic assessment of each country, enabling each actor to be encouraged not only to avoid damages, but also and mainly, to produce benefits for the common good, that is a basic rule to allow for collective action (Magalhães et al., 2020). Dasgupta (2021) also argues for the need to disavow our individual rights over the use of the global commons and permitted supra-national institutions to enforce mutually beneficial patterns of use. With the EU supporting this international trigger legal mechanism, it would be possible to then account for cascade effects in emissions reduction, biosphere regeneration, income redistribution, nature-based financial system, fairness between peoples, and a better hope for next generations (Magalhães et al., 2020). This can only be enforced with

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

87

the agreement of high-level European institutions and national governments. A cascade effect would, nevertheless, impact innovation policies in Europe and all the actors of the n-tuple helix more broadly. It would certainly contribute for a different vision of territorial cohesion among the EU and support less developed regions to find different innovative development trajectories for the global common good (Dallaire-Fortier, 2019). History has demonstrated how a change in the financial system can also trigger abrupt changes in the world landscape as was the case of the 2008 financial crisis. As such, small disruptive changes in ‘sustainable’ financial investment or in perverse subsidies on resources such as coal, oil and gas (Dasgupta, 2021; Otto et al., 2020) can have a direct global and fast impact on reducing financial flows to activities that have identifiable adverse impacts on the biosphere. It may also generate investments in technologies or channel financial flows that could enhance natural assets directly (Dasgupta, 2021). Public finance (through fiscal instruments, such as taxes, fees and charges; payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets, blended finance, pooled funds, or other disruptive mechanisms) can influence the condition of natural assets and the sustainability of their use. The EU Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance is developing a taxonomy to help investors, companies, and project promoters to a transition to a low-carbon, resilient and resourceefficient economy (EC, 2020b). This common taxonomy describes the environmental impacts of the activities targeted by financial investments so that they are able to make a substantive contribution to one of the six objectives: (1) climate change mitigation; (2) climate change adaptation; (3) sustainable protection of water and marine resources; (4) transition to a circular economy; (5) pollution prevention and control; and (6) protection and restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems (EC, 2020b). Moreover, the engagement by financial institutions with businesses in relation to investment and encouragement in sustainable activities can influence business activities and processes (Kölbel et al., 2020). The role of banks and insurance companies is, therefore, crucial. A strong waterfall effect could be achieved if both banks and insurance companies warned investors of the risks associated with resorting to projects and assets based on fossil fuels for instance. Otto et al. (2020) note this concern is already noticeable in Europe where there are already cuts in the financial and insurance support for coal projects.

88

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

Lastly, considering the potential of institutions to create disruptive changes, they provide a fertile ground to implement policies that in turn can contribute to a drastic change towards sustainability (see Fig. 4.1). On the other hand, institutions are also the roots of our global collective failure to achieve sustainability (Dasgupta, 2021). Nevertheless, interesting examples of disruptive institutional innovation are staring to appear as the birth in 2019 of SPRIND, the Federal Agency for Disruptive Innovation in Germany (Larrue, 2021). In this sense, public institutions may play a crucial role in the reduction of power and information asymmetries since the various monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are fundamental for addressing complex, multidimensional and societal challenges (Larrue, 2021). Information asymmetries need to be drastically revaluated not on the current data gaps and asymmetries side, but on the need to consider and value different data systems. The need to change how innovation policies measure success constitutes a trigger for this disruption in information asymmetries: “Standard economic measures such as GDP can be deeply misleading. If the societal goal is to protect and promote well-being across the generations (i.e. ‘social well-being’), governments should measure inclusive wealth (societal means to those ends), meaning the sum of the accounting

Fig. 4.1 Summary of social tipping dynamics for disruptive innovation policies towards a stable climate scenario

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

89

values of produced capital, human capital and natural capital. The measure corresponds directly to well-being across the generations: if a change enhances social well-being, it raises inclusive wealth; if the change diminishes social well-being, it reduces inclusive wealth. Social well-being and inclusive wealth are not the same object, but they move in tandem. There lies the value of inclusive wealth in economic accounts”. (Dasgupta, 2021, p. 491) Innovative ideas are already taking place such as the Framework proposed by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the School of International Futures: the Framework for Intergenerational Fairness (SOIF, 2021). They propose a policy assessment toolkit that provides useful questions of intergenerational fairness in policy design and implementation. The change in the “what” to measure and the “how” to measure provides the ground for disruptive policy interventions that can promote faster impacts on inclusive wealth. The use of new digital technologies and ‘big data’ provide crucial opportunities to address the “how” questions and contribute to reduce problems, such as time lags, measurement inconsistency and data gaps, but they are not enough, per se, to transform smart and digital territories in sustainable ones. For the power asymmetries, transformations need deliberations between diverse sets of regime and niche actors. Ghosh et al. (2021) argue that niche actors are ‘visionaries’ and play a special role in destabilising dominant practices or regimes, experimenting and enabling change. They are less constrained by the regime rules that reinforce systemic inequality, injustice, and marginalization of actor groups (Ghosh et al., 2021). They propose to open up and unlock regimes, by “facilitating unlearning and deep learning among regime actors; creating linkages between niche and regime actors; and, facilitating processes to challenge individual and collective perceptions about landscape pressures of regime actors” (Ghosh et al., 2021, p. 743). Examples of these actors include young people or groups of people intellectually justice oriented (Otto et al., 2020). Peer groups, environmental organizations, opinion leaders and actors of the cultural dimension such as artists and media have also the social power to promote these changes. Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize the role of citizens through the actions they make for example as consumers and as users of many of the sectors described (Feola & Nunes, 2014) and also, of territorial-based actors such as regional and local governments, knowledge institutions, local and traditional enterprises and communities. Overall, all these actors can have an important

90

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

role in this societal change that seeks to quicken the transition towards sustainability in Europe (Otto et al., 2020). Emerging trade-offs of these policy interventions and actors’ agency have, nevertheless, to be intentionally addressed in disruptive innovation policies since they can have favourable consequences for a stable climate but also other unintended adverse side-effects in other sustainability areas (Herrero et al., 2021). Planning transition pathways and monitoring key indicators (what and how), with transparent science targets at the local level, must be part of the changing social process (Herrero et al., 2021).

Conclusions Although different innovation policies have been implemented at the EU level for the past years, they were not able to achieve an economic convergence across countries and regions nor to address some of the major societal problems as is climate change. This highlights the need for new policies capable of promoting effective changes towards a sustainable living and a stable climate scenario for next generations. The concept of social tipping dynamics, understood as small and nonlinear dynamics that can trigger disruptive and big system changes, is an opportunity to develop specific and targeted policies to generate changes in a faster way than path-dependency allows. This chapter exposed the pressing needs to debate the role of political disruptive interventions in European innovation policy. It identified key trigger areas of intervention for innovation policy, where these small disruptive changes can have a bigger impact in the whole system, namely the food system, the energy sector, the natural capital and, fundamentally, the education and cultural sector, as catalysts for change. The food sector is recognized as one of the most critical issue that can more quickly impact on a more sustainable society. The impact of promoting more resilient, environmental and inclusive food systems through interconnected policies is higher than in any other sector for sustainable territorial innovation, particularly in less developed regions. In the energy sector, on the other hand, new policies can contribute to speed-up the process of decarbonization and the adoption of fossil-fuel-free energy technologies. This will bring new opportunities for existing or new actors to decentralize and clean the energy sector. The natural capital sector allows for the existence of several innovative policies for the preservation and regeneration of ecosystems, as well as of instruments that include the condition of natural

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

91

assets and the sustainability of their use. This can boost a major transformation in the way society values and uses nature. All this will only be possible if there is a change in the way ecological education is promoted, by enduring a change in the system of norms and values, for humankind to internalize that ethically continuing not to comply with climate stability is morally reprehensible. As discussed in the chapter, some policy interventions and key actors can act as catalysts for disruptive changes. These policies can take place at a legal, financial, and institutional levels. In each one, different actors can play a more relevant role. Regarding legal actions, the international recognition of a stable climate on Earth as an intangible global common for Humankind can provide a legal innovation that would allow for a paradigm shift to occur regarding the way we attribute value to the work of nature without destroying it. This could be promoted through the agreement of high-level European institutions and national governments. Financial actions capable of catalysing major changes were also considered. For example, markets could penalize the use of assets based on the use of coal, oil or gas that can be perverse to the planet. This could have a quick impact on decreasing financial flows to activities that have identifiable adverse impacts on the biosphere. The role of actors such as banks and insurance companies is also crucial in this process. A strong waterfall effect could be achieved if both banks and insurance companies warned investors of the risks associated with resorting to projects and assets based on fossil fuels for instance. Finally, institutional innovation has a high potential for creating disruptive changes. Public institutions can strongly contribute to decrease power and information asymmetries between stakeholders. Information asymmetries need to be drastically revaluated from the point of view of what and how to value in a stable climate scenario such as providing clearer information to consumers for more assertive judgements on which products to consume. Examples of actors contributing to these institutional changes include peer groups, environmental organizations and opinion leaders, alongside with young people or groups of intellectually justice-oriented people. These social tipping dynamics can significantly spread through networks and between multiple actors, meaning they can potentially reinforce or complement one another, contributing to a quicker transition towards sustainability and constituting possible transformative routes across scales and regions (Otto et al., 2020). The discussed dynamics have room to be implemented in the world with distinct degrees, locations, and

92

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

scales; however, they share the common characteristic that all can strongly contribute to an abrupt transition towards climate stability. Acknowledgements This research was developed under the support of the Research Program “CeNTER - Community-led Territorial Innovation” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Portugal2020 (PT 2020). This work also had the support of national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., Project UIDB/05037/ 2020.

References Campello, M., Graham, J. R., & Harvey, C. R. (2010). The real effects of financial constraints: Evidence from a financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics, 97 (3), 470–487. Centola, D., Becker, J., Brackbill, D., & Baronchelli, A. (2018). Experimental evidence for tipping points in social convention. Science, 360(6393), 1116– 1119. COM. (2016). 501 final. A European Strategy for Low-Emission Mobility. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and The Committee of the Regions. Brussels. Dasgupta, P. (2021). The economics of biodiversity: The Dasgupta review. HM Treasury. Dallaire-Fortier, C. L. (2019). Doughnuts for transition: Regional divergence on the eve of a Green New Deal in the developed world. Paper presented at 25th Conference on Alternative Economic Policy in Europe, Paris, France. http://www2.euromemorandum.eu/uploads/dallaire_fortier_r egional_donuts_for_transition.pdf EAT–Lancet Commission. (2019). Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. The Lancet Commissions, 393(10170), 447–492. EC. European Commission (2020a). Food 2030 pathways for action: Research and innovation policy as a driver for sustainable, healthy and inclusive food systems. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/public ation-detail/-/publication/86e31158-2563-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1 EC. European Commission (2020b). Taxonomy: Final report of the Technical Expert Group on Sustainable Finance. EC Technical Expert Group on

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

93

Sustainable Finance. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/business_ economy_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200309-sustainable-fin ance-teg-final-report-taxonomy_en.pdf Eder, J. (2019). Innovation in the periphery: A critical survey and research agenda. International Regional Science Review, 42(2), 119–146. Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: Rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512. Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mission (im)possible? The role of innovation (and innovation policy) in supporting structural change & sustainability transitions (No. 20180216). Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo. Feola, G., & Nunes, R. (2014). Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition Movement. Global Environmental Change, 24, 232–250. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: Introducing politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21–40. Ghosh, B., Kivimaa, P., Ramirez, M., Schot, J., & Torrens, J. (2021). Transformative outcomes: Assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 739–756. Heard, B. P., Brook, B. W., Wigley, T. M., & Bradshaw, C. J. (2017). Burden of proof: A comprehensive review of the feasibility of 100% renewable-electricity systems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 76, 1122–1133. Herrero, M., Thornton, P., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Bodirsky, B., Pradhan, P., Barrett, C., Benton, T., Hall, A., Pikaar, I., Bogard, J., Bonnett, G., Bryan, B., Campbell, B., Christensen, S., Clark, M., Fanzo, J., Godde, C., Jarvis, A., … Rockström, J. (2021). Articulating the effect of food systems innovation on the Sustainable Development Goals. The Lancet Planetary Health., 5(1), e50–e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(20)30277-1 Kattel, R., & Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 787–801. Kern, F., Rogge, K. S., & Howlett, M. (2019). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103832. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Support? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions. Research Policy, 45, 205–217.

94

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

Kölbel, J. F., Heeb, F., Paetzold, F., & Busch, T. (2020). Can sustainable investing save the world? Reviewing the mechanisms of investor impact. Organization & Environment, 33(4), 554–574. Kroll, H. (2019). Eye to eye with the innovation paradox: Why smart specialization is no simple solution to policy design. European Planning Studies, 27 (5), 932–951. Kuzemko, C., Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C., & Hoggett, R. (2016). Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 96–105. Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing, Paris. Lehmann, S., & Ahn, Y. Y. (2018). Spreading in social systems: Reflections. In Complex Spreading Phenomena in Social Systems (pp. 351–358). Springer. Lenferna, G. A. (2018). Divestment as climate justice: Weighing the power of the fossil fuel divestment movement. In Climate Justice and the Economy (pp. 84– 109). Routledge. Lenton, T. (2016). Earth system science: A very short introduction (Vol. 464). Oxford University Press. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17 (3–4), 445–459. Magalhães, P., Barreira, A., Chácon, D., Espinosa M. F., James, E., Jiborn, M., Moreno Pires, S., Ponzio, R., Teixeira, I., & Steffen, W. (2020). Redefining global commons in the anthropocene. Solutions Journal, 11(4). https://www. thesolutionsjournal.com/article/redefining-global-commons-anthropocene/ McKinsey. (2021). COVID-19: Implications for business. Retrieved from: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/risk-and-resilience/our-ins ights/covid-19-implications-for-business) on 21-10-2021. Milkoreit, M., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J., Benessaiah, K., Calderón-Contreras, R., Donges, J. F., Mathias, J. D., Rocha, J. C., Schoon, M., & Werners, S. E. (2018). Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship— An interdisciplinary literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 033005. Muscio, A., Reid, A., & Rivera Leon, L. (2015). An empirical test of the regional innovation paradox: Can smart specialisation overcome the paradox in Central and Eastern Europe? Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(2), 153–171. Nyborg, K., Anderies, J. M., Dannenberg, A., Lindahl, T., Schill, C., Schlüter, M., Adger, W. N., Arrow, K. J., Barrett, S., Carpenter, S., Chapin III, F. S., & De Zeeuw, A. (2016). Social norms as solutions. Science, 354(6308), 42–43.

4

SOCIAL TIPPING DYNAMICS FOR DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION …

95

Otto, I. M., Donges, J. F., Cremades, R., Bhowmik, A., Hewitt, R. J., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Allerberger, F., McCaffrey, M., Doe, S., Lenferna, A., Morán, N., Vuuren, D., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (5), 2354–2365. Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2020). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: The quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1639–1666. Plutzer, E., McCaffrey, M., Hannah, A. L., Rosenau, J., Berbeco, M., & Reid, A. H. (2016). Climate confusion among US teachers. Science, 351(6274), 664–665. Polido, A., Pires, S. M., Rodrigues, C., & Teles, F. (2019). Sustainable development discourse in smart specialization strategies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118224. Ramos, T. B., Caeiro, S., Moreno Pires, S., & Videira, N. (2018). How are new sustainable development approaches responding to societal challenges? Sustainable Development, 26(2), 117–121. Rockström, J., Beringer, T., Hole, D., Griscom, B., Mascia, M., Folke, C., & Creutzig, F. (2021). Opinion: We need biosphere stewardship that protects carbon sinks and builds resilience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2115218118 Schleussner, C. F., Lissner, T. K., Fischer, E. M., Wohland, J., Perrette, M., Golly, A., Rogelj, J., Childers, K., Schewe, J., Frieler, K., Mengel, M., & Schaeffer, M. (2016). Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 C and 2 C. Earth System Dynamics, 7 (2), 327–351. Schreyögg, G., & Sydow, J. (2011). Organizational path dependence: A process view. Organization Studies, 32(3), 321–335. Sinn, H. W. (2017). Buffering volatility: A study on the limits of Germany’s energy revolution. European Economic Review, 99, 130–150. SOIF. School of International Futures. (2021). Framework for Intergenerational Fairness Policy Assessment Tool: How-to Guide. Framework for Intergenerational Fairness created by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and School of International Futures, www.soif.org.uk/igf; https://gulbenkian.pt/de-hojepara-amanha/ Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The great acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. Steffen, W., Crutzen, P. J., & McNeill, J. R. (2007). The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature?. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 36(8), 614–621. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S. E., Crucifix, M.,

96

S. M. PIRES AND P. SILVA

Donges, J. F., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. Sztompka, P. (2000). Cultural trauma: The other face of social change. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(4), 449–466. Tàbara, J. D., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Sustainability learning in natural resource use and management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 3. Teles, F. (2016). Local governance and intermunicipal cooperation. Springer. Tvinnereim, E., & Mehling, M. (2018). Carbon pricing and deep decarbonisation. Energy Policy, 121, 185–189. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., & Lin, D. (2017). Making the sustainable development goals consistent with sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5, 18. Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive “failures” framework. Research Policy, 41, 1037–1047. Weinberg, A. (1967). Reflections on big science. Press, Cambridge, MA.

CHAPTER 5

Digital Technologies and Mediation in the Context of Territorial Innovation Oksana Tymoshchuk , Maria João Antunes , Margarida Almeida , Luís Pedro , Fernando Ramos , Eliza Oliveira , and Daniel Carvalho

Introduction This paper presents a study of the processes that lead to the promotion of territorial-based innovation, emphasizing on the network and digital mediation strategies that can facilitate these processes. This study

O. Tymoshchuk (B) · M. J. Antunes · M. Almeida · L. Pedro · E. Oliveira · D. Carvalho DigiMedia, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Antunes e-mail: [email protected] M. Almeida e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_5

97

98

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

is part of a research work developed under the CeNTER1 Work package 3 program, aiming to deepen the knowledge about the role of digital media in promoting the dynamics of territorial innovation promoted by the communities, targeting the areas of Tourism and Health and Wellbeing. Work package 3 aims to: (i) investigate the role of networks and mediation strategies in territorial innovation, from a conceptual, social, and technological point of view; (ii) build knowledge about the role of networks and mediation in promoting useful scenarios of territorial innovation in the areas of Tourism and Health and Well-being; (iii) propose an analytical framework for defining strategies for establishing/strengthening networks and communication/mediation for territorial innovation in the Region Centro, taking into account the national/international state of the art; (iv) validate the framework by prototyping and validating a pilot mediation platform for territorial innovation. This work developed a framework to support the design of a digital platform for territorial innovation by executing several complementary steps: a systematic review and a narrative literature review; a mapping of the innovative initiatives of the Region Centro; a benchmarking of websites and social networks; interviews with leaders of four initiatives, as well as two focus groups attended by representatives of initiatives that stand out for their dynamism in the Region Centro. The developed framework assumes a modular structure organized based on local development agents (citizens, communities, regulatory bodies, and networks) and initiatives that promote innovation by realizing concrete activities, interconnected by mediation dynamics (sharing of information, communication, and hypermediation).

L. Pedro e-mail: [email protected] E. Oliveira e-mail: [email protected] D. Carvalho e-mail: [email protected] F. Ramos University Portucalense Infante D. Henrique, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] 1 http://center.web.ua.pt/?page_id=9381&lang=en.

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

99

Role of Digital Media and Hypermediation in the Territorial-Based Innovation Process The rapid development of digital media can offer local communities’ different tools for communication, storage, information distribution, knowledge, and resource sharing. Thus, facilitating collaborative product/service development processes, enhancing endogenous resources, promoting different skills and capabilities, associated with a specific territory (Komninos, 2008). In turn, the creation and strengthening of communities and local networks can be driven through the digital mediation/hypermedia process to provide local communities with new possibilities for communication, participation, and collaboration between the actors involved in community-led territorial innovation processes (Getto et al., 2011). In this way, digital media and mediation/hypermediation can increase local communities’ empowerment, promote involvement with the territory, respect the various nuances of local cultural identity, and reinforce differentiation between territories (Encalada et al., 2017). It should be noted that digital mediation is a form of computermediated communication (Castells, 2007). It consists of ensuring the correspondence between author/producer information resources and user/consumer needs, allowing to select and provide information useful and relevant to the user who seeks it (Ribeiro, 2010). In this study, we assume hypermediation as a concept that best expresses the degree of complexity inherent in designing a digital community mediation tool. According to Scolari (2008), when we talk about hypermediation, we are not merely referring to a more significant number of media and actors. The author states that hypermediation is a complex network of production, exchange, and consumption of processes in an environment characterized by countless social actors, digital media, and technological languages (Scolari, 2015). In this context, the understanding of how interaction, articulation, and leadership processes occur within communities, as well as the construction and diffusion of knowledge and innovations, are fundamental for the development of digital solutions aimed at territorial-based innovation projects. As several authors report, it is of utmost relevance to developing digital solutions based on community practices (Getto et al., 2011; Tymoshchuk et al., 2019a; Wenger & Smith, 2009), so that they can maintain and feed community mediation processes, connecting people

100

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

and benefiting the daily activities of communities (Tymoshchuk et al., 2019b).

Methodological Procedures The study presented sought to investigate and analyze the dynamics of civic involvement of the population, to establish the conceptual framework to support the design of strategies that promote the use of digital media as a mediation tool that stimulates territorial innovation, having the Center of Portugal as a context of study and intervention. The study resorted to a mixed and structured research methodology to achieve the objectives outlined, which involved several complementary steps, as shown in Fig. 5.1. The use of multiple sources of evidence and data allowed us, on the one hand, to investigate the different perspectives under study and, on the other hand, to obtain various measures of the same phenomenon, creating conditions for their triangulation during the analysis phase. Systematic Literature Review In the first phase, a systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted to provide an overview of studies reporting digital technology use to promote community-led territorial innovation initiatives. We searched scientific articles published in full text and indexed in the

Fig. 5.1 Project implementation roadmap

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

101

Scopus database, from 2015 to the research date (April 2018), in four languages: English, Portuguese, Spanish, and French. As a result of the intersections of the following keywords, “community”, “mediation”, “innovation”, “digital technologies”, and “network”, 1312 articles were identified. After a first reading of the abstracts of these articles, 78 articles were selected based on the defined inclusion criteria: (i) the article reports an initiative led by a community; (ii) the initiative arose within a community; (iii) the initiative is leveraged in a territorial resource; (iv) the initiative promotes an innovative product or service. Thus, in the end, six articles were selected that present relevant scientific and reflective evidence for the study (Silva et al., 2019a). The studies’ analysis led to the conclusion that community-led initiatives use various digital media and tools, from blogs to online repositories and social networks. A concern and preference for tools and services that are open to the public and made generally available were also identified. The systematic review found that very few studies report how digital technologies are used to promote community-led territorial innovation initiatives (Silva et al., 2019a). Narrative Literature Review In parallel, a narrative review of the 78 selected articles was developed, which allowed the research team to find concepts commonly adopted by the main articles published in Scopus, which are fundamental for developing the next stages of the investigation (Renó et al., 2021, forthcoming). In this research, the terms “measurement”, and “networks” within the digital society were highlighted, as well as “community”, “community-led initiatives”, and “territorial-based innovation”. The synthesis of the data collected through the review of narrative literature allowed us to detail the project’s theoretical structure, and the most important variables to be included in developing digital solutions aimed at promoting community-led initiatives. Mapping of Center Region Innovative Initiatives In the second stage, mapping and sampling innovative practices specific to the Central Portugal Region were carried out, focusing on Tourism, Health and Well-being. The following inclusion criteria were considered for case selection: (i) be an innovative product or service; (ii) use

102

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

an endogenous resource of the territory; (iii) involve the community; (iv) have three or more years of existence; (v) be based on replicable model/dynamics; (vi) have an impact on the territory; vii) being developed in the Centro Region of Portugal; viii) promote Tourism and Health and Well-being. Exclusion criteria were being an individual project/initiative and no total or partial data available on the initiative. In this phase, 68 community-led initiatives were mapped and characterized, which contribute to the dynamization of innovation in the Centro Region of Portugal and develop their activity in the areas of Tourism, Health and Well-being (Tymoshchuk et al., 2019c). This step made it possible to gather best practices and lessons from specific cases, comparing situations, and contributing to a multifaceted knowledge about the different community-led initiatives in the Central Region. Networks Benchmarking Based on the mapping performed, it was considered necessary to benchmark the networks of a set of case studies in the Central Portugal Region (Tymoshchuk et al., 2019b). Then, a sample of ten initiatives was selected to benchmark networks, having as inclusion criteria: (i) different types of online presence (with/without an institutional website, pages in various social networks, applications) and (ii) different innovation models (top-down, bottom-up, or R&D projects). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the dynamics developed by these initiatives was carried out on Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter pages within the study’s scope. This analysis covered three dimensions: (i) reach: number of followers; authorship of publications; (ii) interaction: frequency of publications; the number of likes, comments, and shares; (iii) content: content that encouraged greater user engagement; most used word clouds. To ensure a sound basis for quantitative analysis, SentiMonitor,2 an online social network monitoring tool, was used. The analysis of the obtained results contributes to an analytical view of social network management practices for the dynamization of territorial

2 https://www.sentimonitor.com/

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

103

innovation projects, extracting the main moderation strategies and motivating factors for these initiatives’ participation (Martínez-Rolán et al., 2019; Renó et al., 2021; Tymoshchuk et al., 2019b, forthcoming). Website and Application Benchmarking The benchmarking of websites and applications, which belong to community-led initiatives, aimed to build a broader view of the different types of online presence and digital mediation strategies that entities/communities use in promoting their initiatives. This analysis covered seven dimensions: (i) basic elements, (ii) user interface, (iii) informative content, (iv) multimedia, (v) interaction and collaboration, (vi) portability, and (vii) gamification strategies. The analysis of the results obtained confirmed the importance of applications and websites for developing regional initiatives and promoting community-led innovation dynamics (Renó et al., 2019). Interviews with Local Community/entity Leaders To know in-depth the community-led innovative good practices of the Central Portugal Region and to understand the role digital technologies are playing in territorial innovation, interviews were conducted with facilitators from four local communities/entities. The semi-structured interview guide was organized into three main dimensions, which were broken down into several indicators: (i) organization—addresses the organizational aspects of the community, such as structure, leadership, the definition of strategic objectives, flexibility, and proactivity of the community network (Bortolaso et al., 2013; Davis, 1989); (ii) mediation dynamics—aims to ascertain the community mediation dynamics and mediation strategies used to promote collaboration, cooperation, interaction, and relationships among members (Davis, 1989; Graells, 2000; Verschoore & Balestrin, 2008); (iii) role of digital technologies—examines the technologies that the community uses to identify the tools, resources, and platforms used, as well as the willingness and competencies of participants to use digital technologies (Lucas & Moreira, 2016; Parasuraman & Colby, 2015; Wenger, White & Smith, 2009). This study contributed to an analytical view on social network management practices, allowing to draw recommendations for the significant

104

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

consolidation of strategies to promote local communities’ initiative and entrepreneurship, and the economic valorization of endogenous resources (Renó et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2018; Tymoshchuk et al., 2019a). Focus Groups The first objective of two focus groups was to identify the leaders of the different community-led initiatives in the Central Region on the different possibilities for implementing the concept of “territorial-based digital innovation support platform”. Another objective was to identify the attributes and features that a future digital solution should address to better support these initiatives in effectively conducting their work. On October 19, 2018, the first focus group was attended by seven representatives of six small local initiatives in the Central Region. The second focus group was held on January 18, 2019 and was attended by six network initiatives representatives of Portugal Central Region. The analysis of the results allowed the research team to better understand how digital media are being used by the initiatives and comprise local actors’ perspectives regarding the role these technologies can play in territorial-based innovation. The representatives of the community initiatives mentioned the importance of the platform’s mediation functionalities, namely: (i) the intermediary action with the communities, the mapping of needs and resources; (ii) the characterization of target audiences; (iii) the visibility of their activities; (iv) fundraising and volunteers; (v) the encouragement of joint projects and articulation with other platforms (Silva et al., 2019b; Silva et al., 2020).

Discussion of Results The analysis of the data collected at various stages of the project provided the creation of a comprehensive overview of the organization, dynamization, and mediation of community-led initiatives in the Central Portugal Region. It was evident that the vast majority of initiatives involved in the territorial-based innovation process are carried out by non-profit organizations, supported by local populations’ voluntary participation. Note that a community-led initiative is not a static structure: its organization changes over time due to various factors, such as the arrival/loss of participants or outside forces.

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

105

The results obtained from the methodological procedures described above demonstrate that for the proper functioning of these initiatives, the promotion of relationships based on transparency, trust, and mutual respect is important, allowing members and participants to feel involved in the organization, believe and identify with its purposes. From the analysis of the results of this study, it can be concluded that for a community-led initiative to become a sustainable and prosperous organization, it is essential to apply mediation strategies that promote: (i) interpersonal and friendship relations between participants, as well as empathy-building in various dimensions; (ii) an interpersonal trust to have people in tune, involved and committed; (iii) respect for human resources and appreciation of individual differences; (iv) valuing volunteer work, whose diversity and involvement should be fostered; (v) coherence between words and actions, which allows the construction of relationships based on the assumptions of trust, candor, and transparency (Silva et al., 2018). Therefore, for a good functioning of these initiatives, it is fundamental to the existence of a constant mediation, which favors the development of community and adaptation to the needs and expectations of the participants, promoting the involvement, dedication, availability, trust, and the spirit of change to the innovation process. In this context, digital mediation needs to play the role of an “invisible hand”, an integral and interactive element of the organizational system, which facilitates interaction and enables the aggregation of information and communication management appropriate to the needs and participants’ interests. As already mentioned, it is essential to understand the initiative’s dynamics for the definition of digital mediation or hypermediation strategies of community-led initiatives. Namely, the initiative promotes interaction, relationship, and internal cohesion of the community, collaboration, and shared knowledge building and joint problem-solving cooperation. The study made it possible to identify the following dynamics/ activities, promoted by the community-led initiatives, which promote the creation of synergies between the participants and the development of the community itself: (i) promotion of different activities that have meaning for the territory and involve the inhabitants local; (ii) promotion of emerging projects to contribute to the sustainable development of the Region; (iii) reporting and sharing of experiences and good practices among participants and partners, with a view to their replication in their

106

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

activities; (iv) promotion of creative brainstorming sessions involving partners, regular meetings, and training moments; (v) holding previous briefings with participants and partners about the activities being developed so that everyone is well informed; (vi) conducting moments of reflection and self-assessment of activities; (vii) development of training and briefing sessions to improve the team and volunteer skills; (viii) creation of networks and partnerships involving local inhabitants/communities and other territorial development agents; (ix) collaboration with universities and local public entities; (x) creation of moments of international networking and/or exchanges with other initiatives. The study results attest that the initiatives’ commitment to promoting engaging and relevant activities for the local communities is essential to capture the participants’ interest and promote the impact of the territory development initiatives. Strategies to encourage participants to increase their proactivity and take responsibility for promoting activities, enable sharing ideas and fostering the collaboration of participants in their implementation. Regarding the role of digital technologies, it was noted that community-led initiatives value: (i) the use of digital technologies and online platforms to facilitate communication and collaboration among participants; (ii) the development of technological solutions (websites and apps) to improve their online presence; (iii) the use of digital technology as a strategy not only for communication, but also for promoting the digital inclusion of citizens, who sometimes need to be encouraged, either through informal support or through training, to use the digital technologies. The data collected in this study report that communities/entities operating in rural areas still face several challenges, namely, the effective use of digital technologies. These challenges are related to the fact that senior local participants have difficulties accessing the Internet, low level of digital skills, and technological equipment (Renó et al., 2018). In short, this study allowed for an in-depth data collection on how community-led initiatives are developed and structured, their values and objectives, what dynamics they promote, and what mediation strategies they use. Understanding and considering these factors is crucial for developing technology solutions and the definition of digital mediation mechanisms targeted at community-led initiatives.

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

107

Framework for Digital Mediation Strategies Territorial-based innovation is a continuous and coordinated learning process that requires interaction of various actors-agents, selective information acquisition, and network building (Castro et al., 2008). Thus, in designing strategies for digital mediation, or hypermediation, it is crucial to understand that we are facing a process of territorial development, carried out in the local communities’ contexts of practice. Consolidating these strategies for the promotion of community-led initiatives is a huge challenge, as it involves initiatives that act in various areas (tourism, health, culture, social action, etc.), with various types of organizational structure (associations, federations, movements, etc.). These initiatives may have different levels of development (idea generation, germination, or development). Also, for the territorial-based innovation process, the active involvement of different local actors (citizens, communities, networks, etc.) in various activities is vital. These processes can be accompanied by the creation of partnerships with local private sector institutions and public entities to identify local problems and promote joint problem-solving activities (Hespanha, 2008). These activities are carried out by agents, who can be characterized as stakeholders in territorial development (e.g., citizens, communities, networks, and regulators) who can unite for a mission or objective in creating community-led initiatives. Thus, the creation and development of community-led initiatives promote the building of partnerships between local actors, resource mobilization, and the definition of development paths in the Region (Tymoshchuk et al., 2019c). From this approach, a new reading of the digital mediation process is proposed as a means for valuing intentional change and promoting innovation processes in local communities. In this sense, the developed reference framework (Fig. 5.2) presents a modular structure organized, not only based on local development agents (citizens, communities, normative entities, and networks). The initiatives promote innovation through the realization of concrete activities, interconnected through mediation dynamics (information sharing, communication, and hypermediation). In this framework, activities can be very diverse, from a community dinner to a tree planting action to a networking event. The synthesis of all the information obtained in this study allowed us to define three main functionalities, that hypermediation can assume in the process of promoting territorial-based innovation: information

108

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

Fig. 5.2 Framework for networking and mediation strategies in territorial innovation

sharing, which facilitates the recording and sharing of data between participants, partners, and the general public, enabling the visibility of initiatives and activities to be enhanced and the building of their “brand”; communication, which promotes processes of interaction, cooperation, and collaboration, allowing each initiative to guide its activities toward the execution of its objectives and the growth of the entity/community itself; hypermediation of innovation processes, which stimulate the creation, evolution, and implementation of innovative ideas and the promotion of networks that benefit the civic involvement of populations in processes of territorial development (Tymoshchuk et al., 2021, forthcoming). Based on this framework, it is intended to create a hypermediation mechanism that will support a digital platform’s design. This platform will allow to local development agents, the capitalization of information, communication, and mediation of community-led initiatives. Note that it is of utmost importance that this digital tool has meaning for the community and that its use can emerge from people’s practices, linking activities and community structures (Getto et al., 2011).

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

109

Conclusion This study presents a proposal for a structural and conceptual framework, which plays a fundamental role in the platform’s conceptualization, whose primary focus is on promoting territorial development actions and the consolidation of community-led initiatives and networks. In this framework, hypermediation is considered a complementary mechanism that can fill communication and interaction gaps identified among the main actors of territorial innovation processes, make initiatives more open, and stimulate citizen involvement and participation active in activities that promote the territory’s development. In this way, it can strengthen the catalytic role of the developing platform by enabling it to be a tool for encouraging internal and external interactions, facilitating communication and collaboration processes, benefiting existing mediation strategies, and stimulating the joint creation of new ideas/activities (Renó et al., 2019). In this context, the critical role that digital media can play in promoting new planning and management mechanisms for a sustainable future of the territory is revealed, based on the local community’s potential and the enhancement of endogenous local resources. Acknowledgements This research was developed under the support of the Research Program “CeNTER - Community-led Territorial Innovation” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Portugal2020 (PT 2020).

References Bortolaso, I., Verschoore, J., & Antunes, J. (2013). Práticas de gestão de redes de cooperação horizontais: Proposição de um modelo deanálise. Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança, 16(3), 3–16. Castells, M. (2007). A sociedade em rede (Vol. 1). Paz e Terra. Castro, E., Marques, T., & Santinha, G. (2008). Cidades Inteligentes, Governação Territorial e Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação. Série Política de Cidades–2. POLIS XXI, DGOTDU, Lisboa. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–341.

110

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

Encalada, L., Boavida-Portugal, I., Cardoso Ferreira, C., & Rocha, J. (2017). Identifying tourist places of interest based on digital imprints: Towards a sustainable smart city. Sustainability, 9(12), 2317. Getto, G., Cushman, E., & Ghosh, S. (2011). Community mediation: Writing in communities and enabling connections through new media. Computers and Composition, 28(2), 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2011. 04.006 Graells, P. M. (2000). Los medios didácticos. Departamiento de Pedagogia Aplicada, Facultad Educación, UAB. Hespanha, P. (2008). Políticas Sociais: novas abordagens, novos desafios. https:// eg.uc.pt/handle/10316/10865 Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalisation of innovation networks. Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge. Lucas, M., & Moreira, A. (2016). DIGCOMP–Proposta de um quadro de referência europeu para o desenvolvimento e compreensão da competência digital. UA Editora. https://www.ua.pt/file/44142 Martínez-Rolán, X., Tymoshchuk, O., Piñero-Otero, T., & Renó, D. (2019). Instagram como red de promoción e hipermediación del turismo rural: el caso de Aldeias Históricas. Revista Latina de Comunicacion Social, 74, 1610–1632. http://www.revistalatinacs.org/074paper/1401/84es.html Parasuraman, A., & Colby, C. (2015). An updated and streamlined technology readiness index: TRI 2.0. Journal of service research,18(1), 59–74. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1094670514539730 Renó, D., Silva, P. A., Almeida, A. M., Ramos, F., Pedro, L., Antunes, M.J., & Tymoshchuk, O. (2019). Conceção de uma plataforma de mediação digital para a Região Centro. Proceeding of conference APDR 2019 (pp. 1194–1199). http://apdr.pt/data/documents/ATAS_APDRcongress2019.pdf Renó, D., Tymoshchuk, O., & Silva, P. (2018). Redes, comunidades e cultura digital: A inovação pela desconexão. Chasqui, Revista Latinoamericana De Comunicacion, 137 , 189–205. Renó, D., Tymoshchuk, O., Almeida, A. M., Pedro, L., Ramos, F., & Silva, P. (2021, forthcoming) Las humanidades digitales y la conexión con las raíces culturales a través de la iniciativa portuguesa Aldeias do Xisto. La trama de la Comunicación, 25(1). Ribeiro, F. (2010). Da mediação passiva a mediação pos-custodial: O papel da ciência da informação na sociedade em rede. Informação e Sociedade, 20(1), 63–70. Scolari, C. (2008). Hipermediaciones–Elementos para una teoría de la comunicación digital interactiva. Gedisa. Scolari, C. (2015). From (new)media to (hyper)mediations. Recovering Jesu s Martín-Barbero’s mediation theory in the age of digital communication and

5

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES AND MEDIATION …

111

cultural convergence. Information, Communication & Society, 18(9), 1092– 1107. Silva, P. A., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., & Ramos, F. (2019a). Understanding the role of communication and mediation strategies in community-led territorial innovation: A systematic review. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) Journal (IxD&A), 44(7). Silva, P. A., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., Renó, D., & Ramos, F. (2019b, November 21–22). Involving communities in shaping digital solutions for innovation in societies and territories. In ICGI’2019b – International Conference on Graphics and Interaction (pp. 145– 152). Faro, Portugal, 2019b. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGI47575.2019. 8955087 Silva, P. A., Tymoshchuk, O., Renó, D., Almeida, A. M., Pedro, L., & Ramos, F. (2018). Unravelling the role of ICT in regional innovation networks: A case study of the music festival ‘Bons Sons’. Conference on Smart Learning Ecosystems and Regional Development (pp. 47–61). Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-92022-1_5 Silva, P. A., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., & Ramos, F. (2020). Barriers and incentives to territory-based innovation processes: from technology to interaction among actors. Handbook of Research on Cultural Heritage and Its Impact on Territory Innovation and Development. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6701-2 Tymoshchuk, O., Reno, D., Silva, P. A., Almeida, A. M., Pedro, L., & Ramos, F (2019a). O papel das tecnologias digitais no desenvolvimento das comunidades rurais: o estudo de caso múltiplo de “BioLiving” e “Bons Sons”. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais (RPER), 3(52), 131–144. http:// www.apdr.pt/siteRPER/numeros/RPER52/52.8.pdf Tymoshchuk, O., Renó, D., Silva, P. A., Almeida, A. M., Pedro, L., & Ramos, F. (2019b). Mediação digital para a inovação territorial: um estudo de caso múltiplo em redes sociais digitais. OBS* Observatorio, 13(4), 70–88. https:// doi.org/10.15847/obsOBS13420191435 Tymoshchuk, O., Renó, D., Silva, P. A., Almeida, A.M., Antunes, M. J., Pedro, L. & Ramos, F. (2019c). Construção de um quadro de referência para a conceção de estratégias de mediação digital em Inovação de base territorial. Proceeding de conferência APDR 2019c (pp. 1007–1016). http://apdr.pt/ data/documents/ATAS_APDRcongress2019.pdf Tymoshchuk O., Oliveira, E., Carvalho, D., Antunes, M. J., Almeida, A. M, Pedro, L., & Ramos, F. (2021, forthcoming). Digital technologies as tools to promote tourism and territorial development: Design of mobile application for community-led initiatives. Impact of New Media in Tourism. IGI Global.https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7095-1

112

O. TYMOSHCHUK ET AL.

Verschoore, J., & Balestrin, A. (2008). Ganhos competitivos das empresas em redes de cooperação. Revista De Administração Eletrônica, 1(1), 1–21. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. CPsquare.

CHAPTER 6

Towards an Integrated Conceptual Framework for Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions: The Sustainable Regions’ Approach Pedro Silva, Sara Moreno Pires, Alexandra Polido, Carlos Rodrigues, and Filipe Teles

Introduction The slowdown of the post-war economic growth has shown the limitations of the standardized mass production philosophy, contributing to an increase of interest in the processes of innovation (Kline & Rosenberg, 1986). Having to deal with the decline in the traditional industries and the increased cost-based competition from developing countries, governments in more advanced countries took action and developed several programs to stimulate innovation (OECD, 2009). This

P. Silva (B) · S. M. Pires CeBER, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] S. M. Pires e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_6

113

114

P. SILVA ET AL.

brought back Schumpeter’s arguments on the role of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs “to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or […] producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on” (Schumpeter, 1976, p. 132). As a result, research on innovation significantly increased from the 1980s onwards. The early focus was on firm-level drivers of innovation.1 However, it quickly became clear that response mechanisms and interactions occur, and that market-driven firm innovations should be understood alongside with its local environment (Malecki, 1997). At the same time, a new movement began focusing on the local milieu and on institutions and culture as drivers of economic development (Maillat et al., 1993), creating an overlap between the fields of economic geography (context-level factors) and innovation (firm-level factors) (Morgan, 2007). Seeking to improve regional competitiveness, concepts such as Crevoisier’s (2001) innovative milieu and Cooke’s (1992) regional innovation systems built on the notion that a firm’s ability to innovate is (also) influenced by the local culture, institutions and market (Shearmur, 2011). Since then, these concepts and models of territorial innovation have been a source of inspiration for local and regional development related public policies (OECD, 2009).

S. M. Pires · A. Polido · C. Rodrigues · F. Teles GOVCOPP (Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies), Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] C. Rodrigues e-mail: [email protected] F. Teles e-mail: [email protected] 1 Innovation was considered one of the primary means for firms to compete against others in markets and meet customers’ needs and demands (Von Hippel, 1988).

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

115

Discussion began to emerge when associating regional innovation models to less developed regions2 (LDRs), since these regions were considered less innovative or unable to innovate (Breau et al., 2014) due to their local socioeconomic and institutional factors (RodríguezPose & Wilkie, 2019). One of the main challenges for these regions was to develop policies and strategies to overcome their long-term economic development gap and reach a convergence with more prosperous regions (European Commission, 2017). Presently, in an era of grand societal and environmental challenges, additional challenges can be accrued due to the need for deeper transformations (Sachs et al., 2019) through new emerging innovation-led policies integrating sustainability issues (Boons et al., 2013; Mazzucato, 2018). At a global level, the international community agreed on an “Agenda for Sustainable Development” until 2030 (United Nations, 2015) which needs to be implemented through country-specific agendas and mechanisms (Colglazier, 2015). At the European Union (EU) level, there is an ambition to lead the sustainable development ‘race’, with the EU claiming that ‘sustainable development’ is being integrated in overarching policies and projects (Pollex & Lenschow, 2018). Recently, and with the purpose of ‘leaving no one behind’, the European Green Deal was put forward aiming at resetting “the Commission’s commitment to tackling climate and environmental-related challenges that is this generation’s defining task” (European Commission, 2019, p. 2) and also at implementing “the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda and the sustainable development goals ” (European Commission, 2019). Nonetheless, the Cohesion Policy through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) is still paramount to tackle economic, social and territorial challenges by reducing disparities between the various regions through regional innovation systems (European Commission, 2016; Rinkinen et al., 2016). Therefore, more ambitious goals for transitioning to sustainability should be integrated into innovation-driven models for regional development, particularly in LDRs, where economic competitiveness and convergence are still the leading aims. Smart Specialization Strategies for Sustainability (S4) are now being set by the EU (2021–2027) to accelerate this transformative change (Marinelli, 2021). The local–global 2 The definition of a LDR is not consensual as it can be based on geographical, economic or population density criteria (Eder, 2019); Eurostat (2020) defines LDRs as regions where the growth domestic product per capita is less than 75% of the EU average.

116

P. SILVA ET AL.

relationship regarding a sustainable development of these regions in the EU needs to be more deeply addressed in the proposed innovation models. Set against this background, the objective of this chapter is to review the literature on territorial innovation models and concepts, particularly on LDRs to propose a new integrated territorial innovation framework for more sustainable regions, meaning regions that promote the continuous “support of human quality of life within a region’s ecological carrying capacity” (Wackernagel & Yount, 1998, p. 511) and within the global planetary boundaries (Steffen et al., 2018). The chapter is structured as follows. After this introduction, the next section presents a historical overview of the main literature on territorial innovation models (TIMs). Then, drawing on TIMs lessons for territorial innovation in LDRs, a new conceptual framework to address local–global innovation challenges is proposed as a model for a faster transition to sustainable regions. The chapter concludes with a summary of the main ideas on the topic.

A Historical Overview on Territorial Innovation Models and Concepts This section reviews the main models and concepts that sought to conceptualize a territorial approach to innovation processes. Stated simply, these models represent the conceptualizations of the territorial dynamics of most successful regional innovation practices. The literature on innovation lists several means as whereby firms acquire information, knowledge and other inputs to innovate. These inputs are not necessarily fully driven by regional factors, but can be partially driven by them (Shearmur, 2011). It is plausible to accept that aside from firm-level determinants of innovation (e.g. firm size, age, ownership structure, performance, investment in research and development (R&D), absorptive capacity, etc.), and market-level factors (e.g. market structure, sector of activity, industry concentration, etc.), the proximity to other actors and institutions may, through various mechanisms, create the conditions to foster innovation (Becheikh et al., 2006; Shearmur, 2011). Each TIM can be understood as a particular mechanism that is enabled in its regional context (Shearmur, 2011). As such, these processes of conceptualizing regional development vary not only through time, but also, through space (Shearmur et al., 2007).

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

117

Moulaert and Sekia (2003) identify three families of TIMs. The first family includes the innovative milieu and the industrial district—which place a strong emphasis on local institutional endogeneity. The second family is based on the systems of innovation literature and the translation of the institutional coordination principles of the sectoral and national innovation systems towards the regional level of development (Edquist, 1997), or the evolutionist interpretation of the regional learning economy (Cooke, 1996; Cooke & Morgan, 1998). Finally, the third family of TIMs is based on the Californian school of economic geography, including the new industrial spaces (Saxenian, 1994; Storper & Scott, 1988). As noted by Moulaert and Sekia (2003), these various concepts are simultaneously related as they stress mechanisms through which regions create conditions to foster innovation and promote economic development: . Innovative milieu: Emphasizes the local culture, traditions and trust, which in turn contributes to knowledge exchange and collaboration between firms; . Regional innovation systems: They focus on local institutions and culture (Cooke et al., 2004); . Industrial districts: Based on Marshall’s (1890)3 conceptualization, they highlight the customer–supplier relationships within specific sectors, the division of labour and of shared labour markets (Piore & Sabel, 1984); . Learning regions: Based on Morgan’s (2007) discussion, they focus on regional capacities to take advantage of building a collective learning capacity in a bottom-up and interactive way, linking local, national and supranational knowledge and highlighting the role of institutional capacity, research institutions and qualified labour (Florida, 1995); . Regional clusters: They are based on the notion of regional competitive advantage built locally by a strategic specialization, inter-firm collaboration and competition, and by support policies favouring this specialization (Porter, 2003).

3 See Belussi and Caldari (2009) for a detailed explanation on the evolution of the Marshallian industrial district concept.

118

P. SILVA ET AL.

These TIMs share some concepts. For example, all models emphasize the importance of a strategic vision for territorial development based on learning and knowledge. Moreover, they all underline the power to fostering innovation and territorial development on organizational arrangements and networks among the various actors, as well as the role of each actor (from policymakers, governments, R&D institutions to private firms) in knowledge transfer and diffusion. Finally, they all show how relational capital (based on relational cooperation) is shaped by collective actions and the difficulty of transferring and/or replicating it in other territorial contexts. However, these TIMs also hold some key differences between them. A striking one relates to the various understandings of a supportive culture for innovation. For example, the ‘innovative milieu’ and the ‘industrial district’ approaches considers trust and reciprocity as culture anchors, while in ‘regional innovation systems’ the source is learn by doing and in the ‘learning region’ the networking and social interaction (with a strong focus on the interaction between economic and social and cultural life) (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003). Another difference is the lack of agreement on the relationship between innovation and space, as there is a low conceptual clarity on the various spatial concepts (Shearmur, 2011) (see Table 6.1). Regarding TIMs’ limitations, while the literature values local relationships, it somehow disregards the role of external relationships which constitute a relevant factor to access (existing or new) knowledge in a globalized world. This is a topic of strategic importance for the particular case of LDRs. Finally, an important shortcoming and a relevant argument for this chapter is that no TIM explicitly identifies the goals of innovation beyond the “shared purpose of the development of a new technology and its implementation” (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003, p. 295). Most models establish, in a narrow way, the main goal of innovation to be the improvement of a competitive economic position, but do not include the improvement of the non-market or non-economic dimensions of quality of life in local communities, or the long-term environmental sustainability of territories. This represents a critique on a limited view of territorial development as it is restricted, almost exclusively, to its economic dimensions (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003). Furthermore, recent commitments of the EU mission-oriented innovation policy, calling for transformative innovations and systemic transitions towards an urgent environmental sustainability and the need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), have brought to the front calls for regions to include non-technological-driven

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

119

Table 6.1 Views of innovation in territorial innovation models Model Features of innovation Core of innovation dynamics

Innovative milieu (IM)

Industrial district (ID)

Regional innovation systems (RIS)

New industrial spaces

Capacity of firms to innovate through the relationships with other agents of the same milieu Very important role of institutions in the research process (university, firms, public agencies, etc.)

Capacity of actors to implement innovation in a system of common values

Innovation as an interactive, cumulative and specific process of research and development (path dependency)

A result of R&D and its implementation; application of new production methods (justin-time, etc.)

Same as for industrial district

As for regional innovation systems but stressing coevolution of technology and institutions

Institutions are ‘agents’ and enabling social regulation, fostering innovation and development

Social regulation for the coordination of inter-firm transactions and the dynamics of entrepreneurial activity

Same as for industrial district, but with focus on role of governance

As in regional innovation systems but with a stronger focus on role of institutions

Regional development

Territorial view based on milieu innovateurs and on agent’s capacity of innovating in a cooperative atmosphere

Territorial view based on spatial solidarity and flexibility of districts; this flexibility is an element of this innovation

As in the national systems of innovation, the definitions vary according to authors, but they all agree that the institutions lead to a regulation of behaviour, both inside and outside organizations View of the region as a system of ‘learning by interacting/ and by steering regulation’

Interaction between social regulation and agglomerated production systems

Culture

Culture of trust and reciprocity links

Sharing values among ID agents; trust and reciprocity

The source of learning by interacting

Culture of networking and social interaction

Diffuse industrialization, i.e. socioeconomic development based on an evolutionary process without rupture Role of local social-culture context in development

Types of relations among agents

The role of the support space: strategic relations between the firm, its partners, suppliers and clients Capacity of agents in modifying their behaviour according to the changes in their environment. Very ‘rich’ relations: third dimension of support space

The network is a social regulation mode and a source of discipline. It enables a coexistence of both cooperation and competition The relationships with the environment impose some constraints and new ideas; must be able to react to changes in the environment; ‘rich’ relations; limited spatial view of environment

The network is an organizational mode of ‘interactive learning’

Inter-firm transactions

Inter-firm and inter-institution networks

Double dynamics: technological and technoorganizational dynamics; socioeconomic and institutional dynamics As in national systems of innovation but with a strong focus on interaction between economic and social cultural life Network of agents (embeddedness)

Balance between inside specific relations and environment constraints; ‘rich’ relations

The dynamics of community formation and social reproduction

Close to innovative milieu

As in regional innovation systems

Role of institutions

Type of relations with the environment

Source Moulaert and Sekia (2003)

Local production systems

Learning regions

120

P. SILVA ET AL.

innovation, diffusion, experimentation, regulation, new business models and behavioural changes, among others (McCann & Soete, 2020). The question remains: are LDRs equally capable of embracing these new challenges in innovation systems?

An Integrated Framework for Territorial Innovation in LDRs: Towards a Sustainable Regions’ Approach The purpose of this section is to assess the TIMs literature for promoting territorial innovation in the context of LDRs. The discussion is organized according to six dimensions: knowledge bases of innovation dynamics; role of actors; culture, geography and place-based approaches; determinant factors for innovation capacity; planning for and monitoring innovation; and outcomes of innovation (see a summary in Fig. 6.1). These dimensions are described as follows. Knowledge Bases of Innovation Dynamics The definition of innovation is not consensual, but two concepts can help on its better understanding: the forms of innovation and the knowledge bases of innovation. For the OECD (2020), there are four types of innovation: product (or service) innovation, process innovation, marketing (or flagship-oriented) innovation and organizational innovation.4 One can add a fifth one related to socio-institutional innovation.5 This categorization highlights the distinction between processes and outputs. Doloreux

4 Product (or service) innovation: A good or service that is new or significantly

improved (including improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, software in the product or user friendliness among others). Process innovation: A new or significantly improved production or delivery method (including changes in techniques, equipment and/or software). Marketing innovation: A new marketing method (including changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing). Organizational innovation: A new organizational method in business practices, workplace organization or external relations (OECD, 2020). 5 Institutional innovation can be broadly defined as a process that leads to institutional change over time in form, quality or state, or to the creation of new institutions through collective action. Social innovations are novel forms of socio-economic and behavioural organization (Pires & Polido, 2021).

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

121

Fig. 6.1 Dimensions of territorial innovation in LDRs

(2002) describes the processes of innovation as problem-solving, nonlinear, interdependent, collective, interactive and systematic, which result from the interaction between multiple actors and are distributed across multiple institutions and places. Consequently, the knowledge bases that emerge from, and within these processes are crucial to understand territorial innovation opportunities for LDRs. The TIM literature considers knowledge bases as the inputs (critical mass) that provide the knowledge resources to innovate. It is important to note that these knowledge resources are not all the same (Asheim, 2012; Asheim et al., 2011). The current paradigm of knowledge-intensive learning conceives the innovation process as both technical and social (Morgan & Martinelli, 2019), with two types of fundamental knowledge:

122

P. SILVA ET AL.

tacit6 and explicit.7 This means a more sociological view of innovation where the learning process and the knowledge inputs are crucial for the innovative capacity of the various actors. However, explicit knowledge has been losing importance compared to tacit knowledge. This loss of importance is attributed to its higher codified nature as explicit knowledge is based on documents and information that can be stored and shared, meaning it is easier to transfer. With the development of the information and communication technologies, this type of knowledge lost preponderance as new technologies allow its availability everywhere (Hauser et al., 2007). In turn, one of the reasons for the increasing importance of tacit knowledge in LDRs is its high contextual influence and the need to better understand how these contextual conditions affect the reproduction and dissemination of knowledge. In this sense, some knowledge belongs to specific regional contexts and can only be passed through proximity as learning processes are interactive among the various collective actors. This favours the notion of territorial advantages that cannot be transferred because some knowledge is contingent to its local context, i.e. tacit. For this reason, spatial and geographic proximity are often seen as important for knowledge creation (Eder, 2019). Even though, innovation processes require links between tacit and explicit knowledges and the two inherent questions are ‘which knowledge’ and ‘why’. Asheim et al. (2011) suggested a conceptualization of knowledge using the ideas of knowledge bases and competences that lie in the various industries and sectors, distinguishing between analytical (science-based), synthetic (industry-based) and symbolic (arts or community-based) knowledge bases, each requiring a unique combination of tacit and explicit knowledge. High-tech innovation discourses of more successful regions, grounded on science-based knowledge, have been overemphasizing technological and scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge and innovation. But no knowledge base can be considered more important or sophisticated for innovation than other, as its role is contingent on the characteristics of the regions. For example, 6 Tacit knowledge is the knowledge of experience, tends to be subjective and physical. It is about ‘here and now’, relates to a specific practical context (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). 7 Explicit knowledge is the knowledge of rationality, tends to be metaphysical and objective, often relates to past events or objects ‘there and then’, oriented towards a context-free theory (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

123

analytical knowledge bases, because of its higher codified nature, are less sensitive to distance, facilitating global flows of knowledge. Oppositely, synthetic and symbolic knowledge bases, due to their higher tacit nature, require a local transfer of knowledge as they are more sensitive to distance and it is the territorial context that attributes them the meaning and constitute the only way to access it. It is important for LDRs to identify the different knowledge bases, particularly the ones that are more contextual-driven and combine them, since their combinations can originate and enhance new forms of innovation. For example, because of their characteristics, LDRs can benefit from innovations in more traditional sectors or from the knowledge of local communities to explore innovative ways of sustainable alternatives in areas such as bio-economy, health tourism, or in natural resource-based industries such as renewable energy systems or sustainable food systems (D˛abrowska, 2017; Marinelli, 2021; Pires et al., 2020). The ecological modernization in regional strategies has been claimed to open innovation possibilities for sustainable regional development of LDRs (Argüelles & Benavides, 2014). Role of Actors The processes of innovation call for various actors to join in networks and platforms to create innovation linkages and clusters of knowledge (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). The most common actors in innovation processes stem from governmental institutions and firms (Pires et al., 2020), but the ‘Triple Helix framework’ (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000) brings the role of the academia. The Triple Helix is one of the most analysed approaches of TIM in LDRs (Rodrigues & Melo, 2012). However, some authors challenge its effectiveness in the context of these regions because of weak implementation programs, lack of worldleading universities and of knowledge-intensive firms (Pugh, 2017) and a weak institutional capacity (Morgan, 2007). Hence, in the particular case of LDRs, the broader ‘Quadruple Helix’ model which adds the ‘media-based and culture-based public’ can be better suited in fostering a culture of innovation (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009). Marinelli (2021) argues that Quadruple helix stakeholders (and beyond) need to be actively engaged as they are crucial in addressing territorial challenges and a ‘shared-agenda’ and action plan. In addition, some authors (e.g. Kebir

124

P. SILVA ET AL.

et al., 2017; Lew & Park, 2021; Pires et al., 2020) bring the involvement of a N-tuple helix of actors in regional innovation systems (e.g. the community, micro-foundations, the fourth sector, professional organizations, certifying bodies, the media, NGOs, users, consumers), in line with the multi-actor process needed for a transition towards sustainability (Köhler et al., 2019). Nonetheless, scarce attention has been dedicated in the literature so far to the role and potential for transformation of these approaches. Kebir et al. (2017) underline an expansion in the range of actors besides those usually involved in the classic innovation policies, along with different rationales, interests and motivations that provide a higher diversity of innovative solutions for regions. In this sense, the Quadruple helix stakeholders (and beyond) should assume broader roles in the context of LDRs. Governmental institutions can contribute to guide a shared leadership, a vision for the territory and promote new ideas and partnerships with other actors. They have a critical institutional, policy and financial role for a mission-oriented innovation system (Pires et al., 2020). As for firms, Tödtling and Trippl (2005) highlight that the ability of a region to create wealth depends on the competitiveness of its firms and of its industrial structure. Pires et al. (2020) argue for the importance of firms’ innovative competences such as absorptive capacity and strategic, organizational and management capabilities, alongside with human-capital business-driven transformations. The third helix brings the role of scientific research in LDRs’ universities (Coronado et al., 2004). The academia should go beyond its role of educator and source of basic research to a key actor of innovation (Pugh, 2017) by working as an active science and technology broker, promoter of co-operation on R&D and network enabler (Pires et al., 2020). Finally, regarding the fourth helix and beyond, individual citizens, users and the community can have a critical impact in regional innovation (Dziemianowicz et al., 2017). The community can be responsible for social innovations, for the emergence of different forms of innovation and challenge-oriented experimentation within broad priorities (Marinelli, 2021; Pires et al., 2020; Saxena et al., 2007). Culture, Geography and Place-Based Approaches The proximity approach has been very influential in the TIM literature. Despite the current information and communication technologies revolution, physical proximity is still considered critical for knowledge transfer

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

125

and learning (Brandsma et al., 2014). The planning of spatial development for physical connectivity and the sharing of common infrastructures are well-documented as key advantages in LDRs innovation processes (Simmie, 2012). However, newer approaches consider that distance should also be understood in a social, cultural and institutional way (Jung & López-Bazo, 2017). The concept of territorial capital acquires a stronger relevance as it builds towards the cultural, geographic and social proximities of a region. Nevertheless, too much proximity can lead to negative lock-in effects (Boschma, 2005), which make international and national cooperation critical in innovation (Landabaso, 1997). As such, the intensified interdependencies of different spatial scales and different cultures in multi-global–local relationships imply new regional institutional frameworks (Kebir et al., 2017), fostering institutional innovation for sustainability (Pires & Polido, 2021), which finds in LDRs interesting territories to be anchored. LDRs can thus become territorial anchors of multi-global–local collective action for innovation, built on collaborative interchange and cooperation among a multitude of actors. Determinant Factors for Innovation Capacity Perhaps one of the most important discussions on TIMs in LDRs is focused on the factors that influence the processes and outcomes of innovation. Among such determinant factors are the availability of human capital and skilled labour (Di Cataldo & Rodríguez-Pose, 2017; Pires et al., 2020; Tödtling & Trippl, 2005) as well as the retention capacity of qualified labourers in the less developed territories (Clifton & Macaulay, 2015). The promotion of trust among actors and the enforcement of social capital to overcome the difficulties of learning and knowledge sharing (Tödtling & Trippl, 2005), as well as stronger institutional capacity building (McCann & Soete, 2020) are also considered as key ingredients. The importance of networks is highlighted as well: interfirms, within firms, between different policy hierarchies and between Quadruple or N-helix actors (Krammer, 2017). Additionally, the discussion unveils the innovation enhancing effect of high levels of public subsidization (Eder, 2019), as well as the relevance of an enforcement of innovation policies specifically targeted at LDRs (Melançon & Doloreux, 2013).

126

P. SILVA ET AL.

More recently, the literature has started to consider that new, more flexible and disruptive instruments8 can be crucial for a redirection of attention to distinct factors such as stronger mission-oriented policies, with more effective co-ordination and co-operation mechanisms, supported by solid discovery and experimentation processes and dynamic monitoring systems, vital to deliver innovative solutions that can accelerate the shift towards sustainability (McCann & Soete, 2020). Planning for and Monitoring Innovation Planning for innovation is the rationale behind Entrepreneurial Discovery Processes (EDP) by articulating emerging opportunities and broad priorities to meet a shared vision for the region in relation to specialization and transitions towards more sustainable and inclusive pathways (Marinelli, 2021). The establishment of this vision is important for two reasons. First because it contributes to build a collective agenda for the territory, ‘to get people to speak the same language’, and to establish a relationship between ‘where we start’ and where we want to ‘go/move towards’. Second, because it is a shared opportunity to recognize a vision beyond the economic basis of development and aim for a broader definition of innovation that truly includes the grand societal challenges that regions face such as climate change, social justice, demographic, health and well-being issues. The reviewed dimensions of territorial innovation can also be effective with the deployment of a strategy that puts in place the vision for the territory through an action-oriented consensus-based and an inclusive bottom-up planning process (Asheim, 2001; Kolehmainen et al., 2016; Krammer, 2017). Conditions such as regional autonomy, the capacity of regional policy actors and structures, as well as new forms of institutional cooperation (Bere et al., 2017), have been considered fundamental to develop and implement innovation policies in an interactive participative way (Natário et al., 2017) that integrate the perspectives of the various actors, sectors and interrelate the multiple dimensions of the territory (Pires et al., 2020; Tödtling & Trippl, 2005). The success of territorial innovation strategies should be closely evaluated using stronger and more dynamic monitoring processes. However,

8 See, for instance, Chapter 14 of this book.

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

127

these systems should resort to assessment frameworks that go beyond economic measures to embrace innovation outcomes on health, wellbeing, environmental sustainability and governance, and to properly reflect regions’ broader innovation impacts (Pires et al., 2020). An improved evidence-gathering and awareness of local strengths, weaknesses and impacts, and their global externalities and spillovers can further expose opportunities and threats in times of global transitions. In other words, the evaluation and monitoring of innovation-led and enterpriseled activities should be assessed with respect to their potential contribution to promote a sustainable and inclusive development (e.g. through the use of new accountability and effectiveness assessing frameworks in relation to the societal challenges, or new digital monitoring and mapping tools) (Marinelli, 2021). These systems should be built on ongoing dynamic ways and be flexible enough to allow place-based experimentation and continuous policy learning among actors (McCann & Soete, 2020). McCann and Soete (2020), for instance, propose a monitoring ‘Science for Policy Platform on Place-based innovation for Sustainability’. Outcomes of Innovation: A Slow Paradigm Shift Perhaps ‘unsurprisingly’, strong critiques emerge on the limitations of the TIM literature to open the purpose of innovation beyond its economic dimensions (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003; Saxena et al., 2007) and include aspects such as the fight against climate change, poverty and social exclusion, social justice and alike. Morgan (2004) also warned how the economistic agenda continues to dominate policymaker debates and economic development strategies, even more critically in LDRs. Nevertheless, there are many calls at the academia and high policy level to redirect the focus of innovation policy towards sustainability transition. As McCann and Soete (2020, p. 10) mention “the focus in research and innovation policy should no longer be on the research and innovation process as such but on the achievement of the required transformative change, where innovative solutions can accelerate the shift towards sustainability”. Resistance to this paradigm shift is high and changes are slow. Some authors argue that because measuring sustainability is complex, controversial and not feasible in the short term, a normative dimension to innovation should be avoided (Kebir et al., 2017). Nevertheless, the European policy shift from smart specialization strategies (S3) to smart

128

P. SILVA ET AL.

specialization strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth (S4+) represents already a political narrative shift and implies an explicit normative re-orientation of priorities (McCann & Soete, 2020). Instead of being perceived of an end itself, innovation should be seen as an intermediate step towards the local–global longer-term goals of fostering sustainable regions. In fact, some research starts to enforce the benefits for LDRs in endorsing these long-term goals to take advantage of new ways of valorizing the (urban and rural) territories’ unique characteristics (JRC, 2019). Table 6.2 presents the characteristics of the traditional TIMs provided by the study of Moulaert and Sekia (2003), with a summarized proposal for a conceptual shift in territorial innovation models that considers the actual trends and urgent changes discussed in this chapter. It implies not only to reconsider the features of innovation that are relevant for a conceptual analysis of territorial innovation in LDRs, but also, a new approach to the description of the ‘traditional’ features. This proposal puts together the need for the incorporation of different knowledge bases to foster different forms of innovation, embraced on a N-tuple helix of actors and more coordinated networks, with a clear territorial anchoring of multi-global–local relationships towards long-term sustainability and inclusiveness. The need for a continuous policy learning dynamism and for new, more flexible, and disruptive innovation policy instruments are considered the backbone to be able to deliver innovative solutions that can accelerate a societal paradigm shift. This shift is needed not only in LDRs, but these are the regions where the advantages of this approach can reposition their status of ‘less developed’ towards ‘more sustainably developed’ regions that better promote a continuous human quality of life within the global planetary boundaries.

Conclusion The limitations of the Fordist mass production approach led to the emergence of a new paradigm based on knowledge and learning processes as central pillars of innovation. In this knowledge-based innovation culture, aside from inherent firm-level factors, local competitive advantages are (also) partially dependent on the context and territory from which they originate. As a result, in order to understand the mechanisms and policies best suited to enhance regional competitiveness, various claims were made regarding the territorial dynamics of the most innovative and successful

The need for the incorporation of different knowledge-bases (tacit or explicit knowledge; analytical (science-based), synthetic (industry-based) and symbolic (community-based) knowledge), to enhance different forms of innovation

Broader range of actors in regional innovation systems (e.g. the triple helix plus the community, micro-foundations, the fourth sector, professional organizations, certifying bodies, rating agencies, NGOs, users, or consumers) and the role of institutional-sharing leadership in network coordination

Territorial anchoring of multi-global-local relationships; creating value and a sharedagenda of priorities from collective action, collaborative interchange and cooperation in local and regional contexts

Promotion of trust among actors, enforcement of social capital and stronger institutional capacity building for the consolidation of broader networks; new, more flexible and disruptive instruments to deliver innovative solutions that can accelerate a societal paradigm shift

Role of actors in a N-tuple helix and role of institutions

Culture, geographical and placedbased approaches

Determinant factors for innovation capacity

Sustainable Regions

Proposed Model

Knowledge bases of innovation dynamics

Features of innovation Innovative milieu (IM)

Territorial view based on milieu innovateurs and on agent’s capacity of innovating in a cooperative atmosphere Culture of trust and reciprocity links

Culture

Very important role of institutions in the research process (university, firms, public agencies, etc.)

Capacity of firms to innovate through the relationships with other agents of the same milieu

Regional development

Role of institutions

“Traditional” features of innovation Core of innovation dynamics Industrial district (ID)

Sharing values among ID agents; trust and reciprocity

Territorial view based on spatial solidarity and flexibility of districts; this flexibility is an element of this innovation

Institutions are ‘agents’ and enabling social regulation, fostering innovation and development

Capacity of actors to implement innovation in a system of common values

The source of learning by interacting

View of the region as a system of ‘learning by interacting/ and by steering regulation’

As in the national systems of innovation, the definitions vary according to authors, but they all agree that the institutions lead to a regulation of behaviour, both inside and outside organizations

Innovation as an interactive, cumulative and specific process of research and development (path dependency)

Regional innovation systems (RIS)

Culture of networking and social interaction

A result of R&D and its implementation ; application of new production methods (justin-time, etc.) Social regulation for the coordination of inter-firm transactions and the dynamics of entrepreneurial activity Interaction between social regulation and agglomerated production systems

New industrial spaces

“Traditional” Models

Role of local socialculture context in development

Diffuse industrialization, i.e. socio-economic development based on an evolutionary process without rupture

Same as for industrial district, but with focus on role of governance

Same as for industrial district

Local production systems

(continued)

Double dynamics: technological and technoorganizational dynamics; socioeconomic and institutional dynamics As in national systems of innovation but with a strong focus on interaction between economic and social cultural life

As in regional innovation systems but with a stronger focus on role of institutions

As for regional innovation systems but stressing coevolution of technology and institutions

Learning regions

Table 6.2 Proposal for an integrated conceptual framework for territorial innovation in less developed regions: the sustainability regions approach

6 TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

129

Consider innovation as a means, as a crucial intermediate step, towards a normative turn on local-global long-term sustainable territories that support human quality of life within ecological carrying capacity and planetary boundaries

Outcomes of innovation and Regional sustainable development

Type of relations with the environment

“Traditional” features of innovation Types of relations among agents

Capacity of agents in modifying their behaviour according to the changes in their environment. Very ‘rich’ relations: third dimension of support space

The role of the support space: strategic relations between the firm, its partners, suppliers and clients

Innovative milieu (IM)

The relationships with the environment impose some constraints and new ideas; must be able to react to changes in the environment; ‘rich’ relations; limited spatial view of environment

The network is a social regulation mode and a source of discipline. It enables a coexistence of both cooperation and competition

Industrial district (ID)

Balance between inside specific relations and environment constraints; ‘rich’ relations

The network is an organizational mode of ‘interactive learning’

The dynamics of community formation and social reproduction

Inter-firm transactions

New industrial spaces

“Traditional” Models Regional innovation systems (RIS)

Note White cells: new model; grey cells: Moulaert and Sekia’s (2003) territorial innovation models

Action-oriented consensus-based and participative strategic planning process; dynamic monitoring of innovation to assess regional and global sustainable development impacts; a continuous policy learning dynamism is introduced

Sustainable Regions

Proposed Model

(continued)

Planning for and monitoring innovation

Features of innovation

Table 6.2

Close to innovative milieu

Inter-firm and interinstitution networks

Local production systems Learning regions

As in regional innovation systems

Network of agents (embeddedness)

130 P. SILVA ET AL.

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

131

regions (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003). An acute critique of these representations, suggested by Shearmur (2011), highlighted the lack of consensus on the relationship between space and innovation and the weak conceptual clarity of the various notions of space. However, the models are coherent in claiming their capacity to explain how to foster innovation. This chapter reviews the main dimensions to be considered for territorial innovation in LDRs. The framework recognizes the regions’ bases of knowledge, particularly the ones that are more contextual-driven and the need to combine them (e.g. global and systemic) to generate the most suitable forms of knowledge for the territory. It also claims that LDRs can define a shared-agenda and build on opportunities from traditional sectors or innovative areas such as bio-economy, health tourism, renewable energy systems or sustainable food systems, among others that are critical to sustain a climate stability vital for humanity (Rockström et al., 2021; Steffen et al., 2018). It also assumes that this can be more effective through a multi-actor process (N-tuple helix) within regional intersectoral continuous bottom-up processes. Two sets of conditions are considered fundamental for territorial innovation to take place in LDRs. The first considers the need for proximity. LDRs can be connected to other regions through closer organizational, cultural or technological proximity, and can make use of that proximity in innovation processes. In that context, a mix of place-based policies and global impacts should be put in place to take advantage of regions’ endogenous characteristics. The second comprises the list of territoriallevel determinants found to foster innovation, such as human and skilled capital, trust and social capital, institutional capacity, networks between N-tuple helix of actors and funding availability. These conditions can be enforced by new roadmaps that support structural changes and systematic innovation policies. Finally, action-oriented consensus-based should be built under a participative strategic planning process, anchored in a continuous policy learning dynamism and monitoring systems able to assess regional and global sustainable development in these regions. The proposed framework assumes that regional innovation policies in LDRs are a means towards a normative turn on local–global long-term sustainable territories that support human quality of life within ecological carrying capacity and planetary boundaries.

132

P. SILVA ET AL.

Acknowledgements This research was developed under the support of the Research Program “CeNTER - Community-led Territorial Innovation” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Portugal2020 (PT 2020). Alexandra Polido acknowledges the financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, IP (FCT) through CEEC Individual contract (CEECIND/01400/2017). Pedro Silva acknowledges the support of national funds through FCT, Project UIDB/05037/ 2020.

References Argüelles, M., & Benavides, C. (2014). Analysing how environmental concerns are integrated in the design of the EU structural funds programmes. European Planning Studies, 22(3), 587–609. Asheim, B. (2001). Learning regions as development coalitions: Partnership as governance in European workfare states? Concepts and Transformation, 6(1), 73–101. Asheim, B. (2012). The changing role of learning regions in the globalizing knowledge economy: A theoretical re-examination. Regional Studies, 46(8), 993–1004. Asheim, B., Boschma, R., & Cooke, P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge cases. Regional Studies, 45(7), 893–904. Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation, 26(5–6), 644–664. Belussi, F., & Caldari, K. (2009). At the origin of the industrial district: Alfred Marshall and the Cambridge school. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33(2), 335–355. Bere, J., Jones, C., Jones, S., & Munday, M. (2017). Energy and development in the periphery: A regional perspective on small hydropower projects. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(2), 355–375. Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 1–8. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. Brandsma, A., Di-Comite, F., Diukanova, O., Kancs, D., Lopez-Rodriguez, J., Persyn, D., & Potters, L. (2014). Assessing policy options for the EU Cohesion Policy 2014–2020. Investigaciones Regionales, 29, 17–46.

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

133

Breau, S., Kogler, D. F., & Bolton, K. C. (2014). On the relationship between innovation and wage inequality: New evidence from Canadian cities. Economic Geography, 90(4), 351–373. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. (2009). ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3–4), 201–234. Clifton, N., & Macaulay, T. (2015). Creativity, cohesion and the ‘post-conflict’ society: A policy agenda (illustrated from the case of Northern Ireland). European Planning Studies, 23(12), 2370–2389. Colglazier, W. (2015). Sustainable development agenda: 2030. Science, 349(6252), 1048–1050. Cooke, P. (1992). Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum, 23(3), 365–382. Cooke, P. (1996). Reinventing the region: Firms, clusters and networks in economic development. In P. Daniels & W. Lever (Eds.), The global economy in transition. Addison Wesley Longman. Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M., & Braczyk, H.-J. (Eds.). (2004). Regional systems of innovation: The role of governance in a globalized world. Routledge. Cooke, P., & Morgan, K. (1998). The associative region. Oxford University Press. Coronado, D., Acosta, M., & León, D. (2004). Regional planning of R&D and science-technology interactions in Andalucia: A bibliometric analysis of patent documents. European Planning Studies, 12(8), 1075–1095. Crevoisier, O. (2001). L’approche par les milieux innovateurs: état des lieux et perspectives. Revue d’Economie Regionale Urbaine, 1, 135–166. D˛abrowska, A. (2017). Traditional sectors based on natural resources—A blessing or a curse for less developed regions? A case study of Podlaskie Voivodeship. Miscellanea Geographica, 21(3), 89–95. Di Cataldo, M., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2017). What drives employment growth and social inclusion in the regions of the European Union? Regional Studies, 51(12), 1840–1859. Doloreux, D. (2002). What we should know about regional systems of innovation. Technology in Society, 24(3), 243–263. Dziemianowicz, W., Laskowska, A., & Peszat, K. (2017). Local innovation systems in Poland—The beginning of the road. Miscellanea Geographica, 21(2), 60–67. Eder, J. (2019). Innovation in the periphery: A critical survey and research agenda. International Regional Science Review, 42(2), 119–146. Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. Frances Pinter. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry– government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

134

P. SILVA ET AL.

European Commission. (2016). Key European action supporting the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SWD(2016) 390 final) (SWD(2016) 390 final; Commission Staff Working Document). European Commission. (2017). Economic challenges of lagging regions. https:// ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/reports/2017/ economic-challenges-of-lagging-regions European Commission. (2019). The European Green Deal (p. COM(2019) 640 final). European Commission. Eurostat. (2020). Your key European statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ web/regions/background Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27 (5), 527–536. Hauser, C., Tappeiner, G., & Walde, J. (2007). The learning region: The impact of social capital and weak ties on innovation. Regional Studies, 41(1), 75–88. JRC. (2019). The future of cities: Opportunities, challenges and the way forward. https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC116711 Jung, J., & López-Bazo, E. (2017). Factor accumulation, externalities, and absorptive capacity in regional growth: Evidence from Europe. Journal of Regional Science, 57 (2), 266–289. Kebir, L., Crevoisier, O., Costa, P., & Peyrache-Gadeau, V. (Eds.). (2017). Sustainable innovation and regional development: Rethinking innovative milieus. Edward Elgar Publishing. Kline, S., & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In R. Landau & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), The positive sum strategy harnessing technology for economic growth (pp. 275–306). National Academy Press. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M. S., … Wells, P. (2019, December). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–32. Kolehmainen, J., Irvine, J., Stewart, L., Karacsonyi, Z., Szabó, T., Alarinta, J., & Norberg, A. (2016). Quadruple helix, innovation and the knowledge-based development: Lessons from remote, rural and less-favoured regions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7 (1), 23–42. Krammer, S. M. S. (2017). Science, technology, and innovation for economic competitiveness: The role of smart specialization in less-developed countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 95–107. Landabaso, M. (1997). The promotion of innovation in regional policy: Proposals for a regional innovation strategy. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 9(1), 1–24.

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

135

Lew, Y. K., & Park, J. Y. (2021). The evolution of N-helix of the regional innovation system: Implications for sustainability. Sustainable Development, 29(2), 453–464. Maillat, D., Quévit, M., & Senn, L. (Eds.). (1993). Réseaux d’innovation et milieux innovateurs: un pari pour le dévloppement régional. EDES for Groupe de Recherche Européen sur les Milieux Innovateurs (GREMI). Malecki, E. (1997). Technology and economic development: The dynamics of local. Addison-Wesley Longman. Marinelli, E. (2021). From S3 to S4: Some reflections. Interreg Europe. https:// www.interregeurope.eu/policylearning/news/12146/smart-specialisation-str ategies-for-sustainable-and-inclusive-growth-s4/?no_cache=1&cHash=96c333 dd32be469d1e5dcc362786bfa8 Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics: An introductory volume. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), 803–815. McCann, P., & Soete, L. (2020). Place-based innovation for sustainability. Publications Office of the European Union. Melançon, Y., & Doloreux, D. (2013). Developing a knowledge infrastructure to foster regional innovation in the periphery: A study from Quebec’s coastal region in Canada. Regional Studies, 47 (9), 1555–1572. Morgan, K. (2004). Sustainable regions: Governance, innovation and scale. European Planning Studies, 12(6), 871–889. Morgan, K. (2007). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies, 41(S1), S147–S159. Morgan, K., & Martinelli, F. (2019). From technological to social innovation: Rehabilitating the state and civil society in the development debate. In A. Paidakaki, C. Parra, P. Van den Broeck, & A. Mehmood (Eds.), Social innovation as political transformation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies, 37 (3), 289–302. Natário, M., Braga, A., Daniel, A., Rosa, C., & Salgado, M. (2017). Using a Triple Helix approach to examine interactions and dynamics of innovation in less-favoured regions. Industry and Higher Education, 31(6), 351–359. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press. OECD. (2009). OECD reviews of regional innovation: 15 Mexican states. OECD. (2020). Defining innovation. https://www.oecd.org/site/innovationst rategy/defininginnovation.htm Piore, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide: Possibilities for prosperity. Basic. Pires, S. M., & Polido, A. (2021). Institutional innovation for sustainability. In W. T. Leal Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia, & P. G.

136

P. SILVA ET AL.

Özuyar (Eds.), Peace, justice and strong institutions. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Issue 2015, pp. 1–10). Springer. Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2020). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: The quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1639–1666. Pollex, J., & Lenschow, A. (2018). Surrendering to growth? The European Union’s goals for research and technology in the Horizon 2020 framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197 , 1863–1871. Porter, M. (2003). The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37 (6–7), 549–578. Pugh, R. (2017). Universities and economic development in lagging regions: ‘Triple helix’ policy in Wales. Regional Studies, 51(7), 982–993. Rinkinen, S., Oikarinen, T., & Melkas, H. (2016). Social enterprises in regional innovation systems: A review of Finnish regional strategies. European Planning Studies, 24(4), 723–741. Rockström, J., Beringer, T., Hole, D., Griscom, B., Mascia, M. B., Folke, C., & Creutzig, F. (2021). Opinion: We need biosphere stewardship that protects carbon sinks and builds resilience. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38), e2115218118. Rodrigues, C., & Melo, A. (2012). The triple helix model as an instrument of local response to the economic crisis. European Planning Studies, 20(9), 1483–1496. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2019). Innovating in less developed regions: What drives patenting in the lagging regions of Europe and North America. Growth and Change, 50(1), 4–37. Sachs, J. D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N., & Rockström, J. (2019). Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(9), 805–814. Saxena, G., Clark, G., Oliver, T., & Ilbery, B. (2007). Conceptualizing integrated rural tourism. Tourism Geographies, 9(4), 347–370. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1976). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper & Row. Shearmur, R. (2011). Innovation, regions and proximity: From neo-regionalism to spatial analysis. Regional Studies, 45(9), 1225–1243. Shearmur, R., Apparicio, P., Lizion, P., & Polèse, M. (2007). Space, time, and local employment growth: An application of spatial regression analysis. Growth and Change, 38(4), 696–722. Simmie, J. (2012). Learning city regions: Theory and practice in private and public sector spatial planning. Planning Practice and Research, 27 (4), 423– 439.

6

TOWARDS AN INTEGRATED CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK …

137

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C. P., Barnosky, A. D., Cornell, S. E., Crucifix, M., Donges, J. F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S. J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the earth system in the anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(33), 8252–8259. Storper, M., & Scott, A. J. (1988). The geographical foundations and social regulation of flexible production complexes. In J. Wolch & M. Dear (Eds.), The power of geography. Allen & Unwin. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (p. A/RES/70/1). United Nations General Assembly. Von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press. Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (1998). The ecological footprint: An indicator of progress toward regional sustainability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 51(1), 511–529.

