Comparative View of the EU Regions by Their Potential of University-Industry Cooperation

Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

This article evaluates and compares the potential of different European Union regions to support university-industry cooperation as an important precondition for the implementation of the smart specialisation strategy. By using exploratory factor analysis, we found three independent dimensions describing the potential of regions to support university-industry cooperation. Research revealed a strong East-West divide between EU regions in all three dimensions. The findings indicate that many regions in Central Eastern European countries but also some regions in Southern Europe do not seem to have enough supportive strength to be able to benefit from the smart specialisation policy of EU. In order to benefit from the smart specialisation strategy, more attention should be given to the region-specific approach. In the universities from the lagging regions, knowledge translation capabilities must be developed. Core region universities need to be more motivated to cooperate with universities from the lagging regions. Regional level governance motivation and their capabilities toward the support of university and industry interactions should be developed and supported. The creation of linkages between core and weaker regions should be encouraged over the capacity building inside the weaker regions.

Keywords

University-industry cooperation National innovation system Competitiveness Technological change External sources of knowledge Regional innovation scoreboard 

References

  1. Amin, A. (2004). Regions unbound: Towards a new politics of place. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 86, 33–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (1997). Location, agglomeration and innovation: Towards regional innovation systems in Norway? European Planning Studies, 5(3), 299–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent report prepared at the request of Danuta Hübner, commissioner for regional policy, April 2009. Brussels: EU Commission.Google Scholar
  4. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bekkers, R., & Freitas, I. M. B. (2008). Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy, 37(10), 1837–1853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bencheva, N., Ruseva, Y., Manev, M., & Dimitrov, O. (2011). University-industry cooperation in the context of ruse university, Bulgaria. EAEEIE conference.Google Scholar
  7. Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). Americans do IT better: US multinationals and the productivity miracle. The American Economic Review, 102(1), 167–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonaccorsi, A. (2009). Towards better use of conditionality in policies for research and innovation under structural funds: The intelligent policy challenge. Report Working-Paper.Google Scholar
  9. Boschma, R. (2004). Competitiveness of regions from an evolutionary perspective. Regional Studies, 38(9), 1001–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Camagni, R. (1995). Global network and local milieu: Towards a theory of economic space. In S. Conti, E. Malecki, & P. Oinas (Eds.), The industrial enterprise and its environment: Spatial perspectives. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  11. Carayannis, E. G., Varblane, U., & Roolaht, T. (Eds.). (2011). Innovation Systems in Small Catching-Up Economies: New Perspectives on Practice and Policy (Vol. 15). Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  12. Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Debackere, K., Andersen, B., Dvorak, I., Enkel, E., Krüger, P., Malmqvist, H., et al. (2014). Boosting open innovation and knowledge transfer in the European Union, independent expert group report on open innovation and knowledge transfer. In European Commission, directorate general research. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union https://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/b1_studies-b5_web-publication_mainreport-kt_oi.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2017.Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eurostat. (2017). NUTS (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics), by regional level, version 2013.http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ramon/nomenclatures/index.cfm?TargetUrl=LST_CLS_DLD&StrNom=NUTS_2013L&StrLanguageCode=EN&StrLayoutCode=HIERARCHIC. Accessed 21 October 2017.
  16. Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation: The concept, in knowledge for growth: Prospects for science, technology and innovation. Selected papers from Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik’s Expert Group. http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_briefs_no_5_9.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2017.
  17. Foray, D. (2016). On the policy space of smart specialization strategies. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1428–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foray, D., van Ark, B. (2008). Overview on knowledge for growth: European issues and policy challenges in EC. Knowledge for Growth. European Issues and Policy Challenges. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research..Google Scholar
  19. Foss, N. J. (1996). Higher-order industrial capabilities and competitive advantage. Journal of Industry Studies, 3(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey, D. C., Thomas, N. J., & Hawkins, H. (2013). Crafting the region: Creative industries and practices of regional space. Regional Studies, 47(1), 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hashi, I., & Stojčić, N. (2013). The impact of innovation activities on firm performance using a multi-stage model: Evidence from the community innovation survey 4. Research Policy, 42(2), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hechter, M. (2017). Internal colonialism: The Celtic fringe in British national development. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Hedin, S. (2009). Higher education institutions as drivers of regional development in the Nordic countries. Nordregio, http://www.nordregio.se/Global/Publications/Publications%202009/WP2009_3.pdf. Accessed 21 October 2017.
  24. Kempton, L., & Edwards, J. (2014). Universities and Smart Specialisation. http://eprint.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/207075/07816E14-DD1F-4ACC-80AA-43675426EA92.pdf. Accessed 21 February 2017.
  25. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lawson, C. (1999). Towards a competence theory of the region. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lawton-Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25, 98–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lopez, M. G., Losurdo, F., & Dileo, I. (2014). University-industry collaboration in the European regional context: The cases of Galicia and Apulia region. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10(3), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42(9), 1647–1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Makkonen, T., & Rohde, S. (2016). Cross-border regional innovation systems: Conceptual backgrounds, empirical evidence and policy implications. European Planning Studies, 24(9), 1623–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maria, I., Freitas, B., Rossi, F., & Geuna, A. (2014). Collaboration objectives and the location of the university partner: Evidence from the piedmont region in Italy. Papers in Regional Science, 93(S1), S203–S226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2011). Smart specialisation, regional growth and applications to EU cohesion policy. Documents de treball IEB, 14, 1–32.Google Scholar
  34. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2014). Smart specialisation in European regions: Issues of strategy, institutions and implementation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 17(4), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Myrdal, G. (1957). Economic theory and under-developed regions. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  37. O’Mahony, M., & van Ark, B. (Eds.). (2003). EU productivity and competitiveness: An industry perspective. Can Europe resume the catching-up process? Luxemburg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (2007). Globalisation and regional patterns of innovation in EU-25 regions: A typology and policy recommendations economies. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (2011). Regions and innovation policy. OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pavlova, I., & Burenina, M. (2016). University-industry cooperation in the context of the regional innovation system in Russia: A case of the Tomsk region. Journal of Eastern Europe Research in Business & Economics, 1–19.Google Scholar
  41. Pelkonen, A., & Nieminen, M. (2016). How beneficial is a knowledge-based development strategy for peripheral regions? A case study. European Planning Studies, 24(2), 364–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Radošević, S., Curaj, A., Andreescu, L., Gheorgiou, R., & Wade, I. (Eds.). (2017). Advances in the theory and practice of smart specialization. London: Elsevier Science & Technology Books.Google Scholar
  43. Seppo, M., Rõigas, K., & Varblane, U. (2014). Governmental support measures for university–industry cooperation—Comparative view in Europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 388–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Soete, L. (2011). Regions and innovation policies: The way forward. In: OECD, Regions and Innovation Policy, OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Tijssen, R. J. W., & Van Wijk, E. (1999). In search of the European paradox: An international comparison of Europe’s scientific performance and knowledge flows in information and communication technologies research. Research Policy, 28(5), 519–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Timmer, M. P., Inklaar, R., O’Mahony, M., & Van Ark, B. (2011). Productivity and economic growth in Europe: A comparative industry perspective. International Productivity Monitor, 21, 3.Google Scholar
  47. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Ark, B., O’Mahony, M., & Timmer, M. P. (2008). The productivity gap between Europe and the United States: Trends and causes. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wissema, J. G. (2009). Towards the third generation university: Managing the university in transition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations