Regional Innovation Monitor Plus - ec. · PDF fileRegional Innovation Report West Finland ......

www.technopolis-group.com

Version 14 January 2014

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus

Regional Innovation Report West Finland

To the European Commission

Enterprise and Industry Directorate-General

Directorate B – Sustainable Growth and EU 2020

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus

Regional Innovation Report Western Finland

technopolis |group| in cooperation with

Henri Lahtinen, Ramboll Management Consulting

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus i

Table of Contents 1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System 1

1.1 Recent trends in economic performance 1

1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance 3

1.3 Identified challenges 8

2. Innovation Policy Governance 10

3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations 15

3.1 The Regional Innovation Policy Mix 15

3.2 Appraisal of Regional Innovation Policies 23

3.3 Good practice case 28

3.4 Towards Smart Specialisation Policies 29

3.5 Possible Future Orientations and Opportunities 30

Appendix A Bibliography 33

Appendix B Stakeholders consulted 36

Appendix C Statistical Data 37

Table of Figures Figure 1 Economic performance indicators .....................................................................3

Figure 2 Innovation Performance Indicators ..................................................................4

Figure 3 R&D expenditure per sector of performance..................................................... 5

Figure 4 Share of R&D expenditure per sector of performance ...................................... 7

Figure 5 GERD and GDP trends....................................................................................... 7

Figure 6 Technological & non-technological innovators .................................................8

Tables Table 1 Innovation Policy Governance ........................................................................... 12

Table 2 Innovation Policy Institutional Set-Up and Available Human Resources ....... 14

Table 3 Existing regional innovation support measures ...............................................20

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 1

PREFACE

Launched in 2010, the Regional Innovation Monitor1 continues to be one of the flagship initiatives of DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission. From the outset, it aimed at supporting sharing of intelligence on innovation policies in some 200 regions across EU20 Member States.

RIM Plus aims to help regions to improve their innovation policies based on better and harmonised policy intelligence. The new contract aims to contribute to the development of more effective regional innovation policies and promote policy learning.

Building upon the experience gained and results obtained during the implementation of the RIM in the period 2010-2012, the RIM Plus service evolves towards providing practical guidance to regions on how to use the collected information, establishing a network of regional experts with thematic specialisation, and organising specialised workshops taking into account the relevance and potential interest among the regional innovation policy makers.

RIM Plus covers EU-20 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

This means that RIM will not concentrate on Member States where the Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics NUTS 1 and 2 levels are identical with the entire country (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), Malta which only has NUTS 3 regions, Slovenia which has a national innovation policy or Cyprus and Luxembourg which are countries without NUTS regions.

The main aim of 30 regional reports is to provide a description and analysis of contemporary developments of regional innovation policy, taking into account the specific context of the region as well as general trends. All regional innovation reports are produced in a standardised way using a common methodological and conceptual framework, in order to allow for horizontal analysis, with a view to preparing the Annual EU Regional Innovation Monitor Plus report.

European Commission official responsible for the project is Alberto Licciardello ([email protected]).

The present report was prepared by Henri Lahtinen ([email protected]). The contents and views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Regions, Member States or the European Commission.

The Regional Innovation Access Point and Knowledge Hub presenting further details of the regional innovation measures, policy documents and regional organisations in Länsi-Suomi is accessible through the RIM Plus online inventory of policy measures here: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/region/select

Copyright of the document belongs to the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this document may be put, or for any errors which, despite careful preparation and checking, may appear.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/

2 Regional Innovation Monitor Plus

Executive Summary 1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System

Länsi-Suomi, consisting of five sub-regions (Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Keski-Suomi, Pirkanmaa, Pohjanmaa and Satakunta at the NUTS3 level), is a growing region in terms of population. There are approximately 1,370,000 inhabitants in the region, and the figure has increased 3.69% during the past ten years (2002 -2012). This growth originates from Keski-Suomi, Pirkanmaa and Pohjanmaa.

Länsi-Suomi is the second best region in Finland regarding economic activity. The region cannot compete with Helsinki-Uusimaa (the Capital region), but outperforms the rest. The GDP per capita was €30,000 in Länsi-Suomi in 2010. The corresponding figures for Finland and EU27 average were 33,000 (significantly higher figure of Helsinki-Uusimaa increases the national average) and 24,500, respectively. Furthermore, the GDP growth rate (3.34%) in Länsi-Suomi between 2000 and 2010 exceeds both national (3.07%) and EU27 average (2.93%).

Industry and services are the most important fields of economic activity, while the importance of agriculture has decreased over the years. The share of employment in agriculture (6%), however, exceeds the national (4%) as well as the EU27 average level (5%) since Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Pohjanmaa and Satakunta sub-regions produce plenty of agricultural products while forestry is an important industry in Keski-Suomi. Overall, Länsi-Suomi is the most industrialised region in Finland with a focus on machinery, pulp and paper, shipbuilding and the energy sector.

Despite performing well based on economic and innovation performance indicators, Länsi-Suomi struggles with unemployment, structural change and ageing. Especially unemployment is a persistent challenge. Both the unemployment rate (8.2%) and the long-term unemployment rate (1.74%) were above the national average (7.7% and 1.6% respectively) in 2012. A wave of layoffs was witnessed during spring and summer of 2013, and there is an overall decreasing trend in Finland regarding industrial production. Hence it is likely that the unemployment rate will rise from the 2012 figures.

Challenge 1: The need for diversifying the industrial base of regional economies

The economy of Länsi-Suomi is characterised by industrial products and production, of which the largest share is exported. These industrial sectors are closely linked to demand from the highly competitive European markets. Finnish companies are unable to compete on price (e.g. due to labour and production costs). Therefore the enterprises should consider a move away from production based on goods dominant logic towards service dominant logic. The industrial structure in many sub-regions is also rather narrow, and impacts to the regional economy are significant if the key industrial engines face difficulties. The sub-region of Satakunta (especially around the city of Rauma) is currently struggling with its shipbuilding industry while the Pohjanmaa region has proven more resilient to external economic instability due to its more versatile industrial fabric.

Challenge 2: Availability of skilled labour force

The second and third challenge is linked to a larger phenomenon typical to most Finnish regions – ageing. As the region’s population is ageing, significant amount of skills and competences are lost as the educated labour force is retiring. This has implications on both the public and private sectors. The public sector is likely to be most affected. Due to budget cuts and the need to increase efficiency, appointments are not renewed as the staff retires.

In certain sectors (e.g. social and health care services, metal industry, construction, and finance) the availability of labour force has already been a problem. It seems likely


that the demand for service jobs increases in the future while the importance of traditional industrial work decreases (partly due to outsourcing).

Therefore it is highly important to invest in educating the labour force of the future. It is also worth noticing that the needs of the working life change, and workers must be able to adapt to these changes (such as e-skills, team work, language skills, teleworking).

Challenge 3: Unemployment

As mentioned above, unemployment is also a persistent issue in Länsi-Suomi. Although the unemployment rate and the long-term unemployment rate are still below the EU27 average they remain above the national average. There are notable sub-regional differences (Pohjanmaa is among the least affected regions in Finland when examining unemployment rates while Pirkanmaa and Keski-Suomi display some of the worst figures at the national level). Furthermore, the overall tendency is negative after a short period (2010-2011) of increase in the employment rate.

The challenge of unemployment is linked to the structure of regional economies. As described above (challenge 1) many regions rely on a few industries, and are thus vulnerable to external shocks. The regions in Länsi-Suomi acknowledge this challenge in their regional development programmes (see chapter three), but the impacts of policy measures have remained rather modest.

2. Innovation Policy Governance

The Finnish innovation policy is governed on the national and local levels. The Finnish government decides on national development goals and lays down the general guidelines for regional innovation policy. The responsibility for preparing this package of measures rests with the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (MEE) and the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOE). There are no formal regional organisations covering the whole Länsi-Suomi region. Regional governance is carried out by the Regional Councils, covering five sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi. Additionally the municipalities are relatively strong actors and particularly the bigger cities and towns have had an active role in local economic development and innovation policy.

3. Innovation Policy Instruments

The regional innovation policy mix follows the innovation policy governance structure. Many of the instruments are either national or local with a few inter-regional or regional support measures. The Centre of Expertise programme and Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) provide the most important funding instruments that are implemented in the regions, followed by the EU structural funds and regional development programmes. The Centre of Expertise programme ends in 2013 and will be followed up by a new Innovative Cities programme (2014 -2020).

4. Conclusions: future actions and opportunities for innovation policy

• Focusing on key strengths

The resources for regional development becoming more limited and it becomes increasingly important to gather scattered resources and target them to selected key strengths or development objectives in a region.

• Smart specialisation

Despite a lack of RIS3 strategies, regional specialisation has been emphasised for long in Finland. Due to small and highly competitive home markets the regions should also seek future growth globally.

• Foresight, monitoring and evaluation as means of preparing for the future

The regions need better tools to assess how innovation policy contributes to regional development. Currently the regional development programmes often contain a variety


of qualitative objectives, and the success of implementation is assessed against a set of quantitative criteria.


1. Main Trends and Challenges in the Regional Innovation System

1.1 Recent trends in economic performance

The region of Länsi-Suomi covers the western parts of Finland, accounting for 19% of the national territory and approximately 25% of the country’s total population with approximately 1,370,000 inhabitants (Statistics Finland, 2012). The population is spread unevenly between large agglomerations with towns such as (population in brackets) Jyväskylä (133, 482), Pori (83,292), Seinäjoki (60,174), Tampere (217,421) and Vaasa (65,674) as well as small, agrarian municipalities. The aforementioned cities also represent the centres of economic activity at the five sub-regions (at the NUTS3 level) within Länsi-Suomi (Keski-Suomi, Satakunta, Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Pirkanmaa, and Pohjanmaa). The total population of the region has increased by 3.69% during the past ten years (2002 -2012). Development has been uneven among the sub-regions – the number of people living in the area has diminished in Satakunta and Etelä-Pohjanmaa while it has grown in Keski-Suomi, Pirkanmaa and Pohjanmaa. The former regions do not have a university whereas the latter do. This is not the sole explaining factor, but worth noticing.

The population in Länsi-Suomi is increasing. It is, however, also becoming older. Another persistent challenge is structural unemployment. Both the unemployment rate (8.2%) and the long-term unemployment rate (1.74%) were above the national average (7.7% and 1.6% respectively) in 2012. On the other hand the aforementioned figures concerning Länsi-Suomi are still on relatively modest levels if compared with the EU27 average – 10.5% (unemployment) and 4.7% (long-term unemployment). It is, however, likely that the situation will worsen. Large manufacturing companies have laid off workforce in significant numbers during the second and third quarter of 2013, and this development is not reflected in the aforementioned figures. Within the sub-regional level unemployment was the highest in Pirkanmaa (9.2%) and Keski-Suomi (9.1%) at the end of 2012. Furthermore, every fourth unemployed worker was under 30 years of age in Keski-Suomi, and long-term unemployment is on the rise. The figures mentioned above (2012) differ slightly from those presented in figure 1 (2011), but the tendency is similar.

In terms of economic performance, Länsi-Suomi is the second best of the four NUTS2 regions, although considerably behind the leading – Helsinki-Uusimaa – area (the capital region). The GDP per capita in 2010 was €30,000. Since the Helsinki-Uusimaa –region generates a significantly higher GDP, Länsi-Suomi comes short of the national average (33,000), but is clearly above the EU27 average (24,500). The GDP growth rate (3.34%) in Länsi-Suomi between 2000 and 2010, however, exceeds both national (3.07%) and EU27 average (2.93%). Länsi-Suomi also performs better than Finland in general or the EU27 average according to the labour productivity growth and regional competitiveness index 2013.

Employment by economic activity in Länsi-Suomi is concentrated on industry (27%) and the region is the most industry-oriented area in Finland. The corresponding figures for the national and EU27 average are 23% and 25%. The share of employment in agriculture (6%) also exceeds the national (4%) as well as the EU27 average level (5%). Furthermore public administration is concentrated in the Länsi-Suomi region, which houses several universities and public sector institutes. The share (29%) of people employed by the public sector exceeds the national (28%) as well as the EU27 average levels (25%). The region lags behind the national average (29%) and the EU27 average (30%) regarding the share of employment in business (28%).

The sub-regional differences regarding the economic structure are rather substantial. Agricultural activity is significant especially in the sub-regions of Etelä-Pohjanmaa Pohjanmaa, and Satakunta. In the former agriculture and forestry account for 9.1 per cent of employment (2011)i and together with processing provides employment for


28% of the labour force. The high share of agriculture is also reflected in the amount of service jobs, the share of which is significantly below the national average. ii

The forestry industry is strong in Keski-Suomi. The share of jobs in Keski-Suomi in paper and industries, forestry, and machinery is nearly twice as high as the national averageiii. The industrial activity in Länsi-Suomi is oriented towards engineering and more specifically towards manufacturing of machinery. Pohjanmaa region with the city-region of Vaasa as its centre has developed into an important competence hub in the field of energy, providing employment for approximately 10,000 people. The biggest employers are Wärtsilä, ABB and Vacon. Altogether 120 enterprises are linked to the hub, and 70% of the hub’s products and services are exported.iv

Industry remains important also in Pirkanmaa, the largest sub-region of Länsi-Suomi. Employment in industry accounts for 27% of the total, although the share of services (69%) is constantly increasing. In 2011 the value of exports from Pirkanmaa reached almost €4.3b, representing 7.6% of Finland's exports. The amount of enterprises increased steadily until 2011. The progress, however, came to a halt in 2012. v

Regarding industrial activities, the 1980s was challenging for many areas in Länsi-Suomi. Structural change decreased the number of large industrial enterprises and demand for labour. Satakunta as a traditional, industry-led sub-region was no exception. Shipbuilding and maritime industries as well as the related chain of subcontractors survived the 1980s and provided employment for many. The STX Finland shipyard was the second largest private sector employer with more than 900 jobs in 2011 in Satakuntavi. The shipyard was closed in the autumn of 2013vii. The impacts for the whole value chain will be significant. Therefore a working group (consisting of representatives from the city of Rauma, Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment of Satakunta, Satakunta employment agency and the regional council of Satakunta) has been established to identify activities and tools for finding work for the unemployed and helping the remaining enterprises still operating in the field.viii

There is an overall decreasing trend in Finland regarding industrial production. Electrical engineering has lost nearly ten per cent of production, followed by metal industry (8.5%). Machinery and equipment is produced in Länsi-Suomi. Such products are acquired during seasons of high demand. The economic downturn has resulted in lower demand for industrial products, and this is reflected in the regional economies. Additionally, it has been suggested that Finnish companies lack in competitiveness and suffer from high employment costs.ix

The Ministry of Employment and the Economy published a regional barometer twice a year together with the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. The barometer is based on an online survey the results of which are collected from municipal stakeholders and decision makers. The results are presented as a trust figure, which is composed of eight indicators (e.g. taxes, unemployment, and investments made by industry, retail, services and construction). According to the latest barometer, the economic downturn has affected the trust figures at the NUTS3 level (-10 on the average). The lowest figure (-33) has been recorded in the middle of recession in 1991 and the highest (+30) following the rise from it in 1994. The investment expectations of industry have decreased while tax burden has increased. Unemployment is also expected to rise. In Länsi-Suomi the lowest trust figure is currently in Pirkanmaa (-21), followed by Keski-Suomi (-14), Etelä-Pohjanmaa (-12), Satakunta (-12), and Pohjanmaa (-9).x


Figure 1 Economic performance indicators

Source: Eurostat.

1.2 Recent trends in regional innovation performance

Figure two illustrates the strong innovation performance of Länsi-Suomi based on indicator data. Although the region (37.4%) is a little behind the Finnish average (40.4%) regarding employees with higher education, Länsi-Suomi clearly exceeds the EU27 average (30.4%). There are four universities in Länsi-Suomi (Tampere University of Technology, University of Jyväskylä, University of Tampere, and University of Vaasa), as well as several universities of applied science. The universities in Länsi-Suomi were responsible for one fifth of the total R&D expenditure of Finnish universities, although the University of Helsinki alone invests more in R&D than all four higher education institutions put together in Länsi-Suomi.

The strong industrial basis is also reflected in the very high expenditure for R&D as a percentage of GDP (GERD) by European comparison. With a GERD of 3.98% of GDP (2010) investment in R&D is slightly above the national (3.9%) and clearly above the EU27 (2%, estimation) averagesxi. The difference to EU27 average is even more


significant in terms of business R&D and higher education R&D. Government R&D, on the other hand, lags behind the national as well as the EU27 average (see figure 2).

Figure 2 Innovation Performance Indicators

Source: Eurostat.

The R&D activity is mostly concentrated in the Pirkanmaa region around the city of Tampere, covering 15% of the national total expenditure and nearly 66% of the GERD of Länsi-Suomi region in 2011. The R&D investments in the Pohjanmaa sub-region, especially around the City of Vaasa, have increased significantly. The increase of R&D expenditure in Pohjanmaa largely results from the rapid growth of the business park around Vaasa airport. In 2012, the businesses (specialised in the energy sector) located in the area employed more than 4,000 people. In comparison, the corresponding figure from 2000 was around 1,300.xii In absolute terms the Länsi-Suomi region achieved a GERD of €1.63b (2011), which accounts for 22% of the Finnish GERD (Statistics Finland).

It can be seen from figure three that Länsi-Suomi is similar to rest of Finland regarding research and development expenditure of enterprises (Euro per inhabitant). The private sector spending on both regional and national levels clearly exceeds the


EU27 average between 2000 and 2010, and has risen steadily until 2009 apart from a small decrease in 2002.

The Government spending on R&D has also risen at the national level. In Länsi-Suomi, however, the related expenditure has been stagnant, and is significantly below the national and also Eu27 average. 2002 was the only year when Government R&D in Länsi-Suomi exceeded the European average figure. At the same time the higher education expenditure on R&D has increased, forming a similar pattern as the business R&D. Although a little below the national level, the R&D expenditure of the higher education sector in Länsi-Suomi clearly exceeds the EU27 average.

A recent study that compared the competitiveness of the Finnish NUTS3 regions placed two sub-regions of Länsi-Suomi - Pirkanmaa and Pohjanmaa - second and third. The study focused on competitiveness of the sub-regions and their interrelations in 1995, 2000, 2008, and 2012, based on ten variables related for instance to population, employment and the regional economy. Pirkanmaa is strong, measured by each of the ten indicators, and especially in terms of population dynamics. The strengths of Pohjanmaa include high employment rate, low unemployment rate, and positive GDP per inhabitant change. Furthermore Pohjanmaa is known for its versatile industrial base. Satakunta and Etelä-Pohjanmaa have also improved their standing and are currently the sixth and eleventh sub-regions in Finland. Keski-Suomi is the only sub-region in Länsi-Suomi with a decreasing trend, and is placed tenth among 18 sub-regions.xiii

Figure 3 R&D expenditure per sector of performance

Source: Eurostat.


Source: Eurostat.

Source: Eurostat.

As displayed in figure four, the overall R&D expenditure has fluctuated between close to three percent (2002) and over four percent (2009). No notable difference in the share of R&D expenditure (per sector of performance) can be detected. The business enterprise sector contribution is the most significant while the role of Government spending is minor.


Figure 4 Share of R&D expenditure per sector of performance

Source: Eurostat.

Figure 5 GERD and GDP trends

Source: Eurostat.


Source: Eurostat.

As described above, Länsi-Suomi is an industrialised region. This is reflected in the share of SMEs that are technological innovators (see figure six), which is higher than in Finland and EU27 on average. Consequently the share of non-technological innovators is lower compared to Finland and the average of other Member States. The majority of SMEs in the region, however, collaborate with others and produce in-house innovations, clearly exceeding the EU27 average.

Figure 6 Technological & non-technological innovators

Source: Eurostat.

1.3 Identified challenges

Challenge 1. The need to diversify the industrial base of regional economies

The economy of Länsi-Suomi relies heavily on exports consisting mainly of a limited number of industrial products from a few sectors. These industrial sectors are closely


linked to demand from the European markets, and are faced with increasing competition based on price. Due for instance to labour and production costs the industries are unable to compete on price. Hence there is a need for identifying new niche markets that can be entered with specialised service offerings, suggesting a change in the business model from goods dominant logic to service dominant logic. The industrial structure in many sub-regions is also rather narrow, and impacts to the regional economy are significant if the key industrial engines face difficulties. The sub-region of Satakunta (especially around the city of Rauma) is currently struggling with the shipbuilding industry while on the other hand Pohjanmaa region has proven more resilient to external economic instability due to its more versatile industrial fabric.

Challenge 2. Availability of skilled labour force

The second and third challenges are linked to a larger phenomenon typical to most Finnish regions: ageing, which is a strong megatrend in Finland. For instance, ageing will have an impact on welfare services funding, development of the education system as well as the labour market. The share of the working population decreases and is not compensated by youth entering the labour market. Hence significant amounts of skills and competences are lost as the educated labour force is retiring. More alarmingly, the dependency ratio is increasing.

This has implications for both the public and private sectors. The public sector is likely to be most affected. Due to budget cuts and the need to increase efficiency appointments are not renewed after retirement. More work will be conducted by fewer people, which will be neither effective nor sustainable in the long run. At certain sectors (e.g. social and health care services, metal industry, construction, and finance) the availability of labour force is already a problem. It seems likely that the demand for service jobs will increase in the future while the importance of traditional industrial work will decrease (partly due to outsourcing).

Therefore it is highly important to invest in educating the labour force of the future. It is also worth noticing that the needs of working life change, and workers must be able to adapt to these changes (such as e-skills, team work, language skills, distance working). Furthermore increasing attention must be paid to creating interesting and competitive working and research environments to attract skilled labour from abroad.

Challenge 3. Unemployment

Paradoxically, unemployment is also a persistent issue in Länsi-Suomi. The unemployment rate and the long-term unemployment rate remain above the national average, although still below the EU27 average. Despite sub-regional differences (Pohjanmaa is among the least affected regions in Finland when examining unemployment rates while Pirkanmaa and Keski-Suomi display some of the worst figures at the national level) the overall tendency is negative - following a short period (2010-2011) of increase in the employment rate.

The challenge of unemployment is linked to the structure of regional economies. As described above (challenge 1) many regions rely on a few industries, and are thus vulnerable to external shocks. The situation is becoming unbearable in some municipalities where there are almost two unemployed per one employed person. The regions in Länsi-Suomi acknowledge this challenge in their regional development programmes 2011 -2014 (see chapter three), but the impacts of policy measures have remained rather modest. It is likely that increasing attention will be paid to rising unemployment in the upcoming programme period. Employment is not the key theme addressed in the programmes, but support to entrepreneurship and innovation is a much used tool in this context.


2. Innovation Policy Governance

The setup of the Finnish governance system is more focused on the national and local levels. Innovation policies, strategies and actions in Länsi-Suomi are guided and directed by the Finnish government, which decides on national development goals and lays down the general guidelines for regional innovation policy. In addition, the national policy decisions and measures aim at strengthening and extending the effectiveness of universities and universities of applied sciences’ regional activities. The responsibility for preparing this package of measures rests with the Ministry of Employment and the Economy (MEE) and Ministry of Education and Culture (MOE).

The key innovation strategy is therefore the national innovation strategy (2008) and the government statement on innovation policy (2008). Both documents cover topics and measures needed in the future for the renewal of innovation policy in Finland. The strategy focuses particularly on the changes and reforms that a broad based innovation policy and its implementation will require in an open and global operational environment.

More recently (2010) the Research and Innovation Council updated the research and innovation policy guidelines for 2011 -2015. The guidelines were prepared during an unstable period reflecting changes in the international division of labour with respect to intellectual and financial resources and disruptions, such as the ending of the period of economic growth in autumn 2008 with recession. Therefore the guidelines required developing the innovation system for instance by strengthening the co-ordination and steering of policy actions at government level, reforming of structures to reduce organisational, operational and regional fragmentation, diversification of the funding base for research and innovation as well as improving the means for monitoring policies. xiv

In 2012 MEE and MOE published an action plan for research and innovation policy with the aim of enhancing the implementation of the government’s research and innovation policies and documenting central development measures and adjustments required in the final half of the present term of government. The action plan emphasises strengthening the preconditions for research and innovation activities, i.e. increasing the attractiveness of Finland and strengthening the internationalisation of the RDI system, increasing effectiveness by expanding the scope of innovation activities and increasing experimentation, developing a more efficient and better-quality research and innovation system with greater flexibility, and creating greater value and new competitive advantages through intangible investments. xv

Coming from the national to the regional level, there are no formal regional organisations covering the whole Länsi-Suomi region in innovation policy. Regional governance is carried out by the Regional Councils, covering the sub-regions of Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Keski-Suomi, Pirkanmaa, Pohjanmaa and Satakunta. The Regional Councils steer regional development and they are, for example, responsible for administering the Structural Funds (SF) in their regions. On the other hand the regional authorities have relatively little control over the general allocation of government funding. Regional councils have some independent funding in addition to Structural Funds, but the regional Centres for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment (ELY-centres) mainly provide innovation support based on the funding that is allocated to them.

(Sub)regions do, however, have a relatively high degree of autonomy in the design and implementation of regional policies. There are several documents that guide regional development with the aim of making the development of the region systematic and programmed. The regional strategy is the key document illustrating the vision as well as the activities needed to achieve it. The strategy contains the goals, objectives and focal areas for development and serves as a guideline in decision-making at regional, sub-regional, and municipal level and is of help in the allocation of resources for the achievement of objectives defined together. All other programmes related to regional


development (for instance regional land use plan, regional development programme) are aligned with the strategy and its objectives.

The regional strategy (long-term approach) is implemented by the regional development programme, which defines the lines of action for the implementation of the strategy (medium-term approach). It contains the development objectives based on regional strengths and needs, the most important projects and other activities required for reaching the set targets. The regional development programme thus presents means for implementation and the available means of funding (based on an estimation). The programme also gathers and puts together the strategies and programmes of various stakeholders, lines of action as well as funding to steer the choices concerning the overall development of a region.

Regional Councils are responsible for the preparation of the regional development programmes while the regional ELY-centres (responsible for central government activities in the regions) play a key role in regional innovation policy. In practice regional governance is therefore steered by the Regional Council in collaboration with the ELY-centres and municipalities. Many of the activities, however, are coordinated through various intermediaries including Science and Technology Parks, regional development companies (typically owned by the municipalities) as well as the central government funding and activities coordinated through the ELY-centres.

Third main stakeholders (in addition to the Regional Councils and the ELY-centres) are the municipalities with their own resources for development (municipalities have the right to levy an income tax and therefore have independent financial resources). Therefore municipalities have great budgetary autonomy, but in practice much of their support for innovation is linked to co-financing of projects that are supported by ERDF, ESF and national programmes. The municipalities in Finland are relatively strong actors compared to many other countries and particularly the bigger cities and towns (e.g. Tampere and Jyväskylä in Länsi-Suomi) have had a very active role in local economic development and innovation policy, often related to support in building the local innovation environment. Since the municipalities have very different sizes and characteristics, their ability to work in the field of innovation policy varies significantly.

Activities conducted under the regional development programmes are monitored annually in the implementation plans (short-term approach) of the aforementioned programmes. This plan is drafted jointly by the government officials, representatives of municipalities and other relevant stakeholders. The plan contains information of activities and projects conducted in the region as well as the preferred level of regional development funding (regions are allocated funds from the state budget for regional development, but the amount granted is often below the applied amount). The plan is basically a form of regional budget (which as such does not exist) used for influencing on state budget and improving the coordination of various regional development activities conducted in the region.

Previously drafting of the regional strategy as well as the regional development programme was mainly conducted by officials of the regional council. Lately the approach has become more interactive as the councils have encouraged various stakeholders to engage in discussion concerning the needs and future of the region. Despite the growing number of participants, it has been difficult to involve business representatives in drafting the regional documents.

For instance in Etelä-Pohjanmaa a foresight group consisting of representatives from regional administration, business as well as research and education was established to discuss the changes in the operating environment. The group focused on the future of Etelä-Pohjanmaa and aligning these visions to the implementation plan of the regional development programme. Another group was also established to discuss the challenges in the innovation system and the competitiveness of the region. Similar exercises have been conducted in other sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi as well.


Increasing attention is also paid to foresight activities that allow the regional authorities to prepare for the future. In Pirkanmaa the future is ‘predicted’ by utilising an online portalxvi in which relevant information is gathered, stored, shared and discussed. The portal is managed by the Regional Council of Pirkanmaa and the Pirkanmaa foresight service project. Furthermore, the sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi also acknowledge the importance of developing the methods of monitoring and evaluation as tools for measuring progress made in the regional development programmes. Currently the regional programmes contain qualitative objectives which are assessed against quantitative indicators. It is often difficult to identify the proper cause and effect, and hence it is challenging to monitor how well various innovation policy activities impact regional development.

More attention will be paid to the city-regions as the Ministry of Employment and the Economy launches four pilot projects to improve cooperation and competitiveness of city-regions. Furthermore, an additional project will tackle structural change. The focal point for the four pilots is increased competitiveness through renewal. Each pilot has a specific theme and a responsible city-region acting as a leader. The themes and leaders are (leader in brackets): arctic environment (city of Kemi); renewal and competitiveness of industrial SMEs (city of Rauma), cities of intelligent, green growth (cities of Kauhajoki and Kurikka); and development of exercise and sports tourism (city of Imatra). The themes are important for the competitiveness of Finland as a whole and therefore cooperation with the private sector is of high importance. The work in the pilots will take place in 2014 -2015, and it will involve 37 municipalities. xvii

The strong role of national and local levels has some implications for regional innovation policy. According to an external evaluation the monitoring of regional development programmes (as well as the guidance provided by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy) is based on quantitative, traditional indicators, on which the regional authorities have only little impact. Therefore new tools (better capable of capturing progress made in the regional programmes, added value created, networking as well as resource allocation) should be developed for monitoring and evaluation. A model used for monitoring activities related to the regional development programme in the Varsinais-Suomi sub-region was presented as a good benchmark. In the model each activity is assessed against a scale of five variables, ranging from ‘has not been started’ to ‘completed’. xviii

Additionally it was mentioned that the impact of the law on regional development should be assessed in order to evaluate how the current legislation works and how changes have affected the roles of various stakeholders as well as costs occurred. Regional development is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, and thus the respective Ministry should commission the evaluation.

Other ministries (for instance Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Social and Healthcare) also play a role in regional development. However, there seems to be a lack of communication between various ministries. It does not benefit the regions to address several ministries individually (and at times receive mixed messages). The regions gather important foresight information which could be useful for the ministerial level planning as well, and increased co-operation would also allow the regions to better communicate of their needs to the ministries.

The table below gives an overview of innovation policy governance.

Table 1 Innovation Policy Governance

Description Comment

Degree of general regional autonomy

NUTS2 regions are basically statistical units and therefore there is neither an organisation responsible for regional development nor funding for it.

Regional development is steered by Ministry of Employment and the Economy. The NUTS3 regions have autonomy for decision making and implementation


regional development nor funding for it.

implementation

Degree of autonomy with regard to innovation policy

Innovation policy is designed at the national level and implemented at regional and local levels.

As described above, regions must in their own development strategies follow the national innovation strategy mostly with the funds allocated to them from the state budget

Set-up of regional governance system (centralised/de-centralised/fragmented)

The Regional Councils play a role at the NUTS3 level, while most of the governance rests with the municipalities within a region. Thus the set-up is described as de-centralised

Each municipality has both decision-making power and resources. The role of regions is smaller, but in practice municipalities need to cooperate with others at the regional level

Nature of the process of strategy development (top-down/bottom-up/participatory

Top-down The strategy processes are becoming more participatory although the process is still led top-down

Intra- and inter-regional co-operation

Exists at some extent The regions are free to decide with whom to cooperate.

