Fostering regional innovation, entrepreneurship and growth through public procurement

Abstract

RIS3 is a policy initiative aiming to achieve structural change. Structural change needs to consider the processes and means through which (innovation) policies can facilitate a radical transformation by substantially changing a regional economy’s competitive bases. In this paper, we are interested in studying how certain policy instruments are actually implemented, and how the capabilities required for their effective rollout are built in practice. In particular, we focus on public procurement as a policy instrument that can foster regional innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth, while also transforming the industrial structure of a territory. The rationale for focusing on public procurement is threefold: (i) despite being identified as one of the relevant policy instruments to implement RIS3, little is yet known about how public procurement can be used for higher-order political purposes such as innovation-based diversification and transformation; (ii) public procurement remains an underexplored policy tool in sub-national innovation strategies; and (iii) public procurement links to the two key concerns of RIS3, namely, policy prioritization and the entrepreneurial discovery process. The paper provides evidence on two public procurement initiatives in Galicia (Spain), one in health and the other in unmanned aerial vehicles. We adopt a mixed-method approach, relying on a qualitative exploration of the factors leading to the institutionalization of public procurement in policy-making. Our results evidence that innovation-oriented public procurement has the potential to develop local priorities and strategies while also creating the necessary capabilities on both supply and demand. As a result, it can lead to the territorial transformation and to the emergence and further development of entrepreneurial firms.

Plain English Summary

Public procurement can foster innovation, entrepreneurship, and growth while transforming the industrial structure, but… how to roll it out for its effectively? The paper provides the following implications for the practice of innovation policy. For an effective implementation, governments need to adopt a mission orientation that addresses grand challenges and provides directionality to the policy. It is also necessary to mobilize financial resources from supranational, national, and regional funds, what requires coordination and multi-level governance. When governments lack previous experience in innovation policy, they can conduct trial-and-error experiments that facilitate policy learning and lead to the development of capabilities, both on the demand and supply side. This experimentation should follow open innovation approaches by incorporating end-users, to open up policy definition to societal actors. At the same time, this facilitates the development of early market conversations that help to better frame the policy, institutionalize the policy definition process, and gain internal legitimacy. Policies also should seek for creating positive spillovers and knowledge transfer between large and small firms.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the context of this paper, and following Schot and Steinmueller (2018, p. 1562), territorial transformation is understood as a process that requires “radical change in all elements of the configuration.”

  2. 2.

    RIS3 may be considered a challenge and/or mission-oriented innovation policy (Chiang 1991), since the starting point is given by the selection of the societal (i.e., grand) challenges to be tackled (Mazzucato 2018). Note that mission-oriented policies and those oriented towards grand challenges are not necessarily the same (e.g., defense policies are mission-oriented but not oriented to grand challenges).

  3. 3.

    For some exceptions, see Kalvet and Lember (2010), Lember et al. (2011), Lehtinen (2012), or Nijaki and Worrel (2012).

  4. 4.

    Morgan (2017) considers that PPI is the “sleeping giant” of regional innovation policy.

  5. 5.

    Public procurement directives in Europe have introduced a set of procedures to allow for these interactions to take place: open, restricted and negotiated procedures, competitive dialogues, design contests, and innovation partnerships. See Directive 2014/25/EU on the coordination of the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport, and postal services, and Directive 2014/24/EU on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts.

  6. 6.

    In line with Mahroum and Al-Saleh (2013, p. 323), “anchoring supply” processes are here defined as the ability to identify and apply external sources of innovation in the local economy.

  7. 7.

    See Xunta de Galicia (2014) for a detailed discussion of the diagnosis made during the formulation of the RIS3 for Galicia 2014-2020, in which 10 priorities, grouped into 3 challenges, were identified.

  8. 8.

    In 2013 the region was recognized by the European Commission as a reference in active ageing. That same year, the SERGAS was given the national award in innovation and design-based PPI (see: https://www.sergas.es/docs/premioID2013/index.html). Finally, in 2015, the region received the second European procurement of innovation award (see: http://eafip.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/eafip_Paris_programme.pdf).

  9. 9.

    See: https://www.isciii.es/QueHacemos/Innovacion/Documents/Guia_de_buenas_practicas_en_compra_publica_innovadora_ITEMAS.pdf (in Spanish).

  10. 10.

    These secondary data include the guide of good practices to stimulate PPI in Galicia (Guía de buenas prácticas para favorecer la Contratación Pública de Innovación en Galicia), the initiatives and calls launched by the Galician Innovation Agency (GAIN) on public procurement (see https://gain.xunta.gal), the information collected by the Health Knowledge Agency (see https://acis.sergas.gal), the definition of the needs targeted by the procuring entities, the early market demands identified in health and in the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (see sections 5.1 and 5.2 respectively), the questions posed by potential suppliers and the answers provided by the relevant purchasing bodies in the early market dialogues and consultations, and the documents describing the procurement contracts for innovative technologies in the Innovasaúde, Hospital 2050, and the Civil UAV initiatives, among others.

  11. 11.

    Online appendix 1 introduces the questions that guided the interviews conducted during the research process.

  12. 12.

    Online appendix 2 summarizes the profiles of the interviewed stakeholders.

  13. 13.

    See this early market demand (in Spanish) at: https://www.sergas.es/Docs/H2050_IS/Mapa%20demanda%20temprana.pdf

  14. 14.

    In this paper, sophistication is understood as the search and development of innovative solutions that are not available on any market.

  15. 15.

    To date, Código100 has received 215 proposals, of which 65% are related to the application of ICT in health. Of them, 48.5% come from large firms (>250 employees), 7.4 from middle-sized companies (between 40 and 25 employees), 17.3% from small firms (between 10 and 40 employees), and 26.7% from micro-firms (<10 employees). Of these proposals, 47% come from the Galician region.

  16. 16.

    See https://www.uavgalicia.com/ and http://www.civiluavsinitiative.com/

  17. 17.

    See this early market demand (in Spanish) at: http://documentos.galiciainnovacion.es/CUI/Mapa_Demanda_Tempera_GL_ES_EN.pdf

  18. 18.

    The details of these 5 projects can be found here (in Spanish): http://gain.xunta.gal/artigos/308/publicacion+5+primeras+licitaciones+programa+soluciones

References

  1. Acs, Z. J., & Szerb, L. (2007). Entrepreneurship, economic growth and public policy. Small Business Economics, 28, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aiginger, K., & Rodrik, D. (2020). Rebirth of industrial policy and an agenda for the twenty-first century. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 189–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arrona, A., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2019). On the study and practice of regional innovation policy: the potential of interpretive policy analysis. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(1), 148–163.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Balland, P. A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D. (2019). Smart specialization policy in the EU: relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development intervention: place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2019). Holistic innovation policy: theoretical foundations, policy problems and instrument choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chiang, J.-T. (1991). From mission-oriented to diffusion-oriented paradigm: the new trend of US industrial technology policy. Technovation, 11(6), 339–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Colombo, M. G., Dagnino, G. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Salmador, M. P. (2019). The governance of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Small Business Econonomics, 52, 419–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cooke, P., Gómez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: institutional and organizational dimensions. Research Policy, 26, 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dale-Clough, L., Edler, J., Gil, N. (2016). Innovating under pluralism: governing consensus and conflict in public procurement for innovation. Discussions for Developing a Research Approach. Eurkind Conference on “Governance of a Complex World”, 22-24 June 2016, Valencia, Spain.

  11. Doloreux, D., Gaviria de la Puerta, J., Pastor-López, I., Porto Gómez, I., Sanz, B., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2019). Territorial innovation models: to be or not to be, that’s the question. Scientometrics, 120, 1163–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation – resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36, 949–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Edquist, C. (Ed.). (1997). Systems of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(6), 1725–1753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2015). Pre-commercial procurement: a demand or supply policy instrument in relation to innovation? R&D Management, 45(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Edquist, C., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2021). Functional procurement for innovation, welfare, and the environment. Science and Public Policy, in press. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa046.

  17. Edquist, C., Vonortas, N. S., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., & Edler, J. (Eds.). (2015). Public Procurement for Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. European Commission. 2007. A lead market initiative for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels, 21/12/2007. COM(2007) 860.

  20. European Commission. (2011). Regional policy for smart growth in Europe 2020. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  21. European Commission. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS 3). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  22. European Union. 2016. Creating a good local economy through procurement. Final baseline study prepared by Matthew Jackson, presented to Procure Network partners and URBACT. March 2016. Available: https://urbact.eu/sites/default/files/pages_de_procure_state_of_the_art.pdf.

  23. European Union. (2019). Regional innovation scoreboard 2019. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: a comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47, 1568–1576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Foray, D. (2013). The economic fundamentals of smart specialization. Ekonomiaz, 83(2), 54–78.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Foray, D. (2014). Smart specialisation: opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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. Chapter, 3, 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Foreman-Peck, J. (2013). Effectiveness and efficiency of SME innovation policy. Small Business Economics, 41, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fotopoulos, G., & Storey, D. J. (2019). Public policies to enhance regional entrepreneurship: another programme failing to deliver? Small Business Economics, 53, 189–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2002). Developing stakeholder theory. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., & Moodysson, J. (2019). Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: the case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden. Research Policy, 48, 1048–1061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Hausman, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72, 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Henning, M., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Knowledge, entrepreneurship and regional transformation: contributing to the Schumpeterian and evolutionary perspective on the relationships between them. Small Business Economics, 54, 495–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. INE. 2020. Spanish National Statistics Institute. Available: https://www.ine.es/. Last access: 22nd June 2020.

  39. Innovamas. 2015. Anuario de la Innovación en Galicia 2015. MundiNova Consultores de Comunicación, Vigo. Available: https://www.revistadeinnovacion.com. Last access: 22nd June 2020.

  40. Kaloudis, A., Sandven, T., & Smith, K. (2005). Structural change, growth and innovation: the roles of medium and low tech industries, 1980-2002. Journal of Mental Changes, 11(1-2), 49–73.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kalvet, T., & Lember, V. (2010). Risk management in public procurement for innovation: the case of Nordic–Baltic Sea cities. Innovation – The European Journal of Social Science Research, 23(3), 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Karjalainen, K., & Kemppainen, K. (2008). The involvement of small- and medium-sized enterprises in public procurement: impact or resource perceptions, electronic systems and enterprise size. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 14, 230–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lambooy, J. (2005). Innovation and knowledge: theory and regional policy. European Planning Studies, 13(8), 1137–1152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Organization Studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lehtinen, U. (2012). Sustainability and local food procurement: a case study of Finnish public catering. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1053–1071.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lember, V., Kalvet, T., & Kattel, R. (2011). Urban competitiveness and public procurement for innovation. Urban Studies, 48(7), 1373–1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lember, V., Kattel, R., & Kalvet, T. (2015). Quo vadis public procurement of innovation? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 28(3), 403–421.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Leyden, D. P. (2016). Public-sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a sustainable innovative economy. Small Business Economics, 46, 553–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Leyden, D. P., & Link, A. N. (2015). Public sector entrepreneurship: US technology and innovation policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lundvall, B. A. (Ed.). (1992). National systems of innovation. towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Mahroum, S., & Al-Saleh, Y. (2013). Towards a functional framework for measuring national innovation efficacy. Technovation, 33, 320–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41, 1219–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013). Creating good public policy to support high-growth firms. Small Business Economics, 20, 211–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mastroeni, M., Tait, J., & Rosiello, A. (2013). Regional innovation policies in a globally connected environment. Science and Public Policy, 40, 8–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mazzucato, M. (2016). From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 140–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Mazzucato, M., Kattel, R., & Ryan-Collins, J. (2020). Challenge-driven innovation policy: towards a new policy toolkit. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 20, 421–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2013). Modern regional innovation policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6(2), 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Miettinen, R. (2002). National innovation system: scientific concept or political rhetoric. Helsinki: Edita Prima Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  61. Moldogaziev, T. T., & Resh, W. G. (2016). A systems theory approach to innovation implementation: why organizational location matters. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 677–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Moodysson, J., Trippl, M., & Zukauskaite, E. (2016). Policy learning and smart specialization: balancing policy change and continuity for new regional industrial paths. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 382–391.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Morgan, K. (2017). Nurturing novelty: regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 35(4), 569–583.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Neij, L. (2001). Methods of evaluating market transformation programmes: experience in Sweden. Energy Policy, 29, 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: a comparative Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Nijaki, L. K., & Worrel, G. (2012). Procurement for sustainable local economic development. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 25(2), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. OECD. (2007). Linking regions and central governments: contracts for regional development. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  68. OECD. (2017). Government at a glance 2017. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Pickernell, D., Kay, A., Packham, G., & Miller, C. (2011). Competing agendas in public procurement: an empirical analysis of opportunities and limits in the UK for SMEs. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 29, 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Rosiello, A., Mastroeni, M., Teubal, M., & Avnimelech, G. (2013). Evolutionary policy targeting: towards a conceptual framework for effective policy intervention. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(7), 753–772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Saari, E., Lehtonen, M., & Toivonen, M. (2015). Making bottom-up and top-down processes meet in public innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 35(6), 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Sánchez-Carreira, M. C., Peñate-Valentín, M. C., & Varela-Vázquez, P. (2019). Public procurement of innovation and regional development in peripheral areas. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 32(1), 119–147.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47, 1554–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Scott, A. J. (2006). Entrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development: geography and the creative field revisited. Small Business Economics, 26, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Timmermans, B., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2013). Coordinated unbundling: a way to stimulate entrepreneurship through public procurement for innovation. Science and Public Policy, 40(5), 674–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34, 1203–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Trivellato, B., Martini, M., & Cavenago, D. (2021). How do organizational capabilities sustain continuous innovation in a public setting? The American Review of Public Administration, 51(1), 57–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2010). Understanding the innovation impacts of public procurement. European Planning Studies, 18(1), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Garcia-Estevez, J., Yeow, J., & Georghiou, L. (2014). Barriers to innovation through public procurement: a supplier perspective. Technovation, 34(10), 631–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., Magro, E., & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M. (2017). Making innovation-friendly public procurement work for places. Environment and Planning. C, Government & Policy, 35(5), 828–848.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Uyarra, E., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Flanagan, K., & Magro, E. (2020). Public procurement, innovation and industrial policy: rationales, roles, capabilities and implementation. Research Policy, 49(1), 103844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. van Eeten, M. J. G. (2007). Narrative policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (pp. 251–272). Boca Ratón: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Xunta de Galicia. (2011). Plan Galego de Investigación, Innovación e Crecemento (I2C) 2011-2015. Santiago de Compostela. Available: http://documentos.galiciainnovacion.es/PlanI2C/Plan-i2c_galego.pdf.

  86. Xunta de Galicia. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy in Galicia 2014-2020. Santiago de Compostela. Available: http://www.ris3galicia.es/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RIS3_Strategy.pdf.

  87. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2008). Evaluating European Regional Innovation Strategies. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1145–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the editors and the anonymous reviewers, as well as to Elvira Uyarra, Kieron Flanagan, and Edurne Magro for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Funding

Financial support from the Basque Government Department of Education, Language Policy, and Culture (IT 885-16) is received.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

ESM 1

(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M. Fostering regional innovation, entrepreneurship and growth through public procurement. Small Bus Econ (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00466-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Innovation-oriented public procurement
  • Smart Specialisation Strategies
  • Innovation
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Growth

JEL Classifications

  • L26
  • L38
  • L52
  • O32
  • O38