The Case of Ostrobothnia

  • Kenneth Nordberg
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)


The characteristics of the case study are presented. A description of the evolution of the regional administration system and the national economic system serves as a backdrop for the case studies presented later on. Being a unitary state, Finland has a tradition of having a strong state level authority and strong municipalities and a weak regional level authorities, which has resulted in a strong presence of actors outside the politico-administrative system in regional development. Regarding the economic system, the Finnish Fordist system was abandoned in the 1990s for the benefit of the National Innovation System (NIS). Gradually, a more decentralised path creation and experimentation has emerged. The general conclusion of the case studies is that inclusive policy processes orchestrated by authorities easily fall outside the politico-administrative system.


National Innovation System Nordic welfare state Governance networks Open innovation systems Regional development 


  1. Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bevir, M. (2010). Democratic governance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (2007). The new spirit of capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Bäcklund Pia, Mäntysalo Raine (2010). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – the case of Finland. In Planning Theory, 9(4) 333–350.Google Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  7. Hiironniemi, S. (2005). Networks and governance in Finland. Journal of Nordregio, 4, 19–22.Google Scholar
  8. Hiirronniemi, S. (2013). Kuntien tehtävien kartoitus. Helsinki: Valtiovarainministeriö 2/2013.Google Scholar
  9. Jessop, B. (2008). State power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kristensen, P. H. (2009a). The Co-evolution of Experimentalism Business System and Enabling Wlefare States: Nordic Countries in Transition. In P. H. Kristensen & K. Lilja (Eds.), New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  11. Kristensen, P. H. (2009b). Conclusions: Developing comprehensive, enabling welfare states for offensive experimentalist business. In P. H. Kristensen & K. Lilja (Eds.) New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  12. Lilja, K., Laurila, J., Lovio, R., & Jääskeläinen, J. (2009). Fighting for global mandates from peripheral regions of the Finnish innovation system. In P. H. Kristensen & K. Lilja (Eds.), New modes of globalizing: Experimentalism forms of economic organization and enabling welfare institutions. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.Google Scholar
  13. Lorenz, E., & Valeyre, A. (2003, June 26–28). Organisational change in Europe: National models or the diffusion of a new “one best way”? Paper prepared for the 15th Annual Meeting in Socio-Economics LEST, Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
  14. Mariussen Åge (2006). Nordic Innovation or Business Systems? in Mariussen and Uhlin (Eds.) Trans-national Practices Systems Thinking in Policy Making. Stockholm: Nordregio.Google Scholar
  15. Mariussen, Å. (2008). Specialization and heterogeneity in small national economies: The Nordic countries. In E. G. Carayannis, A. Kaloudis, & Å. Mariussen (Eds.), Diversity in the knowledge economy and society heterogeneity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  16. OECD (2006). OECD employment Outlook. Boosting Jobs and Incomes. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. OECD (2007) Babies and Bosses. Reconciling work and family life. A synthesis of findings for OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  18. Peters, G. (2010). Meta-governance and public management. In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Prättälä, K. (2012). Hur gick det sen? Kommunreformen i Finland i stormens öga in Nordisk Administrativ Tidsskrift nr. 2/3/2012, Vol 89.Google Scholar
  20. Regional Council of Ostrobothnia. (2013). Region Ostrobothnia, background report for AMCER – Advanced Monitoring and Coordination of EU R&D Policies at Regional Level.Google Scholar
  21. Rose, L. (1996). Kommuner och kommunala ledare I Norden, Meddelanden från Ekonomisk-statsvetenskapliga fakulteten vid Åbo Akademi, Åbo.Google Scholar
  22. Sjöblom, S., & Andersson, K. (2016). The prospects for bridging spatial and institutional divides within regions. Rural-urban relationships in a projectified governance context. In Andersson Kjell, Sjöblom Stefan, Granberg Leo, Ehrström Peter, Marsden Terry (eds) Metropolitan ruralities. Research in Rural Sociology and Development, Volume 23. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 215–240.Google Scholar
  23. Virkkala, S. (2008). Finnish regions: After transition. In O. Bukve, H. Halkier, & P. de Souza (Eds.), Towards new Nordic regions – Politics, administration and regional development. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Westerlund, L. (1989). Statsbygge och distriktsförvaltning. Åbo: Åbo Akademis Förlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Nordberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityVasaFinland

Personalised recommendations