The situation is not that different when comparing the national and regional levels. Finland is among the innovation leaders with a performance well above that of the EU27 (more than 20% above the EU27 average)xix. Finland has for several years been among the Member States that invest the most in R&D. The same can be said about Länsi-Suomi. The region invests significantly in R&D in all sectors (business, higher education and government) and moreover, the investments have grown steadily between 2000 and 2010 (see figures 3, 4 and 5).

There are, however, notable differences at the national and also at the regional level. Finland as a whole is performing quite well regarding innovation, but a great share of resources, investments and outputs come from the leading city regions (such as the Capital region, Tampere, Turku and Oulu) whereas other regions struggle to produce outputs related to innovation due to e.g. scarcity of skilled labour, accessibility (location), and more narrow industrial structure that is affected by fluctuations in the world economy.

The same applies to Länsi-Suomi. Overall the region is still performing well, or at least better than regions in the EU on average. The regional disparities are significant. While the area surrounding the city of Vaasa attracts investments and generates employment and wealth, many other cities and municipalities face increasing challenges like unemployment, ageing, productivity, competitiveness and renewal.


Table 2 Innovation Policy Institutional Set-Up and Available Human Resources

Policy stage Primary organisation

Number of personnel directly in charge

Total number of employees

Change in the number of personnel directly in charge over the last five years

Summary assessment

Strategy development

The Ministry of Employment and the Economy

84 (Business and innovation department)

670 No significant change

In strategy development the recommendations of the Research and Innovation Council are taken into account

Programming




Implementation

Regional Councils

Approx. 8 - varies depending on the Council

Approx. 30 – varies depending on the Council

N/A Implementation takes place at the local and/or regional level.

Monitoring and evaluation




Regional actors (ELY-centres) report to MEE, and MEE can commission external evaluations as it has done for OSKE and Tekes


3. Innovation Policy Instruments and Orientations

3.1 The Regional Innovation Policy Mix

The regional innovation policy mix does not contain a wide variety of innovation strategies and innovation support measures, because (as described above) innovation policy is designed at the national and implemented at the sub-regional or local levels.

The only document applicable to the NUTS2 level is the ERDF Operational Programme 2007-2013, which also covers some innovation issues and gathers various regional as well as national objectives related to RTDI. The priority axis two of the programme pays specific attention to promotion of innovation activity and networking as well as strengthening of competence structures by measures that are concerned with knowledge and innovations by strengthening the structures and knowledge clusters linked to them. The main goals presented in the document include development of innovation environments, increase in R&D, supporting the development of support services to growth companies, development of competitive centres of expertise, contribution to networking, and increase in the utilisation of various funding instruments. xx

There is also an inter-regional policy document linking two sub-regions from Länsi-Suomi (Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Pohjanmaa) and one from Pohjois- ja Itä-Suomi (Keski-Pohjanmaa). The Joint Strategy for Innovation Activity 2010-2016 pulls together information of on-going activities and aims to find synergies and new options for cooperation for businesses operating in these sub-regions. Due to scarce resources this strategy has not received much attention in the three sub-regions, and more focus has been placed on regional development programmes.

The Botnia-Atlantica programme (cross-border cooperation) continues as an instrument of regional development funding also during the next EU programme period. The programme members include regions from Finland, Norway and Sweden. In Finland the participating regions are Pohjanmaa (Länsi-Suomi NUTS2) and Keski-Pohjanmaa (Pohjois- ja Itä-Suomi NUTS2). Funding is allocated to inter-regional projects in the participating regions. Of its four thematic objectives, two are linked to innovation and regional development: support to research, technology development and innovation, and improvements in the competitiveness of SMEs. The priorities have been chosen based on development strategies of the participating regions with a focus on fields in which inter-regional cooperation generates added value. xxi

There is no strategy covering the whole Länsi-Suomi region. Instead the Regional Councils are responsible for regional strategies and programmes at the NUTS3 level that to some extent also cover innovation policy. The Regional Councils were entrusted with this task in the early 1990s and this has strengthened the role of the sub-regional level in innovation policy, particularly with EU membership in 1995 and the introduction of structural funds (SF).

The four-year regional development programmes, drafted on the basis of statistical data (regarding the economy, employment and unemployment, migration, education, industrial structure), foresight activity as well as discussions among the key stakeholders, steer R&D activities at the sub-regional level. The regional programmes draw together various other planning instruments such as regional innovation strategies and strategies of individual organisations. Typical innovation policy measures are the development of key industry clusters and commercialisation of RTDI, innovation services and measures to improve the functioning of the innovation system.

The regional programmes also pay attention to local specificities. For instance the regional development programme of Etelä-Pohjanmaa (2011 -2014) sets objectives for competitive and innovative business by developing business skills, promoting internationalisation of SMEs, and focusing especially on developing the food cluster, which is one of the key strengths of the region. Other goals related to business and


innovations include building better networks for technology industries and developing services and experiences into business. xxii

The regional development programme of Keski-Suomi (2011 -2014) contains four strategic focus areas: successful business activities, competences of success, well-being of citizens, and attractive operation environment. Regarding the first area, attention has been paid to cluster-based development of industries, development of entrepreneurship, strengthening of competences as well as renewal of business activities. xxiii

In Pirkanmaa the regional development programme (2011 -2014) has been built on three pillars: renewing competence and industrial structures, strengthening and compact infrastructure, and operation environments able to keep and attract people. The first pillar is linked to innovation policy by focusing on supporting the creation of new, research and competence based business, strengthening the competence level and ability for renewal in enterprises, and responding to the changes in working life as well as to the competence needs of the future. xxiv

Pohjanmaa rests on its strengths in the regional development programme (2011 -2014) as the first priority axis is linked to competitiveness and image (Pohjanmaa is known for its strong export orientation, good connections and bi-lingual people), the second to labour force and competences (Pohjanmaa is said to be one of the most international regions in Finland), and the third to accessibility and balanced regional structure. Within the first axis attention is paid to securing the prerequisites of strong and international industrial activity, development of the innovation system, strengthening of entrepreneurship as well as building on key clusters and emerging industries. xxv

The regional development programme of Satakunta consists of three main themes: competent Satakunta, accessible Satakunta, and energetic as well as well-being Satakunta. The first strand focuses on competences related to energy, entrepreneurship, education, research and co-operation. Accessibility refers to securing the preconditions for competitive industries as well as good living. The third strand is more linked to health and well-being. xxvi

The regional development programmes have a strong link to the priorities set in the ERDF programmes. Thus the EU structural funds are also an important instrument for regional innovation policy, and a significant part (26.7% in the 2007-2013 period) of the structural funds have been devoted to innovation related activities in Finland. The importance of structural funds will decrease during 2014 -2020 as Finland will receive 27% less funding than the previous programme period. The new budgetary allocations do not favour Länsi-Suomi: the majority of the funding will be allocated to northern and eastern parts of the country.

The decrease in structural fund allocations for the region means that the municipalities are offered a greater role in regional development. Municipalities are already relatively strong actors, when Finland is compared to other countries. The bigger cities and towns in particular have been very active in local economic development and RTDI policy, often supporting the development of local science and technology infrastructure. The bigger city-regions in Länsi-Suomi such as Tampere, Jyväskylä, Seinäjoki, Pori and Vaasa, have active innovation-oriented economic development policies, and the city of Tampere also has an innovation strategy dating back to 2008.

The support measures follow the same logic as strategies, being mostly national and thus applicable to all regions. For example the Centre of Expertise (OSKE) programme is steered and funded by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, although implemented by various actors at the regional level. Overall OSKE has been a coordinating programme with the majority of funding coming from other sources to various development projects carried out under the OSKE umbrella. This funding includes, amongst other, EU structural funds, Tekes funding and funding from the municipalities.


The objective of the programme has been to create a strong network of Centres of Expertise supporting specialisation and cooperation between regions, and thus increase regional competitiveness. An additional aim has been to generate new innovations, products and services by supporting specialisation between regions to develop international competitiveness. Between 2007 and 04/2013 the quantitative results are rather impressive: total volume of projects - €342m, number of projects – 2,533, number of new jobs – 3,649, number of new businesses – 701, and number of enterprises having participated in the programme annually: 7,300. xxvii

As an example of the numerous projects conducted under OSKE programme, the Rucola (Russian consumers latent needs) project focused on investigating the latent needs of Russian travellers. The acquired information was used for increasing the supply and quality of provided services, and thus affecting the time spent (and money) in Finland. The project discovered a need for a range of cultural services that do not yet exist. The findings of the projects were further utilised in a workshop targeting service providers. The aim was to help entrepreneurs develop and tailor the service offering as well as to identify efficient marketing platforms.

In the period of 2007–2013 there exists 21 Centres of Expertise in Finland as well as 13 national networks (called clusters) linking various centres across the country. Each centre is a member of one or more expertise clusters and their Cluster Programmes. OSKE covers the following fields in Western Finland: digital business, energy technology, food development, forest industry, health applications from biotechnology, health and well-being, intelligent machines, maritime, nanotechnology, tourism and experience management, and ubiquitous computing. In practice OSKE activity has been concentrated in the main cities.

Regional Centres of Expertise are coordinated by local science parks and technology centres that are responsible for initiating a range of innovation activities, in which research is combined with technological, design and business competence. The centres of expertise are also actively implementing an innovation strategy in their own fields of expertise in the region. The Centres of Expertise are tightly linked with the local universities as well as universities of applied sciences but also to the key industries in the region. The following Centres of Expertise are located in Länsi-Suomi:

• Jyväskylä region

− Energy Technology

− Ubiquitous Computing

− Nanotechnology

− Forest Industry Future

− Tourism and Experience Management

• Satakunta region

− Energy Technology

− Ubiquitous Computing

− Maritime Cluster

• Seinäjoki region

− Intelligent Machines

− Food Development

• Tampere region

− Digital business

• Western region

− Energy technology


− Maritime

− Digital business

Tekes funding is also of relative importance to the regions, despite being more of a national than a regional measure. Tekes funding is often distributed by the Tekes programmes that contain both finance and expert services. The programmes represent topical entities (e.g. electric vehicle systems, intangible value creation, functional materials, green growth, games, service business etc.). Currently there are 19 on-going programmes that implement the Tekes strategy in the following focus areas: natural resources and a sustainable economy, intelligent living environment, and vitality of people.

Tekes provides research, development and innovation funding for companies, research organisations, and producers of public services. The Tekes funding for companies can be used for instance for R&D, development of organisations, management and processes, planning for global growth, and rapid international growth. Companies registered in Finland are applicable for submitting a request for funding. Funding is provided in the form of financial aid or a loan. Tekes only funds a part of the project’s cost and the company must demonstrate its ability to arrange its share of the funding. In 2012 Tekes received 2,900 funding applications of which 1,240 were rejected. Tekes does not have any specific regional dimension in its criteria for funding, i.e. funding is allocated based on applications from companies all over Finland. Slightly over 18% of all Tekes RDI funding for companies was allocated to Länsi-Suomi in 2011.