PART II

Tools

CHAPTER 7

Digitalisation in a Multilevel Governance Context: The Case of Cohesion Policy Julie Pellegrin and Louis Colnot

Introduction Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are a driving force of ongoing social and economic transformations worldwide (e.g., teleworking), and their rising importance has been particularly highlighted by the place they have taken in virtually all areas of life during the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD, 2020). There is a growing consensus among policymakers, academics and business leaders that these technologies have a strong potential to generate economic growth and enhance productivity (OECD, 2017). However, emerging digital technologies, such as Artificial Intelligence, also generate intense debates, risks and uncertainties,

J. Pellegrin · L. Colnot (B) Centre for Industrial Studies, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] J. Pellegrin e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_7

141

142

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

which can be related to wider policy controversies (e.g., on their influence on social or territorial inequalities) or deeply intertwined with their technical specificities (e.g., cybersecurity, privacy…). Public policies can play an important role in setting strategies and interventions that could reap the expected benefits of these digital technologies while considering their limits and addressing possible drawbacks. Since the 1980s, regional policies have adopted a strong focus on technological innovation, as an important engine to reduce disparities and promote development (Pires et al., 2020). Beyond their territorial focus and aim to reduce disparities, regional policies are characterised by their complexity and mobilisation of several stakeholders from different spheres. These characteristics could influence their ability to contribute to digitalisation, i.e., the process of diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies and their uses for diverse applications. Cohesion Policy is a major example of regional policy attempting to reduce territorial disparities on a large-scale and benefiting from EU funding. Moreover, it has strongly supported digitalisation for decades (European Parliament, 2018). Studying the case of Cohesion Policy is thus very relevant to improve our understanding of how public policies could contribute to digitalisation in a regional and multilevel governance context. This chapter will analyse the contribution of Cohesion Policy’s framework for the 2014–2020 programming period, highlighting both expected benefits linked to a regional and multilevel approach, but also first empirical evidence on their actual realisation. Sources of evidence include the existing literature on Cohesion Policy and ICT, case studies extracted from a report written by the authors and published by the European Parliament in 2018 (European Parliament, 2018) and a related working paper (Pellegrin & Colnot, 2020) (Map 7.1). Findings suggest first hypotheses and would require further research to increase their robustness and claim generalisability. However, they can serve as a starting point to fuel wider reflections on the territorial dimension of innovation, and more specifically on the role that public policies can play. In the first section, the overall approach of Cohesion Policy towards digitalisation is presented. The second section describes the potential benefits of a multilevel governance and regional approach for digitalisation, and how Cohesion Policy has adopted mechanisms that could favour their realisation. The third section discusses the empirical evidence on the extent to which these mechanisms have enabled Cohesion Policy to

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

143

Map 7.1 Case studies of digital projects funded by Cohesion Policy (2014– 2020) (Source European Parliament 2018)

secure these benefits. Finally, the conclusion reflects on the relevance of the findings for territorial innovation.

Cohesion Policy’s Overall Approach and Funding for Digitalisation Brief Presentation of Cohesion Policy Cohesion Policy has a peculiar place in the EU policy context, given its objectives, budgetary importance and mechanisms. Indeed, it is the only policy with a clear and unambiguous focus on territories. This policy’s objectives obviously include the reduction of territorial inequalities, as clearly mentioned in the legal basis of the policy, dating back as far as the earliest days of the European integration process (Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, 1957). Its main rationale is therefore to promote a balanced development and convergence between regions and cities, both within and between Member States. However, this is not the sole objective of Cohesion Policy, which also contributes to several EU-wide strategies with implications at the regional level, including environmental, transport or social ones (European Commission, 2020d).

144

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

Cohesion Policy’s importance for EU regions and cities also stems from the major financial resources mobilised through Structural Funds. Indeed, Cohesion Policy is a major component of the overall EU budget (about one-third in recent periods, i.e., about EUR 355 billion for 2014– 2020) and can account for large shares of total public investments in some Member States (European Commission, 2020a). By design, this budget is focusing on the less developed regions of the EU (as proxied by their GDP PPP per capita), which contributes to the aim of reducing regional disparities (European Commission, 2020c). The policy also places regions at the centre of its design and implementation mechanisms. It takes the form of a multilevel governance approach, which involves not only EU stakeholders but also—depending on the institutional setting of each country—Member States, regions and local authorities directly. Indeed, as Managing Authorities, these stakeholders shape and carry out the Policy on the ground (Committee of the Regions, 2009; European Commission, 2014c). This has enabled varieties of situations depending on the countries and regions, combined with convergence pressure through different means (e.g., EU regulations organising the policy framework, diffusion of best practices, evaluation activities…) (Manzella, 2009). Cohesion Policy’s Approach to Digitalisation Within the EU Strategic Context Cohesion Policy plays an active role in Europe’s digitalisation effort, which is framed by an overall strategic context. Indeed, the EU has gradually developed a specific approach to tackle digitalisation, with a rising level of enshrinement into explicit strategies and documents. First initiatives aiming to support ICT in the EU can be traced back to the 1980s, with Community Initiatives such as STAR and TELEMATIQUE centred around developing advanced telecommunication services (CORDIS, 1993, 2014). Cohesion Policy also supported first ICT projects during the 1987–1993 programming period (European Parliament, 2018). However, at this stage, there was no explicit EU strategy theorising the objectives and delimiting a clear approach for the EU intervention in digitalisation. During the 1990s, a conceptualisation effort of the EU approach towards digitalisation gradually emerged through reflections on Information Society. It included an attention to all the aspects of digitalisation,

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

145

i.e., a holistic perspective not restricted to sole technological issues. In Cohesion Policy, it was operationalised through various pilot initiatives for its implementation at the regional level, such as the Inter-Regional Information Society Initiative (European Parliament, 2018). This attention for Information Society, and more generally for a holistic digitalisation approach, became enshrined in EU strategies in the late 1990s and 2000s. For instance, the Europe strategy of 1999 focuses on delivering an ‘Information Society for all’ (European Commission, 1999) covering internet access and digital literacy and consumer trust. It was accompanied by an important rise in financial resources dedicated to digitalisation in Cohesion Policy, with an envelope of about EUR 9.6 billion for 2000–2006 (European Parliament, 2018). During the 2010s, digitalisation has been formally consecrated as a major EU priority, with implications on Cohesion Policy’s role (European Parliament, 2018). In particular, the Digital Agenda for Europe (DAE) of 2010 is a milestone strategic document framing how the EU addresses ICT-related issues. It is one of the flagship initiatives within the Europe 2020 Strategy. In line with the holistic approach developed in the EU since the 1990s–2000s, it covers objectives falling under multiple different dimensions of digitalisation, regrouped into seven pillars (European Commission, 2010), as shown in Table 7.1. This strategy has then been complemented with a focus on completing economic benefits, with the Digital Single Market launched in 2015. As the main investment policy of the EU, Cohesion Policy is considered an important tool to reach the goals of these strategies. Indeed, funding for ICT-related investments within Cohesion Policy has reached about EUR 15 billion for 2007–2013 and EUR 21 billion for 2014–2020 (European Parliament, 2018). This holistic approach of EU policy to digitalisation and its high rank among the stated priorities of the EU have been pursued for the post-2020 period. Indeed, the EU Digital Strategy of 2020 has been introduced by the Von der Leyen Commission, with the aim of fostering digitalisation for various stakeholders (e.g., citizens, businesses) and missions, including environmental protection (European Commission, 2020e). This recent strategy has already been operationalised through specific measures, such as the Digital Services Act and the Digital Market Act of 2020, which update the rules for the EU digital space, focusing on safety and openness (European Commission, 2020f).

146

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

Table 7.1 Pillars of the Digital Agenda for Europe and their main focus

Pillar

Main focus

Digital Single Market

• Regulatory barriers • Electronic payments and invoicing • Privacy • Telecom sector • Standard-setting • Intellectual Property rights • Cybersecurity • European and national cybercrime networks • Simulations • Universal access • Next-generation networks • ICT-oriented Research and Development • Public–Private Partnerships • Digital skills for employment • Inclusion and support for specific groups and SMEs • Climate change • Ageing • Digital content • E-government • E-transport

Interoperability and standards Trust and security

Fast and Ultrafast Internet Access Research and Innovation

Digital literacy, skills and inclusion

ICT-enabled benefits for EU society

Source European Parliament (2018)

Overview of Cohesion Policy’s Support to Digitalisation Projects for 2014–2020 Cohesion Policy’s role in contributing to the EU-wide strategies for digitalisation is operationalised through the funding of specific projects involving Information and Communication Technologies. This operational dimension is critical to understand the actual realisation of the EU-wide strategic objectives and to analyse their territorial aspects. It also provides insights on the realities of the multilevel governance and regionalised perspective of the policy, e.g., by investigating whether different regions enforce different choices.

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

147

As mentioned previously, the budget dedicated to these digitalisation projects has tended to increase over the long-run, reaching about EUR 21.4 billion for 2014–2020 (European Parliament, 2018). However, funding for ICT-related projects under Cohesion Policy is not uniformly distributed across the EU. By design, Cohesion Policy targets its contribution towards the less developed regions. This pattern is observable for Cohesion Policy investments dedicated to digitalisation as well, as shown in Map 7.2. Indeed, the highest levels of funding per capita for digitalisation are concentrated in Southern and Eastern regions, where it can reach more than EUR 100 per capita. In most developed areas, such as the Western German regions or The Netherlands, funding is much lower at about 0– 6 EUR per capita. This situation is globally in line with the continent’s overall regional economic disparities and the rationale of the entire policy. Beyond differences in funding amounts for digitalisation, it is also important to consider the prioritisation of this type of expenditures across

Map 7.2 Cohesion Policy per capita funding for digitalisation (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018)

148

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

the EU regions. Indeed, Managing Authorities (often regional authorities) make decisions on how to allocate their total Cohesion Policy budget between possible priorities leading to variations in the weight they give to digitalisation-oriented spending. As shown in Map 7.3, it paints a slightly different picture than the territorial distribution of funding per capita highlighted in Map 7.2. Indeed, some regions allocate between 15 and 30% of their total Cohesion Policy funding to digitalisation, notably in Sweden and Western France. A high degree of prioritisation of digitalisation (ranging from 10 to 15%) is also noted in Italy, parts of Spain and Cyprus. By contrast with the total per capita funding, some Eastern and Central Europe areas dedicate only a moderate share of their Cohesion Policy funding to digitalisation, which may be explained by their important needs in other areas (e.g., non-ICT infrastructures, skills…). Regarding countries with higher GDP per capita, areas in Austria, Germany, Denmark and The Netherlands tend to allocate a small amount of their Cohesion Policy

Map 7.3 Share of total Cohesion Policy funding for digitalisation (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018)

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

149

funds towards digitalisation. An important contextual note is that Cohesion Policy is a small source of funding for these regions, and thus other public funds can dedicate importance resources towards ICT, which are not represented on this map. However, funding for digitalisation can cover a wide range of different types of projects, ranging from materials-intensive ICT infrastructures to digital skills development. Providing additional granularity on the exact content of the Cohesion Policy funding for digitalisation is therefore important to obtain a full picture of the situation. A breakdown of the planned amounts for digitalisation is obtainable through the JRC data set on ICT expenditure (Sorvik & Kleibrink, 2016). These detailed estimates are presented in Fig. 7.1. This breakdown shows that the Cohesion Policy’s funding for digitalisation in the 2014–2020 period is planned to contribute to investments in a wide array of areas (e.g., infrastructures, research, skills and human capital, cities…). In particular, Cohesion Policy investments in ICT infrastructures (especially broadband and digital networks) have followed a recent upsurge in the 2014–2020 programming period. They are one

Fig. 7.1 Planned Cohesion Policy EU funding for digitalisation by type of projects (Source European Parliament 2018)

150

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

of the leading areas of intervention (28% of the digital investments). Investments in social or mission-oriented aspects (such as e-government, skills and e-inclusion) represent a substantial share of Cohesion Policy’s support to digitalisation (around 40%). Other forms of support, including resources for smart cities and smart grids, emerged since the 2007–2013 period and constituted around 20% of the planned resources for 2014– 2020 (European Parliament, 2018). The holistic approach mentioned in the EU strategies has thus some empirical basis at the aggregate level through Cohesion Policy. As for the total Cohesion Policy dedicated to digitalisation, there are differences across EU regions regarding the specific types of ICT investments that are favoured. As shown in Map 7.4, many regions choose to concentrate more than half of their Cohesion Policy funding for digitalisation towards a single broad category of ICT projects (e.g., infrastructures, e-services and applications for citizens, support for SMEs, other forms of support). Patterns of prioritisation can be quite uniform in a Member State (e.g., Romania or Bulgaria), or feature important cross-regional variations (e.g., Italy). Several rationales can explain these patterns, including different needs depending on regions and Member States, different political priorities or strategies, level of centralisation/decentralisation of decision-making, etc. This situation shows that the EU Cohesion Policy’s holistic approach regarding digitalisation is characterised by a diversity of possible choices at the regional level.

Reaping the Expected Benefits of Digitalisation in Less Developed Regions Through Cohesion Policy The previous section shows that Cohesion Policy has developed a specific approach towards digitalisation, characterised by a holistic perspective and the role of regional authorities in the decision-making process, allowing a variety of choices depending on the territory (see Maps 7.3 and 7.4). In theory, many potential rationales could support the benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach towards digitalisation, which are consistent with the overall organisational framework of Cohesion Policy. Moreover, it can be argued that some specific legal provisions and other initiatives

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

151

Map 7.4 Regional prioritisation of Cohesion Policy investments for digitalisation by broad types of projects (2014–2020) (Source European Parliament 2018)

were set during the 2014–2020 programming period which could help to secure these benefits (even if not explicitly designed to do so). Expected Benefits of a Multilevel and Regionalised Approach to Digitalisation Policy interventions towards digitalisation can be conducted at different levels, with advantages and drawbacks depending on the exact field of interventions and the wider context (e.g., the administrative capacity of the public authorities, demand for ICT-related goods and services…). In particular, the regional level can be linked to specific expected benefits, especially when involving stakeholders form other levels in a multilevel governance approach. Many of these benefits are particularly attractive in

152

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

the EU context, as they are aligned with important challenges that are experienced across the Union. It includes: . The ability to tackle territorial disparities regarding digitalisation. As ICT grow increasingly important in several areas (economic, social, political…), disparities in the access and use of these technologies (‘digital divides’) are becoming a major issue, from an equity but also from an efficiency perspective. Digital divides can take many forms (especially between individuals depending on age, gender, education level…), including a spatial dimension with inequalities across territories. In Europe, digital divides are wide across regions (from broadband access to use of e-services), largely following a North-West/South-East pattern (European Parliament, 2013; Lucendo-Monedero et al., 2019). As a consequence, addressing this situation is essential to tackle socio-economic inequalities and foster competitiveness (Vicente & López-Menéndez, 2011). Regional authorities can play a role in dealing with these divides, while national authorities’ action also remains essential (Palop García et al., 2014). . The adaptability to local context and conditions and connection of bottom-up and top-down initiatives. The success of ICT interventions is highly context-dependent, with the importance to consider both the supply and demand. Regional authorities can theoretically use their knowledge of local conditions to bridge general top-down initiatives (such as standard-setting, or generic framework conditions) and bottom-up local projects (stemming from local needs), ensuring their general coherence for a set of particular circumstances (European Parliament, 2013; Reggi & Scicchitano, 2014). In the EU context, it is particularly relevant because of the complex interplay of stakeholders from different levels involved in digital policies. . The ability to address market failures (especially in less developed regions). In general, public investments can be implemented to compensate for the lack of interest/willingness of the private sector to perform them. This rationale applies to ICT projects and can be particularly strong in deprived areas, where the (expected) demand may be seen as too limited to justify large private investments, therefore granting an important role to regional authorities. For instance, public digital investments can support the development

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

153

of ICT infrastructures in this type of regions (Matteucci, 2015), which are numerous in Southern or Eastern Europe. . The stimulation of digitalisation projects and initiatives. Finally, regional strategies and support towards digitalisation can increase the visibility of the related issues and dedicate funding that will enable the emergence of new (or larger-scale) digital projects and initiatives.

Specific Cohesion Policy’s Arrangements (Potentially) Favouring the Concretisation of These Benefits The previously mentioned benefits of the regionalised and multilevel governance approach towards digitalisation are theoretical. Their practical concretisation is thus not automatic. It is important to obtain empirical evidence to assess the actual achievements of Cohesion Policy for digitalisation (see section “Reaping the Expected Benefits of Digitalisation in Less Developed Regions Through Cohesion Policy”). However, Cohesion Policy is organised by a set of formal rules (legal requirements, as outlined in EU-wide regulations and national rules) and practices (such as practitioners’ networks, methodological guidance and support provided by the European Commission, etc.). During the 2014–2020 programming period, some of these arrangements are likely to favour the concretisation of these benefits,1 even if not explicitly designed with that aim. Thematic Objectives (TO) are a list of priorities set in the Cohesion Policy regulations to favour the concentration of resources towards a series of objectives that are consistent with EU strategies. There is a specific TO for digitalisation-related issues, namely the TO2 ‘Enhancing access to, and use and quality of information and communication technologies (ICT)’ (European Commission, 2020b). Through this concentration of funding, it can be expected that the ability to tackle territorial

1 It shall be noted that the mentioned arrangements of Cohesion Policy have additional benefits beyond those listed (focusing on the regionalised and multilevel approach for digitalisation). Similarly, these arrangements might also have drawbacks for the concretisation of the expected benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach of digitalisation. This chapter focuses on the extent of their contribution to the expected benefits (including the limits of their contribution in section “Reaping the Expected Benefits of Digitalisation in Less Developed Regions Through Cohesion Policy”).

154

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

disparities, address market failures in less developed regions and stimulate digitalisation projects will be enhanced. Ex-ante conditionalities (EXAC) are requirements to ensure that ‘necessary conditions for the effective and efficient use of […] funds are in place’. For investments in digitalisation, two EXAC are mandatory and are typically fulfilled by drafting policy documents: Digital Growth Strategy (often integrated with the regional innovation strategy—to ensure consistency between EU objectives and regional interventions for digitalisation) and the Next Generation Broadband Plan (to reach quantified goals for ICT infrastructure deployment) (European Commission, 2014b). As such, these EXAC could make sure that regional authorities have the capacity to assess the local context and bring coherence between the actions/priorities of different levels of government. Territorial and place-based approaches include specific instruments (such as the Integrated Territorial Investments) and Strategies (such as the S3—which is also an EXAC related to R&D and innovation) (JRC, 2020) allowing regional authorities to involve local stakeholders in specific partnerships or processes to define adapted priorities and to deal with territorial issues (including at the infra-regional level). ITI can also mobilise funding from different structural funds (European Commission, 2014a). They can apply to ICT-related issues. These approaches can contribute to all potential expected benefits listed in the previous section (through an ability to improve the design and implementation of digitalisation-related initiatives). Finally, networks and initiatives to exchange experience and good practices (such as URBACT) play a role in diffusing good practices among Cohesion Policy’s stakeholders. As a result, they can favour learning (leading to better adaptation to local context—though there is a risk of mimetic replication) and stimulation of similar projects across the EU. The relevant arrangements and their potential contribution are summarised in Table 7.2.

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

155

Table 7.2 Cohesion Policy’s arrangements potentially contributing to secure the expected benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach towards digitalisation Cohesion Policy’s arrangements

Contribution to the benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach of digitalisation

Thematic concentration of funding

• Ability to tackle territorial disparities regarding digitalisation • Ability to address market failures (especially in less developed regions) • Stimulation of digitalisation projects and initiatives • Adaptability to local context and conditions and connection of bottom-up and top-down initiatives • Ability to tackle territorial disparities regarding digitalisation • Ability to address market failures (especially in less developed regions) • Adaptability to local context and conditions and connection of bottom-up and top-down initiatives • Stimulation of digitalisation projects and initiatives • Adaptability to local context and conditions and connection of bottom-up and top-down initiatives • Stimulation of digitalisation projects and initiatives

Specific ex-ante conditionalities for digitalisation Territorial and place-based approaches (S3, ITI…)

Networks and exchanges of good practices (e.g., URBACT)

Source Authors

Empirical Evidence on the Role of Cohesion Policy’s Framework to Secure the Benefits of a Regionalised and Multilevel Governance Approach for Digitalisation The previous section highlights the expected benefits of a multilevel governance and regional approach for digitalisation, as well as specific arrangements of the Cohesion Policy’s framework that might contribute to their realisation. Empirical evidence is necessary to assess these arrangements’ actual contribution to secure these benefits, with potential insights on the design of adequate public policies for ICT. However, this

156

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

evidence2 is still limited and must therefore be carefully considered before reaching generalisations. Mixed Findings on Different Elements of the Cohesion Policy’s Framework For most of the Cohesion Policy framework’s specific arrangements, the evidence for their contribution to secure the expected benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach for digitalisation is thin, and yields mixed results. An analysis of JRC estimates shows that regions allocate on average 5% of their Cohesion Policy funding (ERDF, CF, ESF, YEI) towards digitalisation-related investments (Sorvik & Kleibrink, 2016). Beyond this average, there are wide disparities across regions (ranging from 0 to 30%), as shown in Map 7.3. However, there is not enough evidence to assess if the thematic concentration requirement is a causal explanation for these patterns, let alone to determine the contribution of these investments to bridge territorial disparities (investments are concentrated in less developed regions, but more advanced regions also benefit from important sources of funding). There are also ambiguities in the definition of ICT-related expenditure that complicates measurements.3 For instance, in a French example, a social inclusion project using ICT (Fabrique numérique de Gonesse—where early school dropouts benefited from an inclusiveness-oriented training using ICT) has not been recorded under TO2 (European Parliament, 2018). Evidence on the benefits of ex-ante conditionalities for ICT is mixed. Previous research on samples of cases has shown that in many regions, the precise requirements and the methodologies to establish the EXAC are not clear to administrators and policymakers (Stancova & Sorvik, 2016). However, the specific attention to broadband with a dedicated EXAC could be beneficial, given the technical complexity of the issue and the 2 It primarily builds upon the existing literature and six case studies realised for the European Parliament: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/public ation/a58141b0-f9d2-11e8-a96d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-118 127298—see the annex. 3 As enabling technologies of a transversal nature, ICT-related expenditure tends to contribute to several policy areas, leading to difficulties for their identification. This leads to unavoidable ambiguities in the coding (e.g., through priority codes in Cohesion Policy) or classification systems to track them.

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

157

previously identified problems for broadband deployment in 2007–2013, for instance in the Podkarpackie region of Poland (European Parliament, 2018). Its contribution to local adaptation and to enhance the coherence of initiatives from different levels thus seem to be context-dependent (based on local administrative and technical capacity, needs and types of ICT investments). An issue is that these contextual conditions for success may be lacking in the less developed regions, which are also those primarily targeted by Cohesion Policy. Existing Cohesion Policy networks and labels could have positive effects on the diffusion of experience, capacity building and in fine favour adaptation to local needs. Indeed, these networks and labels are sometimes covering/applied to ICT projects. For instance, a French project for social inclusion using ICT has been awarded a URBACT label. However, the prospects and concrete influence of these actions—beyond visibility gains—are unclear. The Value of Partnership-Building Supported by the Cohesion Policy’s Framework A key channel through which the Cohesion Policy’s framework seems to support the realisation of the expected benefits of a regionalised and multilevel governance approach for digitalisation is its contribution to partnership-building, through different means. Previous research has shown for a long time that partnerships are key to properly assess the situation, as well as mobilising stakeholders during the implementation of digital strategies (Technopolis, 2004). Specific examples testify that the Cohesion Policy framework for 2014–2020 can contribute to the successful establishment of such partnerships, with notable benefits in terms of adaptation to local conditions and ability to tackle territorial disparities (e.g., by considering infra-regional aspects). For instance, the Integrated Territorial Investment instrument has been used for the implementation of the Fabrique Numérique de Gonesse, bringing together stakeholders at the infra-regional level in a particular context (administrative reform) (European Parliament, 2018). Similarly, the Smart Specialisation Approach is built upon the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process, involving several local stakeholders to reflect and set RDI priorities collaboratively, guiding Cohesion Policy investments. In practice, several

158

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

regions (up to 50% according to JRC estimates4 ) have selected ICTrelated priorities, implying a contribution to digitalisation. However, partnership-building also entails specific risks, such as lock-ins or capture by vested interests (as Hassink & Gong, 2019 argue in the case of the S3 approach, for instance).

Conclusions Cohesion Policy is a case of initiative with a multilevel governance and regionalised approach, aiming to tackle territorial disparities between European regions. It can thus bring valuable insights on the (potential) benefits of such an approach for digitalisation and in fine, territorial innovation. Some clear theoretical rationales indeed suggest that a regionalised and multilevel governance perspective can bring advantages regarding digitalisation. The actual implementation of these benefits in practice is however open to debate. Cohesion Policy has different features in its organisational framework (both regulatory and non-regulatory) for 2014–2020 that could help to secure these benefits. Empirical evidence is scarce but suggests that the tools to favour the emergence of effective partnerships between local stakeholders are a major channel through which the Policy could secure the expected benefits linked to a regionalised and multilevel governance approach to digitalisation. Even if this finding shall be confirmed and generalised, it is a possible way to contribute meaningfully to the potential of territorial innovation. Moreover, Cohesion Policy’s experience shows that contextual conditions matter for the realisation of the expected benefits of a multilevel and regionalised approach for digitalisation. Administrative and technical capacity, strategic planning, but also policy learning with previous experience, are indeed critical factors for success. Unfortunately, many less developed regions (which are targeted by Cohesion Policy and with highest needs regarding digitalisation) may lag behind on these aspects. Consequently, adapted support (as traditionally provided by, e.g., the European Commission and national authorities) is likely to be a relevant strategy.

4 https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda-and-ict.

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

159

References Committee of the Regions. (2009). White Paper on multilevel governance. Publications Office of the European Union. http://op.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/3cba79fd-2fcd-4fc4-94b9-677bbc53916b/language-en CORDIS. (1993). Final phase of STAR programme. https://cordis.europa.eu/ article/id/1516-final-phase-of-star-programme CORDIS. (2014). Community initiative for regional development concerning services and networks related to data communication (TELEMATIQUE). https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/id/REG-TELEMATIQUE European Commission. (1999). eEurope—An information society for all. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/eeurope-an-inform ation-society-for-all.html European Commission. (2010). A Digital Agenda for Europe. https://eur-lex. europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52010DC0245R%280 1%29 European Commission. (2014a). Guidance Fiche: Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI). https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publicati ons/guidelines/2014/guidance-fiche-integrated-territorial-investment-iti European Commission. (2014b). Guidance on Ex ante Conditionalities for the European Structural and Investment Funds. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_ policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/eac_guidance_esif_part2_en.pdf European Commission. (2014c). Multilevel governance and partnership (The Van den Brande Report). https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/inf orming/dialog/2014/5_vandenbrande_report.pdf European Commission. (2020a). % of cohesion policy funding in public investment per Member State. Socrata. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/Other/-of-coh esion-policy-funding-in-public-investment-p/7bw6-2dw3 European Commission. (2020b). Information & Communication Technology. https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/2 European Commission. (2020c). Is my region covered? https://ec.europa.eu/reg ional_policy/en/policy/how/is-my-region-covered/ European Commission. (2020d). The EU’s main investment policy. https://ec. europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/what/investment-policy/ European Commission. (2020e, February 18). The European Digital Strategy [Text]. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future—European Commission. https:// ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/content/european-digital-strategy European Commission. (2020f, June 2). The Digital Services Act package [Text]. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future—European Commission. https://ec.europa. eu/digital-single-market/en/digital-services-act-package

160

J. PELLEGRIN AND L. COLNOT

European Parliament. (2013). Internet, Digital Agenda and economic development of European regions (p. 128). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/Reg Data/etudes/etudes/join/2013/513970/IPOL-REGI_ET(2013)513970_ EN.pdf European Parliament. (2018). Digital agenda and cohesion policy [Website]. Publications Office of the European Union. http://op.europa.eu/en/pub lication-detail/-/publication/a58141b0-f9d2-11e8-a96d-01aa75ed71a1/lan guage-en/format-PDF Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European Planning Studies, 27 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019. 1650898 JRC. (2020). What is smart specialisation?—Smart specialisation platform. https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/what-is-smart-specialisationLucendo-Monedero, A. L., Ruiz-Rodríguez, F., & González-Relaño, R. (2019). Measuring the digital divide at regional level. A spatial analysis of the inequalities in digital development of households and individuals in Europe. Telematics and Informatics, 41, 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.05.002 Manzella, G. P., & Mendez, C. (2009). The turning points of EU Cohesion policy. Working Paper Report to Barca Report. https://strathprints.strath.ac. uk/38743/1/8_manzella_final_formatted.pdf Matteucci, N. (2015). The evaluation of «regional digital agendas». A model for public investments in broadband. L’industria, 4, 553–584. OECD. (2017). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2017 . OECD. https://doi. org/10.1787/9789264276284-en OECD. (2020). OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020. OECD. https://doi. org/10.1787/bb167041-en Palop García, P., Thapa, B., & Niehaves, B. (2014). Bridging the digital divide at the regional level? The effect of regional and national policies on broadband access in Europe’s regions. In M. Janssen, H. J. Scholl, M. A. Wimmer, & F. Bannister (Eds.), Electronic government (pp. 218–229). Springer. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44426-9_18 Pellegrin, J., & Colnot, L. (2020). The contribution of Cohesion Policy to digitalisation: An adequate approach? (Working Papers No. 201901). CSIL Centre for Industrial Studies. https://ideas.repec.org/p/mst/wpaper/201901.html Pires, S. M., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2020). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: The quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1639–1666. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1697211 Reggi, L., & Scicchitano, S. (2014). Are EU regional digital strategies evidencebased? An analysis of the allocation of 2007–13 Structural Funds. Telecommunications Policy, 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2013.12.007

7

DIGITALISATION IN A MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE …

161

Sorvik, J., & Kleibrink, A. (2016). Mapping EU investments in ICT—Description of an online tool and initial observations (JRC Working Papers No. JRC102233). Joint Research Centre (Seville site). https://ideas.repec.org/ p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc102233.html Stancova, K. C., & Sorvik, J. (2016). Assessment of strategies for ICT investments using European Structural and Investment Funds: Reflections from experts and practical examples (JRC Working Papers No. JRC99720). Joint Research Centre (Seville site). https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc99720.html Technopolis. (2004). Final report for the thematic evaluation of the information society. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/ doc/information_society.pdf Treaty establishing the European Economic Community. (1957). https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A11957E%2FTXT Vicente, M., & López-Menéndez, A. (2011). Assessing the regional digital divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy, 35(3), 220–237.

CHAPTER 8

Prototyping a Digital Platform to Promote (Hyper)mediation Practices in the Territory Eliza Oliveira, Daniel Carvalho, Fernando Ramos, Luís Pedro, Maria João Antunes, Margarida Almeida, and Oksana Tymoshchuk

Introduction Mediation is understood as a means through which the processes of dialogue and interaction between members of a community occur, establishing connections and nurturing the bonds of sociability, impacting directly on the form and content transmitted by messages (Almeida, 2009; Hjarvard, 2015). With the emergence and pervasiveness of digital

F. Ramos University Portucalense, Porto, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] E. Oliveira (B) · D. Carvalho · L. Pedro · M. J. Antunes · M. Almeida · O. Tymoshchuk DigiMedia, Department of Communication and Art, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_8

163

164

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

technologies, these processes evolve toward hypermediation, i.e., “(…) the complex network of social production, exchange and consumption processes that take place in an environment characterized by a large number of social actors, media technologies and technological languages” (Scolari, 2015). Info-communication technologies have significantly changed the way people interact, through voice, videos, images and texts, turning social networks a typical part of their lives. In this scope, the design of digital tools that work in an environment characterized by countless social actors, and supported by technological languages is crucial (Scolari, 2015). Simultaneously, smartphones made digital content accessible24/7, while the diversity of smart devices helped to democratize handsets by setting up the culture of everywhere and every time. These devices have widespread use in all social strata, and mobiles-applications (m-apps) are a valuable option to access services and information since they are presented as a practical alternative to web browsers (Tan et al., 2017). Several m-apps attributes and benefits are worth mentioning. The “always on,” “always on you” and location flexibility of these apps help to promote efficiency in consumers’ daily tasks (Kim et al., 2013). M-apps also help to overcome the barrier associated with navigating websites not optimized for mobile (Wang & Wang, 2010) and lead to greater level of convenience, as they can be used to compare prices, obtain discounts, conduct specialized research on products and services, locate stores and access to timely information regarding restaurants, transportation, local activities and, on top of that, share that information on social networks

D. Carvalho e-mail: [email protected] L. Pedro e-mail: [email protected] M. J. Antunes e-mail: [email protected] M. Almeida e-mail: [email protected] O. Tymoshchuk e-mail: [email protected]

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

165

(Wang & Wang, 2010). From a business-oriented approach, m-apps can promote customer loyalty, as they enhance the effectiveness of promotions and serve as an opportunity to interact closely with mobile shoppers anytime and anywhere (Cameron et al., 2012). Additionally, mobile applications have been used in areas of knowledge such as culture, tourism and health, proving to be a viable alternative for users of mobile devices, as they allow obtaining real-time information on nearby locations, prices, distances and opinions about service / entity / event (Tan et al., 2017). In this context, to achieve the last objective of the CeNTER project, i.e., prototype and validate a pilot platform for territorial-based innovation, the WP3 team developed a m-app prototype, whose primary focus is to promote collaboration between the various agents (community-led initiatives, public and private entities, networks and citizens), involved in territorial-based innovation processes in the Centro Region of Portugal (Oliveira et al., 2020), in order to promote a digital solution to foster the participation and collaboration between the community actors of Portugal Center Region. In the next sections of this chapter, the most relevant information concerning the design, development and validation stages of the prototype is presented, together with experts’ evaluation inputs and a discussion regarding the future of the territorial innovation community-based m-apps.

Digital Prototype Development Methodologies Prototyping the CeNTER Mobile App To create a product that fulfills the ultimate goal of the CeNTER project, a prototype was developed under the User Centered Design (UCD) approach. Thus, the fundamental elements of the DCU were used to develop the prototype (Fig. 8.1), being: (i) observation of the user to try to understand their interests, motives and real needs, in order to identify which features will best support their assignment; (ii) devise different solutions, such as conceptual models that allow identifying problems in the design; (iii) create interactive prototypes; (iv) test and evaluate the prototypes (Norman, 2013). Therefore, in order to accomplish the first item, the introductory phase of the project included the identification of

166

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Fig. 8.1 User centered design process

the users’ needs and comprised a systematic literature review and interview with local agent and regional initiatives (Silva et al., 2019, 2020; Tymoshchuk et al., 2019a, 2019b). The focus of this article is on the other phases of the project. Under the third and fourth elements above, considering the particular phases underlying this design approach, the next sections present the main relevant stages proposed for the development of CeNTER m-app prototype. Conceptual Stage At this stage, ideas were discussed and the problems to be solved by the platform were exposed. Brainstorming activities helped to identify the features that should exist in the prototype. Hereafter, a user flow was created, allowing us to understand which screens to develop and how they should be ideally connected to each other. From this user flow, several paper sketches (Fig. 8.2) were made to understand how the application should look like in the future. Low-fidelity mock-ups were created, tested and discussed among the team members for validation. Component Stage The next stage included the conversion of the lo-fi prototypes to wireframes (Fig. 8.3), using the “Sketch” application. From the wireframes, it was possible to understand how the texts, lines and other graphic elements of the layout of each screen should be organized. After this,

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

167

Fig. 8.2 Sample of sketches from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user

more improvements were made, giving rise to wireframes that already resembled the look and feel of the final product (Fig. 8.4). Interactive Stage The screens developed from the wireframes (Fig. 8.4) were later used to create a medium fidelity prototype. The “Principle” application was used, allowing to develop a prototype with more complex interactions, such as dragging on a map, swipe on a carousel menu or tap on a menu to collapse visible content. This prototype was later shared with users to be evaluated in order to make final improvements. The home screen of the application consists of a main menu with an interface for communities (Fig. 8.4b). The user has access to these tabs that collapse or expand when the respective button is tapped. In each of those tabs, a carousel with cards of different initiatives, events, entities, volunteers, resources and highlights is available. In this carousel, and similar to the Tinder application, the user can swipe horizontally, being able to continuously see other cards. On each card, it is possible to drag and drop vertically each card to save it or remove it from the favorite list. The map (Fig. 8.4c) has a layout and interaction features that are similar to the Google Maps application. After a tap on the card, it expands

168

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Fig. 8.3 Sample of the wireframes from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user

Fig. 8.4 Sample of screens from the CeNTER platform (from left to right): Tutorial, main menu, map and details of an event selected by the user

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

169

to a new screen that shows more details (Fig. 8.4d), to which the user swipes to scroll up and scroll down to see all the information. In the main screens of the platform, menus were inserted in the header and footer of the screen with buttons/icons and functions similar to those that exist in the majority of mobile application menus, such as agenda; general search for contents; access to ideas shared by the community, notifications and settings. Evaluation Methods The user evaluation process of the CeNTER Project relies on a spiral model of iterative design, including early testing of the low-fidelity mockups with team members, medium-fidelity prototype evaluation by experts, and tests with end-users. To accomplish the experts’ evaluation in order to validate the CeNTER application prototype, two panels of experts were assembled according to the evaluators’ expertise. The first panel consisted of 5 experts in the field of digital technologies, who had knowledge and experience in developing interfaces for mobile applications. The second panel consisted of 5 experts in the field of Tourism, Health, and Wellbeing, who had knowledge of the respective domain and were involved in different community projects. Since the tests with experts were essentially aimed to validate the main functions of the prototype and the main interaction paradigm used, the goals of the experts’ evaluation were: (i) Validate the CeNTER prototype concept; (ii) Verify the acceptance of the interactions modes within the prototype (e.g., drag and drop and swipe interactions); (iii) Evaluate the user interfaces’ look and feel; (iv) Evaluation of the main usability issues; (v) Collect technical problems; (vi) Gather prototyping errors and suggestions for improvement. Two techniques were used during the evaluation process, in order to achieve the goals of the test and maximize the identification of the main issues to be improved: i) inspection-based assessment methods through Heuristic Evaluation: based on checklist and verification items, which allowed the evaluators to investigate and identify usability problems in system interface solutions, not directly involving the end-user; ii) the observation technique, in which an exploratory overview of the prototype using a think-aloud protocol was encouraged. For this study, specifically, a heuristic checklist was developed to evaluate the application prototype, based mainly on ten Nielsen heuristics (1994), which were reinforced with three heuristics presented in the

170

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

MATCH scale (Salazar et al., 2012). Additionally, the interactions and comments of the evaluators while performing the test were recorded by the team members. Afterward, the recording data was organized in an Excel spreadsheet and the repeated notes were discarded. Secondly, information was merged according to their similarities, i.e., corresponding screens, the expert who mentioned the issues, the priority of each item to be modified at the prototype and the level of effort of the respective modification. Data were judged according to the nature of the inputs, being evaluated as prototyping errors or suggestions for improvements. This spreadsheet provided valuable information regarding the experts’ feedback of the prototype, allowing to achieve, together with the Heuristics Evaluation, the main goals of the prototype’s assessment. Moreover, the final analysis of both spreadsheets gave rise to the most relevant modifications to be made, according to the experts. The heuristic evaluation process took place in three stages, according to the proposal of Nielsen (1994): (1) preparation phase: in this phase, the prototype screens for evaluation and the list of heuristics to be used were defined and organized; (2) evaluation phase, consisted of collecting evaluation data from each evaluator, individually. The evaluators tested the prototype by identifying the guidelines that were violated and the degree of severity of the problem. Evaluations were made in person and under equal conditions. The data were collected using the same heuristic checklist and observation record; (3) results consolidation phase and results report: at the end of the tests, data collected from the two panels of evaluators were analyzed and compared.

Experts’ Assessment Results Experts’ suggestions showed that the CeNTER prototype application is a sustainable and timely proposal, although there are still some issues to be addressed in order to improve it. The following results are presented according to the assessment technique used, i.e., first data that resulted from the heuristic techniques and secondly data from the observation and report. By reporting the interactions and comments of the experts through the application of the think-aloud protocol during the tests, it was possible to extract both qualitative and quantitative outcomes, while the heuristic evaluation provides valuable quantitative data. To define the main improvements to be accomplished at the prototype, the registered inputs were organized into two tables, according to the corresponding

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

171

test panel. Subsequently, each input was measured according to the level of modification priority of the item, and the level of effort it required. The results are described below. Heuristics Evaluation The heuristic evaluation of the prototype was performed through a comparative case study with the two evaluation panels. To consolidate the heuristic validation results, a grid was created that gathered all the results. The grids were then analyzed and compared. Table 8.1 shows the number of problems identified by each group of evaluators, the severity of those problems and the average severity. Table 8.1 shows a significantly higher number of usability problems (109) identified by the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) experts when we compare it to the problems identified by the other panel (46). Regarding the severity of problems, it is important to note that panel 1 identified 46 problems with score 1 (cosmetic problem only), 39 problems with score 2 (small usability problem), 21 problems with score 3 (main usability problem) and 2 problems with score 4 (usability catastrophe). Two problems with score 4 were identified by the same evaluator from panel 1. These problems refer to the following heuristics “Correspondence between the system and the real world” and “The proposed interactions in the application are similar to real actions ” and “Information appears in a logical and natural order”. No violations with score 4 were reported by the experts of the second group. Regarding the assessment of the severity of the heuristic violation, both panels were quite consistent. The highest Mean Severity identified by Table 8.1 Number of Problems and Average Problem Severity identified by each panel of evaluators Expert panels

Panel 1—Technology experts Panel 2—Tourism, health and wellness experts

Total problems Severity of problems

Severity average

1

2

3

4

109

46

39

21

2

1.78

46

14

26

6

0

1.53

172

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Group 1 was related to the following heuristics: “Help and Documentation” (2.75), “Recognition rather than Reminder” (2.5) and “Interaction between person and application” (2.33). Group 2 reported as the highest Mean of Heuristic Severities: Flexibility and Efficiency (2.25), Help and Documentation (2.2), Recognition rather than Reminder (2) and Interaction between person and application (2). The Mean Severity in two panels were low, with a score close to 1.78 (Panel 1) and 1.53 (Panel 2). The difference in results between groups also occurred in the types of problems identified. The problems identified by panel 1 were focused on prototype design, robustness and accessibility (Table 8.2). In contrast, the problems identified by panel 2 were related to the suitability of the prototype for each application domain, as well as the efficiency and type of functionality available to users. Table 8.2 presents the number of heuristic violations identified by the panel 1 which included: “Readability and layout ” (14, mean severity 1.5), followed by “User controls and free will ” (13, mean severity 1, 54) and “Aesthetics and minimalist design” (12, medium severity 1.66). Panel 2 identified the maximum number of heuristic violations: “User controls and exercises free will ” (11, mean severity 1.45), “Avoid errors ” (7, mean severity 1.86) and “Matching the system to the real world” (6, mean severity 1.5). Identifying these heuristic violations made it easier to identify and prioritize issues that needed urgent attention before the final deployment of the application. Observation and Think-Aloud One hundred and one (121) inputs were reported during the free exploration by the ICTs experts, 83 of which were considered by the team as suggestions for platform improvements, 30 as prototyping errors and 8 were interpreted as suggestions for improvement and prototyping errors. Prototyping errors correspond to inconsistencies in the use of the prototype and the user interface, such as different icons representing the same function, or lack of an icon that should be available by default (e.g., the absence of the return icon on some screens, with consequent impossibility to perform this action); screens with too much information and interactions that conveyed a sense of lack of control of the prototype contents. An example of a prototyping error comment is: “Standardize the ‘saved’

8

173

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

Table 8.2 Type of violated heuristics and average severity identified by each panel of evaluators Nº

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

12

13

Heuristic

Visibility of system status Match between system and the real world User control and freedom Consistency and standards Error prevention Recognition rather than recall Flexibility and efficiency of use Aesthetic and minimalist design Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors Help and documentation Interaction between person and application Physical interaction and ergonomics Readability and layout Total

GR 1—Technology experts

GR 2—Tourism, health and wellness experts

Number of problems

Average of severities

Number of problems

Average of severities

11

2.18

1

1

11

2.27

6

1.5

13

1.54

11

1.45

7

1.57

3

1.66

5 4

1.6 2.5

7 1

1.86 2

7

1.85

4

2.25

12

1.66

1

1

10

1.1

4

1.9

4

2.75

5

2.2

3

2.33

1

2

8

1.75

0

0

14

1.5

2

1

109

1.78

46

1.53

icons, on the right side of the ideas screen, with the rest of the app” (Panel 1— Expert 1). An example of suggestions is: “In ‘Ideas’, add year information and not just day and time” (Panel 2—Expert 2).

