IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ipt/iptwpa/jrc121189.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies in Portugal: An assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Manuel Laranja

    (University of Lisbon – ISEG)

  • John Edwards

    (European Commission - JRC)

  • Hugo Pinto

    (University of Coimbra - Centre for Social Studies)

  • Dominique Foray

    (École polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL))

Abstract

This report assesses the implementation of Smart Specialisation in Portugal, comparing the situation today with 2013. In that year a multi-level framework was designed that included a national and seven regional Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3). The role of regions in research and innovation policy was much less advanced in Portugal than other (Western) European countries, but a logical step to implement a concept that gives local actors a prominent role in strategy development through a process of entrepreneurial discovery. Smart Specialisation is a difficult concept to implement successfully because it crosses policy responsibilities and geographical levels. This report finds that a number of problems in the governance of S3 implementation accentuated these difficulties in Portugal: a governance structure that was never really activated; a policy mix constrained by the legal framework governing R&I spending by the European Structural and Investment Funds, preventing a flexible place based approach that responds to local entrepreneurial discovery; a basic form of monitoring that only analyses project alignment to priorities rather than the achievement of strategic objectives; a fragmented national strategic framework for R&I policy; and a lack of human resources to implement what is a challenging policy approach. The Portuguese regions did however learn from this first phase of Smart Specialisation and there have been some interesting and innovative attempts to instigate entrepreneurial discovery processes, work with other European regions and build capacity for managing innovation strategies. The report recommends that S3 in Portugal is fundamentally reset to embrace a more enterprise led model of innovation. This requires a much stronger governance framework including an active inter-ministerial committee led by the Ministry of Economy and a larger mandate for the National Innovation Agency. At regional level the S3 management teams need to be substantially reinforced and act more like development agencies than regional authorities, taking a pro-active approach to working with firms and monitoring the progress of their strategies. The National Innovation Agency should support the regional management teams in these tasks by enhancing their capabilities and facilitating inter-regional cooperation. The conclusion of this report is that these type of fundamental changes are important to set Portugal on the right track to fully benefit from Smart Specialisation post-2020.

Suggested Citation

  • Manuel Laranja & John Edwards & Hugo Pinto & Dominique Foray, 2020. "Implementation of Smart Specialisation Strategies in Portugal: An assessment," JRC Research Reports JRC121189, Joint Research Centre.
  • Handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc121189
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC121189
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kevin Morgan, 2015. "Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(3), pages 480-482, March.
    2. Braun, Dietmar, 1993. "Who Governs Intermediary Agencies? Principal-Agent Relations in Research Policy-Making," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 135-162, April.
    3. Jensen, Morten Berg & Johnson, Bjorn & Lorenz, Edward & Lundvall, Bengt Ake, 2007. "Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 680-693, June.
    4. Elder, Jakob & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud, 2003. "New governance for innovation: the need for horizontal and systemic policy co-ordination," Discussion Papers "Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis" 2, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    5. Beth Perry & Tim May, 2007. "Governance, Science Policy and Regions: An Introduction," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(8), pages 1039-1050.
    6. Carlo Gianelle & Alexander Kleibrink, 2015. "Monitoring Mechanisms for Smart Specialisation Strategies," JRC Research Reports JRC95458, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Borrás, Susana, 2009. "The Widening and Deepening of Innovation Policy: What Conditions Provide for Effective Governance?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2009/2, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    8. Mytelka, Lynn K. & Smith, Keith, 2002. "Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1467-1479, December.
    9. Dietmar Braun & David H Guston, 2003. "Principal-agent theory and research policy: An introduction," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(5), pages 302-308, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Angela Wigger, 2023. "The New EU Industrial Policy and Deepening Structural Asymmetries: Smart Specialisation Not So Smart," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 20-37, January.
    2. Zoltán Birkner & Ádám Mészáros & István Szabó, 2021. "Lessons Learnt: Changes in the Methodology of the Entrepreneurial Discovery Process in Defining the Priorities of Hungarian Smart Specialisation Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Joana Costa & Luís Carvalho, 2022. "Is digital government facilitating entrepreneurship? A comparative statics analysis," GEE Papers 0164, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Jun 2022.
    4. George Martinidis & Arkadiusz Dyjakon & Stanisław Minta & Rafał Ramut, 2022. "Intellectual Capital and Sustainable S3 in the Regions of Central Macedonia and Western Macedonia, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-17, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Braun, Dietmar & Benninghoff, Martin, 2003. "Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1849-1863, December.
    2. Manuel Laranja & Nuno Boavida, 2012. "The use of indicators and evidence in governance and policy development of Science, Technology and Innovation," IET Working Papers Series 07/2012, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, IET/CICS.NOVA-Interdisciplinary Centre on Social Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology.
    3. Chaminade, Cristina & Intarakumnerd, Patarapong & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Measuring systemic problems in National Innovation Systems. An application to Thailand," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1476-1488.
    4. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    5. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    6. Lars Coenen & Bjørn Asheim & Markus M Bugge & Sverre J Herstad, 2017. "Advancing regional innovation systems: What does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 600-620, June.
    7. Ana Fernandez-Zubieta & Irene Ramos-Vielba, 2018. "Research & Innovation in Spain 2016," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201702, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 08 Jan 2020.
    8. Boon, Wouter P.C. & Moors, Ellen H.M. & Kuhlmann, Stefan & Smits, Ruud E.H.M., 2011. "Demand articulation in emerging technologies: Intermediary user organisations as co-producers?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 242-252, March.
    9. Nilsson, Magnus & Sia-Ljungström, Clarissa, 2013. "The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164741, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    10. Luis Sanz-Menendez & Laura Cruz-Castro, 2005. "Critical Surveys Edited by Stephen Roper," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(7), pages 939-954.
    11. Seolmin Yang & So Young Kim, 2023. "Knowledge-integrated research is more disruptive when supported by homogeneous funding sources: a case of US federally funded research in biomedical and life sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3257-3282, June.
    12. Koschatzky, Knut & Stahlecker, Thomas, 2009. "Cohesion policy at the interface between regional development and the promotion of innovation," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R3/2009, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    13. Turkeli, Serdar & Kemp, Rene, 2015. "Effective research and innovation (R&I) policy in the EU-28: A causal and configurational analysis of political governance determinants," MERIT Working Papers 2015-023, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    14. Koschatzky, Knut, 2009. "The uncertainty in regional innovation policy: some ration-ales and tools for learning in policy making," Working Papers "Firms and Region" R6/2009, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Diercks, Gijs & Larsen, Henrik & Steward, Fred, 2019. "Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 880-894.
    16. Irina Dezhina, 2017. "Science and Innovation Policy of the Russian Government: A Variety of Instruments with Uncertain Outcomes?," Public administration issues, Higher School of Economics, issue 5, pages 7-26.
    17. Diercks, Gijs, 2019. "Lost in translation: How legacy limits the OECD in promoting new policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    18. Marcel Bednarz & Tom Broekel, 2020. "Pulled or pushed? The spatial diffusion of wind energy between local demand and supply," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 29(4), pages 893-916.
    19. Jarle Aarstad & Olav Andreas Kvitastein & Stig-Erik Jakobsen, 2019. "What Drives Enterprise Product Innovation? Assessing How Regional, National, And International Inter-Firm Collaboration Complement Or Substitute For R&D Investments," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(05), pages 1-25, June.
    20. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Smart Specialisation; Innovation; Portugal;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc121189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publication Officer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipjrces.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.