Tekes funding has decreased, and the trend indicates further cuts. In 2010 the overall funding reached €633m, and two years later (2012) had dropped to €570m. Budget cuts to R&D funding were also made in 2013. Tekes funding derives from the Ministry of Employment and the Economy, which 2013 was cut by €17m, and majority of the cut decreased the Tekes R&D funding.

The priorities related to innovation and knowledge in the Structural Funds Operational Programme 2014 -2020 are linked with the upcoming Innovative Cities programme 2014-2020 (INKA), which replaces the OSKE programme. INKA represents a step away from cluster-based regional development towards thematic ecosystems. The new programme is anticipated to be more dynamic compared with OSKE. Also the structure will be different. INKA will be coordinated by Tekes and implemented by cities whereas OSKE was coordinated by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy and implemented for the most part by regional science and technology parks. Three city-regions from Länsi-Suomi have been selected for the INKA programme, with the following themes (responsible city in brackets): cyber safety (Jyväskylä), smart city and renewable industry (Tampere), and sustainable energy solutions (Vaasa). The future themes and partners in the INKA -programme are presented below, with the partnering cities from Western Finland marked (bold):

• Bioeconomy: Joensuu, Jyväskylä and Seinäjoki

• Sustainable energy solutions: Vaasa, Lappeenranta and Pori

• Future Health: Oulu, Kuopio, Capital region, Tampere and Turku

• Smart city and renewable industry: Tampere, Lahti, Oulu, Capital region and Turku

• Cyber safety: Jyväskylä

The end of the OSKE-programme will have significant impact on some of the organisations responsible for running its activities at the regional level. For example, Culminatum (in the Helsinki-Uusimaa region) and Jyväskylä Innovation (Länsi-Suomi region) will be closed in 2014. The latter is a development company that supports growth, development and competitiveness of technological enterprises in Jyväskylä Region and Central Finland. It also aims to develop innovation environment and technological clusters, and carries out the Jyväskylä Region Centre of Expertise


Programme. Both Culminatum and Jyväskylä Innovation have been important intermediary organisations in their respective regions. It is likely that the demand of support services for enterprises from regional ELY-centres will increase, adding pressure to efficiency and quality of service in the centres.

Other support measures are more local, such as Open Tampere or Tampere senior –programmes, business from innovations –programme, Functioning Labour Markets - skilled workers and jobs - Development Programme as well as Research and Innovation Programme of Higher Education Institution Network of Etelä-Pohjanmaa.


Table 3 Existing regional innovation support measures

Title Duration Policy priorities

Budget Organisation responsible

More information

ERDF operational programme for Western Finland 2007-2013

2007-2013 4.1. Direct funding to business R&D and innovation

4.5. Knowledge transfer and cooperation between firms (incl. technology acquisition)

€185m Regional Councils of Etelä-Pohjanmaa, Keski-Suomi, Pirkanmaa, Satakunta, and Pohjanmaa

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/index.cfm?q=p.policy&n=12995&r=FI19

Business From Innovations – Pirkanmaa

2011 - 2013

5.4. Innovation management and advisory services

4.3. Fostering start-ups and gazelles

€0,926m Tampere Region Economic Development Agency Tredea

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=16927&r=FI19

Functioning Labour Markets - skilled workers and jobs - Development Programme

2009 -2013

3.5. Retaining knowledge and experience of older knowledge workers

€10m Regional Council of Central Finland





More information

Open Tampere –programme

2012 - 2018

4.3. Fostering start-ups and gazelles

5.1. Cluster development

4.1. Direct funding to business R&D and innovation

€10.5m Tampere Region Economic Development Agency Tredea; City of Tampere


The Centre of Expertise Programme

2007 - 2013

5.1. Cluster development

5.2. Science-, technology parks and incubators

4.5. Knowledge transfer and cooperation between firms (incl. technology acquisition)

€2,378b The Ministry of Employment and the Economy; Hermia Ltd

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=13068&r=FI1C

Research and Innovation Programme of Higher Education

2007 - 2013

1.3. Research infrastructures

2.3. Knowledge transfer structures

€1.6m annually

Regional Council of South Ostrobothnia





More information

Institution Network of South Ostrobothnia

between academia and industry

TampereSenior -programme

2012 - 2020

6.1. User-driven innovation initiatives

6.2. Public procurement of innovation

City of Tampere http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/regional-innovation/monitor/index.cfm?q=p.support&n=15571&r=FI19

Source: RIM Plus repository (West Finland/Finland).

Details on the individual measures, in contrast, will be presented in section 3.2.


3.2 Appraisal of Regional Innovation Policies

At the strategic level the national and regional innovation strategies and policies are well aligned, and innovation is acknowledged as one of the key themes for the future growth and prosperity of regions. According to the international evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System, the approach to innovation in Finland is broad, covering organisational innovations and a systemic view taking into account actions linked to supply as well as demand. It was pointed out that the definition of broad-based innovation policy needs to be clarified since it lacks concrete content. xxviii

Although the organisational structure of innovation policy is functional, the evaluation recommended paying more attention to cross-sectoral activities as well as coordination. Innovation policy (at the national level) has been the shared responsibility of the Ministry of Employment and the Economy and the Ministry of Education and Culture. The Ministry of Finance as well as the Prime Minister’s Office, focusing on coordinating the public sector renewal, should take a more active role in the Finnish innovation policy.

Due to the broad-based approach to innovation, increasing attention has lately been paid to other, non-traditional forms of innovation (such as public-, social-, and demand-side). Tekes as well as the Ministry of Employment and the Economy have acknowledged the importance of public sector innovation in terms of productivity and as means of tackling the grand challenges (e.g. ageing, employment, productivity). The Ministry of Employment and the Economy foresees changes in the way services are being provided in the future as the need for various service increases while population is ageing. The quality of services is also an important question to be addressed. The service providers are required to tackle increasing demand and simultaneously improve both quality and individual offering. This causes pressure for the public sector services and calls for new innovations and operation models as the “one size fits all” solutions is no longer viable.

Public-private-partnerships are seen as a way to introduce new innovations and produce more user-friendly services. The same applies for the new approach concerning public procurement. Previously the rules set for public procurement have in advance dictated the services to be commissioned. Nowadays the target of procurement is defined through objectives or goals. Furthermore the process requires definition of the impacts of a service. Another important change is the on-going dialogue (before and during the competitive bidding) taking place between the user (the public sector) and the producer (the markets).

The Research and Innovation Policy Guidelines for 2011 -2015xxix call for improvements in effectiveness of innovation policy. The needs originating from demand and users create new opportunities that can be utilised more effectively. The public sector is a source of demand and can furthermore improve the functioning of markets as well as their openness and friendliness towards innovation. The Action Plan for Demand and User-driven Innovation Policy (the Ministry of Employment and the Economy) represents an important new opening in this respect.

Tekes has paved the way in Finland for the recognition of the various forms of innovation. Since 2006 one of the largest Tekes programmes (Serve – Pioneers of Service Business) has been focusing solely on service innovations. Furthermore Tekes renewed its strategy in 2011, and as a consequence emphasises the role of intangibles, as well as demand- and user-driven innovation as sources of value creation and growth. Tekes also has programmes focusing on innovations in social and health care services, work life development as well as innovations in public procurement.

The innovations in public procurements -programmexxx funds procurement projects in the public sector, focusing on energy and the environment, the built environment as well as health and well-being sectors. One recent example concerns the renewal of public transportation by public procurement from the city of Turku. There are factors that support and hinder the development of public transportation in the Turku region.


For instance technology for the production and use of bio gas already exists. Furthermore there is abundance of available materials in the region. Commitment of significant stakeholders is also a supporting factor. On the other hand there are no examples of similar projects. Resistance and prejudice also exist, and these hinder the harmonisation of interests of various stakeholders. Timing is an additional challenge, because tendering is time consuming – the procurement criteria need to be in place 1.5 years before implementation of transportation plans.

The evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System also called for clarification of the division of labour between the Strategic Centres of Science, Technology and Innovation and the Centre of Expertise -programme (OSKE) at the regional level. Especially the latter should focus more on developing the regional innovation capacity as well as promoting experience- and user-driven innovation, while the objective of the former should be in science- and technology based innovation activities.

The OSKE–programme was evaluated recently (2013), and according to the assessment it has been well placed in its goals against the changes that have occurred in the global innovation activities. On the other hand, the magnitude of structural changes Finland faced during the programme period was so large that it was not possible to address all the challenges. xxxi

It can also be argued that the importance of OSKE has been more significant to the mid-sized cities in Länsi-Suomi (e.g. Seinäjoki, Pori), helping the city-regions to gather and allocate scarce resources for developing key clusters, while for instance Tampere and Jyväskylä have been able to allocate their own development funding for supporting clusters or emerging industries (e.g. via Creative Tampere –programme) or horizontal themes such as employment (Functioning Labour Markets - skilled workers and jobs - Development Programme in Jyväskylä) and business activities (Business From Innovations -project in Tampere).

The previous development programmes of the city of Tampere (e-Tampere, BioneXt, Creative Tampere) have widened the industrial fabric of the city. These programmes have also acted as generators of resources. Especially Creative Tampere injected seed funding to a number of projects, which in turn generated new skills, jobs, and business activities. As a continuation from the Creative Tampere –programme and the Demola project (see chapter 3.3) a new campus (Mediapolis) was established to bring IT and content creation under the same roof. Mediapolis provides an environment in which businesses and students can co-operate in projects, and receive support from the Tampere university of applied sciences, Yle (national broadcasting company), and the city of Tampere.

The Business from Innovation project provides assistance to technology-based SMEs trying to turn innovative ideas to commercialised products. The support measure has not been evaluated yet, but it has facilitated development of business know-how as well as new innovations, clarification and improvement of new business ideas, piloting of novel forms of cooperation, and supported the networking of companies from different fields.

The focus of the Functioning Labour Markets - skilled workers and jobs - Development Programme is currently more relevant than ever before due to recent layoffs in Keski-Suomi, and due to one of the highest unemployment rates in Finland. The programme has not been evaluated, but according to the internal follow-up reports initial results have been positive. The programme aims to decrease unemployment and increase the skills and competences to enhance innovation activity in the region.

Tampere, Jyväskylä as well as Vaasa will also be part of the INKA programme beginning in 2014. In addition, Pori and Seinäjoki will be partners to the leading cities: the former to Vaasa regarding sustainable energy solutions and the latter to Joensuu in the field of bioeconomy. Being involved in the INKA programme is considered highly important at least for two reasons: a) the regions are being acknowledged as innovative city regions with growth potential in selected fields and b) being part of the programme brings access to additional structural funding much needed at the regions.


The region of Länsi-Suomi has benefited less from the structural funds, because a significant amount of structural funding has been allocated to the eastern and northern parts of Finland, and their share of the 2014- 2020 budget will increase. On the other hand structural funding is allocated via regional councils, which also utilise EU funding for implementing projects and initiatives through the regional development programmes. Between 2007 -2013, the regions in Länsi-Suomi have received a total sum of €310m for regional development activities. Of this figure, 64.8 % has been funded by the private sector; the rest was funded by the EU and the Finnish government.

Measured by the main indicators (number of new jobs and new enterprises), however, progress has not been as good as anticipated. The recession has slowed the creation of new businesses which is reflected in the amount of new jobs created. Furthermore, some researchers have argued that the results (development) do not correlate with the investments. It might be more efficient to channel at least part of the funding directly to companies instead of various intermediary organisations. It has also been suggested that the funding used to balance the regional disparities might have had a bigger impact if invested in other regions.xxxii

The progress achieved in the implementation of regional development programmes is monitored annually against a set of indicators by the regional councils. Etelä-Pohjanmaa has made good progress as a region without a university. Lack of tertiary level education has been dealt with by establishing the Research and Innovation Programme of Higher Education Institution Network (first phase: 2000 -2006; second phase: 2007 -2013). The rationale behind the network was the need to enhance the effectiveness of regional thematic areas and the development of the knowledge economy. The focus of the programme is on university research executed jointly with higher education institutions (HEIs), research institutes, technology transfer organisations and companies operating in the region. The results have been good. Research activities have been integrated with innovation activities, research groups and joint ventures have been established and the original goal of involving 12 professors in the work of the programme, at first considered too high a number, has been exceeded.

In Etelä-Pohjanmaa, progress made in the regional development programme has not been as good as anticipated regarding other indicators. The sub-region is falling short in GDP per inhabitant, share of people with tertiary education, employment and unemployment rate as well as long-term unemployment. Furthermore, according to the external evaluation the utilisation of national and international funding needs to be improved, services developed and participation increased. xxxiii

Some of the activities related to the regional development programme and its implementation require national level funding (from Ministries), and in this framework the regions are allowed to apply for additional funding. In Etelä-Pohjanmaa additional funding is called for higher education, innovation activities, infrastructure, and cultural activities. The key topics concerning higher education are the third phase of the Research and Innovation Programme of Higher Education Institution Network and development of the university centre while innovation activities are linked to development of regional innovation hubs as well as development of administrative structures at municipal and regional levels. xxxiv

The situation is rather different in Pohjanmaa, the region which is performing well in GDP per inhabitant, number of enterprises, migration, and share of tertiary education. The region, however, lags behind in number of jobs, employment as well as unemployment rate, population, and rate of change of GDP growth. According to the external evaluation the regional development programme has been implemented well, and the local stakeholders are satisfied with progress towards set objectives. The programme is seen as an important tool for developing larger entities and the whole region. On the other hand the programme still contains too many objectives, and there is clear need for making more choices in the future. xxxv


In the implementation plan of the regional development programme of Pohjanmaa additional funding from the government is requested for the projects executed under the INKA –programme (sustainable energy solutions to be led by the city of Vaasa), for building a Innohouse laboratory centre to Vaasa, and for executing the regional pilot “Cities of intelligent and green growth”. Other requests address the Ministry of Transport and Communication, Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Social and Healthcare, and thus not related to innovation. xxxvi

The regional development programme of Keski-Suomi contains ambitious goals, and it seems that they will not be reached. Progress is not adequate when examining indicators tracking population, net migration, share of persons with secondary or tertiary education, number of enterprises, employment and unemployment rate and the number of jobs. Given the recent layoffs the three last indicators linked to labour market are especially challenging for Keski-Suomi. Therefore Keski-Suomi emphasises broad-based and joint development activities to renew businesses and create new jobs. It also needs to be ensured that development funding is available for new companies and those willing to grow after 2013.

One of the goals in the implementation plan of the regional development programme (2013 -2014) was to renew the application for the INKA programme in 2013 and to secure national funding linked to it. This goal was achieved when Jyväskylä was chosen for the programme. Another renewed application concerned the establishment of national evaluation centre for education to Jyväskylä. In addition Jyväskylä applies national funding for the establishment of a research and development centre of the welfare society to the University of Jyväskylä. xxxvii

Many of the activities (55%) in the regional development programme of Pirkanmaa focus on the first priority axis (renewing competence and industrial structures). The projects funded under the axis include for instance enlargement of the network of innovation actors, design of a multidisciplinary platform for research co-operation in the Technical University of Tampere, and establishment of StartUp Tampere, an incubator to create new funding concepts for start-ups, spin-offs and growth companies. In terms of indicators measuring progress, Pirkanmaa could perform better in the share of people with secondary education, unemployment rate, the number of jobs, and GDP per inhabitant while it is on track concerning the share of people with tertiary education, employment rate, and migration.

The main objectives regarding funding from the national budget concern securing resources for regional development (increase in the regional development funding) as well as applying for funding for the alternative method centre (FICAM) - a unit of the University of Tampere specialised in developing and validating alternative methods that can replace animal testing.xxxviii

Overall the evaluation of the regional development programmes of Länsi-Suomi stated the following: One of the key challenges of regional development activity is project-based development, which tends to end as soon as the project funding has been used. It is common that a number of good practices have been developed during the four-year regional development period, but only a small share of them survive the initial project funding. Therefore more systemic approach to regional development is needed. Projects can be a good way to affect regional development if they are implemented in a longer chain of activities instead of sole projects without continuation.

Another problem has to do with whether the development projects are innovative in their nature and add value or if they are more or less part of everyday activities of the organisation responsible for implementation. As regional development funding is decreasing, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that funding is utilised for developing the whole regional innovation ecosystems instead of running the activities of an organisation.

At the sub-regional level the regional council of Pirkanmaa called for basic funding from the state budget for the advisory services for startup companies. It has been


mentioned that a new model of funding is required for such services. Basically it would mean a move away from development funding to basic funding which would be granted by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy. This funding could be complemented by municipal funding. The advisory services for startup companies have been developed and tested as a development project entity without certainty of continuation. Broad-based support for enterprises is considered highly important in the regions, and therefore associated funding should also be more long-term by nature than project-based activity.xxxix

A reference was made to several issues affecting regional development in the implementation plan of the regional development programme of Satakunta. The cuts to regional development funding from the state budget and the end of current ERDF period had such impact on funding that no new projects could be financed in 2013. xl Concern over decreasing funds is a common feature for all sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi.

Overall it can be stated that the existing measures (at national and regional levels) complement one another reasonably well, and there is no need to increase the number of instruments (and related administration). The national innovation strategy as well as the research and innovation policy guidelines of the Research and Innovation Council provides the regions with a framework in which to develop their own R&D&I strategies.

It can, however, be questioned if the support measures are utilised strategically, i.e. if projects only have short-term objectives and aim for quick results. A great number of projects is conducted in each sub-region annually (under OSKE, regional development programme, and with Tekes funding). There is not, however, a single organisation responsible for co-ordinating these activities.

There are several actors running projects and programmes for instance in Pirkanmaa. The city of Tampere has had development programmes in the past and it currently runs the Open Tampere programme together with Tampere Region Economic Development Agency (Tredea). The latter is responsible for several support instruments targeting SMEs and start-ups (such as Business and Innovations from Pirkanmaa). The city of Tampere was recently accepted into the new INKA programme, while Tampere is also involved in the OSKE programme via the development company Hermia Ltd. A new EU project (EU-GUGLE) will feature the city of Tampere as one of the six partners involved in sustainable building.

In addition, the Regional Council as well as the Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment supervises EU funded projects that are conducted for instance by the two universities and enterprises. Medical research is one of the strengths of the University of Tampere, and many of the EU funded project relate to the respective field. The Chamber of Commerce has taken part in Interreg projects. Consequently similar projects can be conducted at the same time, and scarce resources are not being used effectively.

Regional development is steered by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy and consequently the ministry is overseeing the related instruments (e.g. OSKE). The new INKA programme will, however, be the responsibility of Tekes and it remains to be seen how quickly Tekes is able to adapt to this new role.

Furthermore, cross-sectoral co-operation is also not embedded in everyday practices of all regional authorities. This is problematic regarding the challenges faced by the region. Too narrow an industry base, availability of skilled workers as well as unemployment are issues that need to be tackled in several sectors simultaneously. This calls for further alignment of activities conducted by various regional authorities. This is somewhat problematic (especially regarding unemployment), since the tasks of regional authorities such as the ELY-Centres are designed at the national level, and the regions have little means to influence on the process.


At the regional level, creating new platforms for innovation and business development, for instance, can support the establishment of start-ups and provide new ways to tackle the grand challenges. The example of Demola (see the good practise case in the next chapter) illustrates how such platforms can act as basis for ideas, innovations, solutions and jobs. The example also illustrates the importance of bringing different actors together to bring new elements into the regional innovation system.

The companies arising from platforms such as Demola provide new jobs and help addressing the unemployment issue. Services provided by the employment agencies, for instance, can help the start-up companies to identify specific labour with skills that meet the company’s requirements. Moreover, there are a number of business support services to new companies and growth companies aimed at taking the enterprises a step further.

3.3 Good practice case

Demola is a publicly funded open innovation platform in which university students together with companies and education institutes develop product and service demo concepts (prototypes) to address real-life problems. Demola concept has been built on a project called Demopaja, which was funded by the Employment and Economic Development Office of Pirkanmaa, the Creative Tampere -programme and Nokia corporation. Furthermore, Hermia Ltd (a networker and accelerator of expertise) was able to inject seed funding through the Centre of Expertise programme, under which it coordinates specific competence clusters.

There was a joint need for a new kind of platforms for startups and this need brought together the private, public and the government sectors with means to support the development process. Consequently Demopaja was established in 2008 for the purpose of creating the Demola concept. From 2008 to 2010 funding was primarily provided by the Creative Tampere programme, as Demola was one of the projects run under the programme. From 2011 the project has been continued under the name of Demola Academy, funded by the Regional Council of Pirkanmaa.

During its first year of activity, Demola had gathered 157 participants, established 30 projects with 15 business partners, created 10 jobs and laid foundation for three start-ups. At the beginning of 2012 more results had been generated: 250 projects with 1500 participants (students, of which 35% foreign) and more than 100 business partners as well as 75 new jobs. The most important results have been the demos and prototypes developed in various projects. As much as 90% of them have been bought by enterprises, thus generating license fees to students worth 700,000 euros.

The basic logic behind the concept is that student teams are entitled to the immaterial rights of the results, which can then be purchased in pre-fixed prices by the participating companies or developed further by new spin-off companies. This gives students experience of real life business projects as part of their studies, whereas companies receive new perspectives and ideas. The student teams have executed projects from several large companies such as Nokia, Yle (national broadcasting company of Finland), Sandvik (engineering company) and UPM (forest industry).

The first Demola was established in Tampere in 2008 and since then the concept has been successfully extended to Vilnius (Lithuania), Budapest (Hungary) and Oulu (Finland, in 2012). Most recently operations have been expanded to east and south Sweden as well as to Maribor in Slovenia. In Finland Demola is coordinated by a private mediator company Hermia Ltd, which also conceptualised Demola in cooperation with Nokia.

The wider effectiveness and impacts of Demola have not been evaluated extensively, but initial results are promising and reactions positive. It is seen that Demola is a good example of open innovation between companies and students. Demola’s strengths are its neutral environment and facilities not solely dependent on any of the participating actors, cost-efficiency and agility and its management of innovation ownership rights


which balances students’ and companies’ needs. Demola also seems to be relative easily transferable to other settings.

In Tampere (Pirkanmaa), Demola has been integrated with two other open innovation concepts Protomoxli and Suuntaamoxlii into “New Factory” platformxliii, which “provides students, self-employed entrepreneurs, researchers and developers with an environment for open innovation, allowing them to process ideas into prototypes, pilot projects, products and services, new business and new jobs”.

Protomo has utilised the basic idea of Demola very successfully and can be described as a new Finnish innovation apparatus that creates new combination of know-how and new companies and jobs for experts. Protomo serves the developers of entrepreneurial ideas as well as young talents and experienced professionals of different trades. For the municipalities Protomo is a chance to create new business and jobs.

The main Protomo idea is to provide facilities, support of the community and sparring from the experts, free of charge, to help develop new services and products for the market. In Protomo it is possible to develop product and service prototypes and spin-off business ideas together with potential clients without immediate risk. Protomo has grown into a national service coordinated by Hermia Ltd. in Tampere. Today there are eight Protomos (in cities of Espoo, Jyväskylä, Kouvola, Lahti, Salo, Seinäjoki, Tampere and Turku) employing over 590 professionals in 191 active teams, having established 223 start-ups since 2009 and having produced over 40 product or service prototypes ready for commercialization.

Suuntaamo is described as an active community that is open to all and through which anyone can contribute to the development and functionality of the living environment and gain access to the creation of new products and services. This is done by enabling people to participate in the innovative operations of companies. The participants of Suuntaamo are invited to brainstorm concepts for new products and services, test demos that are already functional and, at the same time, influence the final features of the related products and services. So far 1969 persons have participated in 83 projects conducted for 45 clients (companies).

Observations from the case:

Innovation processes in the knowledge economy are becoming increasingly complex and interdependent. They require the engagement of all available knowledge and competences (open innovation) and active co-development.

Platforms like Demola and others provide examples on how to design and organize collaboration platforms that can facilitate open innovation processes.

3.4 Towards Smart Specialisation Policies

The sub-regions of Länsi-Suomi are not drafting the RIS3 strategies as such. But the long- and medium-term approaches (regional strategy and regional development programme) come very close to smart specialisation strategies as they take into account the regional characteristics and are built on long-term statistical data that provides the basis for anticipating future developments in the region. Consequently the sub-regions have created their own identities reflecting regional strengths.

Etelä-Pohjanmaa relies on entrepreneurial attitude, and two key themes: the development of the food cluster (significant cluster also at the national level) as well as the Higher Education Institution Network. Increasing attention is also paid to few emerging industries in the region, such as energy and environmental technology.xliv Furthermore, the region is determined to invest in developing the products and services of enterprises in the value chain as well as increasing the relatively low level of tertiary education (compared to many other Finnish regions). Combination of increased level of education and the high number of SMEs holds a promise of a better future. The SMEs, however, require more support and there is a need to create more growth companies to the region.


The neighbouring region of Pohjanmaa is also known for entrepreneurialism, focusing especially on the energy sector. On the other hand the broad range of industries has kept the region less affected by the economic downturn, and this is also reflected in the regional strategy. Other strengths include sustainable regional structure, location and research and educational profile. xlv

Keski-Suomi is described as a versatile and heterogeneous region, in which development as well as national and international co-operation is key issue. The main focus is on education and competences. The high standard of education is ensured by collaborating with universities and universities of applied sciences in other regions. xlvi

The approaches of Pirkanmaa and Keski-Suomi have certain similarities. Pirkanmaa is also focusing on regional competences, combined with the ability to renew the industrial fabric of the sub-region. Renewal also refers to the establishment of platforms that support the creation of new economic activities. Pirkanmaa targets growth and internationalisation in the fields of gaming, biotechnology and well-being by relying on the key strengths such as tertiary education, specialised research and technological applications as well as high R&D expenditure (above national average). xlvii

Satakunta builds future growth on the entrepreneurial attitude of the people (there are a lot of SMEs in this sub-region), attractive natural environment and accessibility as factors contributing to favourable business environment. On the other hand the region has acknowledged the need to improve education (there is no university), the operating environment of business as well as the functionality and resourcing of the regional innovation system. xlviii

All of the five sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi are currently drafting the new regional strategies for the 2014 -2017 period. It is the first time that the process combines drafting of the regional strategy (long-term approach) and the regional development programme (medium-term approach). The two documents will be merged as one strategy which is expected to form a logical entity that still contains the elements described in the law for regional development.

The process will be kept open and interactive, giving voice to various representatives of regional administration, other stakeholders as well as the citizen. All materials produced during the process are uploaded to the Internet pages of the respective regional councils, and anyone interested is encouraged to send feedback via the Internet pages, Facebook or by e-mail.

The sub-regions have slightly different schedules for drafting the new strategy, but tentatively the process proceeds as follows: the first step is to draft the participation and evaluation plan which describes the actual process and how one can impact it. The second step contains a number of workshops with the aim of identifying possible future scenarios. The scenarios form a basis for the content of the strategy. An important step (3) is to organise a round of thematic workshops with the participation of all key stakeholders (identification of focus areas and selection of priorities for development). The three previous steps feed into the next, in which the first draft is written, made public and commented. All feedback is taken into account, and with corresponding amendments the strategy document is finalised.

3.5 Possible Future Orientations and Opportunities

• Focusing on the key strengths

Regional innovation policy in the Finnish regions is about finding a balance between the resources allocated from the state budget for regional development and the various hopes, ideas and needs arising among the regional stakeholders. The regional councils responsible for drafting the regional strategies and development programmes are faced with the difficult task of a) involving a growing number of stakeholders to the planning process and b) trying to focus on developing just a few key strengths,


industries or top projects. This is also linked with the division of labour and (lack of) communication between various public sector authorities with related responsibilities.

• Smart specialisation

Although the sub-regions of Länsi-Suomi do not have smart specialisation as such, regional characteristics have been emphasised for long. Since Finland is in the northernmost corner of Europe, the European markets are not close. The competition on the home market is intense. Building industries on regional characteristics has been a means for specialisation and being competitive in the home market.

For instance in Etelä-Pohjanmaa resources have been invested in developing the higher education sector, and the results have been encouraging. Keski-Suomi on the other hand has a university focused (amongst other subjects) on humanities, and demand for products and services linked to education abroad indicate a potential for a new export industry reaching global markets.

Because traditional industries (such as machinery) are struggling in Pirkanmaa, health and well-being, biotechnology (human ‘spare parts’), games and simulations, ICT/ embedded systems as well as open models for operation are considered new spearheads of innovation activity. There is also potential in optoelectronics and intelligent machines.

Pohjanmaa has one of the most versatile industrial structures of the sub-regions in Länsi-Suomi. The key industry is energy technology which has grown considerably in the last ten years (turnover exceeds €4b, more than 10,000 employed, share of technology exports of Finland in total exceeds 12%). Other strong industries are metal, boat and shipbuilding, wood as well as housing. Digital contents are seen as potential growth industry in the future.

There is an interesting opportunity in Satakunta in the film industry. The regional movie and film production centres have demonstrated functionality as well as necessity (the need of such centres have at times been questioned). Through the centres professional film productions, activities have been conducted in several locations in Finland. One centre is located in Satakunta, and its activities can be further developed, focusing especially on entrepreneurial opportunities in creative industries and related support services. The activities of the centre are supported by a vocational college providing related education.

• Foresight, monitoring and evaluation as means of preparing for the future

The operational environment of the regions has become increasingly unstable and vulnerable to external shocks due to increasing global interconnectedness. Changes in market prices quickly affect the whole value chain and have notable impact for instance on the energy sector or agriculture.

Simultaneously the regions have less resources for implementing activities to strengthen the local innovation system. Therefore it is important to try to anticipate the changes occurring in the region. Statistics are a good tool, but it takes time to gather all related information. On the other hand statistics can be used to validate changes for instance in the employment, age and industrial structures.

Furthermore, the regions need to be able to identify the impacts of regional development activities conducted by the regional authorities. The regional development programmes often have a variety of qualitative objectives, and the success of implementation is assessed against a set of quantitative criteria. Overall the key question is how regional innovation policy affects the development of the region and if the right measures are in place.