174

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Regarding the inputs collected from experts from the second panel, a total of 53 inputs were obtained during the free exploration of the prototype, being 42 considered by the CeNTER team as suggestions for platform improvements, 11 as prototyping errors and 1 as improvement suggestion and prototyping error. Prototyping errors are the same as group 1, i.e., correspond to inconsistencies, such as different icons representing the same function, or lack of an icon. An example of a prototyping error is: “A person can get lost while switching between tabs, not sure how to go back when opening one tab and how to minimize another” (Panel 2— Expert 3). An example of suggestions for improvement is: “Change ‘sport’ by ‘physical and sport activity’. Sport is interpreted as competitive action” (Panel 2—Expert 4). Table 8.3 shows the number of inputs registered by the CeNTER team on both sets of evaluation. It is important to note that there is a considerable difference regarding the number of inputs registered between the two panels. It probably happened due to the difference of expertise fields of the members of each panel. Taking into account that panel 1 consisted of ICT experts, it was expected that technical issues of the prototype should be pointed out by them, along with personal considerations about the concept, functionality, innovation and other elements. In contrast, specialists of panel 2 mainly commented on the concept of the CeNTER prototype, functionality and effectiveness for the end-user, while technical factors were not mentioned. One example is the fact that only the experts of the ICT area were able to explore the drag and drop interaction without any clue from the CeNTER team. Presumably, the nature of the expertise of each panel can also be the reason for the differences of the heuristic evaluation answers, namely in the severity of the heuristic violation and the type of problems identified. Data extracted in the evaluations were also analyzed according to the priority of each item to be modified at the prototype. In the first panel, 21 inputs were considered priority one by the team, since they were problems Table 8.3 Expert’s inputs

Inputs

T1

T2

Total

Total of inputs Suggestions for improvement Prototyping errors Errors and suggestions

121 83 30 8

53 41 11 1

174 124 41 9

8

Table 8.4 Priority of the inputs

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

Priority of the inputs Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

175

No. of inputs T1

No. of inputs T2

22 41 58

14 12 27

that affected the usability of the prototype, influencing the user experience. Forty-two inputs were considered priority two, or issues that altered the usability of the system but did not impair the quality of the user experience, and 58 inputs were considered priority three, as they did not affect the quality of the user experience. Regarding the second panel inputs, 14 were considered priority 1 by the Work Package 3 (WP3) team; 12 were considered priority 2 and 27 were considered priority 3 (Table 8.4). The effort level for the improvement of the prototype was also evaluated. In the first test panel, 57 inputs presented a low level of effort as they required a short time to solve the error/problem. Forty-two were considered as holding an average effort level since they required some time for error/problem resolution, and 22 were considered as a high effort level, i.e., they required a long time for error/problem resolution (Table 8.5). Lastly, the inputs were divided according to each correspondent screen. Table 8.6 shows the number of inputs related to the main screens tested. As previously said, with the intent to determine the main modifications to be made for the prototype’s improvement, all the above information was separated in two different tables, according to the corresponding test panel. The key factors taken into consideration for choosing the modifications to be made at the prototype were the level of priority of each item and the level of effort for the improvement at the prototype. Thus, Table 8.5 Level of effort for the improvement of the prototype

Level of effort Low level of effort Medium level of effort High level of effort

No. of inputs T1

No. of inputs T2

57

9

42

13

22

31

176

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Table 8.6 Inputs according to the prototype interface Interfaces Tutorial Main screen Profile Register of an initiative or activity Ideas Maps Agenda Saved Notifications Details of an activity / initiative / entity Others Total

No. of inputs T1

No. of inputs T2

11 21 10 16 16 7 8 5 6 16 5 121

2 19 3 4 2 3 1 1 2 9 7 53

the expert’s inputs were gauged at the level of priority and level of effort of the respective modification outlined. The items with a high level of priority and low level of effort had the most chance to be taken for adjustment. Thus, although all results are shown together in this paper, this is done for comparison purposes only, as they were analyzed separately, and each phase gave rise to modifications that reflect the inputs of each expert set. After the analysis of the tables, the first panel of tests gave rise to fourteen items to be modified at the prototype, all demanding a low level of effort to be made. Six items presented a high level of priority, or priority 1, seven a medium level of priority, or priority 2 and one presented a low level of priority, or priority 3. From the table of the second test panel, twenty items were selected to be modified at the application prototype. Thirteen items had a high level of priority, or priority 1, six a medium level of priority, or priority 2 and one presented a low level of priority, or priority 3. Regarding the required effort, 7 demand a low level of effort, while 7 and 6 demand an average and high level of effort, respectively. Examples of the selected improvements from the first panel of tests were: “It should be able to return to a previous screen in the tutorial ” (Panel 1—Expert 1), “The search function on the screen ‘ideas’ should be consistent with the rest of the app” (Panel 1—Expert 3 and 4), “The ‘search’ and ‘settings’ icons have the order changed on the ‘notifications’ screen, taking into account what you see on the home screen or map” (Panel 1—Expert 5)

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

177

and “Standardize the ‘saved’ icons, on the right side of the screed ideas, with the rest of the app” (Panel 1—Expert 5). Examples of the selected improvements from the second panel of tests are: “Should be better hierarchized / explained to understand the contents present in the platform (initiatives, activities, volunteers, resources, etc.)” (Panel 2—Expert 4), “It is suggested to find another nomenclature for initiatives, as they are confused with activities ” (Panel 2—Expert 1, 2, 3 and 4), “Drag and drop gesture is very fast. It seems to have no control over the interaction elements ” (Panel 2—Expert 1 and 4) and “On the ‘share’ screen: what is the difference between SMS and Phone icons?” (Panel 2—Expert 1, 2, 3 and 4). Although there is a slight contrast in the number of inputs described between the two panels, with panel 1 presenting a significantly larger amount, some inputs are highlighted, since they were pointed out by both panels. Overall, it was consensual that the drag and drop interaction system is a usability challenge. Only the experts of the ICT area were able to explore this interaction mode without any clue from the CeNTER team. However, taking into account that this kind of interaction is not common and has been successfully used before by few other applications, such as Tinder, we feel that users may become familiar with this interaction after its use. Still, in terms of interaction, the swipe between the cards had good acceptability among the evaluators, but according to most of them, it will not be possible to use the carousel with a high amount of information. According to some experts, an alternative could be using a list format instead of cards. Another significant input is concerned with the confusion between “Activity” and “Initiative” definitions. For the majority of the experts, those two titles are equal and correspond to the same idea. The team agreed to change the name “Activity” to “Event” since, in the context of the CeNTER application prototype, the activity is related to any action or event which happens in a specific place and date, or period. Additionally, overall, the interface was well evaluated and received a lot of praise, mainly the color palette used on the idealization and development of the prototype. The size and font used were also appreciated by the experts of both panels. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the concept of the CeNTER application prototype has been well evaluated among the experts of both panels. In this subject, the “Resources” and “Volunteer” components were highlighted as being the most innovative features of the platform:

178

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

“Resources and volunteers are the differentiating elements of the platform” (Panel 2—Expert 5). Since the specialists of the second panel were more acquainted with the existing territorial innovation services available, this panel of evaluators proved to be a valuable choice for the prototype assessment, as they were able to provide significant contributions for the success of the platform: “It is suggested to convert the app into a website in order to be accessible to more people in Portugal. Make it a more universal alternative because it is an innovative tool, and it can be complex and demanding for the average user” (Panel 2—Experts 1, 5). In contrast, panel 1 provided essential technical inputs, which directly impacted the prototype usability: “Drag and drop visual feedback is required: card absorption animation on save / delete balls. Swiping diagonally can lead to the mistake of dragging the recommendation” (Panel 1—Experts 2, 3, 4).

The Future of the Center Prototype Application After performing the evaluation of the prototype, we consider that the general opinion was positive. Overall, the prototype had a simple interface, the page layout was appropriate, easy to use, and did not require much effort on the part of the user. No incongruities were detected in the form of presentation, although some errors were indicated in the use of some specific terminology in the area of Health and Well-being. As the development of the CeNTER prototype requires an iterative design process, performing early tests was a crucial part of the system design, in order to detect usability issues and important improvements to be made. Through the techniques used, it was possible to achieve valuable data, as the experts were from different areas of knowledge. In this regard, the nature of the experts’ area of each panel oriented the character of suggestions, with the most technical issues naturally being pointed out by the professionals of the technologic area. Through the conducted tests, the development of a communitybased territorial innovation application proved to be a sustainable and timely proposal, as the “CeNTER” prototype concept was approved. Additionally, the prototype seems to be a remarkable novelty, since it brings up new features, such as the “Resources” and “Volunteers”, and comes up with unconventional interaction paradigms. The validation of the CeNTER prototype is not near to be done, however. Future work includes performing laboratory tests with end-users. But before further

8

PROTOTYPING A DIGITAL PLATFORM TO PROMOTE …

179

tests are made, the final experts’ suggestions for improvements need to be considered. The CeNTER team believes that the underlying conceptual idea of the project can make an important contribution to the future of territorial innovation, showing the potential of digital media to improve community engagement in their territorial issues. Acknowledgements This chapter was developed under the support of the Research Program ‘CeNTER - Community-led Territorial Innovation’ (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), PT2020.

References Almeida, M. A. (2009). A produção social do conhecimento na sociedade da informação. Informação & Sociedade: Estudos, 19(1). Cameron, D., Gregory, C., & Battaglia, D. (2012). Nielsen personalizes the mobile shopping app if you build the technology, they will come. Journal of Advertising Research., 52(3), 333–338. Hjarvard, S. (2015). Da Mediação à Midiatização: a institucionalização das novas mídias. Parágrafo, 2(3), 51–62. Kim, E., Lin, J. S., & Sung, Y. (2013). To app or not to app: Engaging consumers via branded mobile apps. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 131(1), 53–65. Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, pp. 152– 158. https://doi.org/10.1145/259963.260333 Norman, D. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books. Oliveira, E., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., Carvalho, D., & Ramos, F. (2020). Prototipagem de uma Plataforma Digital para a Promoção da Inovação Territorial de Base Comunitária. Journal of Digital Media & Interaction, 3(6), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.34624/jdmi.v3i6. 15517 Salazar, L. H., Lacerda, T., von Wangenheim, C. G. & Barbalho, R. A. (2012). Customizando heurísticas de usabilidade para celulares. In Companion Proceedings of the 11th BSHFCS, (pp. 37–38). Scolari, C. (2015). From (new)media to (hyper)mediations. Recovering Jesu s Martı n-Barbero’s mediation theory in the age of digital communication and cultural convergence, information. Communication & Society, 18(9), 1092– 1107.

180

E. OLIVEIRA ET AL.

Silva, P. A., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., Renó, D., & Ramos, F. (2019, November 21–22). Involving communities in shaping digital solutions for innovation in societies and territories. In ICGI 2019—International Conference on Graphics and Interaction. Faro, Portugal, pp. 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICGI47575.2019. 8955087. https://dblp.org/db/conf/icgi2/icgi2019.html Silva, P. A., Antunes, M. J., Tymoshchuk, O., Pedro, L., Almeida, M., & Ramos, F. (2020). Barriers and incentives to territory-based innovation processes: from technology to interaction among actors. In Handbook of research on cultural heritage and its impact on territory innovation and development. IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6701-2 Tan, G. W., Lee, V. H., Lin, B., & Ooi, K. (2017). Mobile applications in tourism: The future of the tourism industry? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117 (3), 560–581. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-12-2015-0490 Tymoshchuk, O., Renó, D., Silva, P. A., Almeida, A. M., Pedro, L., & Ramos, F. (2019a). Mediação digital para a inovação territorial: um estudo de caso múltiplo em redes sociais digitais. OBS*Observatorio, 13(4). http://obs.obe rcom.pt/index.php/obs/article/view/1435 Tymoshchuk, O., Reno, D., Silva, P.A., Almeida, A. M., Pedro L. & Ramos, F (2019b). “O papel das tecnologias digitais no desenvolvimento das comunidades rurais: o estudo de caso múltiplo de “BioLiving” e “Bons Sons”. Revista Portuguesa de Estudos Regionais (RPER), 3(52), 131–144. http:// www.apdr.pt/siteRPER/numeros/RPER52/52.8.pdf Wang, H. Y., & Wang, S. H. (2010). Predicting mobile hotel reservation adoption: Insight from a perceived value standpoint. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(4), 598–608.

CHAPTER 9

The Role of Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainability in Urban Systems Transformation Alexandra Polido

Introduction Global environmental and social challenges, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, natural resources use, and social equity, urge the need to protect ecosystems and build inclusive societies towards sustainability. Cities and urban systems play a paramount role in such paradigm change as they are at the forefront for achieving a global transformation (Bai et al., 2016; Castán Broto et al., 2019; McPhearson et al., 2016). The transformation towards sustainability through cities and urban systems is inextricably linked with the understanding of the challenges, decisionmaking processes (e.g., policy, plans, programmes), and governance issues

A. Polido (B) Research Unit on Governance, Competitiveness and Public Policies (GOVCOPP), Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_9

181

182

A. POLIDO

in these territories (Bai et al., 2016; Elmqvist et al., 2019). Local governments are key to generating this much-needed transformation (Glaas et al., 2019) because they are embedded in the local urban geographic and social context (Bai et al., 2016) enabling the political and “institutional conditions to foster social and technical innovation across different societal sectors (i.e. business, civil society, science and government)” (Castán Broto et al., 2019, p. 450). Urban systems can be defined as cities open and interlinking with different scales, including their regions (sub-national level) (Bai et al., 2016). Urban systems sustainability has been addressed in different ways. Scholars have explored systems change theories and approaches for sustainable cities (Bai et al., 2016; Elmqvist et al., 2019), urban sustainability assessment tools (Braulio-Gonzalo et al., 2015; Haapio, 2012), and frameworks for measuring urban and regional sustainability (Coelho et al., 2010; Dizdaroglu, 2015). However, recently, there has been a growing body of literature in urban transitions and transformations research (Torrens et al., 2021). Specifically, when tackling planning and governance systems, an urban transformative capacity is necessary (Torrens et al., 2021; Wolfram et al., 2019). Urban transformation is “the process and the outcome of changing the systemic configuration of urban areas, and is mostly studied with a view to its sustainability performance or achievements” (Wolfram et al., 2016, p. 20) and scholars within this field have pointed out that some instruments and techniques, such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), have the potential to deliver a shift towards sustainability (Wolfram & Frantzeskaki, 2016). SEA is an environmental policy tool that promotes and integrates sustainability into decision-making processes. It studies the decisionmaking effects on the environment and the communities. It is a systematic, strategic and participated approach (Bina, 2007; Partidario, 2015). Scholars in the environmental assessment field have developed a plethora of literature to grasp sustainability issues through overarching conceptual frameworks for the field towards sustainability detaching environmental assessment from specific settings (Pope et al., 2017), even though it is often called for tailor-made approaches (Fischer & Gazzola, 2006). Understanding this gap, Polido et al. (2018) have developed a place-based conceptual framework showing how to advance sustainability through SEA. This framework showed that governance and community empowerment, decision-making paradigm change, and resilience enhancement are key to advancing sustainability through SEA. This framework was

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

183

initially designed for small islands. Small islands are territories with specific features but there is some understanding that it could be adapted to other types of territories, namely to urban systems. Against this backdrop, the main aim of this research is to explore the relationship between urban system transformations scholarship and strategic environmental assessment, specifically relating to the place-based conceptual framework developed by Polido et al. (2018). This chapter unfolds in three main sections. The first section gives a brief introduction to the urban transformations field, the second provides an overview of the SEA field and presents the SEA for Sustainability framework (Polido et al., 2018), and the third discusses how SEA and the SEA for Sustainability framework are in line with the urban transformations’ scholarship and how SEA can contribute to urban transformations capacity towards sustainability. After these three main sections, is presented a conclusions section to summarize, bring together the main ideas covered in the chapter, and make suggestions for future directions.

Urban Transformations Towards Sustainability The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (see United Nations, 2015), have asked nations to “[m]ake cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (SDG 11, United Nations, 2015, p. 21). Scholars from different fields are calling to action for urban sustainable futures (e.g., Dizdaroglu, 2015; Haapio, 2012; PerisBlanes et al., 2022). Cities are open, complex, and adaptive systems, that encompass multiple actors (Bai et al., 2016) and are being perceived as both “barriers and drivers for achieving sustainability” and that it is necessary to develop “urban responses that can invert the trends and accelerate change towards both local and global sustainability” (Wolfram, 2016, p. 121). The expanding urbanization is triggering different sustainability challenges, such as a change in land use, increase of the demand for natural resources, and decrease of protected areas and biodiversity hotspots (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021; Seto et al., 2013). At the same time, cities are prone to experience more severe consequences from these challenges (Elmqvist et al., 2019; McPhearson et al., 2016). To put forward all these different calls for urban sustainability, a systemic change is needed (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Peris & Bosch, 2020; Wolfram & Frantzeskaki, 2016).

184

A. POLIDO

Urban transformations is an emerging field of research aiming to “put cities on a central stage for accelerating change towards local and global sustainability and resilience” (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021, p. 2). It can be defined as a systemic change, or structural transformation process leading to irreversible changes in urban dimensions (e.g., infrastructures, agency configurations, lifestyles, institutions, governance) (Elmqvist et al., 2019; McCormick et al., 2013; Wolfram, 2016). The concept of urban transformation acts as a boundary object between different fields showing that there is a diversity of understandings and outlooks on how to achieve the desirable transformation (Wolfram et al., 2016) intertwining with the concepts of urban resilience and urban sustainability. The concept of sustainability is normative, is what the society wants to achieve and should not be seen only as increased efficiency (Elmqvist et al., 2019). It is necessary to think across sectors and scales when developing policies and planning for transformation (Elmqvist et al., 2019; Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021) to understand the cumulative and synergistic effects these transformations may have in the overall urban system, and at the same time, to consider sustainability and resilience (non-normative) as interconnected (Elmqvist et al., 2019). These transformations can occur within three perspectives (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021): transformation in cities, transformation by cities, and transformation of cities. These perspectives intertwine and are a path to understand how to integrate research approaches, knowledge, and practices towards a holistic vision of urban transformation. These authors suggest that urban transformations need to be place-based (transformation in cities), radical changes of dominant urban structures (transformation of cities), or influence global and regional change (transformation by cities) (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021). Specifically, practitioners need “to experiment with collaborative place-making approaches like urban living labs to integrate local knowledge and strengthen a sense of place and empowerment” (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021, p. 10). However, to put forward policies and planning for urban transformation, it is necessary to understand what kind of capacity enables the desirable change (Castán Broto et al., 2019; Peris-Blanes et al., 2022; Shahani et al., 2021). Wolfram (2016) developed a comprehensive and relational framework regarding the key components of urban transformation capacity entailing ten components (Peris-Blanes et al., 2022; Wolfram, 2016, 2019). These components can be categorized into (i) agency and interaction, (ii) development processes, and (iii) relational dimensions (Castán

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

185

Broto et al., 2019). The first category (agency and interaction) comprises the components of governance, transformative leadership, and community empowerment. These components are at the core of the framework and account for broad stakeholder involvement (heterogeneity of actors), including civil society, in decision-making processes through diverse governance networks articulating collaborative processes (Castán Broto et al., 2019; Shahani et al., 2021; Wolfram, 2016, 2019). It also stresses the importance of links between high-level policymakers with practitioners and local stakeholders (Shahani et al., 2021). The second category (development process) encompasses the components’ system awareness and memory, sustainability foresight, disruptive experimentation, and innovation embedding (Wolfram, 2016) which engage with the first category components. These components aim at establishing a collective memory and learning developed through transdisciplinary co-production to challenge existing practices and policies, but also to explain, predict, and create foresight for urban transformation (Shahani et al., 2021; Wolfram, 2016). The third category (relational dimension) includes the components of social learning, working across agency levels, and across political-administrative levels and geographical scales (Wolfram, 2016). These components affect all the other categories, they “capture knowledge about the complexity of interactions involved in systems transformations” (Castán Broto et al., 2019, p. 452). This framework acts as a means to assess the urban transformation capacity of cities (Peris-Blanes et al., 2022) or initiatives (Castán Broto et al., 2019), but also as guidance for the implementation of urban transformation.

Strategic Environmental Assessment for Sustainability Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a systematic process used to assess the environmental, economic, and social consequences of a policy, plan, or programme, providing a structured decision framework, and ensuring that any effects are appropriately addressed since the beginning of the decision-making process (Fischer, 2007; Sadler & Verheem, 1996; Therivel, 2004). SEA originated in 1969 from the National Environmental Policy Act in the United States of America (NEPA) which made an echo of the environmental movement that had started a few years before urging for explicit environmental outcomes to be included in decision-making (Barker & Wood, 2001; Eccleston, 2001). Initially,

186

A. POLIDO

NEPA mentioned Environmental Assessment (EA), a term encompassing both Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). It did not differentiate EIA (related to projects) from SEA (related to policies, plans, and programmes) but it became evident that it was necessary to make a formal distinction between them due to the EIA limitations when applied beyond the scope of projects (Alshuwaikhat, 2005; Polido et al., 2014; Therivel et al., 1992). Scholars point to EIA limitations as having a narrow scope (only projects), entering late in the decision-making tiering, and dismissing cumulative impacts (João, 2005; Thompson et al., 1995) imperilling the integration of sustainability in decision-making (e.g., protection of ecosystems, social equity). It became evident that the need to assess impacts at strategic levels of decision-making through SEA (Clark & Partidário, 2000; Momtaz, 2002). SEA is operationalized through three main stages (Thérivel et al., 2004): Scoping, Assessment of Effects, and Follow-up. The first stage (scoping) deals with the nature and extent of the assessment. In this phase are identified the sustainability issues in the decision-making objectives, the SEA objectives and indicators, the baseline information to be used in the following phase, and links to other strategic actions. The second stage (assessment of effects) reports on the predicted impacts and evaluated alternatives. Additionally, mitigation measures and implementation are proposed. In the first two stages, a report should be produced (scoping report and environmental report) and be submitted to stakeholders for comments. The comments must be addressed and incorporated into the final version of the reports which will inform the decision-making. The third stage (follow-up) monitors the impacts of the strategic action (Polido et al., 2014). The information produced through SEA enhances the scientific rigour of the decision-making process (Fischer, 2007). The use of SEA as a policy tool is globally widespread, being applied in at least 60 countries (Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012). In the European Union, SEA is enforced through the Directive 2001/42/EC, transposed to the national legal systems of all member-states. It is extensively argued in the literature that SEA ensures decisionmaking that provides more sustainable outcomes (Polido et al., 2014; Tetlow & Hanusch, 2012). According to White and Noble (2013), the main scholarly arguments on SEA enabling sustainability are that it provides a decision support framework considering sustainability issues

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

187

early in the process, is adaptable to the decision-making process, integrates sustainability objectives, principles, and criteria, promotes the assessment of alternatives and cumulative effects, envisages the participation of different stakeholders, enables institutional change and learning, and trickles down sustainability in the decision-making tiering (pp. 61– 63). However, White and Noble (2013) also advise about challenges impeding the advance of SEA for sustainability. For instance, the challenge of SEA context specificity is explored by a plethora of scholars (e.g., Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadóttir, 2007; Wirutskulshai et al., 2011). There are many context-specific factors affecting the SEA process and performance (Polido et al., 2014): the political and planning system (Bina et al., 2011; Fischer & Gazzola, 2006; Partidário, 2011); the type of decision-making addressed (Fischer, 2002; Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadóttir, 2007), practitioners and intermediate decision-makers SEA capacity (Hilding-Rydevik & Bjarnadóttir, 2007; Partidário, 2011), or, the specific natural and human features of the territories (Fischer, 2002). However, Polido et al. (2018) stress the need for a place-based approach to address the context-specific issues in these processes. Due to a lack of research focusing on enhancing SEA place-based and deliberative capacity for sustainability through tailored practices and procedures, Polido et al. (2018) developed an SEA framework for sustainability in territories with unique features and a pressing need for the enhancement of sustainability. This framework underlines the transformative capacity of SEA through the empowerment of individuals and communities (Bond et al., 2018). The transformative capacity of SEA has been addressed in the literature in terms of learning through the process (see Bond et al., 2018), and recently, there was some attention given to the transition scholarship relation with SEA (Nwanekezie et al., 2021; Partidario, 2020). Nonetheless, Polido et al. (2018) framework has a normative sustainability concept and was developed for small islands (regions, sub-national level) (place-based). Small islands are territories with specific biophysical, geographical, political, social, economic, or cultural features. They present characteristics of bounded systems and are manageable units of study, and act as laboratories (Polido et al., 2014), therefore it is expected that the framework may be suitable for other territories. The main driver of the SEA for sustainability framework (Polido et al., 2018) is governance and community empowerment leading to the endpoint goals of resilience enhancement and decision-making paradigm

188

A. POLIDO

change. Governance and community empowerment affect the three main clusters of the framework and their components: actors (decisionmakers, practitioners, and local stakeholders), cooperation and information exchange, and SEA specific issues. The “actors” cluster connects all the different stakeholders that can be engaged in the SEA process with their different roles, from high-level policymakers to the public, through collaboration and co-production. Practitioners play a central role in SEA implementation. They need to take ownership of the SEA process and raise awareness to decision-makers about SEA and sustainability issues. At the same time, local stakeholders need to be systematically involved and trained to give their inputs (local knowledge), creating an empowered community. The “cooperation and information exchange” cluster shows the need for partnerships between different territories, to facilitate a forum of knowledge exchange and co-production and for resource sharing. It is linked with the “actors” cluster through the commitment of the decision-makers to enable such networks, and to practitioners that will develop and implement it. “SEA specific issues” cluster is linked with the cluster “actors” through a continuous learning process based on the lessons learned from previous SEA cases and local knowledge. It is also linked to the “cooperation and information exchange” cluster through a feedback loop, indicating to be informed by these cooperation networks (Polido et al., 2018). Overall, the framework by Polido et al. (2018) shows practitioners as promoters of SEA for sustainability, the need for local, regional, and institutional collaborative approaches, and the need for a systematized continuous learning process and tailored assessment issues to promote effective changes in the decision-making paradigm enhancing resilience (Polido, 2016). It therefore acknowledges the complexity related to the framework specifically due to the power relations between the different stakeholders (Polido et al., 2018).

Envisioning SEA for Urban Systems Transformation SEA for Sustainability (Polido et al., 2018) proposes governance and community empowerment as the way to increase actors engagement enhancing public participation, promoting knowledge and transparent decisions, leading to social transformation, innovative learning experiences and processes (Bina, 2007). This is in line with the literature on urban transformation capacity and the core of Wolfram’s framework

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

189

(Wolfram, 2016). Shahani and colleagues, while scrutinizing literature on low-carbon social–ecological innovations, found that “[c]ommunity empowerment, grassroots initiatives, and engagement are the main drivers of transformative capacity activation in cities” (Shahani et al., 2021, p. 16). Also, Wolfram et al. (2019) highlight that the inclusion and empowerment are “mechanisms for incorporating alternative values and pursuing social and environmental justice” and are “vital sources of complementary knowledge required to obtain a deeper understanding of the system dynamics at play, and an effective lever for changing established practices, routines, and organizations” (Wolfram et al., 2019, p. 443). Similarly, urban transformations scholars stress the importance of including stakeholders that are often placed at the margins of these processes such as the “urban poor” (Ziervogel, 2019) and children (Nordström & Wales, 2019). Overall, the inclusion of different stakeholders across agency levels and their empowerment is a driver to urban transformation towards sustainability (Wolfram et al., 2019). Furthermore, the framework (Polido et al., 2018) underlines the importance of knowledge co-production, mutual learning across agency levels and cooperation networks across political-administrative levels and geographical scales. These factors are also widely debated in transformation literature and are essential to support deliberation and social learning (e.g., Bai et al., 2016; Elmqvist et al., 2019; Hölscher et al., 2019; Wolfram & Frantzeskaki, 2016; Ziervogel, 2019). Knowledge coproduction is crucial for urban sustainability foresight enabling a collective vision for sustainable urban futures (Wolfram, 2016). Cooperation networks are also important for processes of knowledge co-production and mutual learning because these networks “can be highly successful in terms of generating cutting-edge knowledge, (…) influencing policy processes at various scales” (Bai et al., 2019, p. 120). Furthermore, Frantzeskaki and Kabisch (2016) found that the co-production of knowledge leads to mutual learning and trust between different stakeholders. It is paramount to have an inter- and transdisciplinary approach to tackle complex socio-ecological challenges and transform urban policies, planning and practices towards sustainable futures (McCormick et al., 2013). Moreover, knowledge co-production processes in urban policy and planning avoids lock-in can lead to urban resilience and urban sustainability (Elmqvist et al., 2019). The end-point goal of the SEA for Sustainability framework (Polido et al., 2018) is resilience enhancement. Resilience is triggered through all

190

A. POLIDO

the components of the framework. Empowered stakeholders at different agency levels take ownership of the process promoting capacity to overcome vulnerabilities, complexity and uncertainty (Hay, 2013; Polido et al., 2018). It advocates for empowerment through collaborative place-based approaches, essentially focuses on urban (sub-)systems and, knowledge exchange between networked urban systems intertwining the three perspectives for urban transformations developed by Hölscher and Frantzeskaki (2021) which “support urban transformations for sustainability and resilience” (Hölscher & Frantzeskaki, 2021, p. 14). Additionally, the SEA for Sustainability framework by having a normative sustainability definition and clearly defined goals enables a path towards the required resilience (Elmqvist et al., 2019).

Conclusions This chapter set out to understand how SEA for Sustainability developed by Polido et al. (2018) could help to enhance urban systems transformations towards sustainability. The findings suggest a role for SEA in fostering urban transformation. The SEA for Sustainability is aligned with three main themes that are focused on the urban transformations’ literature: governance and community empowerment; knowledge co-production and cooperation networks; resilience enhancement. Governance and community empowerment entails inclusion, interaction, and agency. Further stakeholder engagement in the decision-making processes across agency level. Knowledge co-production and cooperation networks implies inter- and transdisciplinary approaches to the decision-making process across political-administrative levels and geographical scales. Resilience enhancement indicates that understanding the complexity and uncertainty of urban systems, the decision-making process will engage with all the components of the framework towards the co-created urban future. The alignment between the SEA for sustainability framework (Polido et al., 2018) and urban transformation literature demonstrates the potential for its application in a place-based approach allied with empirical research, laying the foundation for future research into examining the effects of SEA in urban systems transformation and exploring opportunities to enhance sustainability in these territories. Acknowledgements This work was funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

191

project PTDC/GES-URB/0804/2020. The author acknowledges the financial support of FCT through CEEC Ind (CEECIND/01400/2017). GOVCOPP is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT (UIDB/04058/2020)+(UIDP/04058/2020).

References Alshuwaikhat, H. M. (2005). Strategic environmental assessment can help solve environmental impact assessment failures in developing countries. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25(4), 307–317. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eiar.2004.09.003 Bai, X., Colbert, M. L., McPhearson, T., Roberts, D., Siri, J., Walsh, B., & Webb, B. (2019). Networking urban science, policy and practice for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 114–122. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.08.002 Bai, X., Surveyer, A., Elmqvist, T., Gatzweiler, F. W., Güneralp, B., Parnell, S., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Shrivastava, P., Siri, J. G., Stafford-Smith, M., Toussaint, J., & Webb, R. (2016). Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 23, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.010 Barker, A., & Wood, C. (2001). Environmental assessment in the European Union: Perspectives, past, present and strategic. European Planning Studies, 9(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310020027939 Bina, O. (2007). A critical review of the dominant lines of argumentation on the need for strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27 (7), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.003 Bina, O., Wallington, T., & Thissen, W. (2011). SEA theory and research: An analysis of the early discourse. In B. Sadler, J. Dusik, T. Fischer, M. Partidario, & R. Verheem (Eds.), Handbook of strategic environmental assessment (pp. 445–471). Earthscan. Bond, A., Retief, F., Cave, B., Fundingsland, M., Duinker, P. N., Verheem, R., & Brown, A. L. (2018). A contribution to the conceptualisation of quality in impact assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 68, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EIAR.2017.10.006 Braulio-Gonzalo, M., Bovea, M. D., & Ruá, M. J. (2015). Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 53, 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.eiar.2015.03.002 Castán Broto, V., Trencher, G., Iwaszuk, E., & Westman, L. (2019). Transformative capacity and local action for urban sustainability. Ambio, 48(5), 449–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1086-z

192

A. POLIDO

Clark, R., & Partidário, M. R. (2000). Perspectives on strategic environmental assessment. Lewis Publishers. Coelho, P., Mascarenhas, A., Vaz, P., Dores, A., & Ramos, T. B. (2010). A framework for regional sustainability assessment: Developing indicators for a Portuguese region. Sustainable Development, 18, 211–219. Dizdaroglu, D. (2015). Developing micro-level urban ecosystem indicators for sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 54, 119– 124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2015.06.004 Eccleston, C. (2001). Effective environmental assessments: How to manage and prepare NEPA EAs. Lewis Publishers. Elmqvist, T., Andersson, E., Frantzeskaki, N., McPhearson, T., Olsson, P., Gaffney, O., Takeuchi, K., & Folke, C. (2019). Sustainability and resilience for transformation in the urban century. Nature Sustainability, 2(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0250-1 Fischer, T. B. (2002). Strategic environmental assessment in transport and land use planning. Earthscan Publications. Fischer, T. B. (2007). Theory & practice of strategic environmental assessment: Towards a more systematic approach. Earthscan. Fischer, T. B., & Gazzola, P. (2006). SEA effectiveness criteria-equally valid in all countries? The case of Italy. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 26(4), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2005.11.006 Frantzeskaki, N., & Kabisch, N. (2016). Designing a knowledge coproduction operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam, Netherlands and Berlin, Germany. Environmental Science and Policy, 62, 90–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.01.010 Glaas, E., Hjerpe, M., Storbjörk, S., Neset, T., Bohman, A., Muthumanickam, P., & Johansson, J. (2019). Developing transformative capacity through systematic assessments and visualization of urban climate transitions. Ambio, 48(5), 515–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1109-9 Haapio, A. (2012). Towards sustainable urban communities. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 32(1), 165–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar. 2011.08.002 Hay, J. E. (2013). Small island developing states: Coastal systems, global change and sustainability. Sustainability Science, 8(3), 309–326. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11625-013-0214-8 Hilding-Rydevik, T., & Bjarnadóttir, H. (2007). Context awareness and sensitivity in SEA implementation. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27 (7), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.05.009 Hölscher, K., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2021). Perspectives on urban transformation research: Transformations in, of, and by cities. Urban Transformations , 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-021-00019-z

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

193

Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D. (2019). Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 19(3), 791–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1329-3 João, E. (2005). Key Principles of SEA. In M. Schmidt, E. João, & E. Albrecht (Eds.), Implementing strategic environmental assessment. Springer. McCormick, K., Anderberg, S., Coenen, L., & Neij, L. (2013). Advancing sustainable urban transformation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.01.003 McPhearson, T., Pickett, S. T. A., Grimm, N. B., Niemelä, J., Alberti, M., Elmqvist, T., Weber, C., Haase, D., Breuste, J., & Qureshi, S. (2016). Advancing urban ecology toward a science of cities. BioScience, 66(3), 198–212. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biw002 Momtaz, S. (2002). Environmental impact assessment in Bangladesh: A critical review. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(2), 163–179. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(01)00106-8 Nordström, M., & Wales, M. (2019). Enhancing urban transformative capacity through children’s participation in planning. Ambio, 48(5), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01146-5 Nwanekezie, K., Noble, B., & Poelzer, G. (2021). Transitions-based strategic environmental assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 91(May), 106643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2021.106643 Partidario, M. R. (2015). A strategic advocacy role in SEA for sustainability. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 17 (01), 1550015. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1464333215500155 Partidario, M. R. (2020). Transforming the capacity of impact assessment to address persistent global problems. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 38(2), 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1724005 Partidário, M. R. (2011). SEA process development and capacity-building— A thematic overview. In B. Sadler, R. Aschemann, J. Dusik, T. Fisher, M. R. Partidário, & R. Verheem (Eds.), Handbook of strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan. Peris-Blanes, J., Segura-Calero, S., Sarabia, N., & Ribó-Pérez, D. (2022). The role of place in shaping urban transformative capacity. The case of València (Spain). Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions , 42(December 2019), 124–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.12.006 Peris, J., & Bosch, M. (2020). The paradox of planning for transformation: the case of the integrated sustainable urban development strategy in València (Spain). Urban Transformations , 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854020-00011-z

194

A. POLIDO

Polido, A. (2016). The role of Strategic Environmental Assessment towards sustainability in small islands: The case of Azores and Orkney archipelagos. Universidade NOVA de Lisboa. Polido, A., João, E., & Ramos, T. B. (2014). Sustainability approaches and strategic environmental assessment in small islands: An integrative review. Ocean & Coastal Management, 96, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ocecoaman.2014.05.005 Polido, A., João, E., & Ramos, T. B. (2018). How may sustainability be advanced through Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Small Islands? Exploring a conceptual framework. Ocean & Coastal Management, 153, 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.002 Pope, J., Bond, A., Hugé, J., & Morrison-Saunders, A. (2017). Reconceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2016.11.002 Sadler, B., & Verheem, R. (1996). Strategic environmental assessment: Status, challenges and future directions. Ministry of housing, spatial planning and the environment. Seto, K. C., Parnell, S., & Elmqvist, T. (2013). A global outlook on urbanization. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. J. Marcotullio, R. I. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. C. Seto, & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 1–12). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94007-7088-1 Shahani, F., Pineda-Pinto, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2021). Transformative lowcarbon urban innovations: Operationalizing transformative capacity for urban planning. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01653-4 Tetlow, M. F., & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic environmental assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2012.666400 Therivel, R. (2004). Strategic environmental assessment in action. Earthscan. VA. Thérivel, R., Caratti, P., Partidärio, M. D. R., Theodórsdóttir, Á. H., & Tyldesley, D. (2004). Writing strategic environmental assessment guidance. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(4), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.3152/ 147154604781765824 Therivel, R., Wilson, E., Thompson, S., Heaney, D., & Pritchard, D. (1992). Strategic environmental assessment. Earthscan. Thompson, S., Treweek, J. R., & Thurling, D. J. (1995). The potential application of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to the farming of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salarL.) in Mainland Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management , 45(3), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1995.0070 Torrens, J., Westman, L., Wolfram, M., Broto, V. C., Barnes, J., Egermann, M., Ehnert, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Fratini, C. F., Håkansson, I., Hölscher, K.,

9

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …

195

Huang, P., Raven, R., Sattlegger, A., Schmidt-Thomé, K., Smeds, E., Vogel, N., Wangel, J., & von Wirth, T. (2021). Advancing urban transitions and transformations research. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41(July), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.10.026 United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (p. A/RES/70/1). United Nations General Assembly. White, L., & Noble, B. F. (2013). Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: A review of a decade of academic research. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 42, 60–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2012.10.003 Wirutskulshai, U., Sajor, E., & Coowanitwong, N. (2011). Importance of context in adoption and progress in application of strategic environmental assessment: Experience of Thailand. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(3), 352–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2011.01.001 Wolfram, M. (2016). Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. JCIT, 51, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.cities.2015.11.011 Wolfram, M. (2019). Assessing transformative capacity for sustainable urban regeneration: A comparative study of three South Korean cities. Ambio, 48(5), 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1111-2 Wolfram, M., Borgström, S., & Farrelly, M. (2019). Urban transformative capacity: From concept to practice. Ambio, 48, 437–448. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s13280-019-01169-y Wolfram, M., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2016). Cities and systemic change for sustainability: Prevailing epistemologies and an emerging research agenda. Sustainability (Switzerland), 8(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020144 Wolfram, M., Frantzeskaki, N., & Maschmeyer, S. (2016). Cities, systems and sustainability: Status and perspectives of research on urban transformations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 18–25. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.014 Ziervogel, G. (2019). Building transformative capacity for adaptation planning and implementation that works for the urban poor: Insights from South Africa. Ambio, 48(5), 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280018-1141-9

PART III

Policy and Actors

CHAPTER 10

The Role of State and Non-state Actors in Ensuring the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Pedro Marques and Kevin Morgan

Introduction Policies aimed at stimulating innovation in less developed regions (LDRs) have become central to European regional policy in the past decade, especially since the introduction of the concept of smart specialisation (RIS3), and more broadly, of the idea of place-based policies (Barca, 2009; Foray, 2015; Morgan, 2017). The predominance of innovation policy within regional development frameworks is the result of trends both in academic and policy circles. Theoretically, since the late 1980s most concepts and approaches within economic geography and regional studies have focused

P. Marques (B) Ingenio (CSIC-UPV), Valencia, Spain e-mail: [email protected] K. Morgan School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_10

199

200

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

on the endogenous characteristics of regions as an explanation for regional performance (Pike et al., 2016; Scott, 2000). Among these characteristics, we find the presence of a culture conducive to innovation and entrepreneurship, degrees of openness and networking or interpersonal trust. Policy has also evolved in the same direction, after the end of the post-war Keynesian consensus with its emphasis on regional redistribution, and a shift towards stimulating entrepreneurialism, innovation and export-led growth in LDRs (Pike et al., 2007, 2016). In the European context, the failure of infrastructure-based projects to deliver growth to its poorest regions (Puga, 2002; Rodríguez-Pose & Fratesi, 2004), coupled with the enlargement of the EU to central and eastern European countries, led to a re-evaluation of the main tenets of Cohesion Policy. Since then, the goal has been to shift resources towards increasing business competitiveness across Europe, and especially in its lagging regions, through innovation, digitalisation or export-led growth, through place-based policies. According to Barca (2009), place-based policies are aimed at making better use of untapped resources, by drawing on local knowledge to design policies that are aligned with local strengths and needs. Nonetheless, despite the significant efforts made to reorient Cohesion Policy, and put a much greater emphasis on innovation and firm competitiveness, there is mounting evidence that some of the major precepts of European innovation policy for the period 2014 to 2020 have not been correctly implemented across Europe, especially in its less developed regions (Di Cataldo et al., 2020; Gianelle et al., 2020; Marrocu et al., 2020). This is particularly true for the principle of prioritisation, a cornerstone of RIS3, according to which each region and/or country should prioritise a small number of sectors or technological domains and concentrate its innovation investments in them (Foray, 2015). Emerging evidence suggests that RIS3 strategies often have too many priorities, or ones that are not adjusted to its economic structure (Di Cataldo et al., 2020; Gianelle et al., 2020; Marrocu et al., 2020). This is particularly worrying because this research draws on policy strategies, and it is wellknown from the political science literature that implementation is the stage at which policy initiatives tend to fail (Weible & Sabatier, 2017). This means that the actual spending of funds may have been even less aligned with RIS3 guidelines than what we know at this stage. In order to understand the successes and failure of innovation policy in the European context, it is necessary to recognise that policy processes

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

201

unfold as a result of interactions between state and non-state actors, in a complex context (Weible & Sabatier, 2017). In other words, the willingness and capabilities of local institutions to design and implement innovation policy, on the one hand, and the demand for and understanding of innovation policy from non-state actors (including firms, universities, research centres and others), is fundamental for the effective translation of general principles and guidelines into effective policy action. Furthermore, these dynamics are permeated by dynamics of cooperation and conflict, consensus and disagreement, trust and opportunistic behaviour, and they are constantly evolving in response to endogenous and exogenous forces. This understanding of policy processes stands in contrast to technocratic views on policy design and implementation, according to which policy delivery can improve with tweaks to current rules and regulations or better guiding principles (Marques & Morgan, 2018).

Assumptions About the Policy Process Taking our cues from political science, we argue that the basic assumptions about the context for policy design and implementation are very different from the assumptions in neat, linear models of policymaking, which assume that policy emerges from informed debate and consensus. According to Herweg et al. (2017), drawing primarily on research within the multiple streams framework (MSF), there are seven assumptions inherent to policy processes: the first is ambiguity, which refers to the co-existence of different solutions to the same problem, a problem that cannot be solved with more research or data. As an example, even if more research indicated that innovation performance is indeed the main variable explaining regional inequalities, there would still be disagreements about whether such inequalities can be (or even should be) addressed, or about the role of the state, including fundamental divergences about whether the state should play a role in stimulating business innovation (Tödtling & Trippl, 2018). In a context where all state and non-state actors agreed that the state does have a role to play, smart specialisation is only one approach among others, which means that even then there would still be ambiguity about avenues for action (Morgan & Marques, 2019). The second assumption is that of time constraints, which means that there is often limited time to make decisions on complex matters. Within

202

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

the innovation literature, it has often been shown that public agencies, especially in less developed regions, tend to operate in short-term cycles, which hinders learning and does not allow them to accumulate knowledge about innovation instruments (Aranguren et al., 2017; Morgan, 2017; Radosevic, 2018). In more formal terms, political scientists frame this as a matter of competing or parallel interests within government (including health, education, environment, fiscal policies, etc.), which leads politicians and policymakers to devote attention to those matters that are more urgent, or that have captured the public’s attention, and leads to less time and resources for matters that are deemed secondary (Herweg et al., 2017). The third assumption is that of problematic policy preferences, which is the product of the previous two, and means that policy preferences are determined by the label attached to a problem (growth, health, environment) and the information to which policymakers have access. The result is a set of policy preferences that are not fixed nor exogenously given and that may change as state and non-state actors interact. The fourth assumption is the presence of unclear technology. In organisational studies, technology refers to routines and practices within an organisation that allow inputs to be turned into outputs (Herweg, 2017; Herweg et al., 2017). In the policy context, the assumption of unclear technology refers to individuals operating according to their own principles or logic, without a clear view of the whole organisation or the policy process. In practical terms, and within those areas that are most relevant to this chapter, policy silos are a good example of unclear technologies, since the battles over jurisdiction, or the lack of knowledge about what other departments are doing, works against the coordination of different policy instruments, something that would be essential to deliver better, more effective policy instruments (Magro &Wilson, 2018; Matti et al., 2017). The lack of multi-scalar coordination, an issue which has often been discussed in the context of the EU, can also result from a lack of knowledge about actions being undertaken at different scales, or inability to coordinate their different interests (Morgan & Marques, 2019). Though this type of coordination involved various organisations, if the problem is analysed through the prism of innovation policy as a whole, we argue that it could equally be understood as an example of unclear technology hurting the implementation of policy. The fifth assumption, and one that is also highly relevant for innovation policy, is that of fluid participation. Due to electoral cycles, the movement of civil servants across areas of activity or departments, or alternatively

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

203

from the public to the private sector, it is often difficult to have the same group of people working on an issue over an extended amount of time (Aranguren et al., 2017; Radosevic, 2018). This also complicates learning and knowledge accumulation. The issue of fluid participation is further complicated by assumption two, which is that time constraints limit how much any policymaker can devote to a specific issue. The sixth assumption is that of stream independence, which refers to how this framework understands the policymaking process. Within the multiple streams framework (MSF), aside from the consideration of state and non-state actors in the policy process, it is argued that policies unfold through the interaction of three separate streams (Herweg, 2017; Herweg et al., 2017): first is the problem stream, where according to the perceptions and interpretation of policymakers or citizens, problems emerge when a certain situation or event deviates from their ideal state. Second is the policy stream, where policy communities, which include both state and non-state actors, search for solutions to perceived problems. The size and level of coordination among the members of this stream influences the emergence and development of ideas. Third is the political stream, which is shaped by government, interest groups and the elusive notion of the national mood, which can shift policy preferences in different directions. When a policy window opens, for instance as a result of the election of new government or due to a crisis situation, it creates the conditions for the introduction of new problems and the adoptions of new policies, by bringing the three streams together. Crucial in this process are policy entrepreneurs and place-based leadership (Sotarauta & Beer, 2017). Stream independence, the sixth assumption, means that each of these streams operates independently according to its own logic, and as such consensus in one of them (for instance regarding the importance of state-driven policies to stimulate innovation) is not sufficient to guarantee that it will be accepted in another one. Though this chapter does not use the different streams theorised in MSF to discuss the implementation of RIS3, we find value in its assumptions, because they demonstrate the complexities and ambiguities inherent to policy design and implementation.

204

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

State and Non-State Actors and Geographical Scales One dimension where economic geography or regional studies can make a vital contribution to a better understanding of policy process, is through the study of multi-scalar policy processes, to examine how they unfold at different geographical scales (Matti et al., 2017; Schakel et al., 2014). The way state and non-state actors interact at the national level is not necessarily the same as they do at the regional or local level, partly because of the scale and scope and activities of public organisations operating at each level is distinct (Hooghe & Marks., 2001; Hooghe et al., 2016), but also because the characteristics of the non-state actors themselves are likely also to be different (Morgan & Marques, 2019). It is possible for instance that at the national level, actors have a developed understanding of innovation policy, and specific preferences for how it should unfold. These preferences, however, do not necessarily include a territorial dimension and may be primarily based on supporting specific firms or sectors. In turn at the regional scale, assuming that it has any significant administrative capabilities, innovation policy may not be a priority, because state actors lack the resources to design and implement it, or economic agents lack the organisational capabilities to develop strategic views regarding innovation (Marques & Morgan, 2018). If there is an innovation policy at this scale, or a recognition that it is important, it may be geared towards supporting local sectors with limited growth capacity, but that are important employment generators for the region (Marques & Barberá-Tomás, 2020). Furthermore, in peripheral regions it may that the most important local employers are branch plants of large multinationals with limited R&D capabilities (Pike et al., 2016), which means that what they request of regional governments are actions aimed at cutting costs or simplifying bureaucratic processes, instead of support for innovation activities. In other contexts, such as that studied by Christopherson and Clark (2007), large firms did in fact engage with regional actors in activities towards R&D support or labour training, but they did so in a way that was actually counterproductive for small- and medium-sized firms, and that therefore did not contribute to strengthen the regional innovation system or improve innovation instruments. Finally, at the local level, though in some contexts municipalities have been pro-active in various issues that are of interest to innovation policy, in many others they are primarily focused on infrastructure or the delivery of social services. This might mean that their actions

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

205

are less relevant for innovation policy, but it could also lead them to lobby regional and national governments to put issues on the agenda that are closer to their interests, and as such worsen the issue of problematic policy preferences discussed previously.

Theories of the Policy Process and Smart Specialisation Taking into consideration the two dimensions discussed previously (the assumptions about policy processes and the multi-scalar nature of state and non-state engagements), it become clearer why the implementation of RIS3 strategies has not been a seamless process (Di Cataldo et al., 2020; Gianelle et al., 2020; Marrocu et al., 2020). First of all, independently of the guidelines and recommendations produced by the European Commission, its effective implementation would ultimately imply political commitment, that could stifle the negative effects of issues such as problematic preferences or ambiguity (Marques & Morgan, 2018). This commitment in turn would require that policymakers and non-state actors had recognised the lack of more, or better innovation policy as a problem, but also accepted the central tenets of S3 (especially prioritisation and the importance of a territorial approach to innovation policy) as the keys to addressing this problem. In many regions, this would have implied a willingness to break with, or adapt, previous innovation policies (assuming that they existed) in order to implement a new one, under the RIS3 guidelines. The effective implementation of smart specialisation strategies would also require that this consensus, or at least its broad acceptance by the main actors, would remain in place across different geographical scales. In practice, it would require that actors at the European, national and regional scales recognise the problem and accept this solution, to the extent that they would be prepared to break with policy pathdependencies, in the contexts where the principles of RIS3 would be different from, or counter to, those that were informing past approaches. All these assumptions are problematic and need to be tested empirically.

Case Studies To explore the issues discussed in the previous sections, we draw on four case studies of less developed regions in southern and eastern Europe.

206

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

The regions are Central Macedonia in Greece, North East Romania, Valencia in Spain and Centro in Portugal. These case studies are based on interviews with key informants in all four regions, and analysis of reports. These interviews were analysed comparatively, according to the main themes in the interview script. We will start by briefly introducing our four case study regions, before discussing our main findings. Central Macedonia Like other Greek regions, Central Macedonia faces two main barriers in the implementation of RIS3, due to the persistent effects of austerity and the fact that it remains one of the most centralised countries in the EU. In fact, according to Boden et al (2016), the biggest problems associated with S3 design and implementation in Central Macedonia are due to “legal and administrative challenges” (Boden et al., 2016) that result from a lack of autonomy and extreme dependency on the national government. This was confirmed by the World Bank (2018), who argue that it results in limited local ownership of the innovation agenda at the regional level. This problem is made worse by the fact that municipalities are also dependent on top-down directives from central government, as such their strategies fail to reflect local realities and priorities. The result of this centralisation is that regional authorities have so far been incapable of developing more advanced competencies in policymaking, namely in the field of innovation instruments. The context of ubiquitous clientelist relations between state and society in Greece, a problem that is pervasive across all levels of government, further contributes to a fragile institutional environment (Vamvakas, 2012). The emergence of a regional innovation council (RIC), which creation was requested by the European Commission, could offer an opportunity for learning and capability development, though at this stage that prospect remains uncertain. The RIC continues to be dominated by the public sector, in a region with a weak private sector that furthermore does not rely on regional government. North East Romania North East Romania is the poorest NUTS-2 region in this country, and one of the poorest in the European Union. In contrast to Central Macedonia, and according to the classification by Boden et al (2016), it is

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

207

a low-income region, but one with the potential for economic growth. This diagnosis is corroborated by the World Bank, which sees potential particularly in its major city, the City of Iasi, the third largest university centre in Romania and a major cultural centre in its own right (World Bank, 2018). From an administrative perspective, North East Romania is located in a country with an even higher degree of centralisation than Greece, a situation that is common in many central and eastern European countries (Hooghe et al., 2016). In practical terms, the regional level has no powers or legal status and exists entirely for the purpose of co-ordinating development projects, so much so that this “regional governance gap presents a real challenge for securing the development of regional innovation systems in Romania” (Healy, 2016: 1530). Despite its level of poverty and the centralised political context in which it exists, North East Romania has been hailed as one of the most pro-active regions in Romania in the design of its RIS3 strategy. This is due primarily to the activities of the Regional Development Agency for the North East, ARD, one of eight RDAs created for each region in the country. ARD was one of the first RDAs in Romania to begin the process of developing a regional S3 plan, emboldened by its past experience in participating in European regional networks and securing EU funds to promote regional innovation approaches, including the first regional innovation strategy in the country in 2008 (Marques & Morgan, 2018). This institutional leadership is reinforced, or pushed, by the presence of a relatively strong private sector, which means that its Regional Innovation Board, and the Micro-Governance System, two local institutional innovations, have worked well in bringing together non-state actors from 7 priority areas (the same areas identified in the RIS3 for the region). Nonetheless, opportunities for the effective implementation of regional policy are still limited, due to the lack of autonomy from central government: “knowledge without power does not result in practical outcomes. North East Romania offers a salutary lesson that solutions to the regional innovation paradox may require behavioural changes at the national level as much as in building the capacity of regions” (Healy, 2016: 1541). Centro Similar to the previous case studies, Portugal is a highly centralised country, with regional authorities functioning essentially as arms of the

208

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

central government (the exceptions are found in the archipelagos of Azores and Madeira). They have limited resources for RIS3 implementation, and have to deal with strong centralising forces, such as the fact that the national government designed a RIS3 strategy in parallel and without consideration of the work that the regional governments had done by their own accord. Furthermore, for historical reasons, local government is a strong political actor, though it is primarily concerned with issues of infrastructure and planning. As such, regions are dependent financially on the nation-state, but politically on local government interests, which hinders the capacity of the regional government to become an active player in the design and implementation of innovation policies. Nonetheless, the Centro Region in Portugal is one of the most dynamic in the Portuguese mainland in terms of its involvement with innovation policies, largely because of the strength of its private sector and some of its Universities, and a tradition of local leadership from the regional authorities. The centralisation of innovation policy at the national level is due to efficiency purposes, namely in terms of the capacity to spend cohesion funds at a satisfactory rate. It is also due to a lack of trust in regional authorities, regarding their capabilities, and in the strength of the private sector, which means a desire of national authorities to work directly with the private partners that are considered to be operating at the technological frontier. A significant share of cohesion funds for policy are also used to fund science policy, and are administered by the Science and Technology Foundation, through science calls. Furthermore, due to the relatively small size of the country, compounded by the fact that the vast majority of the population lives in the coastline between the metropolitan areas of Oporto and Lisbon, means that several national agencies refute the need for regional policy, and instead insist on sectoral approaches. Valencia Community Spain is by contrast the most politically decentralised country in our sample, though it is a case of asymmetric decentralisation. Each autonomous community has administrative and financial responsibilities such as education (including higher education) or private sector support, though some have greater control over taxation. Valencia, as a region that hosts some of the most dynamic manufacturing clusters in Spain, primarily in medium or low tech-industries, has been a pioneer in the creation

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

209

of technological centres in Spain starting in the 1970s. It has recently also created a Valencian Innovation Agency, with the aim of stimulating the emergence of new sectors of economic activity in emergent (or more intensive) technological areas. Still, despite high levels of decentralisation in some matters, innovation policy remains highly concentrated at the national level. Similar to the Portuguese situation, Spain uses innovation funds to support part of its science policy, and also has a strong sectoral approach to its prioritisation process, though the territorial component is stronger than in the three other case studies. The difference in innovative performance for regions such as Madrid or the Basque Country (concerning innovation) is more a result of their capacity to attract private funding and to mobilise their own public funds, whereas in what concerns the utilisation of EU funds, they are equally constrained. In addition, the fact that Spain remains a low-trust country but with high levels of decentralisation, means that compliance culture is highly restrictive of the relationships between national and regional level. One of the most visible consequences is the fact that regional authorities in Valencia tend to offer annual funding calls (with a few exceptions). This means that tenders for innovation activities supported by cohesion funds are published, awarded and finished within the same calendar year, forcing firms or other agents involved in multi-year projects to have to apply for funding every year.

Discussion As a summary, and in order to provide a cross reading of the four case studies, Table 10.1 provides a brief analysis of how state and non-state actors position themselves in relation to innovation policy in our four case studies. At the European scale, our research did not investigate the role of non-state actors. However, a highly relevant tension at this level is that between the departments or individuals which seek to improve policymaking, and the machinery that is responsible for compliance with rules and regulations and that tends to overwhelm any efforts to make policy implementation more flexible or responsive to local needs. Since less developed regions tend to be highly dependent on cohesion funds for innovation activities, the strong compliance procedures work against their interests and reinforce the innovation paradox (Morgan & Marques, 2019). The latter refers to the fact that it is often those regions that would

210

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

most need support for their innovation activities that tend to struggle to absorb these same funds. The nation-state remains an important, actor in the design and implementation of innovation strategies in the four case studies discussed. This is partly for historical reasons, in the case of Romania, Greece and Portugal, where the nation-state never effectively decentralised. Because the nation-state defines innovation policy according to its own logic, and Table 10.1 Summary of state and non-state actors’ interests in regional innovation policy in four case studies Region

European level

National Level

Regional level

Central Macedonia

Research did not explore interaction between state and non-state actors at this scale. Tension between policy and compliance within European Commission

Highly centralised—Clientelistic public–private relationships

Low capabilities in public sector—Weak private and university actors, focused on relations to the nation-state

North East Romania

Highly centralised—focus on sectoral priorities

Centro

Highly centralised—focus on sectoral priorities and science policy

Fragile institutional context, with strong leadership—relatively strong private and university sectors, learning to engage with public sector Established regional authorities with limited resources but tradition of public leadership—strong private sector but incapable or unwilling to demand stronger regional policy; Universities focused on science policy, with a few exceptions, look to national level for support

(continued)

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

211

Table 10.1 (continued) Region Valencian Community

European level

National Level

Regional level

Asymmetric decentralisation, but centralised innovation policy—focus on science policy and transfer to regions with constraints

Public sector capabilities, but until recently focused on traditional manufacturing sectors—Strong private sector, though primarily in medium-tech activities, interested in incremental innovation; strong university sector with focus on science policy and international engagements

in interaction with those actors that have the capacity to influence national politics, there is a strong push for sectoral policies, or support to specific strategic areas. The dominance of Universities, especially in cases such as Portugal or Spain, also means that science policy ends up absorbing a significant chunk of resources, for actions that are not innovation in the sense that they are not aimed at creating value in the private sector. Finally, at the regional level, the weakness of the private sector (Central Macedonia), its relative strengths (Centro and North East Romania) and its established tradition of engagement with regional actors, generate different types of demands and requirements from regional policy. In the Greek case, this demand is mostly weak, since firms primarily look to the national state. In North East Romania there is an emerging mobilisation of local actors, though they are only now learning about the potential for regional engagement. In Centro, this process started before and has already led to the establishment of strong regional networks, but the private sector is not strong enough (or not willing) to push for greater regionalisation of innovation funds. In Spain, the situation is more of a lock-in, where very well developed and effective regional institutions aimed at incremental innovation continue to dominate regional innovation policy.

212

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

Conclusions This chapter has sought to bring together the literatures on regional innovation and the policy process, to provide a more nuanced view of the challenges that smart specialisation strategies have encountered in European regions (Morgan, 2017, Weible & Sabatier, 2017). In particular, it highlighted how policy is not a technocratic endeavour that can be finessed with better guidelines, but is rather the product of specific power dynamics, and the interests of both state and non-state actors. This chapter also highlights the need for more research into this arena. Case studies of regional innovation often examine only the region, taken in isolation, and fail to consider how other levels influence regional choices and opportunities. They also rarely explore the politics of regional policy, possibly due to the assumption that at this scale, typical electoral politics are less relevant, and that for that reason decisions are more based on consensus and negotiation (Marques & Morgan, 2018). This however means missing a depth of analysis that is essential both to develop a better understanding of these processes and to contribute to better policymaking.

References Aranguren, M. J., Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2017). Regional competitiveness policy evaluation as a transformative process: From theory to practice. Environment and Planning c: Politics and Space, 35(4), 703–720. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. European Commission. Boden, M., Santos, P. dos, Haegeman, K., Marinelli, E., & Valero, S. (2016). Implementing RIS3 in the region of eastern macedonia and thrace. Policy brief No. 20/2016. Seville: Joint Research Centre, European Commission. Christopherson, S., & Clark, J. (2007). Remaking regional economies: Power, labor, and firm strategies in the knowledge economy. Routledge. Di Cataldo, M., Monastiriotis, V., and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). How ‘smart’ are smart specialization strategies?, JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, advanced online publishing at https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13156. Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Routledge. Gianelle, C., Guzzo, F., & Mieszkowski, K. (2020). Smart specialisation: What gets lost in translation from concept to practice? Regional Studies, 54(10), 1377–1388.

10

THE ROLE OF STATE AND NON-STATE ACTORS …

213

Healy, A. (2016). Smart specialization in a centralized state: Strengthening the regional contribution in North East Romania. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1527–1543. Herweg, N. (2017). European union policy-making. Palgrave Macmillan. Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhoefer, R. (2017). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, Refinements, and empirical applications. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Routledge. Hooghe, L., Marks, G., Schakel, A. H., Osterkatz, S. C., Niedzwiecki, S., & Shair-Rosenfield, S. (2016). Measuring regional authority: A postfunctionalist theory of governance (Vol. I). Oxford University Press. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Types of multi-level governance. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP), 5(11). Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2018). Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies. Research Policy, 48(10), 103612. Marrocu, E., Paci, R., Usai, S., & Rigby, D. (2020). Smart specialization strategy: Any relatedness between theory and practice? Working Paper Series CRENoS (No. 04). Cagliari. Marques, P. Barberá-Tomás, D. (2020). Exporting but still poor: The challenges of regional development in regions with mature industries, INGENIO working paper series, No 2020–01. Marques, P. F., & Morgan, K. (2018). The heroic assumptions of smart specialisation: A sympathetic critique of regional innovation policy. In A. Isaksen, R. Martin, & M. Trippl (Eds.), New avenues for regional innovation systems—theoretical advances, empirical cases and policy lessons (pp. 275–293). Springer. Matti, C., Consoli, D., & Uyarra, E. (2017). Multi level policy mixes and industry emergence: The case of wind energy in Spain. Environment and Planning c: Politics and Space, 35(4), 661–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0263774X16663933 Morgan, K., & Marques, P. (2019). The public animateur: Mission-led innovation and the “smart state” in Europe. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 12(2), 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz002 Morgan, K. (2017). Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy, 35(4), 569–583. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2016). Local and regional development (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2007). What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269. Puga, D. (2002). European regional policy in light of recent location theories. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(4), 372–406.

214

P. MARQUES AND K. MORGAN

Radosevic, S. (2018). Fostering innovation in less-developed and low institutional capacity regions: Challenges and opportunities. Background paper for an OECD/EC Workshop on 22 June 2018 within the workshop series “Broadening innovation policy: New insights for regions and cities”. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Fratesi, U. (2004). Between development and social policies: The impact of European structural funds in objective 1 regions. Regional Studies, 38(1), 97–113. Schakel, A. H., Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2014). Multilevel governance and the state. In S. Leibfried, E. Huber, M. Lange, J. D. Levy, & J. D. Stephens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Transformations of the State. Oxford Handbooks Online. Scott, A. J. (2000). Economic geography: The great half-century. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 24, 483–504. Sotarauta, M., & Beer, A. (2017). Governance, agency and place leadership: Lessons from a cross-national analysis. Regional Studies, 51(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1119265 Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Regional innovation policies for new path development–beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views. European Planning Studies, 26(9), 1779–1795. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313. 2018.1457140 Vamvakas, N. A. (2012). Europeanizing Greece: The effects of ten years of EU structural funds, 1989–1999. University of Toronto Press. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & (Eds.). (2017). Theories of the Policy Process (4th ed.). Routledge. World Bank (2018). Rethinking lagging regions: Using cohesion policy to deliver on the potential of Europe´s regions.

CHAPTER 11

European Urban Agenda: The Predicaments of Decentralised Coordinative Action Fernando Nogueira

Introduction In the recent development process of the new Cohesion Policy, the European Commission (EC) has made relevant efforts to build up a European approach to urban change. The Cohesion Policy has undergone relevant adjustments of its objectives, contents, structure, actors, and implementation mechanisms (Igreja & Conceição, 2021). In a much longer policy development process, the current interest in urban areas has regained momentum after the 2008 crisis, which intensified the belief that only integrated approaches could address the multitude of challenges facing Europe faces. The prominent Barca report (2009) has fostered the return of the European Union (EU) framework to multilevel governance, areabased interventions towards horizontal integration of sectoral policies. Cities have occupied a central stage in the prior debate around the

F. Nogueira (B) Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_11

215

216

F. NOGUEIRA

foreseen adoption of integrated urban sustainable development strategies (ISUDS) (Swianiewicz et al., 2011) on the realm of Europe 2020 strategy. Although widespread support has been granted for establishing a common European framework for urban areas, the idea of giving the EC more authority regarding urban policy was rejected (Tosics, 2016). In the end, much criticism was also disseminated around the vague content of the Europe 2020 strategy regarding the urban dimension (Rosa, 2018; Tosics, 2016). Since the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) discussion, back at the end of the 1990s-decade, territorial sovereignty has been a clashing point among the Member States (MS) regarding developing a common spatial development framework. The EU does not have any competence for spatial planning, and the EC cannot directly enact city-regional policies. In the absence of such powers, states enjoy a significant latitude in interpreting and implementing European inputs (Purkarthofer & Humer, 2019). Pursuing territorial cohesion is demanding and may imply the ‘discover’ of soft spaces, with fuzzy boundaries between and alongside administrative territories from a more prescriptive standpoint. These often involve ad hoc arrangements of overlapping territories—requiring the rethinking of territorial relations in terms of archipelagos or cloud-like structures according to specific territorial needs and prospects (Faludi, 2016; Purkarthofer & Humer, 2019), which can offer opportunities for the coordination of sectoral policies. In practice, therefore, the mentioned autonomy expresses itself through national-specific frameworks, where the existing notions of territorialadministrative jurisdiction can enable or obstruct the full exploitation of the potential of policy instruments in the completion of territorial cohesion objectives. Cohesion Policy calls for greater involvement of subnational actors in decision-making, and their actual impact on the specific design and implementation of European Structural Investments and Funds (ESIF) is sensitive to the degree of decentralisation of each MS (Bähr, 2008). Also, the previous domestic experience in inter-territorial cooperation and the implementation of integrated development schemes has been pointed out as challenging, especially when cumulatively, there is a lack of EC guidance regarding how integrated territorial approaches can be used most effectively. The claims of a blurred link between the overarching territorial objective of EU Cohesion Policy and the role that the urban dimension should play within it support this argument, as the fading of the concerning regulations allowed some national and

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

217

regional authorities to easily avoid the implementing cooperative forms of integrated urban development (Atkinson, 2015; Cotella, 2019; Tosics, 2016). In the framework proposed for 2014–2020, there was an intensification and fine-tuning of the role of cities for the future of Europe (McCann, 2015), reinforcing the previous experience in implementing ISUDS, increasing the involvement of cities and the allocation in scope and financial volume, of resources to urban interventions (Rosa, 2018). In the Europe 2020 strategy, the requirements of strategic coherence in planning and implementation of ESIF have been reinforced, alongside a push towards place-based policymaking, through the introduction of new integrated territorial delivery mechanisms, complemented by the regulatory obligation to spend a minimum level of funding on ISUDS (Bachtler et al., 2016). The implications are enormous, requiring new policy frameworks to cope with the notion of a city or a city-wide (urban–rural) regional node as a locus of convergence and coordination of multilevel governance efforts and multi-sector policy goals and means. This is particularly demanding in national planning systems where there is still no distinct and comprehensive city policy, as is the Portuguese case, given the insufficient operative influence capability of the existing policy framework (Cavaco et al., 2020). Moreover, the domestic interpretations of national subsidiarity and the style of vertical cooperation between government tiers can compromise the expectations of more bottom-up (territorialised) approaches, and conflicting competition and cooperation objectives may emerge among neighbouring municipalities. The pattern of institutional arrangements among EU regions poses locally specific policy challenges to which governance capacities are at least as important as actual potentials (Kroll, 2016). In Portugal, the implementation of ESIF and cohesion programmes have been responsible for profound transformations in the domestic development policy and the layout and arrangements of multilevel governance (Campos & Ferrão, 2015; Igreja & Conceição, 2021; Rio Fernandes et al., 2020). Meanwhile, despite the progressive decentralisation of government competencies to subnational levels, broadened in the last couple of years, Portugal is still one of the more centralised countries in Europe (Magone, 2006). At the same time, the extended subnational multilevel governance struggles with problems of administrative jurisdiction, which are very sensitive, for instance, for spatial planning issues, and with the inherited habits of intermunicipal cooperation and

218

F. NOGUEIRA

a mayor-centred style of municipal governance (Teles, 2016). Since the 1990s, several rounds of EU-financed interventions in urban areas have followed an integrated development policy approach. In past experiences, with some exceptions, the majority of promoted strategies have been primarily confined to municipalities individually and tendentially focused on infrastructure and other environmental and material urban facilities rehabilitation, rather than in economic and social aspects, not ensuring neither the expected intermunicipal cooperation nor strategic and comprehensive public–private partnerships (Chamusca, 2021). On a more positive note, urban strategies were pointed out as an exception to the vertical and thematic segmentation that mostly guided the application of ESIF in Portugal (Iese & Quaternair Portugal, 2010). Meanwhile, in the ongoing programming cycle, intermunicipal Territorial Pacts (directed at Intermunicipal Communities—IMC, at NUTS III level) are chief subnational instruments of cohesion delivering and coexist with ISUDS, which logically raises expectations about its interconnectedness and synergy. Against this scenario, this chapter aims to contribute to the debate of ISUDS, problematising their governance and scope ambiguities, based on evidence from implemented programmes in Portugal after 2000 (POLIS, POLIS XXI, PEDU). Three analytical topics organise the reflection, and were selected according to the following rationale: Thematic integration challenges the physical-functional disposition of national/municipal spatial planning practices and the general predisposition to sectoral policy design and delivering practices, whereas local territorial integration is demanding as regard to the conceiving of borderless place-based approaches, through integrating urban and rural areas or the engendering of inter and trans-municipal spatial layouts (networks, archipelagos, interurban axis) in the context of intermunicipal cooperation and competition relationships. Finally, multilevel coordination confronts the political and administrative centralisation, devolution, and delegating propensity within the networked governance. After this introduction, the chapter presents an overview of the evolution of the urban dimension within EU Cohesion Policy and a synthesis of contributions regarding the implementation of ISUDS and related territorial-focused instruments in recent programming periods. The three integration criteria defined above organise the contributions covering the subject in the literature here enclosed. The following section presents the Portuguese case. Beyond a synthesis of previous evaluative contributions

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

219

on these topics, it explores a sample of published data on ISUDS implementation and related funding in the Centro Region. This Region has 100 municipalities (grouped in 8 IMC), corresponding to above onethird of the total municipalities of the continental part of Portugal (n = 278), and thus considered a representative sample for the ends at stake in this chapter. The chapter ends with a brief debate on the envisaged challenges that the ISUDS approach might raise in the Portuguese context in deepening the European urban agenda. Integrated Urban Interventions: A Brief Overview The EU Cohesion Policy has allowed a range of opportunities for subnational levels of government involvement in urban policymaking. Although supporting area-based, integrated urban policies within the regional approach is not new, policy notions and instruments have progressively evolved towards a growing steering role of the urban areas themselves. The following paragraphs provide a brief overview of the phases of European policy for urban areas. The first milestone of this process of urban policy targeting is the 1988 ERDF reforms, which led to the introduction of thematic instruments to address urban issues. This phase resonates a greater appreciation of the urban areas for development purposes, although with a limited EU support to urban interventions and no explicit recognition of the urban areas as an EU priority or a policy area. Thus regions have primarily remained the preferred spatial level for policy implementation (Medeiros & Van Der Zwet, 2020). ESIF programmes, although undoubtedly informed by spatial considerations, have little spatial or urban focus (Polverari & Bachtler, 2005). Under the influence of these tendencies, selective thematic and experimental instruments were launched directing at problems within urban areas—community-led and area-based actions—primarily focused on deprived neighbourhoods, combining localised measures of physical, economic, and social betterment. The promising results of two rounds of Urban Pilot Projects (1989–1999) have encouraged the launching of the URBAN Community Initiative, also in two rounds, spanning through 1994–1999 (Urban I) until 2000–2006 (Urban II), which kept the focus on the urban revitalisation of neighbourhoods in crisis, aiming at tackling the multidimensionality of city life (Cotella, 2019). Learnt lessons have consolidated the underpinning principles, informing subsequent European urban policy

220

F. NOGUEIRA

debate and instruments. Eventually, the proclaimed success of URBAN was overrated by the ‘selective’ reporting of success stories and resulting evaluation biases (Atkinson, 2015), although learning and the progressive Europeanisation of planning policies in some countries, as in Portugal, have been huge (Rio Fernandes et al., 2020). Academics and policy perceived the positive results of the URBAN initiative as the opening for the mainstreaming of the integrated urban approaches within Cohesion Policy (Igreja & Conceição, 2021; Sielker et al., 2021). For the following programming cycle (2007–2013), the urban areas became eligible for joint and integrated mobilisation of the ERDF, the European Social and the Cohesion Funds, as a way of enabling all European cities to promote integrated urban development, as a response to the somehow fragmented and selective implementing of the URBAN initiative (Cotella, 2019). As a result, National Strategic Reference Frameworks (NSRF) and Operational Programs (OP) had to consider the urban dimension explicitly. The supporting medium-long-term strategies were strengthened with new partnership solutions and innovative capitalistic funding mechanisms like Jessica (Rio Fernandes et al., 2020), aiming at enhancing the impact of urban interventions by expanding the thematic and territorial scope and deepening the integration of resources, sectors, and actors (Rosa, 2018). Still, the evaluations report the colossal influence that, in most cases, the priorities of domestic OP have had on the maintenance of sectoral implementation practices. Also, domestic regional and central government options have constrained the transfer of responsibilities to the local level regarding the autonomous selection of projects, and the way cities could guarantee neither a systematic analysis of their strategies nor the funding for all their planned projects. The exceptions to this lack of success refer to those countries with more robust domestic urban policies and to some of the new Member States who developed the urban component of Cohesion Policy more thoroughly (e.g., France, Germany, The Netherlands, but also Poland, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria) (Atkinson, 2015; Cotella, 2019). In summary, Atkinson argues that, notwithstanding the opportunities for replicating the lessons learned from the URBAN initiative, most countries chose not to mobilise them in a way that could be more supportive of integrated urban development approaches, suggesting that conservatism (or path dependency) attitudes may have reduced the capability of some Member States of ‘doing things differently’ or in a more innovative way (id.).

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

221

In 2013, a new policy direction for the Cohesion Policy endorsed the alignment of ESIF to the overall priorities of the EU. It prompted the establishment of new principles and instruments encompassed in the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. The changes were driven by the need to overcome the ineffectiveness and bottlenecks of previous steps of the Cohesion Policy (Bachtler et al., 2016). The new regulations strengthened the requirements for more strategic coherence and greater thematic concentration and aimed at increasing the effectiveness of planned spending and maximising its impact. Place-based policymaking was reinforced by introducing new integrated and territorially focused tools—Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CLLD). ITI were designed for accomplishing with the compulsory allocation of a minimum of 5% of a Member State’s ERDF funds to urban areas, and thus they should be part of city-wide (or even city-region-wide) multi-fund development strategies—ESF and EDRF—being subject to a previous financial allocation by the MS. According to targeted territories, ITIs would be implemented by a Managing Authority (MA), a city, or another public body (Tosics, 2016). In turn, CLLD were flexible tools applicable to territories or parts of territories (urban, rural, urban fringe, and crossborder areas) encompassed by a broader integrated territorial strategy, developed at regional or subregional level, and addressing a more comprehensive range of issues related to the specific condition of the selected territories and communities (e.g., deprived neighbourhood, small and medium town, and their hinterlands) (Cotella, 2019). Therefore, at least in conceptual terms, both CLLD and ITI could be used to new spatial, more territorially driven configurations, in light of the soft spaces mentioned earlier, whose success depends on the cooperative arrangements of MS domestic actors (Purkarthofer & Humer, 2019). The ITI, in turn, comes in support of the idea that beyond the determined minimum compulsory funding for urban areas, cities or core city-region authorities are potentially eligible as MAs (Medeiros & Van Der Zwet, 2020; Tosics, 2016) as ‘one of the main goals of the approach is to empower cities’ (Zwet & Ferry, 2019, p 114). Earlier in the chapter, it has been stressed that the success in implementing integrated territorial approaches depends on the design of national frameworks and the familiarity with practices of integrated urban development. The Table 11.1 below summarises aspects of the conceptual appreciation of potentials and constraints of the ISUD/ITI approach

222

F. NOGUEIRA

and the contributions to its evaluation gathered from the cited literature. These contributions are organised according to the challenges facing ISUDs implementation, identified in the introduction, namely Thematic Integration, Territorial Integration, and Multilevel Coordination, and according to the following two dimensions of policy design and delivery: ‘Guidance, policy, regulatory frameworks, and governance’ and ‘Strategy and project design and implementation capacity’. Analytically, the Thematic Integration dimension encompasses efficiency and effectiveness resulting from integrating multiple policy areas. Strategic approaches are called forth for selective and synergetic interventions, jointly mobilising usually dispersed themes, and resource flows to better address urban development issues (Nogueira et al., 2017). The Territorial Integration dimension regards how the integrated urban approach is accommodated in pre-existing jurisdictional governmental areas or, instead, is giving rise to new ‘soft’ spatial and functional territorial configurations that cross and overlap established administrative boundaries, thus stimulating new patterns of relations between the encompassed local bodies. The Multilevel Coordination dimension refers to the interplay dynamics between the steering role retained by the central government and the delegation of power to subnational levels. The urban integrated approach intends to induce some power delegation to regional and local authorities. Although the recognised ‘downwards push’ through which regional and local agents gained ground within the networked governance, the literature also acknowledges that this rescaling can take place without a significant loss of control by the central governments (Baker & Wong, 2013; Marinetto, 2003). Such top-down powers exerted through guidance, information and resource flow and regulatory tools can foster or, on the contrary, constrain the opportunities of shaping the endogenous potential of territories and the way subnational actors can participate in decision-making, and locally may get engaged in networking, experimenting cooperation, and devising, and learning with, news ways of doing things. According to the contributions, Thematic Integration and the overall conceptual agreement it gathers have been noticeable at the level of strategic objectives but more problematic at the project level. Beyond the perceived opportunities resulting from the funding integration in terms of mobilising resources towards local development, the linkages between the funding allocation and local plans revealed themselves crucial for implementing strategic approaches. In contrast, the different implementing ‘cultures’ of various funds may have increased the complexity

Funding Integration ITI arrangements Separation between urban and rural Can be implemented by a areas is a requisite for programming; the MA, a city, or other body ‘new’ urban–rural cooperation hiding - may result in a ‘top this fundamental conflict down’ approach, with no community involvement required Integration at the ITI strategy level enhances integration at the project level

ITI arrangements can boost coordinative capacity in the longer term amongst municipalities Discrepancies between the aims of strategies and the funding can lead to tensions between stakeholders within a territory

Local Territorial Integration

Thematic concentration Investment-steering and investment-accelerating effects—leverage to mobilise additional resources The ex-ante indicators constrain local integrated approaches to respond to different funds’ conditionalities ‘cultures’

Funding Integration The combination of funds within an ITI strategy is contributing to bridging their separate implementation ‘cultures’

Funding Integration Increased awareness of investment opportunities and enhancing the formation of links with the private sector Thematic concentration National framework priorities might be very different from the needs and ideas of the local actors

(continued)

Thematic Integration Noticeable at the level of strategic objectives Limited opportunities for integration of funding streams at the project level Linkages to domestic policy frameworks Links between the city plan and funding enables strategic selection of projects Communication The often-limited communication between MA and urban authorities can lead to a lack of adherence from urban stakeholders

Evaluation

Potentialities and constraints

Potentialities and constraints

Evaluation

Strategy and project design and implementation capacity

Guidance, policy and regulatory frameworks, and governance

Thematic Integration

ISUDS dimensions

Table 11.1 ISUDS: Policy design and delivering dimensions

11 EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

223

Multilevel coordination

ISUDS dimensions

Linkages to domestic policy frameworks ISUDS can strengthen the integration of a country’s overall approach to regional development with local development plans The lack of a domestic urban policy framework or insufficient linkages to policy frameworks can hamper effective design and implementation - cities must interact with different agencies Local capacity, delegation, coordination Flexibility in ISUDS implementation formats can raise issues of lack of capacity, which can lead to calls for more guidance Funding allocation Discrepancies between the aims of strategies and the funding can lead to tensions between different levels of government

Guidance More information is needed at the programme level regarding the implementation of ISUDS Guidance is too restrictive, leading to approaches too uniforms or too complex Lack of guidance prevented many countries from using ITI, or to using it cautiously, on an experimental basis Local capacity, delegation, coordination Many MAs consider local authorities as inexperienced, also due to the perceived increase in the complexity of the ESF regulations, which hampers delegation The involvement of local authorities in the design of strategies, at the early stages of the national approach design has the potential for minimising rivalry, competition, and duplication of projects amongst implementing authorities Complexity and fragmentation of frameworks led in some cases to spatial, temporal and institutional overlays between the different tools Funding allocation In most MS the level of funding allocated to place-based approaches is relatively limited, raising questions about their potential impact

Funding Integration sources and at the territorial level depends strongly on governance arrangements and implementation mechanisms chosen

Funding Integration Both the menu system, the predefined breakdown of funds, and eligibility provisions inhibited the use of a truly integrated approach Requirements for thematic concentration are sometimes at odds with an integrated approach - not all themes that relate to local needs are covered; strategies were forced to adopt themes that were not considered a priority Guidance The need for more clarity and flexibility in the guidelines by the EC, including how to plan integrated projects Funding allocation In some MS national, ESF regulation excludes any opportunity for resources to be used at a regional or local level

Evaluation

Potentialities and constraints

Potentialities and constraints

Evaluation

Strategy and project design and implementation capacity

Guidance, policy and regulatory frameworks, and governance

Table 11.1 (continued)

224 F. NOGUEIRA

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

225

and fragmentation of foreseen strategies. Regarding the dimension of Territorial Integration, agreements at the level of ITIs can facilitate the integration at the project level. At the same time, the lack of adherence of local stakeholders frequently leads to communication gaps between the MAs and urban authorities, whose management role can even result in a more top-down approach without the involvement of the local community. A significant obstacle to using the ITIs for urban purposes is the pre-requisite of separation between rural and urban areas for programming purposes. According to Tosics (2016), this is a hidden conflict in the new urban–rural cooperation underlying the ongoing territorial integrated approach. At the same time, collaboration due to the involvement of municipalities in the MAs increases operational and decision-making capabilities at the local level and brings them into more cohesive relationships. Finally, in the Multilevel Coordination dimension, issues of local capacity versus delegation and coordinative action are raised, stressing, on the one hand, the way flexibility of national frameworks regarding the implementation of ISUDS1 can challenge the domestic capacity of MS to deal with the integrated approach and, on the other hand, the perceived increased complexity encompassed has been negatively reflected in the lack of trust of MA in local authorities, hampering the delegation of functions to the latter. Accordingly, there are questions about the lack of guidance for ISUDS implementation by the EC, as well as on the positive effect that the involvement of local authorities at the early stages of national framework design for implementing ISUDS can have at minimising rivalry, competition, and duplication of projects. It highlights the ISUDS approach’s potential to strengthen the integration of the country’s overall approach to regional development with local development plans, and, in the opposite direction, the way the lack of a national urban policy framework or insufficient linkages to domestic policy frameworks can hamper effective design and implementation of ISUDS. Last, some countries have access restrictions to some ESIF at the local level. The effectiveness of funding integration at the territorial level depends on domestic governance arrangements and the agreed implementation mechanisms. Moreover, a significant part of the MS funding allocated to place-based approaches is relatively limited, raising questions about 1 This can be implemented through the so-called mainstream approaches (i.e., similar to other ESF Funds), a separate OP or a separate mixed priority axis, or through an ITI.

