What Interpretations for ‘Smart Specialization Strategies’ in European Urban Regions? Lessons from Boston

  • Bruno MonardoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)


This paper aims to highlight the crucial challenges faced by the regions of the European Union (EU) when applying the EU’s ‘Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation’ (RIS3) policy to implement its ‘Cohesion Policy’ and ‘Europe 2020’ agendas. The author maintains that policymakers, planners, entrepreneurs, local communities and the other stakeholders involved in the future of urban regions should adopt a fresh view of the current innovation strategies at the forefront of the European debate, informed in particular by lessons from US experiences. With reference to the current literature on the subject, the author argues that it is possible to draw insights from international best practice—such as the clusters present in the Boston area and the ‘innovation districts’ that have been growing across the US over the past few years—and assumes that some similarities exist between ‘innovation clusters’ and ‘smart specialisation’. Following the in-depth discussion of the main disciplinary schools of thought about the key features of the RIS3 and the ways in which it resembles and diverges from cluster policy, the paper proposes a critical interpretation of what may be deemed an ‘innovation strategy’ at the urban level. Lessons drawn from the Boston innovation strategy may be considered significant with respect to the RIS3 path to be implemented in European Union regions and urban areas. The paper concludes that, in order to pursue a genuinely place-based and entrepreneurial innovation process, it is necessary to support grassroots projects—both business and social—rather than to prioritize only top-down, economic and ‘real-estate’ driven planning initiatives.


Smart specialisation strategies Cluster policies Innovation districts Place-based approach 



This paper is related to the dissemination of the EU ‘MAPS-LED’ (Multidisciplinary Approach to Plan Specialisation Strategies for Local Economic Development) research project, Horizon 2020, Marie Skłodowska-Curie action RISE (Research and Innovation Staff Exchange), 2015–2019. The text represents the author’s personal evolution of his ideas from previous papers, within research activities carried out by the author together with Trillo C., Bianchi L., Del Re N., Simone A. and Tani A.


  1. Aranguren, M. J., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). What can experience with clusters teach us about fostering regional smart specialisation. Ekonomiaz, 83(2), 126–145.Google Scholar
  2. Bagnasco, A. (1977). Tre Italie. La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo italiano. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  3. Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian ID as a Socio-economic Notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini, & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), IDs and inter-firm co-operation in Italy (pp. 37–51). Geneva: International Institute for Labor Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Becattini, G. (2015). La coscienza dei luoghi. Il territorio come soggetto corale. Roma: Donzelli Editore.Google Scholar
  5. Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy. A ‘place-based’ approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Accessed as April 28, 2017
  6. Capello, R., & Kroll, H. (2016). From theory to practice in smart specialisation strategy: Emerging limits and possible future trajectories. European Planning Studies, 24(8), 1393–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capello, R. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU Cohesion Policy reform: Introductory remarks. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform: Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44(2), 355–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capello, R., Cappellin, R., Ferlaino, F., & Rizzi, P. (2012). Territorial patterns of innovation. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  10. Chatterji, A., Glaeser, E., & Kerr, W. (2014). Cluster of Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Innovation Policy and Economy, 14(1), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coffano, M., & Foray, D. (2014). The centrality of entrepreneurial discovery in building and implementing a smart specialisation strategy. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Falk, M. (2006). What drives business R&D intensity across OECD countries? Applied Economics, 38(5), 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2011). Smart specialisation. From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. Ecole Polytechnique Féderale Lausanne: working paper 170252. Accessed at April 28, 2017 from
  14. European Commission. (2009). Knowledge for growth. Prospects for science technology and innovation. Selected papers from Research Commissioner Janez Potočnik’s Expert Group, Accessed at:
  15. European Commission. (2010). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020. Brussels: COM (2010) 553 final.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  17. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Glaeser, E., & Kerr, W. (2009). Local industrial conditions and entrepreneurship: How much of the spatial distribution can we explain? Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 18(3), 623–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glaeser, E., Kerr, W., & Ponzetto, G. (2010). Clusters of Entrepreneurship. Journal of Urban Economics, 67(1), 150–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72(2), 603–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iacobucci, D. (2014). Designing and implementing a smart specialisation strategy at a regional level: Some open question. Scienze Regionali, 13(1), 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahn, C. B., Martin, J. K., & Mehta, A. (2012). City of ideas: Reinventing Boston’s innovation economy: The Boston indicators report 2012. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.Google Scholar
  23. Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation district: A new geography of innovation in America. Washington: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  24. Lerner, J. (2009). Boulevard of Broken dreams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lorenzen, M. (2007). Social capital and localised learning: Proximity and place in technological and institutional dynamics. Urban Studies, 44(4), 799–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Madelin, R., & Ringrose, D. (Eds.) (2016). Opportunity now: Europe’s mission to innovate. European Commission, Directorate General for Communication Networks, Content and Technology, Brussels.Google Scholar
  27. Marshall, A. (1920). Principles of economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2003). Deconstructing clusters: Chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, R. (2015). Smart specialisation regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. NIDC. (2015). Neighborhood Innovation District Committee Report & Recommendations. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  31. O’Mahony, M., & Vecchi, M. (2005). Quantifying the impact of ICT capital on output growth: A heterogeneous dynamic panel approach. Economica, 72(288), 615–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of notions. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.Google Scholar
  33. Porter, M. E. (1996). Competitive advantage, agglomeration economies, and regional policy. International Regional Science Review, 19(1–2), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter, M. E. (2007). Clusters and economic policy: Aligning public policy with the new economics of competition. Harvard Business School Paper.Google Scholar
  35. Rauch, J. (1993). Productivity gains from geographic concentration of human capital: Evidence from the cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 34(3), 380–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2011). Venture Capital, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(1), 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sugden, R., Wei, P., & Wilson, J. R. (2006). Clusters, governance and the development of local economies: A framework for case studies. In C. Pitelis, R. Sugden, & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Clusters and globalisation: The development of Urban and Regional Economies (pp. 63–83). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.‘Sapienza’ University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations