Advertisement

Activation of Business and Society for Regional Benchmarking

  • Monika Fabińska
Conference paper
Part of the Eurasian Studies in Business and Economics book series (EBES, volume 9)

Abstract

Success in the implementation of the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy requires the involvement of all stakeholders, the authorities, business, science, and society. Regrettably, the level of commitment on the part of business and society—especially in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe—to the implementation of these objectives is at a relatively low level and requires the formulation of proposals for actions aimed at their activation at the stage of formulation of strategic objectives, their implementation and the achievement of the effects of the adopted objectives. The process of the formulation of the Regional Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialization (RIS3) for 2014–2020 has been completed. And, as is apparent from the analysis of RIS3 documents and supporting documents for the Polish regions, the strategies are the result of cooperation among key stakeholders of the regional scene. However, as shown by the indicators, e.g.: the level of participation in public consultations (low frequency), and observations of participation in research and expert groups (high frequency of refusal to participate in research), this cooperation was of a rather passive and incidental nature (especially on the part of business and society). Given that for the next few years the regions will implement, monitor and modify the objectives of RIS3, there is a need to undertake actions in order to activate these social groups and develop mechanisms to support the continuity and regularity of cooperation.

Keywords

Regional benchmarking SPI tools Regional innovation strategies Foresight Evaluation Innovation audit 

References

  1. Annoni, P., & Kozovska, K. (2010). EU regional competitiveness index 2010. Ispra: European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E. L. (1989). Technology assessment—Policy and methodological issues. Los Angeles, CA: Centre for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  3. Capello, R., Camagni, R., Chizzolini, B., & Fratesi, U. (2008). Modelling regional scenarios for the enlarged Europe European competiveness and global strategies. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Capello, R., Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Territorial capital and regional growth increasing re-turns in cognitive knowledge use. TI 2009-059/3 Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  5. Capello, R., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Handbook of regional growth and development theories. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clar, G., Acheson, H., & Buczek, M. (2008a). Przewodnik Regstrat. Strategiczne Narzędzia Polityki (narzędzia SPI). Kreowanie lepszej polityki regionalnej w Europie [Regstrat guide. Strategic policy intelligence tools (SPI tools). Creation of a better regional policy in Europe]. Wrocław: Wrocław University of Technology.Google Scholar
  7. Clar, G., Hafner-Zimmermann, S., Sautter, B., Buczek, M., & Allan, J. (2008b). Enabling better RTDI policy-making in Europe’s regions. Strategic policy intelligence tools—A guide. Stuttgart: Steinbeis-Edition.Google Scholar
  8. Drozdowski, R. (2007). Ekspertyza Potencjał regionów w zakresie rozwoju przedsiębiorczości akademickiej [Expert report: The potential of regions in the area of academic entrepreneurship development]. Radom: Instytut Technologii Eksploatacji—Państwowy Instytut Badawczy.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General. (2002). 2002 European innovation scoreboard: Technical paper no 3 regional innovation performances. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General. (2003). 2003 European innovation scoreboard: Technical paper no 3 regional innovation performances. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2008). European innovation scoreboard 2007 comparative analysis of innovation performance, PRO INNO Europe paper N° 6. Luxemburg: Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  12. Filek, J. (2007). W poszukiwaniu dobrej administracji [In search of good administration]. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 2(2), 27–37.Google Scholar
  13. Gawlikowska-Hueckel, K., & Umiński, S. (2000). Ocena konkurencyjności województw [Evaluation of competitiveness of voivodships]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  14. Hassink, R. (2010). Regional competitive intelligence: Benchmarking and policy-making. Regional Studies, 44(5), 639–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Havas, A. (2003). Socio-economic and development needs: Focus of foresight programmes. KTK/IE Discussion Papers 2003/13.Google Scholar
  16. Hollanders, H. (2006). European regional innovation scoreboard (2006 RIS). Luxemburg: European Trend Chart on Innovation, Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  17. Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., & Loschky, A. (2009). Regional Innovation scoreboard (RIS) 2009. Luxemburg: Pro Inno Europe Inno Metrics, Office for Official Publications of the European Community.Google Scholar
  18. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalinowski, T. (2005). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2005 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2005]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  20. Kalinowski, T. (2006). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2006 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2006]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  21. Kalinowski, T. (2007). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2007 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2007]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  22. Kalinowski, T. (2008). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2008 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2008]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  23. Kleiber, M. (2010). Wyniki narodowego programu Foresight Polska 2020 [Results of the national foresight Poland 2020 programme]. Warszawa: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki Polskiej Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
  24. Kuciński, J. (2005). Organizacja i prowadzenie projektów foresight w świetle doświadczeń międzynarodowych [Organisation and implementation of foresight projects in the light of international experience]. Warszawa: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN.Google Scholar
  25. Mehde, V. (2006). Governance, administrative science, and the paradoxes of new public management. Public Policy and Administration, 21(4), 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mieczkowski, K., Szewczyk, R., Lichodziejewski, C., Missala, T., Andrzejczak, M., Bukała, A., Winiarki, W., Pietruszyńska, K., Rzeplińska-Rykała, K., Zbinkowska, D., Komorwska, M., & Roszkowski, K. (2006). Monitorowanie i prognozowanie (foresight) priorytetowych, innowacyjnych technologii dla rozwoju województwa mazowieckiego [Monitoring and forecasting (foresight) of innovative technologies that are priority for the development of the Mazowieckie Voivodship]. Warszawa: Instytut Technologii Eksploatacji—Państwowy Instytut Badawczy.Google Scholar
  27. Platform, M. L. (2016). Regional foresight report regional foresight—Boosting regional potential. Accessed November 11, 2016, from http://www.institut-destree.eu/Documents/Reseaux/G%C3%BCnter-CLAR_Philippe-DESTATTE_Boosting-Regional-Potential_MLP-Foresight-2006.pdf
  28. Navarro, M., Gibaja, J. J., Franco, S., Murciego, A., Gianelle, C., Hegyi, F. B., & Kleibrink, A. (2014). Regional benchmarking in the smart specialisation process: Identification of reference regions based on structural similarity (JRC Technical Report, S3 Working Paper Series No. 03/2014).Google Scholar
  29. Nowicki, M. (2009). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2009 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2009]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  30. Nowicki, M. (2010). Atrakcyjność inwestycyjna województw i podregionów Polski 2010 [Investment attractiveness of voivodships and subregions of Poland 2010]. Gdańsk: Instytut Badań nad Gospodarką Rynkową.Google Scholar
  31. Osborne, S. (2006). The new public governance? Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Popper, R. (2008). How are foresight methods selected? Manchester: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  33. Rhodes, R. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogut, A., Klepka, M., Gralak, A., & Piasecki, B. (2008). Ewaluacja interwencji publicznej służącej podnoszeniu efektywności Regionalnych Systemów Innowacji. Praktyczny przewodnik dla zamawiających badania ewaluacyjne [Evaluation of public intervention serving to increase the effectiveness of Regional Innovation Systems. A practical guide for entities commissioning evaluation research]. Łódź: Fundusz Współpracy.Google Scholar
  35. Rogut, A. (2009). Możliwości wykorzystania scenariuszy rozwoju regionalnego do aktualizacji strategii rozwoju województwa wielkopolskiego [Possibilities of using regional development scenarios to update the development strategy of the Wielkopolskie Voivodeship]. Accessed November 11, 2016, from http://iw.org.pl/pl/biblioteka/1381-moliwoci-wykorzystania-scenariuszy-rozwoju-regionalnego-do-aktualizacji-strategii-rozwoju-wojewodztwa-wielkopolskiego
  36. Rogut, A., & Piasecki, B. (2008). Delphi. Technologie przyszłości [Future technologies]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo SWSPiZ.Google Scholar
  37. Rogut, A., & Piasecki, B. (2011). Podręcznik ewaluatora projektów foresight [Good practices for implementation of regional innovation strategies in Poland]. Warszawa: Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego.Google Scholar
  38. Scapolo, F. (2005). New horizons and challenges for future-oriented technology analysis—The 2004 EU–US seminar. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 1059–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Skonieczny, J. (2011). Narzędzia SPI w zarządzaniu regionami europejskimi [SPI tools in management of European regions], Politechnika Wrocławska. Accessed November 11, 2016, from http://www.dcsr.wroc.pl/files/File/konferencja20060629/prez/14_narzedzia_spi.pdf
  40. Yam, R. C. M., Guan, J. C., Pun, K. F., & Tang, E. P. Y. (2004). An audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms: Some empirical findings in Beijing. Research Policy, 33(8), 1123–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Żuromski, P. (2008). Loris plus. Monitoring i ewaluacja [Monitoring and evaluation]. Łódź: Wydawnictwo SWSPiZ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Management, Department of Entrepreneurship and Industrial PolicyUniversity of LodzLodzPoland

Personalised recommendations