226

F. NOGUEIRA

their potential impact. There were some encouraging results regarding the integrated urban approach in some MS, as Cotella (2019) stressed. However, the high level of discretionary in the application of relevant regulations led to numerous other MS to choose not, or to be unable of exploiting the inherent opportunities, and in some cases eventually weakened the institutional innovation of the previous cycles, notwithstanding their more scattered implementation pattern. On the other hand, the EU urban approach motivated the surge of intermunicipal partnerships or sustainable urban strategies and new regional and local spatial plans such as sustainable urban mobility. Before closing this section, a brief remark is due on the recent steps of the European urban approach. The Urban Agenda, adopted in 2016, with the Pact of Amsterdam, represents a step forward in strengthening urban areas’ role in accomplishing European Cohesion Policy objectives. It explicitly recognises the aim of establishing a more effective, coordinated, and integrated approach of European policies and legislation with potential impact on Urban Areas, as well as the achievement of coherence between urban affairs and territorial cohesion, as set out in the Territorial Agenda 2020 (EC, 2015), and in line with the intent consolidated in the Leipzig Charter (2007) of making greater use of ISUDS approaches. Expectations are naturally high in the policy and academic fields, although some scepticism surrounds the potential impacts. Notwithstanding the growing focus on policies directed at urban areas within the Cohesion Policy, the expected distribution in the funding period 2021–27 did not increase the previous programming cycle share of only around one-quarter of the available funding being directed to urban matters (Sielker et al., 2021). Eventually, the broad concept of cohesion and the flexibility attached to it have in some cases been contradictorily by-passed by the force of top-down sectoral regulations that come along with financial incentives (Sielker, 2018). The evidence also suggests balancing flexibility with more detailed guidelines for implementing integrated urban approaches. These may ask for, among other things, better consideration of urban–rural funding integration or how national policy frameworks and administrative layouts can move closer to urban integrated approaches.

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

227

Urban Integrated Approaches in Portugal After a brief explanation of the relevant policy context, this section considers the way urban integrated approaches have been implemented in Portugal. It explores the evaluative contributions according to the three ISUDS challenges explained before, adding some evidence from the ongoing implementation of the urban integrated approach in Portugal (2014–2020). Policy Context The introduction of urban strategic approaches in Portugal in the 1990s occurred when the country was getting covered for the first time by binding Municipal Director Plans (PDMs) after a decade of consolidation of regulatory land-use planning instruments (regional plans, ecologic and agriculture reserves). These first urban strategies emerged alongside a complementary funding policy to support the implementation of this first generation of PDMs, enhancing the role of medium-sized cities in the national urban network. They were paralleled in time by the first round of the URBAN programme and Urban Renovation Operational Initiatives (1994–1999), concentrated in severely deprived neighbourhoods in Lisbon and Porto’s metropolitan areas. Those first attempts were important for introducing the principles of regeneration, integration, and participation that framed the following urban regeneration strategies. These strategies kept, on the one hand, the coexistence between the episodic experimenting and innovative style of URBAN II initiatives concentrated in the two main Portuguese cities (2000–2006), and the broader coverage of national cities through a specific funding programme, named POLIS, and the associated rehabilitation strategies (1997–2003). In the absence of a domestic city policy, POLIS would be an amendment to the national programmed ESIF framework, allowing some integration of national and ESIF investments in 39 cities, which otherwise would be mobilised in a fragmented way (Rosa, 2018). On the other hand, all these initiatives were managed through public partnerships between the central state and local authorities, eventually seconded by local partnerships. An interesting aspect was the POLIS initiative’s attempt not to become decoupled from traditional planning municipal instruments, which revealed to be adequate to its focus on material, environmental and functional urban issues but detrimental to its capability of being

228

F. NOGUEIRA

more integrative regarding social and economic aspects of urban rehabilitation. Thus, it is arguable that, during this period, the more strategic and integrative dimensions of the urban-focused initiatives coexisted uneasily with the national planning policy framework, reputed for its strong ties to a master-plan style of planning practice (Rosa Pires, 2001). At the same time, as urban problems remained a municipal planning issue, no noticeable efforts directed the planning system towards creating a national-specific urban policy. There was, meanwhile, a significant evolution of the Portuguese urban policy due to strategic guidelines and rules associated with the European policy and funding opportunities (Rio Fernandes et al., 2020). Those influences are also in the laying down of the principles and instruments encompassed by the so-called new city policy, POLIS XXI (2007–2013), which, to a large extent, were reiterated on the Sustainable Cities 2020 Strategy (2014–2020) (CS2020) that anticipated the Portugal 2020 designing. The Polis XXI principles enabled more integrated strategies based on a partnership logic, territorial integration, and collaborative and participatory networking around local shared visions. Its primary instrument, the Partnerships for Urban Rehabilitation (PUR), with around 700 Me, would be implemented by local partnerships led by municipalities that should give rise to new forms of urban governance, supported by an explicit place-based articulation of means and interests, in small and problematic urban neighbourhoods, peripheries and derelict areas, historical centres and riverside fronts (often with severe environment problems). Other programmes’ ambition was the promotion of territorial integration through intermunicipal and inter-institutional cooperation, embraced by Urban Networks of Competitiveness and Innovation (RUCI) and (pilot) Innovative Actions for Urban Development (AIDU). These were territorial-based integrated tools intended to bridge municipal and supramunicipal investments at an intraregional scale, focusing on the role of the urban network in the territorial cohesion promotion, and drove by networked governance schemes around converging interests and socioterritorial affinity relations at multiple geographical scales. They represented, indeed, a fundamental departure from previous approaches in several dimensions, first, by aligning the national urban-city policy principles and instruments with those of the EC territorial cohesion, namely through the engendering of borderless functional and relational territorial areas. Second, by overcoming the shortcomings of territorial dispersion in the allocation of EISF, associated with the traditional practice of having

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

229

the municipalities as individual beneficiaries. These changes were relevant to the point that POLIS XXI was acknowledged as foundational for the city policy for the twenty-first century in Portugal (Chamusca, 2021). Posterior developments and deficits of implementation may ask for some containment regarding the progress made in the system as a whole, notwithstanding the learning accomplished with implemented initiatives more fine-tuned with the URBAN/URBACT spirit. Portugal is considered to have an explicit national urban policy but getting a consensus around the subject remains problematic (Cavaco et al., 2020). As mentioned, the CS2020, enacted in 2015, updates the national urban policy framework, marking the opening of the current programming cycle. It is pretty aligned with the preceding steps towards an integrated urban policy, although lacking the specification of implementation tools and means directly implied in the ISUDS approach. Although CS2020 has defined the role of cities for the implementation of public policy, it is explicitly assumed that, given its nature as a guiding, strategic and transversal guide for various sectoral policies, it is not its function to configure a plan or programme of action or to specify the governance mechanisms necessary for the implementation of the principles it intends to promote (DGT, 2015). In addition, CS2020 was approved after the finalisation of the PA, so it could not, at least directly, influence the ISUD programming (Rosa, 2018). Meanwhile, at this point, the results suggest that the funding fragmentation and the lack of articulation between programme strategic tools and the existing statutory planning instruments severely lowered the CS2020 policy ambitions (Chamusca, 2021). Under Portugal 2020, municipalities had to prepare Integrated Actions of Sustainable Urban Development within a Strategic Plan for Sustainable Urban Development (PEDU). These plans would integrate three strategic instruments: (i) the sustainable urban mobility plan (PMUS), defined at the level of NUTS III, and specially oriented to promote sustainable multimodal urban mobility; (ii) the urban regeneration action plan (PARU), aimed to improve the urban environment and economic vitality of cities and rehabilitate abandoned or derelict areas; (iii) integrated action plans for disadvantaged communities (PAICD), seeking to support physical, economic and social regeneration of disadvantaged communities in urban and rural areas. Meanwhile, the system also implements selective initiatives more aligned with EU mainstream urban policy requirements (URBACT II and III). These certainly inform the conceptual bricks of the Portuguese city policy, embodied in the CS2020 and

230

F. NOGUEIRA

other regeneration policy instruments, although revealing some difficulties in integrating them, more comprehensively, into the current system planning and governance practices. Some relevant changes also took place in the Portuguese multilevel governance framework. Portugal has only two constitutional levels of government, central and local, except for insular territories where there are autonomous regional governmental powers. Below the central state, there are the Regional Coordination and Development Commissions, acting as decentralised entities of the central state in the continental part of the country. Recognising the weaknesses resulting from the concentration of administrative and planning functions in the central state and the fragility of the subnational levels, in 2008 the Intermunicipal Communities in Metropolitan Areas were established by Law No. 45/2008 of 27/08, to promote the articulation of municipal investments of intraregional interest, and the participation in the management of regional development support programmes (Teles, 2016). The Law No. 75/2013 of 12/09 reinforced the role of these subnational bodies during the bailout period. This Law recognised the appropriateness of this scale to deal with proximity and scale economies issues, thus extending the scope of their competencies regarding the management of networks of services and equipment in the areas of transport, water, energy, and solid waste treatment, as well as in the articulation of municipal interventions in health, education, or spatial planning (Rio Fernandes et al., 2020). As mentioned earlier, decentralisation of competencies for municipal and intermunicipal entities is currently underway through Law No. 50/2018 of 16/08. In this Law, efficiency and effectiveness of public administration and territorial cohesion are the principles justifying competencies decentralisation, which encompasses, among others, education, health, culture, housing, the registration information, forest and protected areas management, transport and communication routes, citizen service structures, or proximity policing. A range of territorial planning issues can be tackled at the intermunicipal level, as long as the resultant development measures and investments do not outstrip the binding municipal (PDM and more detailed local plans) and regional plans (PROT). It is worth mentioning that intermunicipal binding plans are also regulated but have been rarely utilised, which is an indicator, albeit simplistic, of the lack of predisposition of municipalities to collaborate in this subject. Beyond that, the extended territorial coordinating role attributed to

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

231

Intermunicipal Communities (IMC) in the ongoing process of competencies decentralisation lacks clarification regarding what constitutes an effective transfer of competencies and what may remain as a ‘blurred’ sharing of responsibilities between the central government and intermunicipal entities (Silva & Gonçalves, 2019). Moreover, IMCs are an additional intermediary subnational administrative level, both local and supra-municipal, lacking political representativeness due to their absence of directly elected bodies. According to the analytical categories discussed in the previous section, the following sections explore the dimensions of the design and implementation of Portuguese integrated urban strategies, after 2000, according to the analytical categories discussed in the previous section. Thematic Integration The convergence of multisectoral themes around urban strategies has been densified. Gradually, the rehabilitation of city ‘spaces’ gave way to the notion of integrated regeneration of ‘places’, at least conceptually. The POLIS’ focus on the quality of life and urban attractiveness and competitive advantages was complemented by the POLIS XXI intent of having a more significant input of immaterial issues within his principal instrument, the Partnerships for Urban Regeneration (PRU). The initial design of PRU conveyed some subordination of physical interventions to intangible objectives, stimulating the convergence of the social dimensions of cohesion, inclusion, and equality with the dimensions of socioeconomic revitalisation, the qualification of the urban environment, and the enhancement of urban spaces, disqualified urban peripheries, and critical neighbourhoods. Moreover, this programme aimed to promote aspects related to competitiveness and innovation and innovative and efficient urban solutions, having created specific collaborative tools for tackling them (RUCI e AIDU). Finally, in the PT2020, PEDU’s strategic instruments are still tuned with the general principles of an integrated approach to the urban regeneration of preceding cycles, although with a greater emphasis on urban environmental sustainability (in the PARU), in low carbon and integrated territorial mobility (PAMUS) and a specific tool for social inclusion issues (PAICD). Looking at the implementation results, the expected progress towards greater inclusion of immaterial and innovation dimensions due to the POLIS XXI’s broader thematic scope and integrative rationality was not

232

F. NOGUEIRA

significant. As mentioned, implementation deficits have been attributed to the insufficient understanding of the dimensions and values of urban regeneration and to the timidly defined governance principles that accompanied the programme depth implementation requisites (Chamusca, 2021). One must add the constraints provoked by the sub-prime crisis in the supporting capability of the considerable financial resources channelled to urban issues (Rosa, 2018). Initial impulses of the POLIS XXI were exposed to the fragmentation of AIDU, with different levels of municipal adhesion in the dimensions of the programme to which required knowledge and competencies were distant from the usually mobilised. That is, the unpreparedness of most municipalities to deal with the operational requisites of intermunicipal strategies implementation and the endorsed accompanying innovation issues (eco-efficiency, eco and integrated mobility, intelligent and digital management, and egovernance). AIDU registered a low level of adhesion and an execution rate that did not go beyond 19% of the total amount foreseen (80 Me) (id.). Later, in 2011, the remaining funds assigned to the PRU and RUCI would be reallocated to a new ‘urban rehabilitation package’ due to the low implementation rate. This change provoked the repackaging of the programme’s ambitious goals to more circumscribed urban rehabilitation and urban renewal (or sustainable urban rehabilitation) investments. This shift also represented a return to the focus on the city’s economic competitiveness that characterised early generations of urban strategies, coupled with urban environmental qualification and infrastructure reutilisation measures, and therefore far from the social and territorial cohesion objectives of integrated urban regeneration strategies. Regarding the PT2020, it is probably too soon to extract complete conclusions. So far, the analysis points that the thematic scope of the local strategies was limited in advance by top-down framework designing. From a range of 10 Investment Priorities (IP) devoted to territorial integrated development investments on the Partnership Agreement (PA), only three of them were selected, namely IP 4.5, IP 6.5, and IP 9.8, which correspond to the thematic focus of PEDU’s tools (low carbon/mobility; urban revitalisation; disadvantaged communities’ regeneration). Thus, PEDU becomes an ERDF mono-fund instrument. However, the PA has anticipated complementary financing support for the socioeconomic revitalisation measures in deprived neighbourhoods, stating the direct implication of the IP 9.1 (active inclusion opportunities and employability)(ESF funds), and recommending the mobilisation

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

233

of others, namely the IP’s 9.6 and 9.10, attracting funds for both ESF and ERDF within Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), and 10.1 (school abandonment prevention and the access to educational and training opportunities), from the ESF. Table 11.2 is elucidative of thematic integration issues. Material and patrimony rehabilitation and infrastructure investment areas take more than 85% of allocated funds, whereas issues related to clean-low carbon mobility and intelligent transport and management issues are poorly mobilised (IP 4.5). This suggests the prevalence of the pattern of action of municipalities confined in their more traditional investment areas, with timid progress in others demanding different competencies and knowledge. Nearly 6% of funds were allocated to infrastructure and equipment in socially unprivileged communities (IP 9.8). At the same time, IP 9.1, outside the financial perimeter of PEDU, was poorly mobilised (2.7%), thus revealing the difficulties of integrating programming schedules and implementation guidelines of the different funds (ibid., 2018). This is in line with the argument previously brought to light regarding how the different ‘cultures’ of the various ESIF can hinder their integration within the urban/local strategies. Thematic integration is also hampered by the absence of explicit inputs of the statutory municipal plans, especially the PDM, to the specific strategic tools of PEDU (Cavaco et al., 2020). The PDM and other municipal plans could effectively be a centre of rationality in prioritising urban investments while contributing to filling the void still existing in the city planning policy framework. In his absence, urban investments risk being enabled by opportunistic strategies that yield to speculative pressures and the commodification of the city. Local Territorial Integration In the previous decades, the most significant efforts to promote local, territorial integration in ISUDS were due to POLIS XXI, like his predecessor, the POLIS, having an explicitly intra-urban scope of implementation. Effectively the RUCI and the AIDU of POLIS XXI were thought of as the result of strategic territorial and shared interests’ partnerships. The municipalities were burdened by the multiple territorially focused instruments meant to foster beyond their focus on the PRU (Rosas, 2018). For the reasons already mentioned, the implementation of those strategic partnerships did not gain momentum, but even in the PRU,

2,3

14 2,3

Nº projects

Projects (%)

7.394

2,3

Clean urban mobility infrastructure & equipment

Funding (%)

4.5 6.5 9.8 9.1 Funding (m€)

Investment Priority

71,3

425

73,3

239.468

73,3

Cultural and patrimony assets protection & revitalisation

8,4

50

5,8

18.919

5,8

Neighborhood supporting infrastructure

13,4

80

13,5

44.012

13,2 0,3

Bike and pedrestian infrastructure

2,2

13

2,7

2,7 8.822

Social inclusion, equity, partcipation & employment opportunities

2,2

13

1,9

6.354

1,9

Intelligent transport demand management, tolling & IT systems

Table 11.2 Investment Priorities (IP) and thematic allocation of funds in PEDU

0,2

1

0,6

1.833

0,6

Rehabilitation of industrial sites and contaminated land

100,0

596

Total

100,0

17,4 74,1 5,8 2,7 326.803

Total

234 F. NOGUEIRA

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

235

the strategic partnerships were often reduced to artificial expedients, and ultimately municipalities became isolated beneficiaries and promoters of urban strategies. Under the PEDU, a significant contribution regarding intermunicipal cooperation should be credited to PAMUS, for promoting strategic action in the sensitive issue of inter-urban mobility at the NUT III level. Urban sprawl is significant in continental Portugal, and mobility patterns are generally highly dependent on car travel. Table 11.3 shows that the level of funding for these strategies was relatively modest. Even so, a more refined analysis shows that, in some cases, PAMUS served as an anchor/catalyst for complementary investments in the transport system of the municipalities involved, in their PEDU, particularly in the pedestrian and cycling networks, but also in some peripheral traffic retention measures and complementary road connections to the intermunicipal network. On the counterpart, the articulation of action with other territorially focused instruments, as CLLD (rural and urban) is reduced, and thus the problem of urban–rural transition areas persisted, essentially, an out-of-range issue. The broad picture, in Table 11.3, shows that municipalities (directly or indirectly) concentrate around 65% of total funds in the IP analysed (including the IFFRU capitalistic fund mechanism, to which another PI Table 11.3 All PEDU’s implied PI and thematic allocation of funds by agents PEDU perimeter

PI AGENT Municipalities

PARU + PAICD

PAMUS

Grand Total Employement

Other Programs 440

624

Other public bodies

340

Pvt. + Pvt. of Pub. Interest agents Municipalities

9.1; 9.6; 9.10; 10,1

IFFRU

School, inclusion, and education

317.980

IMC 4.5; 6,8; 9.8

CLLD

16.046 8.822

mEuros

61,0

624

0,1

340

3,2

16597 40636

Other public bodies

25.078

Total

62,7

0,1

3,1

15,1

50218

7,8 35,7

78702

14,1

4,8

0,1

0,1

3,1

7.775

78702

64,3

16046

40.636

Pvt. + Pvt. of Pub. Interest agents

% TOT

318420

IMC

25.140

%

521583 100,0

9,6

15,1 100,0

236

F. NOGUEIRA

4.3 urban specific is indirectly associated2 ), in the perimeter of PEDU. The interventions belonging to complementary PI, related to social inclusion, employment, and school and training issues are marginally directly managed by municipalities (3.2%). In contrast, they are mainly directly managed by deconcentrated administrative agents or Intermediate Bodies (e.g., CLLD implementing agencies, regional and local municipal of social assistance system), through the mobilisation of funds from Regional or Thematic Operational Programs. Here, the fund’s allocation is conditioned by the administrative layout of decentralised competent bodies, often but not always coinciding with municipalities’ boundaries, and driven, above all, by the internal logic of the network of the services/equipment encompassed. That means that the supra-municipal rationalisation of investments is also scattered by sectoral directives, within which the IMC accommodate more than determines their territorial articulation. This contributes to weakening the cooperation and commitment of municipalities at the IMC level around a more structured reflection on the supra-municipal territory, and instead, municipal sovereignty and borders act as sources of bargaining thresholds. Multilevel Coordination The lack of a comprehensive city national policy framework is hampering the decentralised coordinative efforts. Municipalities have been increasingly involved in and committed to the interplay of multiple fluxes of territorially focused instruments, and yet struggling with the lack of clarity on the governance principles and arrangements that should frame their action for the ends of Policy Cohesion. Also, operational choices in the application of ISUDS have contributed to exposing differences in institutional capacity to deal with the resulting burden of this increased management complexity. If POLIS was more modest in investment and concentrated in a few cities, the option in both POLIS XXI and PEDU was to disperse the investments for many cities/municipalities. In Portugal, 103 PARU were approved, covering all Portuguese NUTS II except for the Algarve region, with a total budget of e797 million (Medeiros & Van Der Zwet, 2020). Of course, this was politically equated within the balancing 2 PI 4.3 aims to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy use in public buildings and infrastructure.

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

237

between concentrating investments, possibly enhancing the impacts of interventions but excluding other cities, or increasing opportunities of access but atomising the results, with among other consequences the need to accommodate the differential in competencies and technical resources among eligible municipalities to respond to the requirements of integrated approaches (Rosa, 2018). Capacity building has not been absent from national entities’ concerns, recognising the challenges faced. Before the implementation of the RUCI, in the scope of POLIS XXI, an experimental and demonstrative instrument was launched,3 and preparatory actions for its effective implementation, although with the poor debated results that came to happen. Similarly, it is recognised that the EC’s request to implement the URBACT principles in the implementation of the PEDU would be desirable, but that it was not realistic to generalise it due to the inability to get, on time, identical resources (cooperation, capacity building, technical support) to all eligible cities (id., 2018). Thus, decentralised capacity building remains a critical aspect of ISUDS implementation, although multilevel coordinative factors can also relate to how the fluxes of coordinative action are deployed throughout the governing chain. Examples of this are the lack of involvement of the accountable Central structures in the monitoring of the partnerships established with cities within the POLIS (ibid.) and how the transfer of responsibility for the management of the RUCIs to the structures of the regional operational programs was insufficient to meet the governance challenges they raised (Ferreira, 2020). Ultimately, this accommodation process may mean adapting the procedural requisites of access, levelling them down according to the perceived mismatch between the average competencies of local actors and the programme’s exigencies. That happened in PEDU, in which, for the one part, the focus on the rehabilitation within the foreseen regeneration strategies (PARU) has been enhanced in the programme’s dispositions, and by the other part, specific requirements of the urban regeneration law in force were circumvented through the acceptance of simplified procedures, which are prior to the consolidation of sound local regeneration strategies. This suggests the somewhat opportunistic behaviour of the system as a whole, which having the appropriate tools suiting the requirements of the ISUDS, largely chooses not to use them. It is in line with the 3 Dispatch 23,021/2007, of October 4, from the Office of the Secretary of State for Spatial Planning and Cities.

238

F. NOGUEIRA

debated notion that linkages to national policy frameworks can enhance the implementation of ISUDS; however, to be effective, they should be worked out at the steering and guidance dimensions. The multilevel coordination also regards participation and selection of participant cities. A structured process of involvement of local actors is time-consuming and highly subject to temporal compression, which has often led to options that tended to reverse the steps of strategic streamlining (ibid.). Besides the reduced participation of local agents in the designing phase, the lack of transparency regarding the selection of cities was reported in the case of POLIS, and in recent programmes, selection and pre-qualification processes, based on the quality of strategic proposals, have been replaced by pre-envelopment procedures. This means that, instead of a hierarchical selection of local strategic proposals, there was a process of qualitative evaluation of them based on the matching between the implementation capacity of each municipality and the achievement of objectives and goals, but effectively modulated in the background by the regional amount programmed (ibid.). In addition to the resulting fragmentation of investments, another expectable consequence is the loss of consistency of local strategies, due to the subtraction of important parts of it, besides the effect that these constraints may have had on the capability to energise potential local partnerships. The pressure of funding constraints and execution rates can be highly detrimental to goals accomplishment and lead to the reorientation of essential parts of well-designed policy frameworks, as is the Polis XXI. Also, as discussed previously, domestic dispositions regarding how to accede funds from different ESIF should be anticipated to enhance its integration at the decentralised territorial strategies level.

Concluding Remarks As the end of the fifth EU programming cycle is approaching, this chapter reflects on the progress made in Portugal and Europe on integrated urban policies in the last decades. The discussion sheds some light on the existing gaps between the assumption of an overarching notion of EU cohesion and the capabilities enabling its completion at the decentralised level, though dependent on the unequal capacity of various countries of internalising underpinning principles and mobilising the instruments encompassed by the ISUDS approach.

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

239

Throughout the implementation of ISUDS in Portugal, there has been a gradual affirmation of municipalities as autonomous urban management authorities. While the legislative and governance apparatus has become more complex, concrete guidelines on how cities, beyond municipal administrative boundaries, can play their role of agglutinating and energising networks and other territories under their influence are, to a large extent, missing. The lack of a complete national city policy framework makes it difficult to operationalise the concept of the city itself, at the intersection of its existence as a functional, spatial, and geographic entity with diffuse contours and as a management entity situated in a multiscalar context of governance, no matter the importance that in abstract terms is ascribed to cities for the cohesion promotion. While CS2020, as the primary reference for the Portuguese city policy, was aligning with the Leipzig Charter’s urban agenda, practices revealed difficulties in thoroughly impregnating the ISUDS mainstreaming approach guidelines. As the reflection exposed, the lack of articulation of the ISUDS with national policy frameworks is not principally due to conceptual or technical inadequacies of legal or administrative instruments, but to the insufficient aptitude to promote, in concrete terms, these linkages, as in the case of the urban regeneration strategies, under PT2020. The system, as a whole, is acting conservatively regarding the scope of challenges hitting the cities as nodes of territorial strategising. As illustrated, significant constraints derive from a feeble intermunicipal cooperation culture, an issue that is manifold in the case of the ISUDS approach. As ISUDS has tended to focus on urban rehabilitation issues, the municipalities’ propensity to perceive themselves as isolated beneficiaries regarding them may have become reinforced. At the same time, this acts as a disincentive to collaborating in areas more distant from their common competencies and know-how and less rewarding in terms of funding. In the end, both situations contribute to a profile of urban strategic interventions that get along quickly with (intra-)urban sustainable revitalisation, but less easily with the social and economic dimensions of urban regeneration or the innovation issues that urban agenda calls forth (Medeiros & Van Der Zwet, 2020). Another circumstance strengthening this behaviour is that cooperation within intermunicipal communities is mediated by the direct action of sectoral decentralised central-state agencies and their inherent networks. Municipalities may exert mainly a balancing influence that can result decoupled from the intermunicipal rationalisation that their concerning Territorial

240

F. NOGUEIRA

Pacts seek to ensure. As debated, the diffuse articulation between the different ESIF in territorialised focused strategies is problematic, not contributing to minimising this situation. Still, progress has been made that can eventually be considered in the evaluation to be done, in the form of lessons learned. The way sustainable mobility and transport system issues have been addressed at the intermunicipal level may indicate how to guide the system towards more territorially integrated strategies that are also less confined to municipal territories. This refers to the PT2020 intentional decision of requiring a strategic plan around one of the critical aspects of the current urban agenda. This basis of strategic convergence has served as an anchor to PEDU’s complementary investments of some involved municipalities. Perhaps, the lessons learned can serve to address sensitive aspects that the urban agenda urges to be dealt with in the following programming cycle. The COVID-19 pandemic has left us with a social and economic crisis that will have to be addressed simultaneously with the pressing challenges of climate change, poverty, affordable housing, and energy transition, among others. These issues are considerably demanding in terms of innovation and resilience capabilities. Thus, they could beneficiate from a more comprehensive transfer of innovation and good practices being implemented in frontline networks and initiatives established by the EU, in which some Portuguese cities are also engaged (e.g., URBACT, Urban Innovative Actions Initiatives, Eurocities), to the current practices of agents in the system—municipalities, ICM, and intermediary management agents. As debated, within the ISUDS approach, national authorities have been sensitive to competencies and capacity-building issues, although levelling down technical and knowledge requirements on behalf of access opportunities and execution capabilities. As also stressed in the literature review, the lack of guidelines can be a critical factor in implementing urban integrated approaches. Implementing the demanding objectives of the urban agenda, set out in the Pact of Amsterdam, will require a strengthening of urban authorities’ institutional, technical, and management skills, which in many cases goes against the shrinking process that their staff has been subject to after 2008 crisis. At the same time, the IMCs, which have been taking on growing responsibilities, also lack the staff and managers to be an alternative source of territorial articulation. Additionally, both are exposed to the effects of the ongoing process of decentralisation of competencies on this

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

241

dimension. This may be one of the most critical aspects in the transition that is supposed to be set in motion. Given the size of the challenges, the traditional use of external consulting and outsourcing as solution brokers can be problematic regarding the sustainability of the demanded changes. The kind of transformative changes required is responsive to the extent of innovation embedding, and territorial cohesion and innovation will become intertwined through the many factors interfering in how urban places may re-invent their relational functional, ecological, and governance arrangements. Knowledge co-creation is demanding, asking for the openness to sources of knowledge and competencies beyond the traditional and most evident, as they are scattered in agents and along with sectors and territories. As municipalities in Portugal remain primarily responsible for planning and managing urban areas, they would have to be intensely engaged in networks steering and animation functions. The societal scope and the pace of the foreseen changes also endorse a higher level of civil society involvement, going far beyond anecdotal administrative, consultative practices, towards the capacitation of civic partnerships and the engaged citizenry for decision processes, and the transformative action of ‘places’ and urban living conditions.

References Atkinson, R. (2015). The urban dimension in cohesion policy: Past developments and future prospects. European Structural & Investment Funds Journal, 3(1), 21–31. Bachtler, J., Berkowitz, P., Hardy, S., & Muravska, T. (2016). Introduction: Reassessing the performance and direction of EU Cohesion Policy in 2014– 20. In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing performance and direction (pp. 1–8). Routledge. Bähr, C. (2008). How does sub-national autonomy affect the effectiveness of structural funds? Kyklos, 61(1), 3–18. Baker, M., & Wong, C. (2013). The delusion of strategic spatial planning: What’s left after the Labour government’s English regional experiment? Planning Practice & Research, 28(1), 83–103. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed Cohesion Policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. European Communities Brussels. Campos, V. and Ferrão, J. (2015). O ordenamento do território em Portugal: uma perspectiva genealógica. ICS Working Papers.

242

F. NOGUEIRA

Cavaco, C., Florentino, R., and Pagliuso, A. (2020). Urban policies in Portugal. In S. Armondi & S. D. G. Hurtado (Eds.), Foregrounding urban agendas. The new urban. The new urban issue in European experiences of policy-making (pp. 49–73). Springer. Chamusca, P. (2021). Urban planning and policy in Portugal: an overview on the role of EU funds and guidelines. Urban Research & Practice, 1–22. Cotella, G. (2019). The urban dimension of EU cohesion policy. In Territorial Cohesion (pp. 133–151). Springer. DGT. (2015). Cidades Sustentáveis 2020 - Apuramento e ponderação dos resultados da consulta pública. EC. (2015). Territorial agenda 2020 put in practice—enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of Cohesion Policy by a place-based approach. European Commission. Faludi, A. (2016). EU territorial cohesion, a contradiction in terms. Planning Theory & Practice, 17 (2), 302–313. Ferreira, D. (2020). Espaço, justiça e políticas públicas: análise da Política POLIS XXI numa perspetiva de justiça espacial. Universidade de Lisboa. Iese and Quaternair Portugal. (2010). Avaliação Global da Implementação do QREN (2007–2013)—Relatório Final. 30 de Agosto de 2010. Lisboa. Igreja, J. and Conceição, P. (2021). The influence of EU policy on local governance and urban change. Evidence from Porto, Portugal. Urban Research & Practice, 14(4), 372–396. Kroll, H. (2016). The policy challenge in smart specialisation: A common approach meets European diversity. In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing Performance and Direction (pp. 115–126). Routledge. Magone, J. (2006). The europeanization of Portugal (1986–2006). A Critical View. Nação e Defesa, 115(3), 9–28. Marinetto, M. (2003). Governing beyond the Centre: A critique of the AngloGovernance School. Political Studies, 51(3), 592–608. McCann, P. (2015). The regional and urban policy of the European Union: Cohesion, results-orientation and smart specialisation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Medeiros, E., & Van Der Zwet, A. (2020). Evaluating integrated sustainable urban development strategies: A methodological framework applied in Portugal. European Planning Studies, 28(3), 563–582. Nogueira, F.,Borges, M., and Wolf, J.-H. (2017). Collaborative decision-making in non-formal planning settings. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26(5). Polverari, L. and Bachtler, J. (2005). The contribution of European structural funds to territorial cohesion. The Town Planning Review, 76(1), 29–42. Purkarthofer, E. and Humer, A. (2019). City-regional policies in the planning systems of Finland and Austria: National initiatives and European opportunities. Belgeo. Revue Belge de Géographie, (2).

11

EUROPEAN URBAN AGENDA: THE PREDICAMENTS …

243

Rio Fernandes, J. A., Teles, F., Chamusca, P., & Seixas, J. (2020). The power of the cities and the power in the cities: A multiscale perspective from Portugal. Boletín De La Asociación De Geógrafos Españoles, 87 , 10. Rosa, F. (2018). O Desenvolvimento Urbano Sustentável na Política de Coesão. Coleção Políticas and Territórios (Vol. No. WP02). Rosa Pires, A. (2001). Breaking the ties with the master plan: Spatial strategic plans in Portugal. In L. Albrechts, J. Alden, & A. Rosa Pires (Eds.), The changing institutional landscape of planning (pp. 181–204). Ashgate. Sielker, F. (2018). European spatial governance–towards a sectoralisation of spatial planning. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law., 10(2), 126–139. Sielker, F., Rauhut, D., & Humer, A. (2021). EU Cohesion Policy and European spatial governance: An introduction to territorial, economic and social challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing. Silva, S. and Gonçalves, F. (2019). As recentes reformas do poder local em Portugal: Pretexto para uma reflexão sobre a autonomia local no século XXI. Revista Iberoamericana de Gobierno Local, (14). Swianiewicz, P., Atkinson, R., and Baucz, A. (2011). Background report on the urban dimension of the Cohesion Policy post 2013. Informe Solicitado Por La Presidencia Polaca de La UE. Teles, F. (2016). Local governance and intermunicipal cooperation. Palgrave Macmillan. Tosics, I. (2016). Integrated territorial investment. A missed opportunity? In J. Bachtler, P. Berkowitz, S. Hardy, & T. Muravska (Eds.), EU Cohesion Policy: Reassessing performance and direction (pp. 284–296). Routledge. Zwet, A. van der and Ferry, M. (2019). Integrated sustainable urban development strategies in the European union: Added value and challenges. In Territorial Cohesion (pp. 111–129). Springer.

CHAPTER 12

Local Development Through Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystems João Almeida, Ana Dias Daniel, and Anabela Botelho

Introduction Low-density and rural territories (LDTs) face significant challenges in nearly all developed countries, experiencing “the dark side of the unequal regional developments” (Korsgaard, Ferguson, & Gaddefors, 2015). These cover 75% of the territory, but only 19% of the population (European Commission, 2017), and are characterised by an ageing population, out-migration and urbanisation which causes a decrease in available

J. Almeida · A. D. Daniel (B) GOVCOPP, DCSPT, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] J. Almeida e-mail: [email protected] A. D. Daniel · A. Botelho GOVCOPP, DEGEIT, Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_12

245

246

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

human capital, which, in turn, weakens local economic dynamics, discouraging investment in innovation and entrepreneurial activities. These are structural challenges that are the cause and consequence of a vicious circle of decline that compromises LDTs’ development and attractiveness (Fortunato, 2014; Korsgaard et al., 2015; OECD, 2018). The importance of promoting an entrepreneurial culture, innovation practices and supporting infrastructures is being more and more acknowledged by policymakers and scholars as crucial in strategies to promote local development (Ács et al., 2014; Audretsch & Belitski, 2017; Szirmai et al., 2011). Despite this increasing interest, most academic studies focus mainly on urban territories due to their dynamism, size and impact on the national economies. However, the few studies that focus on LDTs have shown a positive spillover effect of entrepreneurship and innovation in valuing local resources, economic and social development and quality of life, thus contributing to overcoming the inequalities that affect these territories (Korsgaard & Müller, 2015; Moreira & Martins, 2009; Sá et al., 2018). Thus, a new approach to local ecosystems is needed that fosters entrepreneurship and innovation based on the paradigm that local development in LDTs is a multi-level, multi-actor and multi-faceted process (Torre & Wallet, 2013). This study focuses on the specific case of Portuguese LDTs that cover 79% of the continental territory. Over the last decade, several LDTs have implemented local strategies focused on entrepreneurship and innovation to overcome the main negative trends that aggravate the declining cycle in these territories. Thus, the main goal of this study is to understand the main strategies and policies used by some LDTs to break the declining cycle, specifically those related to the creation of an ecosystem that promotes entrepreneurship and innovation. A case-study approach was used based on secondary data collected from reports and public statistical databases and primary data gathered from several interviews that were conducted with key actors in each ecosystem. Implications are drawn for literature and policymakers on local development strategies through entrepreneurship and innovation.

The Declining Cycle of Ldts One of the first references to the declining cycle of territories was made in Myrdal’s (1957) work on “Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions”, which focuses his argument on the principle of cumulative

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

247

causation, and proposes that the economic and non-economic factors constitute a “vicious circle” that causes regional inequalities. Later, Drudy (1978) explains that the decrease in employment triggers the outward migration to large cities, which, in turn, influences the provision of infrastructures and services and the ageing of the population. In the end, the region is even less attractive, which leads to even more outward migration, and so on (Drudy, 1978). In this vein, the report of the OECD (2006) “New Rural Paradigm” claims that declining economic and social development is correlated with the out-migration of young and educated people, while those left behind fail to raise productivity and guarantee economic development to the territory. Figure 12.1 shows this vicious declining circle, characterised by the structural challenges that are cause and consequence of each other. This cycle leads to an unfavourable context for entrepreneurship, innovation and investment, which, in turn, leads to lower levels of private investments, labour productivity and specialisation of the business sector. Consequently, these constraints lead to the incapacity of creating and fixing human capital, qualified employment and decent remuneration of the workforce. Even the territories with higher education institutions have difficulties fixing qualified human capital, which usually goes to the major cities where most of the business and the higher salaries are located.

Fig. 12.1 The vicious declining cycle of Low-Density Territories (Source Own)

248

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Breaking the Cycle Through Entrepreneurship and Innovation Human capital, knowledge and technology have been considered the building blocks of a cohesive, smart, inclusive and sustainable territorial growth and development (Andersson & Karlsson, 2004; Coffey & Polèse, 1984). Thus, the interest of both policymakers and scholars in building ecosystems to promote entrepreneurial culture and innovation practices, as a way to promote local development, is growing (Ács et al., 2014; Audretsch & Belitski, 2017; Coffey & Polèse, 1984; Szirmai et al., 2011). LDTs’ characteristics may hinder some entrepreneurship and innovation drivers, processes or outcomes, but can facilitate others. These offer unique conditions (e.g. natural resources, culture, history, etc.) for the promotion of entrepreneurial ventures (Sá et al., 2018), and can also contribute to solving ongoing social challenges through investing in renewable energy and circular economy (OECD, 2018). Growing digital connectivity can facilitate the access to human capital needed by these territories, and the emerging technologies can also be an opportunity for entrepreneurs to innovate and add value in traditional sectors associated with LDTs (OECD, 2018). Finally, the recent COVID-19 pandemic may bring several opportunities to LDTs and rural territories. The perception of safety (compared to urban centres), the possible change in the consumption and production patterns, the remote working habits and newer forms of mobility may open new opportunities for the sustainable development of these territories (OECD, 2020). Although it is widely accepted that both entrepreneurship and innovation play an important role in the economic and social development of a territory (Ács et al., 2014; Audretsch & Belitski, 2017; Szirmai et al., 2011), according to León, Izsak, Bougas, et al. (2017), “innovation and entrepreneurship thrive in particular contexts and under particular framework conditions” (p. 1), being fostered by the interactions between local actors. Thus, the local context is pivotal, particularly in low-density territories, given their specific characteristics (Xu & Dobson, 2019). Despite sharing identical characteristics, each location and ecosystem are distinct, and not considering the socio-cultural environment, networks, available resources or physical conditions at the local level may cause more problems than bring positive outcomes over time (Mason & Brown, 2014; Xu & Dobson, 2019). Policymaking is usually based on “one-size-fits-all”

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

249

assumptions and practices, being criticised by some authors who question whether they really respond to local ecosystem reality. New forms of policymaking with an individualised and collaborative approach are needed to foster entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystems, moving away from the traditional transactional incentives policies (Mason & Brown, 2014).

Entrepreneurship and Innovation Ecosystems in Ldts The concept of ecosystem was inspired by the biology field, and it generally refers to a group of interacting firms that depend on each other’s activities to create value (Moore, 1993). More recently, different terms have emerged in the literature to identify distinct configurations of interorganisational networks of organisations focused in the development of entrepreneurship and innovation at both regional and national level, such as innovation systems (Asheim et al., 2011; Freeman, 2004; Lundvall, 1992), business ecosystems (Moore, 1993, 1996), innovation ecosystems (IEs) (Adner, 2006; Adner & Kapoor, 2010) and entrepreneurship ecosystems (EEs) (Isenberg, 2010; Mason & Brown, 2014; Stam, 2015). Some authors argue that despite most of the policies, conceptualisations, frameworks and measurement tools are specific of IEs or EEs, the concepts are many times interrelated and sometimes overlapping (Hoffecker, 2019; Valkokari, 2015). Thus, the combination of both concepts is needed to bring out the most of the ecosystem, not only to the creation of new businesses but also to foster innovation and entrepreneurship within the existing businesses. Regarding the specific case of LDTs, Xu and Dobson (2019) argue that these types of territories “can take advantage of the digital technology and building an entrepreneurial ecosystem of its own kind through a holistic collaboration to tackle issues around finance, talents, socioculture environment, infrastructure, markets and policy” (pp. 422). Thus, they propose a framework to build entrepreneurial ecosystems in peripheral places arguing that stakeholders and policymakers need to consider three main principles: “adopting a collaborative approach; grounding interventions in the local context; and building with a long-term vision” (pp. 423). Nevertheless, there are few studies focusing on LDTs and more theoretical discussion and empirical evidence is needed to take forward this research topic.

250

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

The Case of Portuguese Ldts In Portugal, LDTs cover 79% of the continental territory, comprising 19% of the population (estimated value for 2018) (PORDATA, 2020). According to the Inter-Ministerial Coordination Commission of the funding programme Portugal 2020, 165 municipalities (from a total of 277 continental municipalities) are considered LDTs, being most of them located in the inland areas of Portugal. These inland territories have been suffering a sharp population decline since the mid-twentieth century. In the last four decades (between 1981 and 2018), 181 of the 287 Portuguese municipalities (islands excluded) lost population, 68% of which lost more than 20% of their inhabitants. Only a few municipalities in the narrow coastal strip and some district capitals increased their population (PORDATA, 2020). This loss results not only from the continuous emigration flows, but also from the rural exodus to urban centres and the sharp drop in birth and fertility rates, due to the decline of young people in these territories. The growing abandonment of the land in these territories combined with the increasing challenges related to climate change has led to a reduction in demand and to a lack of critical mass to use in infrastructure and public services, redirecting the social investment to urban centres (AD&C, 2018), transforming the country into a kind of large archipelago, where some “islands” (a limited number of dynamic poles) stand out in a “sea” of difficulties (the other territories that lose population, relative wealth and economic dynamism) (Mateus, 2017). The unbalanced distribution of services in the inland territories worsens the declining cycle, leading to an unfavourable context for entrepreneurship, innovation and investment, which, in turn, leads to lower levels of private investments, labour productivity and specialisation of the business sector. As a consequence, these weaknesses lead to the inability to create and secure human capital, qualified employment and decent remuneration of the workforce. Even territories with higher education institutions have difficulties fixing qualified human capital, which usually goes to the major cities where most of the business is located. As in most of the countries, there is in Portugal a focus by policymakers on national and/or regional perspectives. However, it is interesting to explore the local perspective, as each territory is unique, and small changes can lead to unexpected outcomes. Thus, this study comprises an exploratory approach based on four case studies, which aims to better understand the specific case of low-density territories, as well as

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

251

local dynamics, stakeholders and processes that create and develop an entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem, with the aim of providing insights for local policymakers who must make the most of entrepreneurship and innovation for economic and social development, breaking the declining cycle of their territories.

Methodology Four municipalities from the Centro Region of Portugal were chosen as case studies—Penela, Fundão, Abrantes and Castelo Branco (see Map 12.1). They were chosen from the same region to avoid the impact of different regional strategies, support and funding. All the municipalities are considered low-density territories by the National Government of Portugal and have a population density below 50 inhabitants per sq. km. Also, the four municipalities were chosen given their shared characteristics in promoting strategies aimed to foster entrepreneurship and innovation. Afterwards, a semi-structured interview script was designed to understand the creation and development of an ecosystem fostering entrepreneurship and innovation and the interaction between the different stakeholders of it. Ten interviews were performed with local policymakers, incubator managers, living labs or technology centres and boards of business associations. Table 12.1 describes the list of interviewees for each case study. Also, secondary data from policy reports, regional statistics, newspaper articles and websites were used to complement the interviews.

Results and Discussion Case Study 1 —Penela Penela is a Portuguese low-density municipality in the Centro Region (NUT II) and Coimbra subregion (NUT III). It has 135 km2 and 5 439 inhabitants (estimated value for 2018), subdivided into four parishes. Penela is located 20 km from a major city (Coimbra), but this favourable location daginhes not exclude the municipality of experiencing the declining cycle, as mentioned by one of the interviewees: The great pain that the municipality had at that time was of being an inland municipality, with no accessibilities (…), clearly with a decrease of

252

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Map 12.1 Portuguese LDTs (light green) and case studies selected (dark green)

Table 12.1 List of interviewees (Source Own) ID

Case

Description

P1 P2 P3 F1

Penela Penela Penela Fundão

A1 A2 A3 CB1 CB2 CB3

Abrantes Abrantes Abrantes Castelo Branco Castelo Branco Castelo Branco

Manager of the Smart Rural Living Lab Policymaker of the Municipality of Penela Executive Board Regional Incubator Policymaker of the Municipality of Fundão and Manager of Living Lab Cova da Beira Policymaker of the Municipality of Abrantes Manager of Tagus Valley Executive Board of Regional Business Association Policymaker of the Municipality of Castelo Branco Manager of Local Incubator Executive Board of CATAA

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

253

population, ageing population, escape of young people and, therefore, it had to be created a different dynamic that allowed to reverse or contain (these problems). (P2)

Table 12.2 shows the evolution of the declining cycle in the Municipality of Penela. From 2008 to 2018, the strategy towards innovation and entrepreneurship fosters the creation of new business, some related to ICT and medium–high technology, to the reduction of the unemployment rate and to a much higher share of employees with higher education. Also, the share of foreign population highly increased compared to other LDTs, and subregional, regional and national averages. Nonetheless, the strategy was not sufficient to reduce the population shrinking and the increasing ageing population. Thus, several strategies to fix the increasing number of high-skilled people working but not living on the territory are still needed. In 2007, the Municipality of Penela launched the Program of Innovation, Competitiveness and Entrepreneurship (ICE). With the vision of putting “local resources at the service of innovation, innovation at the service of local resources” (SPI, 2006, p. 2), the Program comprises three strategic guidelines: to boost the local economic base, considering as strategic sectors the industries associated with endogenous products, tourism, forest exploration and alternative energies; to consolidate new competitive factors (education and training, innovation culture, the flow of information and institutional cooperation); to assume the territory as a complementary factor for the creation of ICE and support for local development. As mentioned by one of the interviewees: (…) We Need Startups and Research Centres to Solve (the Problems of Our Territory) and to Improve the Quality of Life of Our People. (P1)

Since 2007, several infrastructures and projects have been promoted to support the achievement of these goals, such as the project—Smart Rural Living Lab (SRLL) sponsored by the Municipality and a private nonprofit association created by a University, which promotes innovation and knowledge transfer. As mentioned by one interviewer: (The project) starts from a very simple concept which was to put innovation at the service of local resources and local resources associated with

0

1

Number of Technological Infrastructures

0

Medium-High Technology Enterprises

9,65

Enterprises per 100 inhabitants ICT Enterprises

7,43

3,81

Rate of Employees with 4 Higher Education (%)

3

1,8

Unemployment Rate (%)

Foreign Population (%)

22,2

45,22

83,3

1

2008

Renewal of Working Age 2 Population Index

Young Dependency Ratio

Population

Indicators

0

5

5

11,56

23,20

2,91

4,8

79,7

18,3

40,29

2018

Case 1

-

400%

-

19,87%

212,37%

-23,66%

166,67%

-4,32%

-17,57%

-10,91%

Δ

114,29%

58,18%

183,33%

15,06%

33,49%

-19,07%

70,39%

-13,92%

-20,05%

-10,34%

LDTs Region

66,67%

47,40%

150,74%

4,48%

55.41%

-17,22%

20%

-18.27%

-7,28%

-6,56%

60%

47,62%

152,20%

5,09%

36,91%

-24,30%

7,69%

-16,05%

-12,67%

-5,35%

Region

Δ 2008 - 2018(%) SubRegion

73,08%

44,65%

143,95%

5,93%

35,93%

-17,13%

14,29%

-16,10%

-6,11%

-2,70%

Country

Notes 1 Number of young people per 100 active population; 2 the ratio of the population potentially entering and leaving the labour market; 3 Unemployment Rate calculated through the number of people registered in the Employment Office divided by the number of the active population. 4 First year available—2009. Data Sources (ANI, 2016; IEFP, 2020; INE, 2020; PORDATA, 2020

Infrastructure s

Low Entrepreneurs hip and Innovation

Fewer and Less-Skilled Jobs

OutMigration and Ageing Population

Population

Declining Cycle

Table 12.2 Characteristics of the Municipality of Penela

254 J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

255

innovation (...) and seeks to improve and create the methodologies for cocreation processes, the participatory creation of new products and services, particularly those that have as their assumption the improvement of quality of life in low-density territories, the modernisation and qualification of products and services related to the rural world and low density. (P1)

Some other examples of the infrastructures promoted include a rural house, transformed into the Habitat for Business Innovation in Strategic Sectors (HIESE), which is an incubator to support rural entrepreneurship and innovation; the SmARTES, an initiative to support entrepreneurship in creative industries; and the Mini Habitat, which provides the first boost to micro and small enterprises. The SRLL is part of the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL) and has several resources and partnerships with stakeholders (non-profit associations, higher education institutions, businesses, etc.) to achieve its mission and goals. Case Study 2—Fundão Fundão is a Portuguese low-density municipality in the Centro Region (NUT II) and the Beiras e Serra da Estrela subregion (NUT III). It has 700 km2 and 26.719 inhabitants (estimated value for 2018), and it is located far from large urban centres but close to the border with Spain. As argued: We are a predominantly rural territory, the agro-food sector is the most important economic activity (…) and the problem, it is a similar challenge to the entire inland areas of Portugal—loss of population and the tendency towards desertification (…) therefore, it was clear and evident to us that a strong and determined strategy is needed to try to reverse this trend. (F1)

Table 12.3 shows the evolution of the declining cycle in the Municipality of Fundão. In this case, the municipality was able to highly increase the number of new businesses, especially those related to ICT, reducing the unemployment rate and a higher share of employees with higher education. Despite this, the population structure of Fundão is still suffering from a decline and increasing ageing. In 2015, the Municipality defined its Strategic Plan for Innovation with the aim of creating an “OPEN Ecosystem” in the municipality— open to young people, to creativity and innovation, to businesses and

20,3

42,63

Number of Technological Infrastructures 0

13

Enterprises per 100 inhabitants 4

9,90

Rate of Employees with Higher Education

Medium-High Technology Enterprises

11,48

Unemployment Rate (%)

ICT Enterprises

1,3 7.16

Foreign Population (%)

80,7

1

2008

Renewal of Working Age Population Index

Young Dependency Ratio

Population Density

Indicators

2

20

19

12,01

18,48

4,90

2,5

63,3

17,6

38,17

2018

Case 2

-

53,85%

375%

21,25%

60,65%

-31,56%

92,31%

-21,56%

-13,30%

-10,47%

Δ

114,29%

58,18%

183,33%

15,06%

33,49%

-19,07%

70,39%

-13,92%

-20,05%

-10,34%

LDTs Region

66,67%

60%

179,66%

22,58%

43,16%

-27,67%

54,55%

-20,08%

-13,85%

-11,82%

60%

47,62%

152,20%

5,09%

36,91%

-24,30%

7,69%

-16,05%

-12,67%

-5,35%

Region

Δ 2008* - 2018 (%) SubRegion

73,08%

44,65%

143,95%

5,93%

35,93%

-17,13%

14,29%

-16,10%

-6,11%

-2,70%

Country

Notes 1 Number of young people per 100 active population.; 2 the ratio of the population potentially entering and leaving the labour market; 3 Unemployment Rate calculated through the number of people registered in the Employment Office divided by the number of the active population. 4 First year available—2009. Data Sources (ANI, 2016; Bureau Van Djik, 2020; IEFP, 2020; INE, 2020; PORDATA, 2020)

Infrastructure s

Low Entrepreneurs hip and Innovation

Fewer and Less-Skilled Jobs

OutMigration and Ageing Population

Low Population

Declining Cycle

Table 12.3 Characteristics of the Municipality of Fundão

256 J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

257

entrepreneurship, to new cultures and new ways of living in a rural territory. As mentioned by one of the interviewees: (…) (we knew that we need a strategy) that would focus on the central issues of attracting investment, creating jobs and fostering innovation, but also to create a system of support and incentives for both companies and people relocating to (our town). (F1)

The plan was based on four main pillars—creation of spaces, infrastructures and hosting services, through the adaptation and requalification of existing buildings; support and stimulate entrepreneurship and creativity, encouraging the installation of new companies, providing services and support for the development of their businesses; promotion/facilitation of partnerships between local producers and entrepreneurs with different contexts and realities; dissemination and internationalisation of all of the work developed under this strategy (Município do Fundão, 2015). Based on this Strategic Plan, the Living Lab Cova da Beira project was created, which is a consortium promoted by the Municipality of Fundão in partnership with several companies, universities, banks and public and private institutions. It includes several infrastructures, such as a business incubator, cowork space, prototyping laboratories, training centres, research and development centres, business and service centres, as well as the promotion of workshops in the Old Town in the Historical and Schist Villages. This initiative as supported: (In the Incubator) More Than Seventy Projects and Companies (Were Supported) (…) Surely More Than One Hundred New Jobs (Were Created). (F1)

Case Study 3—Abrantes Abrantes is a Portuguese low-density municipality in the Centro Region (NUT II) and the Médio Tejo subregion (NUT III). It has 715 km2 and 35.377 inhabitants (estimated value for 2018), subdivided into 13 parishes. The municipality is a commercial and industrial hub for the fertile agricultural region nearby. The metallurgical and metalworking industry and the thermoelectric plant are also important in the business environment of the municipality.

258

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Table 12.4 shows the evolution of the declining cycle in the Municipality of Abrantes between 2008 and 2018. In this case, the municipality was able to highly increase the number of new businesses, especially those related to ICT, reducing the unemployment rate and a higher share of employees with higher education. Nonetheless, and compared with subregional, regional and national averages, Abrantes could not retain the population, attract foreign population and stimulate the renewal of the working population. In 2000, the Municipality of Abrantes designed a strategy to stimulate entrepreneurship and competitiveness in the municipality, based on innovation, technology and entrepreneurship. That strategy culminates with the creation of the Tagus Valley—Tecnopolo do Vale do Tejo which is a Science and Technology Park, in 2003. The key partners in the promotion of the project were the Municipality of Abrantes (which owns the Park), the Business Association of the Region of Santarém (NERSANT) and the Polytechnic Institute of Tomar (IPT), who together create a non-profit association to manage the Park. This initiative was led by the municipality that: (…) has always had a good capacity for investment and vision and therefore in this phase ... there was money, there was vision, there was the partnership ... I think there was a perfect storm to go well and therefore in this initial phase it went well. (A1)

The focus of Tagus Valley is in sectors of information and the communication technologies, energy, metalworking and agro-food, identified by the promoters as the most important for the local and regional economy. Its strategic mission is to “promote a dynamic culture innovation and entrepreneurship, along with a policy of attraction and encouragement to the establishment of qualified human resources” (Tagus Valley, 2019). To achieve this mission, several strategic partnerships between companies and entities in the regional, national and international networks were made to: (the goal is to) create the conditions to promote a differentiated nucleus appropriate to the needs of companies for the future, to enable them to make the technological and innovation leap that would come and that would be essential to fix the (people) who were already here and attract new ones. (A1)

2

22

Number of Technological Infrastructures

5

Enterprises per 100 inhabitants

Medium-High Technology Enterprises

8,37

Rate of Employees with Higher Education

ICT Enterprises

9,56

Unemployment Rate (%)

3

30

30

8,70

17,33

6,73

1,2

55,3

18,4

49,48

2018

Case 3

50%

36,36%

500%

3,88%

81,28%

114,29%

58,18%

183,33%

15,06%

33,49%

70,39% -19,07%

-18,23%

-13,92%

-20,05%

-10,34%

-14,29%

-23,41%

-11,54%

-11,79%

Δ

LDTs Region

75%

35,24%

208,7%

0,01%

32,73%

-20,46%

14,29%

-15,53%

-16,52%

-6,81%

SubRegion

60%

47,62%

152,20%

5,09%

36,91%

-24,30%

7,69%

-16,05%

-12,67%

-5,35%

Region

Δ 2008* - 2018 (%)

73,08%

44,65%

143,95%

5,93%

35,93%

-17,13%

14,29%

-16,10%

-6,11%

-2,70%

Country

Notes 1 Number of young people per 100 active population.; 2 the ratio of the population potentially entering and leaving the labour market; 3 Unemployment Rate calculated through the number of people registered in the Employment Office divided by the number of the active population. 4 First year available—2009. Data Sources (ANI, 2016; Bureau Van Djik, 2020; IEFP, 2020; INE, 2020; PORDATA, 2020)

Infrastructure s

Low Entrepreneurs hip and Innovation

Fewer and Less-Skilled Jobs

1,4 8,23

Foreign Population (%)

72,2

20,8

Renewal of Working Age Population Index

Young Dependency Ratio1

OutMigration and Ageing Population

56,09

Population Density

Low Population

2008

Indicators

Declining Cycle

Table 12.4 Characteristics of the Municipality of Abrantes 12 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

259

260

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

Since 2011, Tagus Valley is the only Business Incubator Centre (a support structure, recognised by the European Commission for the promotion of entrepreneurship and innovation in Europe) in Portuguese low-density territories. The infrastructure (give us) the ability to be adapted to meet the challenges of business. In the area of information technologies, this issue of being interconnected with fibre network (...) gives us here also a differentiating factor. (A1)

Case Study 4—Castelo Branco Castelo Branco is a Portuguese low-density municipality in the Centro Region (NUT II) and the Beira Baixa subregion (NUT III). It has 1438 km2 and 52.192 inhabitants (estimated value for 2018). Castelo Branco is medium-sized city and is the district capital, thus it has several infrastructures that the other municipalities of the region do not have. Table 12.5 shows the evolution of the declining cycle in the Municipality of Castelo Branco. Compared to the regional and national average, Castelo Branco was able to foster the creation of new ICT and medium– high technology companies and increase the share of employees with higher education. Despite the decrease in population density and young dependency ratio, the municipality was able to sustain this fall compared to region’s LDTs. This may also be explained given that Castelo Branco is a subregional urban centre and district capital. At local level, the Municipality of Castelo Branco, together with the Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco and the Association of the Centre’s Agroindustry Cluster (InovCluster), created in 2010, a non-profit association—CATAA—Associação Centro de Apoio Tecnológico Agroalimentar de Castelo Branco—in order to promote the research, development, technology transfer and training, with a focus on the agrifood sector. The association owns and manage the Agro-food Technology Support Centre (a laboratory and four technological development units) and the Centre for Innovative Companies (CEI)—a business incubator that supports entrepreneurship and business development, with incubation, manufacturing and prototyping capabilities. As mentioned by the interviewee:

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

261

Table 12.5 Characteristics of the Municipality of Castelo Branco Δ 2008* - 2018 (%)

Case 4 Declining Cycle

Indicators

2008

2018

Δ

LDTs Region

SubRegion

Region

Country

Low Population

Population Density

19,61

17,51

-7,09%

-10,34%

-10,74%

-5,35%

-2,70%

Young Dependency Ratio1

20,3

19,5

-3,94%

-20,05%

-8,33%

-12,67%

-6,11%

OutMigration and Ageing Population

Renewal of Working Age Population Index

81,2

63,1

-22,29%

-13,92%

-19,29%

-16,05%

-16,10%

Foreign Population (%) Fewer and Less-Skilled Jobs

Low Entrepreneurs

2,1

2,3

9,52%

70,39%

44,44%

7,69%

14,29%

Unemployment Rate (%)

5,68%

4,75%

-16,37%

-19,07%

-4,39%

-24,30%

-17,13%

Rate of Employees with Higher Education

11,84%

18,32%

54,73%

33,49%

67,60%

36,91%

35,93%

10,57

11,12

5,24%

15,06%

11,38%

5,09%

5,93%

Enterprises per 100 inhabitants ICT Enterprises

23

66

186,96%

183,33%

192,86%

152,20%

143,95%

hip and Innovation

Medium-High Technology Enterprises

23

37

60,87%

58,18%

78,67%

47,62%

44,65%

Infrastructure s

Number of Technological Infrastructures

0

2

-

114,29%

-

60%

73,08%

Notes 1 Number of young people per 100 active population; 2 the ratio of the population potentially entering and leaving the labour market; 3 Unemployment Rate calculated through the number of people registered in the Employment Office divided by the number of the active population. 4 First year available—2009. Data Sources (ANI, 2016; Bureau Van Djik, 2020; IEFP, 2020; INE, 2020; PORDATA, 2020)

… (we) realise that there was not enough response for the qualified staff and settle in the territory. (…) the municipality looked at the territory and realised that there was a need to make an investment in a number of things, began with the CATAA Association attached to the agro-food sector and created the CEI in 2013 (…), realising that there had to be a space for innovation, for technology, for entrepreneurship beyond agro-food. (CB3) (…) We started working on entrepreneurship from the 1st cycle and the 2nd cycle and with this we impact about 600 children and young people every year. (…) we do two bootcamps a year and entrepreneurship fairs. And then there’s all the follow-up to these projects, there’s the development of these business ideas, these projects, there’s all the development throughout the year, they work on extracurricular activities, where they work and do these activities. (CB2)

262

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

As a consequence, this region has presented a positive trend in terms of the number of enterprises created in the period 2008–2018, namely ICT Enterprises and Medium–High Technology Enterprises.

Discussion and Conclusions The case studies selected present during the period between 2008–2018 relevant trends in terms of demography, employment and entrepreneurship. On the one side, two municipalities (Fundão and Penela) increased the share of foreign population above-average, and, in the case of Penela, the renewal of the working-age population index presents better results than the subregion, region and country average, being a good indicator for the future of the municipality’s labour market. Regarding the entrepreneurship and innovation indicators, all municipalities show aboveaverage growth in the number of ICT enterprises and medium–high technology enterprises. Also, most present a higher decrease in the unemployment rate and a higher number of employees with higher education, concerning the subregion, region and country average. On the other hand, most municipalities were unable to reverse or contain the loss of population and the young dependency ratio, remaining in line with (or worse than) the region average and worse than the national average, as it happens in almost all Portuguese LDTs. The infrastructures dimension was only analysed by the number of technological infrastructures (ANI, 2016), but does not represent entirely an improvement on the infrastructure and public services available, given the lack and complexity of data. To understand the main policy factors that contributed to these results, an exploratory approach was followed through the promotion of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. It was observed that the studied case studies have defined specific strategies, policies, as well as implemented infrastructures aiming at promoting the development of an ecosystem that facilitates entrepreneurship and innovation. In the different case studies, local municipalities had a crucial role in the design and implementation of such strategies and the promotion of partnerships with local organisations, such as higher education institutions and companies. This top-down approach involves several constraints related to policy cycles that typically span 4-year periods. In this case, political changes can cause changes in the level of investment and growth strategy of the different initiatives. In addition, the need to align local strategies with national policies, which are

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

263

often out of step with the local reality, can reduce the impact of initiatives to promote entrepreneurship. The implementation of incubators and co-working spaces was a common strategy in the study territories, but, contrary to what happened in other urban regions, there was a great concern in promoting new companies that would enhance the natural resources existing in the territory as well as the local industries. Another important concern in the strategies implemented was the focus on attracting trained and talented young people by improving those territories’ quality of life. However, the limited investment in these initiatives has meant that their impact on the territory was below expectations. The secondary data analysed and the interview excerpts allow a preliminary analysis of the importance of entrepreneurship and innovation to break the declining cycle of LDTs. Several positive outcomes distinguish these municipalities from the other LDTs and their subregional and regional average, making room for a deeper analysis of these ecosystems. Another important insight is the need for more data on the local ecosystems to understand the context, dynamics and outcomes of entrepreneurship and innovation at the local level (Autio et al., 2014). Particularly in LDTs, where the local context is even more crucial (Xu & Dobson, 2019), policies and strategies should not be based on “onesize-fits-all” assumptions and practices, and a more individualised and collaborative approach is needed in this topic (Mason & Brown, 2014). Also, it will allow understanding how other strategic policies targeted to other areas, such as education and training, health and well-being, rehabilitation of building and spaces, culture, tourism, is related to this strategy and integrate the local entrepreneurship and innovation ecosystem. Acknowledgements This chapter was developed under the support of the Research Programme “CeNTER Community-led Territorial Innovation” (CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000002), funded by Programa Operacional Regional do Centro (CENTRO 2020), PT2020. This work is supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) through the Scientific Employment Stimulus—Institutional Call—reference CEECINST/00026/2018.

264

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

References Ács, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship: Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.016 AD&C. (2018). Relatório do Desenvolvimento & Coesão. Lisboa. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98–107. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2010). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821 Andersson, M., & Karlsson, C. (2004). Regional innovation systems in small & medium-sized region: A critical review & assessment. In the emerging digital economy: Entrepreneurship clusters and policy. Springer-Verlag .https://doi. org/10.1007/3-540-34488-8 ANI. (2016). Mapeamento das Infraestruturas Tecnológicas Portuguesas. Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional innovation systems: Theory, empirics and policy. Regional Studies, 45(7), 875–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.596701 Audretsch, D. B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in cities: Establishing the framework conditions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(5), 1030–1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9473-8 Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43(7), 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015 Coffey, W. J., & Polèse, M. (1984). The concept of local development: A stages model of endogenous regional growth. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 55(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01939840 Bureau Van Djik. (2020). SABI Database. https://sabi.bvdinfo.com/ Drudy, P. J. (1978). Depopulation in a prosperous agricultural sub-region. Regional Studies, 12, 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/095952378001 85041 Fortunato, M. W. (2014). Supporting rural entrepreneurship: A review of conceptual developments from research to practice. Community Development, 45(4), 386–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2014.935795 Freeman, C. (2004). Technological infrastructure and international competitiveness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 13(3), 541–569. https://doi.org/10. 1093/icc/13.3.541 Hoffecker, E. (2019). Understanding innovation ecosystems: A framework for joint analysis and action. IEFP. (2020). Publicações Estatísticas. https://www.iefp.pt/estatisticas

12

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH ENTREPRENEURSHIP …

265

INE. (2020). Estatísticas. https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE& xpgid=ine_main Isenberg, D. J. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review, (June). Korsgaard, S., & Müller, S. (2015). Rural entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the rural – between place and space, 21(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10. 1108/IJEBR-11-2013-0205 Korsgaard, S., Ferguson, R., & Gaddefors, J. (2015). The best of both worlds: How rural entrepreneurs use placial embeddedness and strategic networks to create opportunities. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, (September). https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2015.1085100 León, L. R., Izsak, K., Bougas, K., Soto, V., & Thechnopolis Group. (2017). Regional Ecosystem Scoreboard Methodology Report. Lundvall, B.-A. (1992). National systems of innovation: An analytical framework. Pinter. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. Final Report to OECD (Vol. 30). Paris. Mateus, A. (2017). O Mundo Rural e o desenvolvimento económico e social de Portugal: Uma Agenda para o Futuro. Moore, J. F. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business ecosystems. Harper Collins Publishers. Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review, 71(3), 75–86. Moreira, A. C., & Martins, S. P. L. (2009). CRER: An integrated methodology for the incubation of business ideas in rural communities in Portugal. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 3(2), 176–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17506200910960860 Município, do, Fundão. (2015). Projeto de Regulamento — Plano Estratégico para a Inovação do Município do Fundão. Diário Da República, 2(14), 2134– 2137. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and underdeveloped regions. G. Duckworth. OECD. (2006). The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. OECD. (2018). Rural 3.0 - A framework for rural development. OECD. (2020). Policy Implications of Coronavirus Crisis for Rural Development. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/policy-implicati ons-of-coronavirus-crisis-for-rural-development-6b9d189a/#figure-d1e332 PORDATA. (2020). PORDATA Municípios. Retrieved February 11, 2020, from https://www.pordata.pt/Municipios Sá, E., Casais, B., & Silva, J. (2018). Local development through rural entrepreneurship, from the Triple Helix perspective: The case of a peripheral region in northern Portugal. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-03-2018-0172

266

J. ALMEIDA ET AL.

SPI. (2006). Programa Director de Inovação , Competitividade e Empreendedorismo para o Município de Penela. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09654313.2015.1061484 Szirmai, A., Naudé, W., & Goedhuys, M. (2011). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development: An overview. In Entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic development (pp. 3–32). Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199596515.003.0001 Torre, A., & Wallet, F. (2013). Innovation and governance of rural territories. In Renewing innovation systems in agriculture and food: How to go towards more sustainability? (pp. 147–164). Wageningen Academic Publishers. https://doi. org/10.3920/978-90-8686-768-4_8 Valkokari, K. (2015). Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: How they differ and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management Review, 5(8), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview919 Tagus Valley. (2019). Tagus Valley Homepage. Retrieved December 10, 2019, from http://tagusvalley.pt/index.php Xu, Z., & Dobson, S. (2019). Challenges of building entrepreneurial ecosystems in peripheral places. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3), 408– 430. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEPP-03-2019-0023

CHAPTER 13

Tourism and Development in Lagging Regions Rui Augusto da Costa, José Carlos Silva, and Diana Morais

Introduction Tourism is one of the key sectors for the development of territories and an important source of income, employment and wealth creation, with an impact on the social, economic and environmental levels. According to Sharpley (2002), the tourism development process has contributed more to growth and economic diversification than to the development process itself. This is because the contribution of tourism is more easily identified in a definition of development focused on economic growth (Telfer, 2002). Moreover, governments tend to prioritise tourism in the economy as a generator of wealth and income for the public sector itself and for the community that supports them (Bramwell, 2011).

R. A. da Costa (B) · J. C. Silva · D. Morais Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] D. Morais e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_13

267

268

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

The demographic urgency that Portugal is facing, the growing importance of the tourism sector, the regional asymmetries registered in Portugal and the existing difficulties in deconcentrating the flow of tourists throughout the territory in a more balanced way are the main reasons that motivate this study. This chapter aims to understand to what extent tourism can act as an inducer of the development process in low-density territories (LDTs). The specific objectives are (1) to explore the relationship between the concept of development and the tourism sector; (2) define and analyse the main characteristics of LDTs; (3) study the contribution of tourism in creating solutions the promote the development of LDTs. This research conducted an online distribution of questionnaires to municipalities that are classified as LDTs. From a total universe of 165 municipalities considered as LDTs, 112 valid responses were obtained, which corresponds to a response rate of 67.87%. This questionnaire was distributed to determine the relevance that tourism has or can have in LDTs, and simultaneously assess the problems that the territories are facing. The main contributions of this research are a greater understanding of the situation and uniqueness of LDTs, a better understanding of the territorial dynamics that involve the relationship between territorial development and tourism, the essential contribution that tourism activity itself can offer to LDTs and the fundamental role of municipalities in supporting tourism activity, as a proximity agent in mitigating existing problems. The chapter is structured as follows: After the introduction, in Section 13.2 was developed the literature review focusing on the main areas of research. Section 13.3 presents the sociodemographic and economic characterisation of the territory. Section 13.4 corresponds to the methodology of this research, followed by the analysis and discussion in Sect. 5. The main conclusions of this research are presented in Sect. 6.

Regional Development and Tourism Development is usually associated with growth, however, although both aim to promote the well-being of populations through the creation of wealth, they differ in terms of the form and means to achieve it (Boisier, 2001; Vareiro, 2008). Growth refers to the quantitative increase of a given economic unit—wealth creation or production per capita, while

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

269

development refers to the set of transformations in the economic system, including a qualitative improvement in the economy resulting from the better use of resources. To promote development is to make choices and decide on the future of people, whose quality of life depends on the ability to enhance the skills that generate productivity gains. “Without the increase in productivity, whether in public or private institutions, there is no growth in wealth as a social good capable of generating development and promoting collective well-being” (Paula, 2004, p. 78). However, today, it would be a reductionist analysis to consider development only as a synonym of economic growth (growth in disposable income or increase in GDP per capita, among other indicators). There are other areas to which development must respond if it is to be truly considered development—namely the social, political, environmental and health areas. It should respond to an integrated vision that enables a better future perspective for a population (Ferreira & Raposo, 2017; Sharpley, 2002), fulfilling one or several objectives predetermined by a society in a global way. Regional development concerns the balance one wants to achieve between regions, some more developed than others (Iliev, 2018), trying to harmonise the degrees of development of the various regions. In a developed country, tourism can be seen as one of several instruments for eliminating disparities between regions and between peripheries and metropolitan areas. Despite being a multidisciplinary area (Ikhtiagung & Radyanto, 2019), the tourism product offered is a complex process, as is the contribution to development. Tourism has been used for several decades as a valuation and development tool for regions (Opermann, 1992). It is often seen as a key factor in regional development and necessary balance for the harmonisation of each region. It allows balancing different regions in terms of development (the more developed and the less developed), impacting communities at the local level (Iliev, 2018). Regardless of economic outcomes, tourism has played a key role in regional and economic development across several countries. The importance of tourism in the pursuit of regional development has been growing. Despite this, research on tourism as a regional development factor is rather unexplored, being still very recent (Calero & Turner, 2020). This problem is partially linked to deductive research and

270

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

the use of theories coming from crossing areas, such as economics, sociology, psychology, development studies, among others, and not with the creation or use of literature coming from tourism (Strumpf et al., 2016).

Sociodemographic and Economic Characterisation The LDTs in Portugal represent a total area of approximately 70% of the territory, which amounts to 66,500 km2, and represent around 20% of the population (PNCT, 2016). In LDTs, small and medium-sized cities function as anchors of these territories, offering commerce, services (public and private) and urban facilities (PNCT, 2016). They are the guarantee of the necessary equity in the territorial distribution of essential services and in the quality of life of the populations (PNCT, 2016). Accessibilities The national road network is also an important indicator of great importance in the characterisation territories and influencing them. The intensity of this network is directly related to population density. On the coastal area of the territory, the intensity and variety of this network is much greater, as is the flow of people and goods. The opposite is observed in the interior, which has a much smaller number of inhabitants and has a less intense and varied road network. Population Density In global terms, Portugal has an increasingly ageing and reduced population. The birth rates registered in recent years, together with the mortality rates and the constant increase in average life expectancy, largely contribute to these events. Population balances—migratory, natural and total—are a direct reflection of these realities. At the national level, LDT showed a substantial loss of 9,561 inhabitants in the total balance. In all NUT II regions, population density decreased in LDTs. Purchasing Power Per Capita The per capita purchasing power indicator is of high importance in the characterisation of these territories. All the LDTs comparatively to each of NUT II regions, show a purchasing power per capita lower than

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

271

the remaining municipalities, near the coastal areas, or territories not considered as LDTs. These increased values on a national scale, weigh negatively on the economic power of the inhabitants of the LDTs. The difference between the Portuguese base value and LDT’s average at a national level corresponds to 28.2 points, practically a 30% difference in purchasing power per capita. Number of Tourist Accommodation in LDTs Looking first at the NUTS II and the respective LDTs, with the exception of NUT II Alentejo, the other LDTs in each region lose accommodation capacity in relation to the total number of tourist accommodation. In the North and Centre regions, the differences are approximately -15% and in the Algarve -7%. Naturally, this may be because the LDTs have smaller accommodation units than the other territories, with less accommodation capacity. With the number of tourist accommodation units in the LDT exceeding 30%, the accommodation capacity does not reach 16%. Overall, the tourism sector in LDTs have a considerable number of accommodation units, but with less accommodation capacity than the other territories.

Research Methodology The population under study comprises the municipalities considered as Low-Density Territories, which in Portugal represent 165 municipalities, 59.4% of the total number of municipalities in Mainland Portugal. The questionnaires were prepared using the Google forms tool and distributed by email. To maximise the number of responses, it was necessary to follow up on the answers obtained. A total of 112 responses were obtained, which represents a response rate of 67.9%. This information was collected over a period of approximately two months, starting at the end of August 2020 and ending at the beginning of November 2020. Data were processed using SPSS software.

272

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

Table 13.1 Questionnaire structure

Low-density Territories Importance attributed to LDTs Main problems the LDTs go through and their capacity to solve them Characterization of LDTs in general and for each municipality Main solutions for LDTs in general and for each municipality Tourism and development Tourism’s potential in the development of the TBD and each of the municipalities Characterisation of LDTs in terms of tourism supply Appropriate measures that should be taken by stakeholders to enhance tourism in each municipality

Findings and Discussion This section refers to the analysis of the answers based on the questionnaire participants. As already mentioned, only NUTs II Alentejo, Algarve, North and Centre have LDTs (Table 13.2). This section of the questionnaire was created with the purposes of surveying municipalities on their own perception of LDT, to collect opinions on the current state of LDT on various issues—problems, solutions, characteristics. This part of the questionnaire was structured essentially using Likert scales, to collect statements and opinions in a more assertive way, using agreement and importance scales. Table 13.2 Territorial distribution per NUT II NUT II

% Answers in relation to the total of municipalities per NUT II

Frequency

% of answers

Cumulative %

1- Alentejo

62,5

30

26,8

26,8

2- Algarve

80

4

3,6

30,4

3- Norte

76,09

35

31,3

61,6

4- Centro

71,67

43

38,4

100,0

Total

67,88

112

100,0

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

273

The first question in this section was designed to understand the importance of LDTs in the development in Portugal and is represented in Table 13.3. It was possible to see a great tendency of response in the very important role of LDTs in development in Portugal. They consider that their municipalities have a lot to offer in terms of development, and that their role will not be scarce in the materialisation of the overall development. Six types of problems—social, demographic, economic, geographic, cultural and political—have been elaborated on the basis of the literature review. These are the main problems that exist in LDTs. Table 13.4 was created in response to the question on how serious the problems are in LDTs. Value 1 (“not serious at all”) recorded a maximum of eight choices, which reveals that respondents consider the problems to exist, with social problems recording zero choices. The problems identified as social, demographic and economic are those that generate the most concern among the municipalities, with a high number of answers inclined between values 4 and 5, showing the seriousness of the problems. Demographic problems are considered the highest problem that LDTs face. The other three types of problems are balanced. In the same line of thought and after being asked about the severity of the existing problems, the question was asked about the LDT’s ability to solve those problems. Table 13.5 shows that the answers went in the same direction as the previous ones. Geographic, cultural and political problems observed a large number of responses in the median value, which means that respondents consider them to be problems that are neither easy nor difficult to solve. Table 13.3 Importance of Low-Density Territories for development Answers 1- Not important

Frequency

Percentage 0

0

2

0

0

3

2

1,8

4

41

36,6

69

61,6

112

100,0

5- Very important Total

274

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

Table 13.4 Severity of the problems associated with Low Density Territories Type of problem

1- Not serious

2

3

4

5- Very serious

Social

0

12

38

52

10

Demographic

2

3

12

41

54

Economic

1

1

25

61

24

Geographic

7

17

48

33

7

Cultural

8

19

45

33

7

Political

5

19

42

34

12

Table 13.5 Capacity of Low-Density Territories to solve problems 1- Very easy to solve

2

3

4

5- Very difficult to solve

Social

2

11

45

46

8

Demographic

1

4

19

40

48

Type of problem

Economic

0

4

36

48

24

Geographic

2

22

53

24

11

Cultural

5

28

54

20

5

Political

3

24

56

24

5

For the remaining three problems, the analysis changes. A large majority considers that economic and social problems are difficult to solve, and demographic problems are difficult or very difficult to solve. It is important to highlight the growing response values in the row of demographic problems, whereas the scale of values rises, so do the response values. This reiterates the great difficulty that exists in terms of the resolution of demographic problems. The tendency registered in this question is that demographic problems are the ones that stand out most for their seriousness and difficulty of resolution within the LDT framework, followed by economic and social problems in terms of seriousness and difficulty of resolution. Table 13.6 shows the results demonstrating the low incidence of answers with a value of 1 (“I do not agree”) is noteworthy. As it

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

275

is a compulsory question, there were no missing values. Eleven characteristics were listed previously, based on the literature review. Data analysis starts with the characteristics that showed a balance of response options—dominance of the primary sector, shortage of municipal transport, difficult accessibility and low pressure on natural resources. These options did not reveal consensus among the municipalities and did not offer marked prominence in any value. As regards the characteristics directly linked to the economic fabric of the territories—lack of qualified labour, predominance of micro-enterprises and low socio-economic attractiveness—the respondents already showed a higher level of agreement with many choices in option 4, (“I partially agree”) being noted a structural economic problem in these locations. Under-population and the predominance of natural landscapes are features that also meet with agreed opinions, even though the LDTs are so vast and diverse in terms of landscape and socio-economic structures. However, the main highlight is again linked to negative demographic Table 13.6 Main characteristics of Low-Density Territories 1- Not agree

2

3

4

5- Strongly agree

Ageing population

0

0

5

27

80

Underpopulation

5

4

12

46

45

Desertification of the territory

0

1

9

43

59

Characteristics

Primary sector dominance

3

12

40

35

22

Lack of municipal transport

1

12

30

38

31

Lack of qualified labour force

4

5

25

52

26

Difficult accessibility

8

20

38

31

15

Low pressure on natural resources

3

14

54

29

12

Predominance of microenterprises

1

8

29

50

24

Low socio-economic attractiveness

1

7

35

49

20

Predominance of natural landscapes

7

7

13

36

49

276

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

characteristics—the desertification of the territory and the ageing population. Zero respondents answered that they disagreed with these indicators which already reveals the structural dimension of these factors, and only one respondent answered, “I partially disagree” (2), regarding the desertification of the territory. A total of 95.5% of respondents (107) partially or totally agree with the existence of an ageing population in the LDTs, and 71.4% of respondents (80) totally agree. And 91% of the respondents (102) indicate partial or total agreement with the existence of desertification of the territory. These are two unavoidable characteristics of the LDTs, and they are strongly emphasised in the answers that the respondents from the municipalities gave. The solutions presented followed the same procedure as the previous question. Table 13.7 shows that the results were quite elucidative, as the respondents showed a great deal of identification with the options presented. These options were listed on a scale of importance. In a list of ten options, five obtained zero responses at the value 1 (“not important”). In seven of the available options—tax benefits, injection of capital to support public and private entities, improvement of existing universities and specialised schools (or creation of new ones), economic support for housing, measures to support birth rate, assertive attraction of foreign and/or national investment and construction and improvement of road transport networks—78.5% or more of the respondents (88 or more) considered that these were important or very important solutions. With responses from municipalities across the country with different realities, obtaining this level of agreement on seven indicators is remarkable. It reveals the urgency and importance of implementing such measures in the territory, considering the problems that plague LDTs. In addition to the harmony registered in these solutions presented, there are two—tax benefits and assertive attraction of foreign and/or national investment—in which 88.3% and 94.6% of respondents (99 and 106, respectively) consider important or very important. These values make it easy to understand the high importance and added value of these two solutions. Tourism and Development This section has as the main goal understanding the relationship between tourism as a sector that induces development being considered as an end point for the present situation. From this premise, it was possible to create

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

277

Table 13.7 Main solutions for Low-Density Territories 1- Not important

2

3

4

5- Very important

Tax benefits

0

1

12

34

65

Injection of capital to support public and private entities

2

4

18

43

45

Improvement of existing universities and specialised schools (or creation of new ones)

0

3

21

42

46

End or reduction of tolls

3

10

25

22

52

Construction and/or modernisation of the railways

10

6

23

25

48

Increased powers for local councils

2

3

37

46

24

Economic support for housing

1

1

18

43

49

Measures to support the birth rate

0

1

20

28

63

Assertive attraction of foreign and/or national investment

0

0

6

38

68

Construction and improvement of road transport networks

0

3

21

28

60

Type of solution

questions to understand the potential of tourism in the development of LDTs, and to try to know, in the optics of municipalities, what measures stakeholders should consider for tourism development. A set of questions was elaborated to understand these issues and to know the situation of the municipalities regarding the existence or not of conditions for tourism development. The analysis in this section is initiated as a direct statement, “LowDensity Territories, in general terms, have great potential to establish themselves as a tourist destination of high importance”. The total respondents, 60.7% (68) totally agree with this statement and 31.3% (35) partially agree. Adding these options, it can be stated that 92% of the respondents (103) totally or partially agree with this statement. These results demonstrate the confidence that respondents have in the potential of LDTs as major tourism destinations.

278

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

Next, respondents were asked to respond to the existence and quality of tourism supporting characteristics in their municipality. A closed list of characteristics was drawn up, considering the nature of tourism activity, and respondents were asked to rate their existence (Table 13.8) and quality (Table 13.9). Considering the abundance scale, there are ten characteristics out of a total of fourteen, which have zero responses at value 1 (“not at all abundant”). However, there are 13 responses at this value on the municipal transport system characteristic, and only one response at value 5 (“very abundant”). This reveals an important gap in the LDTs. There is a high prevalence in values 4 and 5 regarding the characteristics linked to all Table 13.8 Main characteristics of municipalities for tourism activity—importance 1- Not abundant

2

3

4

5- Very abundant

Tourist Attractions

0

5

29

44

34

Natural Heritage

0

0

3

25

84

Material and Monumental Heritage

0

3

21

43

45

Immaterial and Cultural Heritage

0

2

19

48

43

Regular events (cultural, recreational, business and sports)

0

3

24

60

25

Cultural, sport and leisure facilities

0

7

28

55

22

Tourist and complementary activity equipments

0

7

49

40

16

Typical and recognised gastronomy

0

5

21

42

44

Accessibility infrastructures (roads, railways, airports, ports)

4

21

33

36

18

Skilled labour force in the sector

4

23

56

28

1

Variety of endogenous products and resources

0

3

26

49

34

Municipal transport system

13

29

49

20

1

Health and safety infrastructures

4

15

47

36

10

Hospitality and friendliness of the population

0

0

9

35

68

Characteristics

13

279

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

Table 13.9 Main characteristics of municipalities for tourism activity—quality Characteristics

1- No quality

2

3

4

5- High quality

Tourist Attractions

1

3

16

56

36

Natural Heritage

0

1

4

34

73

Material and Monumental Heritage

1

3

13

51

44

Immaterial and Cultural Heritage

0

1

16

52

43

Regular events (cultural, recreational, business and sports)

0

5

19

57

31

Cultural, sport and leisure facilities

0

7

27

55

23

Tourist and complementary activity equipments

0

4

46

44

18

Typical and recognised gastronomy

0

4

17

39

52

Accessibility infrastructures (roads, railways, airports, ports)

5

17

41

40

9

Skilled labour force in the sector

2

23

52

30

5

Variety of endogenous products and resources

0

4

20

52

36

Municipal transport system

11

26

49

24

2

Health and safety infrastructures

2

19

40

38

13

Hospitality and friendliness of the population

0

1

12

37

62

types of heritage (mainly natural heritage), gastronomy, hospitality of the population and the existence of periodic events. All five of these options present 75.9% or more responses in these values. These are characteristics that respondents associate directly with their working municipalities, most strongly in all LDTs. As for the remaining indicators, there is some incidence of response in value 3 (“neither abundance nor scarcity”) mainly in the characteristics of the qualified labour force in the sector, complementary equipment to tourism and in the health and safety infrastructures. Many respondents consider that there is an acceptable quantity of these three characteristics, without abundance or scarcity.

280

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

After abundance, it is important to know the quality status of the listed characteristics. Observing Table 9, the rarity of answers in the value 1 (“no quality”) remains, compared to the previous question on abundance. The natural heritage, the typical and recognised gastronomy and the hospitality of the population, are the indicators that present the highest quality according to the respondents, with 65.2% (73), 46.4% (52) and 55.4% (62) of the answers at the maximum value, respectively. Besides these characteristics, there are six others (tourist attractions, material and monumental heritage, immaterial and cultural heritage, periodic events, cultural, sports and leisure equipment and variety of products and endogenous resources) that present a high incidence of response of at least 45.5% in value 4, which indicate that there is some quality. These are resources and factors that the municipality should explore and enhance, considering the overall opinion of those questioned. After the analysis of these two questions, it will be credible to point out the heritage, gastronomy and hospitality of the population, as extremely relevant factors in the tourism panorama of the LDTs. These are unavoidable characteristics in the analysis of this questionnaire and are important components in the design and implementation of tourism activity. It is necessary to invest in these factors, as well as in the others that did not stand out so much, to offer tourism stakeholders an overall better experience in the near future. The next question arose with the aim to understand which are the most important measures that should be taken by stakeholders, in the opinion of the municipalities’ respondents (Table 13.10). This is a list of measures that municipalities consider crucial and important to boost tourism and development in their municipalities. All the measures listed show several answers in values 4 and 5 (“partially agree” and “totally agree”) equal or above 76 respondents, which corresponds to 67.8% or more. Taking out the measure of the municipality’s specialisation in a specific type of tourism, this percentage amounts to 89.3% or more, which corresponds to at least 100 respondents. These are data that will later be considered in the conclusions and in the impacts that they may offer to these territories.

Conclusions LDTs are territories with differentiated characteristics. Their components present territories, whose main characteristic is the cause-effect relationship, clearly visible in the analysis carried out. The LDTs, as they exist

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

281

Table 13.10 Measures that should be taken by the stakeholders of the LowDensity Territories to enable a further development of tourism 1- Strongly disagree

2

3

4

5- Totally agree

Greater tourist offer

1

2

9

58

42

Greater diversity of attractions

0

1

9

46

56

Types of measures

Specialisation in a specific type of tourism

2

3

31

45

31

Creation of collaborative networks

0

1

7

41

63

Joint tourism planning between local authorities and RTB's

0

0

6

41

65

Recruitment of specialised and qualified staff

0

0

10

51

51

Increased funds allocated to tourism

0

1

5

43

63

today, are a product of numerous events, internal and external to a country, which created unique territories. They present positive and negative characteristics, like any other, however, one of the characteristics that makes these LDTs places in an urgent state of action, is the loss of population. This characterisation and conceptualisation of LDTs allows us to state that the loss of population in general is the main reason for the generalised decay of these places. From socio-economic to cultural issues, population loss is the main threat to the disappearance of human occupation of these places. It would not be correct to say that if the population remained stable that these problems would disappear. However, the contribution of a stable, relatively young and qualified population would be a starting point for a stabilisation of the statistical indices analysed. Regarding Portugal’s LDTs, the generalised imbalance of the territory of mainland Portugal can be observed. The presence of LDTs in the territory is widespread, both in geographical area and in number of municipalities. Coastal areas continue to exist and are clearly visible, and territorial cohesion is still a distant goal. Among the characterisations made, substantial differences remain between LDT and other territories. It thus demonstrated the need to rethink the planning strategies of these regions, based on a paradigm that addresses a cohesive and integrated development in the peculiarities of these territories, in the

282

R. A. DA COSTA ET AL.

opportunities that they may allow and in facing the challenges that characterise them, but do not necessarily weaken them. It also recognised the need to bypass and break the vicious cycle characteristic of low-density territories, this being a complex but necessary process. This change must involve the identification of local potentialities, whether in terms of local resources, know-how, the local community and its competences, together with the characteristics that define each territory. In this way, through the revalorisation and revitalisation of these territories, it is possible to achieve regions that are increasingly cohesive, more competitive and capable of attracting, among other sectors, tourism. To this end, strategies must be based on social and territorial equity, so that everyone can make the best use of the benefits that these territories develop, both locally and regionally. And, of particular importance, the factor that the local community itself understands the potential that the territories offer, that the development engine is based on social capital and human capital, and that the latter identifies itself and believes that it has the necessary skills to integrate the development strategies, so that it is possible to revitalise both the resources and the territory and its respective local community.

References Boisier, S. (2001). Desarollo (local): ¿ De Qué Estamos Hablando? In O. Madoery & A. VázquezBarquero (Eds.), Transformaciones globales , Instituciones y Políticas de desarollo local (pp. 48–74). Rosario: Homo Sapiens. Bramwell, B. (2011). Governance, the state and sustainable tourism: A political economy approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 19(4–5), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2011.576765 Bramwell, B., & Sharman, A. (1999). Collaboration in local tourism policymaking. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(2), 392–415. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0160-7383(98)00105-4 Calero, C., & Turner, L. W. (2020). Regional economic development and tourism: A literature review to highlight future directions for regional tourism research. Tourism Economics, 26(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/135481 6619881244 Ferreira, B., & Raposo, R. (2017). The evolution of the concept(s) of development. A critical roadmap. Cadernos de Estudos Africanos. https://doi.org/10. 4000/cea.2293 Ikhtiagung, G. N., & Radyanto, M. R. (n.d.). New Model for Development of Tourism Based on Sustainable Development. IOP Conference Series: Earth

13

TOURISM AND DEVELOPMENT IN LAGGING REGIONS

283

and Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/448/1/ 012072 Iliev, D. (2018). Regional inequalities and contemporary problems in regional tourism development: A case of Macedonia. Anatolia, 29(3), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2017.1422770 Natário, M., Melo, A. I., Biscaia, R., Rocha, P., Santos, C., Ferreira, A., Marques, R. (2019). The impact of the tourism of the historical villages of Portugal: A framework of analysis. Finisterra, 54(111), 21–36. https://doi.org/10. 18055/finis14861 Oppermann, M. (1993). Tourism space in developing countries. Annals of Tourism Research, 20(3), 535–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-738 3(93)90008-Q Paula, J. (2004). Territórios, redes e desenvolvimento. In V. Lages, C. Braga, & G. Morelli (Eds.), 338 Territórios em movimento: Cultura e identidade de inserçãocompetitiva (pp. 71–84). SEBRAE. PNCT. (2016). Diagnóstico- O Interior em Números. Sharpley, R., & Telfer, D. J. (2002). Tourism and development- concepts and issues. In Aspects of Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO978110741532 4.004 Sinclair, M. T. (1998). Tourism and economic development: A survey. The Journal of Development Studies, 34(5), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/002 20389808422535 Stumpf, T. S., Sandstrom, J., & Swanger, N. (2016). Bridging the gap: Grounded theory method, theory development, and sustainable tourism research. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 24(12), 1691–2170. https://doi. org/10.1080/09669582.2016.1149183 Vareiro, L. (2008). Turismo como estratégia integradora dos recursos locais : o caso da NUT III Minho-Lima. http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/han dle/1822/9014

CHAPTER 14

Territorial Cohesion and Innovation: A Needed Dialogue Pedro Chamusca and João Lourenço Marques

Introduction Territories and communities, at different scales, experience constant changes of economic and social nature, with a strong spatial base. Although the change is permanent, the last few years have been particularly intense in the speed and complexity of transformation, with spatial compression (Harvey, 1990), temporal acceleration (Giddens, 2006), growing mobility and leisure times (Madanipour, 2017) and the COVID19 pandemics playing a decisive role. However, the pace and intensity of change and inadequate or insufficient responses from public governing

P. Chamusca (B) Communication and Society Research Centre (CECS), University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal e-mail: [email protected] J. L. Marques Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4_14

285

286

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

and planning entities, has promoted asymmetries of a diverse nature and reinforcing the importance of more effective and efficient public policies oriented to promoting innovation and territorial cohesion (Balland et al., 2015; Pires et al., 2020; Sá Marques et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2021). Within the European Union, regional policy and structural funds were more and more concerned on promoting territorial, economic and social cohesion in European regions. To do so, European policies assumed that innovation-driven models are the drivers of regional development and economic growth (Mikulic & Nagyszombaty, 2015). The focus on territorial innovation and cohesion was so intense, that the three main European funds of the Cohesion Policy—the Cohesion Fund, the European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund— absorb almost one-third of the EU budget (Brandsma et al., 2014). However, despite of large funding to several projects in different regions under the EU Cohesion Policy, regional disparities have persisted and even increased in EU regions and countries (Amin & Tomaney, 1995; Chamusca, 2021; Pylak, 2015). Territorial-based innovation is understood as a transformative process of interaction between agents, in which the creation of economic and social value is anchored in the existence of endogenous resources (Jensen et al., 2007; Lundvall & Jonhson, 1994; Lundvall, 2010). These resources become territorial assets, playing a decisive role in promoting local and regional development. Innovation ecosystems (Amoroso et al., 2018; Boschma, 2005) are based on networks of knowledge production and innovation, which involve diverse actors and various territorial scales. These networks represent links associated with processes of creation, production and transfer of knowledge and innovation, and may trigger co-specialization and related variety among the different actors located in the regions. Territorial cohesion has been gaining momentum over the last decade, in a conceptual construction (and expected practical application) that assumes it as process of designing a more cohesive and balanced territory, seeking to: (i) overcome the deficits of strategic articulation, administrative constraints and existing development asymmetries; (ii) promote sustainable development and a more balanced, integrated and wellgoverned territorial organization; value diversity, complementarity and territorial articulation, as well as social and spatial justice as structuring elements of decision-making (A. Hartmann & Hengstermann, 2014; Luukkonen, 2010; Medeiros, 2016).

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

287

Both territorial cohesion and territorial-based assume that local specificities and endogenous resources (natural and economic diversity) should be valued, enabling citizens to make the most of inherent features of these territories. Despite this conceptual proximity, territorial cohesion and innovation have their own agendas, almost always disconnected from a territorial strategy or vision of the future. In this chapter we present some data that support this statement, using the research carried out in the Central region of Portugal, namely interviews with 21 mayors. The results contribute to the understanding of territorial policy options and to the identification of priority areas for a necessary dialogue between territorial cohesion and innovation. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 14.2 elaborates on the research methodology, with Sect. 14.3 presenting a conceptual background and core ideas on territorial cohesion and innovation at the Centro Region of Portugal. Section 14.4 presents the major results of interviews conducted with the 21 mayors, and Sect. 14.5 discusses territorial cohesion and innovation, presenting the major conclusion that support the idea of reinforcing dialogue between them.

Methodology The Portuguese state is structured in scales of hierarchy and decreasing territorial dimension: central, regional, intraregional and local. The Portuguese regions administration—except the autonomous regions of Madeira and Azores—are an unconcentrated organism of the central state. They are managed by a public structure (Commission for Coordination and Regional Development, CCDR in the Portuguese acronym) with financial and administrative autonomy, which have the mission of implementing environmental policies, spatial planning and local and regional development at the NUTS II level, promoting coordinated action of unconcentrated regional services and technically supporting local authorities and their associations. The Centro Strategic Plan for 2030, recently approved by CCDR within a highly participated process involving the main regional stakeholders, shapes a strategic vision oriented to: (i) reinforce its national and international competitiveness and consolidate a territorially and socially inclusive innovation model; (ii) promote the empowerment and capacitation for the resilience of the most vulnerable and demographic deprived territories; (iii) foster the evolution toward a more sustainable society,

288

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

promoting innovation and transition to the circular economy, integrating the climate change implications in the productive systems and territorial organization; (iv) promote an urban system based on a territorial model of cooperation between competitive and innovative territories and more depressed territories; and (v) promote people’s qualifications and skills, attracting qualified population (Strategic Vision for the Centro Region 2030, official document). The concerns about territorial cohesion and innovation were already present in previous regional documents, namely the Smart Specialization Research and Innovation Strategy (RIS3), where territorial cohesion, together with resource sustainability, energy efficiency and internationalization were identified as cross-cutting priorities (Centro Region RIS3 official document). In this new 2030 strategy, there is a strong focus on the two major issues addressed by the Ministry of Territorial Cohesion as key to stimulate the practical implementation of territorial cohesion. In fact, the Strategic Vision for the Centro Region 2030 has a clear focus on urban development, competitiveness, sustainability and territorial cooperation, with a clear concern on the more depressed territories. In the context of this research, 21 mayors of the local administration, representing different economic, social and territorial contexts, were interviewed. These field work were carried out between November 2019 and February 2020, organized according to a structured guide of 8 questions: 3 guided answers (from a list of options) [Q1, Q2, Q3], 4 free answers [Q4, Q5, Q7, Q8] and 1 mixed answer (Q6) (Table 14.1). The total of these 8 questions, listed below, allows us to discuss how cohesive the Centro Portugal is (from policy design to practical implementation of projects) and to work on a territorial cohesion measurement tool to be implemented at these scales. The selection of mayors resulted from the analysis of a set of indicators, considering the municipalities that, in each subregion, present greater deviations (positive and negative) in relation to the average values of the region, as long as they are integrated into different groups (which resulted from a multivariate analysis of the considered indicators). The indicators selected for this exercise were structured according to five main dimensions: (a) territorial—population density; (b) demographic—rate of variation of the inhabitants; percentage of the elderly population (aging); (c) social—number of social income beneficiaries per 1000 working-age inhabitants; total dependency index; (d) accessibility—average duration

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

289

Table 14.1 Guide of questions on Centro Portugal cohesiveness. Source own elaboration Q1

Q2

Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6

Q7

Q8

1. From the following areas of public policy select the 3 that you consider most relevant for a balanced territory development, ordering them by degree of importance:

i) economic development; ii) environmental sustainability; iii) territorial cohesion; quality of life of populations; iv) involvement and empowerment of citizens; v) justice and social protection; education, vi) health and culture; vii) accessibility and mobility: demographic dynamics; viii) quality governance 2. Considering the specific i) health; ii) education; iii) culture; iv) characteristics of this territory, classify employment; v) population; vi) the following development priorities by housing; v) social support; degree of importance, on a scale of 1 vi)companies; vii) productivity, to 7: knowledge and innovation; viii) accessibility and mobility; ix) environmental sustainability; x) urban rehabilitation; xi) participation and involvement; xii) training; xii) governance 3. Of the priorities you ranked as the most important select the top 3 4. What are the main obstacles to the development of the objectives you have identified as priorities? 5. How do you define territorial cohesion and how do you think the priorities you have identified can promote cohesion? 6. [Territorial cohesion is the process of designing a more cohesive and balanced territory, valuing territorial diversity and complementarity, as well as social and spatial justice as structuring elements in decision-making. It is effective when it: i) reduces social and economic asymmetries between territories; ii) promotes environmental sustainability; iii) reinforces territorial and sector-based cooperation; and iv) develops territorially-based public policies, aimed at valuing local resources.] Do you agree with this definition? Why? What’s missing? Is it useful/important to you? 7. Territorial cohesion is usually 7.1. How do you evaluate the measured based on five main importance of each of these dimensions dimensions: Equity; Competitiveness; for territorial cohesion at different Connectivity; Environmental scales: regional, intraregional and local sustainability; Governance 7.2. What makes you consider different importance for the same dimension between scales? 8.Please indicate the most important information for assessing territorial cohesion on an intraregional/local scale

290

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

Table 14.2 Municipalities selected and its participation on the case-study Intermunicipal Community (sub-region)

Higher positive deviation

Higher negative deviation

Others (“capital”)

Oeste Região de Aveiro Região de Coimbra Região de Leiria Viseu Dão Lafões Beira Baixa Médio Tejo

Alenquer Aveiro Coimbra Marinha Grande Oliveira de Frades Vila Velha de Ródão Entroncamento

Caldas da Rainha

Beiras e Serra da Estrela

Guarda

Cadaval Murtosa Góis Pedrógão Grande Castro Daire Idanha-a-Nova Vila Nova da Barquinha Sabugal

Leiria Viseu Castelo Branco Tomar

Source Own elaboration

of commuting movements of access to work and school (connectivity, mobility and access to employment); number of doctors per 1000 inhabitants (access to health); access to housing, measured through an exercise that calculates the average size of housing that a couple can acquire with 30 years of income; (e) economic—long-term unemployed per 1000 working-age inhabitants; average monthly gain; purchasing power index. Considering these criteria, the following municipalities were selected (see Table 14.2).

Territorial Cohesion and Innovation at the Centro Region of Portugal Considering the demographic, social and economic dynamics, Portugal has experienced, over the last few decades, an intense process of metropolization (Wolf et al., 2020). Available data shows that there has been a progressive concentration around some urban spaces, with special advantage for areas close to Lisbon and Porto. In this metropolization process, there is not only the concentration of people, but also of the political decision-making power, headquarters of large companies and the media. The analysis of population and company density allows a clear view of this process, underlining, even so, the relevance and importance of the Center region. In fact, in Portugal, the Centro Region plays a very important role in the economic and social dynamics, considering its

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

291

strategic position (it is situated between the two major national urban centres: Lisbon and Porto), its dimension (approximately 31% of Portugal’s total area) and the population (21.5% of the population living in the country in 2021) and enterprises (20.4% of the enterprises in the country in 2019) relevance (Map 14.1) (Map 14.2). Overall, the Centro Region has lost population over the last ten years (4.29%), at a rate higher than the national average (-2.03%), a process that was accompanied by a process of population aging (INE, census 2021). In terms of territorial cohesion, the set of dynamics and problems are very similar to the ones registered in Portugal as a whole, namely: (i) an asymmetric distribution of the population in the territory, with a tendency toward concentration of population, employment and investment in the main urban centers, which promotes problems of depopulation, aging and social filtering; (ii) inequalities in access to essential goods and services— in terms of education, health and justice, for example—as well as obstacles to mobility, which creates several difficulties to inhabitants and businesses settlement or attraction; (iii) an unequal distribution of income and, consequently, of the economic power of families, with the indicator of the purchasing power of citizens (INE, 2020), showing that, in 2019,

Map 14.1 Population density in Portugal (2021) (Source Own elaboration, using INE data)

292

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

Map 14.2 Enterprises density in Portugal (2019) (Source Own elaboration, using INE data)

only five municipalities, (Lisbon, Porto, Sintra, Vila Nova de Gaia and Cascais—all of them outside the Centro Region), concentrated 21.7% of the total purchasing power of the national territory, which reduced the quality of life of those who live in other territorial spaces; and (iv) a very centralized governance system that depends on the national government, making it difficult to adapt public policies to the specificities of the territory as well as to the development of regional and intraregional cooperation strategies. The variation in the number of companies (2009–2019) showed a contrary trend, with a growth of 11.4% in the Centro Region (18.39% in Portugal), which turns out to be especially significant with regard to large companies, as the growth was 39.16% (24.37% in Portugal). This dynamic of economic transformation supports the consolidation and dynamization of three functional areas in the Centro Region (of the eleven identified by the OECD in Portugal), associated with the cities of Aveiro, Coimbra and Viseu (Map 14.3). These functional urban areas—along with the Leiria subregion—are key to understand much of the Centro Region dynamics. In terms of R&D and innovation resources, and when compared to other Portuguese

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

293

Map 14.3 OECD functional areas in the Centro Region of Portug (Source Own elaboration, using OECD data)

regions, Centro ranks second regarding PhDs in Science and Technological areas per 1,000 inhabitants (0.87 in 2018, above the national average—0.79) and ranks third concerning R&D researchers in active population (0.78% in 2017, below the national average of 0.86%) (INE, 2020). In Centro Region, in 2019, 36.5% of the population aged 30– 34 had tertiary education (Eurostat, 2020), which is above the national average (36.2%) but lower than the EU average (41.6%). The number of employees in the high-tech sector has been increasing since 2012, registering a total of 23,300 employees in 2019 (Eurostat, 2020). This represented 15.1% of the national employment in the sector and 2.2% of the total employment (against the EU average of 4.1%) (Eurostat, 2020). The analysis of the innovation networks of each subregion in the Centro Region allows us to systematize some of its fundamental characteristics, namely: (i) the existence of a regional innovation system that clearly shows the differences between the regional relational space, emphasizing

294

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

the inequalities of organizational density; (ii) a system polarized by the Regions of Coimbra, Aveiro and Leiria, which dominate the processes of knowledge creation and production, benefiting from the effects of innovation; (iii) a trend toward specialization in some areas of knowledge, especially in ICT and materials technologies, and incorporation of knowledge in more intensive activities in technology and knowledge, such as health, as well as in traditional industries and (iv) a geographical proximity in relationships, where regional scale in innovation processes is privileged, but also the expansion of the relational space to the Portuguese Northwest.

The Disconnected Agendas and Lack of Territorial Agendas in Centro Portugal Regional/Local Decision-Maker’s Perspectives on Territorial Cohesion and Innovation The political constructions of territorial cohesion present some variations, namely between one that values the concept as a collective process of promoting development and others that replicate ideas of European policies associated with convergence, equality and the reduction of asymmetries. Globally, local and intraregional political decision-makers agree on three main ideas associated with the definition of territorial cohesion: (i) it is very important to reduce the asymmetries between territories, ensuring equal opportunities for all; (ii) the current social and economic trends and territorial dynamics demand public authorities to work on a greater capacity and opportunities for strategic articulation between territories; and (iii) territorial cohesion is only possible with joint strategies to promote economic growth/development at the intraregional scale, with benefits for all territories resulting from the political articulation. There are no official definitions of territorial cohesion at these scales or specific projects, programs or goals related to it. Political understandings are territorially differentiated, and each municipality assumes different values, resources and dimensions that compete for territorial cohesion. Although, this space-based differences present no clear territorial patterns within the Centro Region, which seem to result from political and strategical visions of the Mayors rather than from social and economic dynamics.

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

295

In short, evidence from the Centro Region local administration allows us to conclude that: (i) there is no clear definition of what territorial cohesion is or how it is integrated into the policy or strategic documents; (ii) there is insufficient theoretical background of some mayors, reproducing words and concepts in the discourse without understanding their scope or practical application; (iii) the political construction or perception of territorial cohesion is essentially the result of a political vision and consideration of the values/problems that each territory presents; and (iv) territorial cohesion is thought of individually, without vertical and horizontal coordination. There is no cooperation or articulation culture of decision-makers, despite of recent experiences within Intermunicipal Communities. Policy Design and Implementation In the Centro Region, there is a great diversity of opinions on the most relevant public policy areas, as a result of a discourse that, as a general rule, chooses to emphasize the complementarities between the different areas and the advantages of integrated interventions. The discourse of the mayors emphasizes, almost always, that an efficient governance results from the success of all others. The general idea points to a greater value of economic development (including innovation), health, education and culture, followed by other issues such as environmental sustainability, accessibility and mobility and issues associated with demography. In fact, there is an emphasis essentially on the short-term needs, which result from what seems to be an inability to strategically interpret the territory (municipal, but essentially subregional). This explains the centrality of “economic development”, with most of the mayors defending the importance of investing in R&D mechanisms and job creation as central elements to stop depopulation, promote development and increase the quality of life. This is also visible in the appreciation of other policy areas associated with direct investment (often in infrastructure or equipment) in the fields of education, health, culture or accessibility. The topic of territorial cohesion is not identified as a priority, mainly because it is assumed as a consequence of the integrated and balanced development of other areas and not as an object of work or direct investment. Even so, the reduced valorization of territorial cohesion as a priority area seems to result essentially from three factors: (i) the absence of a strategic vision for the territory, with day-to-day management oriented

296

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

to the satisfaction of short-term needs, with special emphasis on job creation and for an adequate response in the fields of health and education; (ii) a great attraction for fundraising or investment, which means economic development or the establishment of new companies are identified as the most relevant for regional and national affirmation of the municipality; (iii) distrust and criticism of others: from the government to other municipalities, with a clear absence of a culture of supra-municipal cooperation. On the opposite plane, innovation is identified as a development priority. In this exercise, the concern with programs actions and projects that are associated with economic activity is evident, followed by accessibility, mobility and population as priority themes, whether by investing in education/training or by the need to invert problems of depopulation and aging. The mayors’ speech has some common points, as they state that it is necessary to have people and jobs in the territory, identify the economy as a development engine and demand more public and private investment in job creation and enterprises legal and financial support. Obstacles to Territorial Cohesion and Innovation Several obstacles and constraints to the balanced development of territories are identified. In the vast majority of cases, there is a strong challenge to the dominant spatial planning culture (or lack thereof) and to the public policy options, drawn from Lisbon (sometimes with reference to Porto), based on the problems of the capital and without positive discrimination instruments or programs capable of reversing the lowdensity cycle that affects large parts of this territory. The discourse is more pronounced in the territories of interior areas of Portugal (such as, Viseu-Dão-Lafões, Beiras and Serra da Estrela and Beira Baixa), but it ends up being transversal to all. In this discourse, words/expressions such as centralism, lack of investment, need for positive discrimination, absence, deficit are common. In general, the main obstacles identified are associated with: a) Centralism and central government options; b) Multiplication of policies and investments in favor of Lisbon and Porto; c) Lack of skilled labor; d) Absence of critical mass and little training of local agents;

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

297

e) Depopulation and aging and lack of measures to reverse the processes; f) Deficit in public and private investment.

Conclusion The territory, geography and social and economic dynamics of each place play an especially important role in the perception and political construction of territorial cohesion and innovation at local and intraregional level. In this context, it is essential to assume that territorial cohesion is a dynamic (in constant construction and transformation) and multidimensional process (associated with various dimensions and characteristics), and that its evaluation can be varied according to the geographical context of analysis, our sectoral framework and the profile of the data user. In other words, a territory may have different characteristics of cohesion, and the possibility of analysis and understanding of all these variables should be ensured. These systems should develop different tools and methodologies for weighting and valuing the dimensions of territorial cohesion, ensuring a correct assessment of their dynamics and multidimensionality. Likewise, territorial-based innovation can be understood as a transforming process of interaction between agents (public, private or community), where the creation of social and/or economic value is based on the existence of endogenous resources. There is a panoply of communication, collaboration and specific resource sharing processes that can foster these innovation mechanisms. However, its most basic assumption is based on the relevance of these resources as territorial assets, and on the conviction that they can have a significant impact on local and regional development. In fact, practice has proven that projects that bring people together and create networks—often based on the transfer of knowledge—in proximity to territories and based on strong cohesion between the different stakeholders, will have positive results and impact, namely on the economy, on employment, in well-being and in the quality of life. Territorial-based innovation values people and territories, promotes development and quality of life and reinforces the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making processes. In this context, the quality of life of territories is associated with their dynamics of regional development, a process that combines several dimensions, of which two appear as central or structuring: the competitiveness associated with innovation processes, and the cohesion territorial. These

298

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

dynamics are structurally unbalanced, with different economic and social consequences for different territories. When imbalances reach high levels, they not only create economic and social tensions—with high economic, social and political costs—but also jeopardize the regional development process itself. Problems associated with territorial cohesion are one of the manifestations of these imbalances and therefore deserve special attention. There are levels of territorial cohesion that positively enhance economic innovation and social dynamics and other levels that lead to the breakdown of the economic and social system itself. No one knows the ideal level of territorial cohesion for a given society, but inadequate levels of territorial cohesion are easily identified, usually because of the problems they pose to other relevant dimensions of society. Thus, it seems important to value bottom-up approaches that assume that each territory and development dimension should be addressed in a very particular way, considering its own resources and people (Wolf et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the measurement of the practical implementation of projects that promote territorial cohesion an innovation is also relevant. In fact, contemporary societal challenges require dynamic monitoring of processes and evaluation of the implementation of strategies, policies or actions in a context of multiple of social, economic and territorial interactions. Therefore, the operationalization of new decision support tools requires the development of technical and scientific bases that are also dynamic, open and flexible to face the challenges of collecting, processing and modeling large volumes of information (Borges et al., 2020). At the same time, it is key to provide an operational and analytical orientation to these procedures of a more technical nature, ensuring that the final product is a tool capable of producing relevant, timely and rigorous knowledge, rather than a mere repository of data. So, the devices for promoting, evaluating and measuring territorial cohesion and innovation should be designed according to the policy design of strategic development and the goals associated with it—with indicators of achievement and outcome for its practical implementation— assuming as central five operationalization objectives: 1. the collection, processing and provision of useful, timely and reliable information on public policies for territorial cohesion, ensuring the optimization, integration and communication of information produced—and dispersed, in particular by the various public administration entities—in a flexible and innovative way.

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

299

2. the development of instruments that better qualify decision-making processes and the qualification of the strategic planning activity and territorialized public policies with a view to territorial cohesion, contributing to greater effectiveness of government processes. 3. the monitoring, evaluation and dissemination of knowledge on innovation, regional development and territorial cohesion, promoting an informed and qualified debate on policy guidelines for territorial cohesion. 4. support for monitoring the efficiency and effectiveness of public investment, both at national level and in compliance with national and European policy guidelines. 5. The promotion of space-based development and the improvement of the quality of life of all those who live or use these territories, through the development of territorial-based (preferably non-sectoral) public policies that promote horizontal and vertical cooperation and coordination. In this context, in which monitoring and evaluation are crucial, the objective of territorial cohesion is to reduce the level of inequalities—in terms of proximity and access to essential goods and services—but with a concomitant increase (or decrease) in the level average of the variable that serves as a reference to measure these same inequalities. So, public policies are a fundamental dimension (along with the market and the third sector) of the processes associated with the dynamics of regional development. It means that they are also responsible for the results in terms of innovation and territorial cohesion (the good and the bad). In these terms, the role of public policies in solving problems associated with territorial cohesion has gained relevance in recent decades. It is therefore important that public policy is effective in managing territorial cohesion and innovation. The greater the degree of effectiveness of public policy in solving economic and social problems, the better the use of this mechanism is justified. Furthermore, reinforcing the efficiency and effectiveness of public policies gives it economic and social value and, in this way, consolidates democracy and confidence in decision-making processes. To conclude, we can argue that citizens’ well-being depends on the regional/local development dynamics and projects, especially those related to territorial cohesion, competitiveness and innovation. These development dynamics which are structurally unbalanced and the consequences of these imbalances are harmful to the quality of life of the

300

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

territories. Thus, public policies—as spatial planning, territorial governance instrument and intervention mechanism—acquire great relevance in the management and mitigation of these imbalances. The focus is then placed on the effectiveness of public policy, since the development of the territory and the quality of life of societies depends on it. Considering the existence of a wide range of factors that prevent or reduce this effectiveness, it is essential to ensure a dialogue and convergence between the two fields of action that structure local and regional development dynamics, that is, territorial cohesion and innovation.

References Amin, A., & Tomaney, J. (1995). The regional dilemma in a neo-liberal Europe. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10. 1177/096977649500200205 Amoroso, S., Coad, A., & Grassano, N. (2018). European R&D networks: A snapshot from the 7th EU framework programme. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8599, 1–16. Balland, P., Boschma, R., & Koen, F. (2015). Proximity and innovation: From statics to dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907–920. Borges, M., Marques, J. L., Castro, A. (2020). Decision making as a sociocognitive process. In Research anthology on decision support systems and decision management in healthcare, business, and engineering. Information Resources Management Association (USA). ISBN13: 9781799890232 Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Brandsma, A., Di-, F., Diukanova, O., Kancs, D., Lopez-Rodriguez, J., Persyn, D., & Potters, L. (2014). Assessing policy options for the EU cohesion policy 2014–2020. Investigaciones Regionales, 29, 17–46. Chamusca, P. (2021). Urban planning and policy in Portugal: An overview on the role of EU funds and guidelines. Urban research & practice. https://doi. org/10.1080/17535069.2021.1980607 Eurostat. (2020). Eurostat database: 2020 Statistics. European Commission. Statistics available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database. Accessed on 21 January 2022. Giddens, A. (2006). O Mundo na Era da Globalização. Editoral Presença. Lisboa, 8ª edição. Hartmann, T., & Hengstermann, A. (2014). Territorial cohesion through spatial policies: An analysis with cultural theory and clumsy solutions Central European. Journal of Public Policy8(1), – June 2014. 30–49

14

TERRITORIAL COHESION AND INNOVATION: A NEEDED …

301

Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodernity: An enquiry into the origins of cultural change (p. 378). Blackwell. INE. (2021). Population and Housing Census. INE. Statistics available at: https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpgid=ine_main&xpid=INE. Accessed on 21 January 2022. Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B.-A. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680–693. Lundvall, B. -A. (Ed.). (2010). National system of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Anthem Press. Lundvall, B. -A., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23–42. Luukkonen, J. (2010). Territorial cohesion policy in the light of peripherality. Town Planning Review, 81(4), 445–466. Madanipour, A. (2017). Cities in time: Temporary urbanism and the future of the city, Bloomsbury Medeiros, E. (2016). Territorial cohesion: An EU concept, European Journal of Spatial Development, 60. http://www.nordregio.se/Global/EJSD/Refereeda rticles/refereed60.pdf Online publication date: April 2016 Mikulic, D., & Nagyszombaty, A. (2015). Does international trade cause regional growth differentials in Croatia? Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakulteta U Rijeci-Proceedings of Rijeka Faculty of Economics, 33(1), 81–102. Pires, S., Polido, A., Teles, F., Silva, P., & Rodrigues, C. (2020). Territorial innovation models in less developed regions in Europe: The quest for a new research agenda? European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1639–1666. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1697211 Pylak, K. (2015). Changing innovation process models: A chance to break out of path dependency for less developed regions. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2014.979433 Sá Marques, T., Santos, H., Ribeiro, P. (2018). Redes de inovação no ecossistema da Região Centro de Portugal. In: Teresa Sá Marques, Helder Santos & M. Pilar Alonso Logroño (Coord.), VIII Jornadas de Geografía Económica: La Geografía de las Redes Económicas Y la Geografía Económica en Rede, Livro de Atas, Porto, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto, Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles: 123–132. Silva, P., Pires, S., & Teles, F. (2021). Explanatory models of regional innovation performance in Europe: Policy implications for regions. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 11610.2021.1909462 Wolf J., Borges M., Marques J. L., Castro E. (2019). Smarter decisions for smarter cities: Lessons learned from strategic plans. In L, Cagica Carvalho, C. Rego , M. Lucas , M. Sánchez-Hernández, A. Backx Noronha Viana (Eds.),

302

P. CHAMUSCA AND J. L. MARQUES

New paths of entrepreneurship development. Studies on entrepreneurship, structural change and industrial dynamics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10. 1007/978-3-319-96032-6_2 Wolf, J., Batista, P., Marques, J. L. (2020). Processes of urban transformation: A typology based on urbanity, centrality and on territories’ population growth. Cidades, Comunidades e Territórios, 41 (Dec/2020), pp. 133 – 155

Index

A actors, 3, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 25, 32, 33, 38, 43, 57–59, 61, 79, 82, 85–87, 89–91, 99, 104, 107, 109, 116, 118, 120–128, 131, 164, 165, 183, 185, 188, 201–205, 207–212, 215, 216, 220–222, 237, 238, 246, 248, 286

digital mediation, 97, 99, 103, 105–107

C cohesion policy, 4, 61, 115, 142–150, 153–158, 200, 215, 216, 218–221, 226, 286 community-led, 2–4, 99–109, 165, 219

F foundational economy, 4, 12–15, 23–25

D decentralisation, 84, 150, 208, 209, 216, 217, 230, 231, 240 digitalisation, 4, 142, 144–151, 153–158, 200 digital media, 98–101, 104, 109, 179

E empowerment, 99, 182, 185, 187–190, 287 entrepreneurship, 5, 78, 104, 114, 200, 246–251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 260, 262, 263

I impact, 3, 4, 14, 23, 24, 46, 47, 54, 57, 60, 65, 80, 81, 85, 87, 89–91, 102, 106, 124, 127, 131, 186, 216, 220, 221, 226, 237, 246, 251, 263, 267, 269, 280, 297 innovation policy, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 24–26, 59, 82, 83, 90,

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 F. Teles et al. (eds.), Territorial Innovation in Less Developed Regions, Palgrave Studies in Sub-National Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20577-4

303

304

INDEX

118, 127, 128, 199–202, 204, 205, 208–211 L lagging region, 200 learning regions, 118 Less Developed Region (LDRs), 3, 4, 15, 20, 24–26, 79, 84, 87, 90, 115, 116, 118, 120–125, 127, 128, 131, 144, 147, 154, 156–158, 199, 200, 202, 205, 209 low-density, 5, 248, 250, 251, 255, 257, 260, 282, 296 M multilevel governance, 4, 16, 25, 142, 144, 146, 151, 153, 155, 157, 158, 215, 217, 230 multiscalar, 15, 25 P participation, 4, 52, 86, 99, 103, 104, 109, 165, 187, 188, 202, 203, 227, 230, 238 performance, 32–36, 38, 39, 41–50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 63, 64, 66, 67, 116, 187, 200, 201, 209 place-based, 2, 4, 9, 15, 16, 24–26, 120, 127, 131, 154, 184, 187, 190, 199, 200, 203, 217, 218, 221, 225, 228 policy process, 200–205, 212 Q quadruple helix, 59, 66, 123, 124 R regional clusters, 117

Regional Innovation System (RIS), 4, 31–36, 38, 39, 41–50, 52, 54, 55, 57–64, 66, 67, 114, 115, 117, 118, 124, 204, 293 S smart specialization, 65 social innovation, 2, 4, 10–13, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 120, 124 stakeholders, 91, 107, 123, 124, 142, 144, 145, 151, 152, 154, 157, 158, 185–190, 225, 249, 251, 255, 262, 277, 280, 287, 297 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), 4, 182, 183, 185–190 sustainability, 2, 4, 78, 79, 82, 86–88, 90, 91, 115, 118, 124–128, 181–190, 231, 241, 288, 295 sustainable development, 2, 3, 5, 33, 38, 78, 105, 115, 116, 131, 216, 248, 286 T technology, 3, 15, 25, 34, 42, 43, 61, 66, 80, 100, 106, 124, 202, 248, 249, 251, 253, 258, 260, 262, 294 territorial cohesion, 3, 5, 78, 87, 216, 226, 228, 230, 232, 241, 281, 286–288, 291, 294, 295, 297–300 territorial innovation, 3, 90, 98–101, 103, 109, 114, 116, 120, 121, 126, 128, 131, 143, 158, 165, 178, 179, 286 Territorial Innovation Models (TIMs), 59, 116–118, 120, 125, 128 tipping dynamics, 4, 79–83, 85, 90, 91 tourism, 5, 107, 123, 131, 165, 253, 263, 267–271, 276–280, 282

INDEX

transition, 58, 66, 78, 79, 81–83, 86, 87, 90–92, 116, 118, 124, 126, 127, 182, 187, 235, 240, 241, 288

305

Triple Helix, 58, 86, 123 U urban systems, 181–184, 190, 288