Appendix A Bibliography

1. Aro, T. (2013) Maakuntien kilpailykykyanalyysi vuosina 1995 -2012. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/TimoAro/maakuntien-kilpailukykyanalyysi-1995-2012-final

2. ERDF operational programme for Western Finland 2007-2013. Available at: http://www.rakennerahastot.fi/rakennerahastot/tiedostot/esitteet/eakr_lansi_suomi_eng.pdf

3. Etelä-Pohjanmaan liitto (2012). Etelä-Pohjanmaan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014. Available at: http://www.epliitto.fi/upload/files/totsu_2013_14.pdf

4. European Commission. DG Enterprise and Industry. Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ius-2013_en.pdf

5. Eurostat (2013). Research and development expenditure, by sectors of performance. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode=tsc00001&plugin=1

6. Eurostat news release. Industrial production up by 0.7% in euro area. 13.8.2013. Available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-13082013-AP/EN/4-13082013-AP-EN.PDF

7. Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System. Available at: http://www.tem.fi/files/25901/Innovaatiojarjestelman_arviointi_11012010).pdf

8. Helsingin sanomat. Kymenlaakson kilpailukyky on EU-aikana romahtanut eniten, väittää vertailu. 5.8.2013

9. Helsingin sanomat. Pussinperä keikkuu kärkisijoilla. 5.8.2013

10. Industrial structure in Etelä-Pohjanmaa. Available at: http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/seutunet/download/seinajoki/el_ep.ppt

11. Innovations in public procurements -programme of Tekes. Available at: http://www.tekes.fi/about/publicprocurements

12. Keski-Suomen liitto (2012). Keski-Suomen maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014. Available at: http://www.keskisuomi.fi/filebank/23049-TOTSU_2013-2014_MH_24_10_2012_hyvaksyma.pdf

13. Keski-Suomi information. Available at: http://www.keskisuomi.info/avainlukuja/koulutus-ja-osaaminen/vahvuusalat/

14. Maakuntaohjelma aluekehityksen välineenä: näkökulmina vaikuttavuus ja alueen kokonaiskehittäminen (2013). Available at: http://www.pirkanmaa.fi/files/files/Arviointiraportti_Maakuntaohjelma_aluekehityksen_v%C3%A4lineen%C3%A4%281%29.pdf

15. Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2012). Growth through expertise: Action plan for research and innovation policy. Available at: http://www.minedu.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Tiede/tiedepolitiikka/liitteet/Tutkimus-_ja_innovaatiopolitiikan_toimintaohjelma_12_12_2012.pdf

16. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Press release. 6.11.2013. Available at: http://www.tem.fi/alueiden_kehittaminen/tiedotteet_alueiden_kehittaminen?89522_m=112368


17. Musta maanantai. STX:n Rauman telakka suljetaan. 16.9.2013. Available at: http://yle.fi/uutiset/musta_maanantai_stxn_rauman_telakka_lopetetaan/6832688

18. New Factory. Available at: www.uusitehdas.fi/new-factory

19. Pilkahdus. Pirkanmaan ennakointiportaali. Available at: http://www.pilkahdus.fi/fi/etusivu

20. Pirkanmaa introduction. Available at : http://www.pirkanmaa.fi/files/files/pirkanmaa/kuvia%20ja%20karttoja/Pirkanmaa%20esittely.pdf

21. Pirkanmaan liitto (2012). Pirkanmaan toteuttamissuunnitelma muutoksen ostamiselle 2013 -2014. Julkaisu E 21. Available at: http://www.pirkanmaa.fi/files/files/aluekehitys/pdf/Pirkanmaan_toteuttamissuunnitelma_2013-2014.pdf

22. Pohjanmaan liitto (2013). Pohjanmaan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2014. Available at: http://www.obotnia.fi/fi/binaryviewer.aspx?MediaID=2492

23. Protomo. Available at: www.protomo.fi

24. Raumalle äkillisen rakennemuutoksen työryhmä. Satakunnan kansa. 16.9.2013. Available at: http://www.satakunnankansa.fi/Talous/1194839366278/artikkeli/raumalle+akillisen+rakennemuutoksen+tyoryhma.html

25. Regional Development Programme of Etelä-Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014. Available at: http://www.epliitto.fi/?page=maakuntaohjelma_sen_toteuttamissuunnitelma

26. Regional Development Programme of Keski-Suomi 2011 -2014. Available at: http://www.keskisuomi.fi/filebank/11829-Maakuntaohjelma_2010_www.pdf

27. Regional Development Programme of Pirkanmaa 2011 -2014. Available at: http://www.pirkanmaa.eu/files/files/hallinto/julkaisut/pdf/mko_2011_14_netti.pdf

28. Regional Development Programme of Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014. Available at: http://www.obotnia.fi/fi/binaryviewer.aspx?MediaID=5186

29. Regional Development Programme of Satakunta 2011 -2014. Available at: http://www.satakuntaliitto.fi/sites/satakuntaliitto.fi/files/tiedostot/linkki1ID812.pdf

30. Research and Innovation Council of Finland, 2010. Research and Innovation Policy Guidelines for 2011 -2015. Available at: http://www.okm.fi/export/sites/default/OPM/Tiede/tutkimus-_ja_innovaationeuvosto/julkaisut/liitteet/Review2011-2015.pdf

31. Results of the OSKE programme. Available at: http://www.oske.net/tulokset/

32. Satakunta introduction. Available at: http://www.satakuntaliitto.fi/sites/satakuntaliitto.fi/files/tiedostot/Tiedotteet/2013-08-30_Satakunnan%20maakunta%20esitt%C3%A4ytyy.pdf

33. Satakuntaliitto (2012). Satakunnan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014. Available at: http://www.satakuntaliitto.fi/sites/satakuntaliitto.fi/files/tiedostot/linkki1ID990.pdf

34. Suuntaamo. Available at: www.suuntaamo.fi

35. Vaasa information. Available at: http://www.vaasa.fi/Suomeksi/Etusivu/Tietoa_Vaasasta


36. Virtanen, V. (2013) Aluebarometri 2013. Työ- ja elinkeinoministeriön julkaisuja. Alueiden kehittäminen. 49/2012. Available at: http://www.tem.fi/files/35117/TEMjul_49_2012_web.pdf

37. Wallin, J. & Laxell P. (2013). Alueet globaaleissa ekosysteemeissä. Osaamiskeskusohjelman loppuarviointi. Available at: http://www.tem.fi/files/36734/TEMjul_19_2013_web_04062013.pdf

38. Work, entrepreneurship and industries in Etelä-Pohjanmaa. Available at: http://www.etela-pohjanmaa.fi/?page_id=115&lang=fi


Appendix B Stakeholders consulted

1. Petri Räsänen, Director (Innovation and foresight), Regional Council of Pirkanmaa (27.09.2013).

2. Veli-Pekka Päivänen, Development Manager, Regional Council of Keski-Suomi (16.09.2013).

3. Heli Seppelvirta, Regional Development Manager, Regional Council of Etelä-Pohjanmaa (19.8.2013).

4. Irina Nori, Development Planner, Regional Council of Pohjanmaa (06.11.2013).


Appendix C Statistical Data

FI19 LÄNSI-SUOMI Country EU27 Year Performance relative to

Performance relative to

FI19 FI EU27 EU27 SE ECONOMIC INDICATORS GDP per capita (Euros) 30000 33300 24500 2010 122,4 90,1

GDP growth rate - (2000-2010) 3,34 3,07 2,93 2000-2010 114,1 109,0

Long term unemployment rate 1,85 1,71 4,14 2011 223,8 92,4

Labour productivity growth (%) 2,64 2,31 2,20 2000-2010 120,3 114,5

RCI 2013 0,45 0,39 0,00 2013 129,7 102,7

Share of employment in agriculture 0,06 0,04 0,05 2011 114,4 134,5

Share of employment in industry (including construction) 0,27 0,23 0,25 2011 109,2 119,4

Share of employment in business 0,25 0,29 0,30 2011 81,5 86,0

Share of employment in public sector 0,29 0,28 0,25 2011 114,7 102,3

Share of employment in S&T 0,09 0,10 0,09 2011 95,3 83,7

RESEARCH & TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS Employees with ISCED 5-6 (% all employees) 37,4 40,4 30,4 2011 123,0 92,6

Business R&D (% GDP) 915,6 907,1 304,3 2010 300,9 100,9

Government R&D (% GDP) 0,19 0,33 0,26 2010 73,1 57,6

Higher Education R&D (% GDP) 0,75 0,76 0,49 2010 153,1 98,7

EPO patent applications (per mln population) 215,33 240,68 114,99 2008 187,3 89,5


FI19 LÄNSI-SUOMI Country EU27 Year Performance relative to

Performance relative to

Employment in medium-high & high-tech manufacturing (% total employment) 8,35 6,17 6,39 2011 130,7 135,3

Employment in knowledge-intensive services (% total employment) 40,79 42,46 35,32 2011 115,5 96,1

Total R&D personnel (% active population) - numerator in head count - all sectors 2,62 2,99 1,53 2010 171,2 87,6

Structural funds on business innovations (Euros per mln population) 43,23 100,30 77,74 2007-2013 55,6 43,1

Structural funds on core RTDI (Euros per mln population) 37,03 79,12 63,01 2007-2013 58,8 46,8

LABOUR PRODUCTIVITY

B-E - Industry (except construction) 84.401 71.853 2010 100,0 100,0

C - Manufacturing 70.556 74.026 56.378 2010 125,1 95,3

F - Construction 57.609 60.245 43.792 2010 131,6 95,6

G-I - Wholesale and retail trade, transport, accomodation and food service activities 44.197 51.494 37.843 2010 116,8 85,8

J - Information and communication 78.708 89.034 79.994 2010 98,4 88,4

L - Real estate activities 1.028.392 939.809 387.941 2010 265,1 109,4

M_N - Professional, scientific and technical activities; administrative and support service activities

47.135 52.330 39.717 2010 118,7 90,1

BUSINESS INNOVATION INDICATORS

Technological (product or process) innovators (% of all SMEs) 0,71 0,62 0,40 2008 178,3 115,2

Non-technological (marketing or organisational) innovators (% of all SMEs) 0,30 0,38 0,38 2008 79,4 79,2

Innovative SMEs collaborating with others (% of all SMEs) 0,70 0,62 0,37 2008 188,5 113,8

SMEs innovating in-house (% of all SMEs) 0,72 0,65 0,39 2008 185,4 111,4

technopolis |group| Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 12 B-1040 Brussels Belgium T +32 2 737 74 40 F +32 2 727 74 49 E [email protected] www.technopolis-group.com

End Notes

i Industrial structure in Etelä-Pohjanmaa

ii Work, entrepreneurship and industries in Etelä-Pohjanmaa

iii Keski-Suomi information

iv Vaasa information

v Pirkanmaa introduction

vi Satakunta introduction

vii Musta maanantai: STX:n Rauman telakka lopetetaan. 16.9.2013

viii Raumalle äkillisen rakennemuutoksen työryhmä. Satakunnan kansa. 16.9.2013

ix Eurostat news release. Industrial production up by 0.7% in euro area. 13.8.2013.

x Virtanen, V. (2013) Aluebarometri 2013.

xi Eurostat. Research and development expenditure, by sectors of performance

xii Helsingin sanomat. Pussinperä keikkuu kärkisijoilla. 5.8.2013

xiii Aro, T. (2013)

xiv The Research and Innovation Council of Finland, 2010. Research and Innovation Policy Guidelines for 2011 -2015

xv Ministry of Employment and the Economy (2012). Growth through expertise: Action plan for research and innovation policy

xvi Pilkahdus. Pirkanmaan ennakointiportaali.

xvii Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Press release. 6.11.2013

xviii Maakuntaohjelma aluekehityksen välineenä: näkökulmina vaikuttavuus ja alueen kokonaiskehittäminen

xix European Commission. DG Enterprise and Industry. Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013

xx ERDF operational programme for Western Finland 2007-2013

xxi Pohjanmaan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2014

xxii Regional Development Programme of Etelä-Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014

xxiii Regional Development Programme of Keski-Suomi 2011 -2014

xxiv Regional Development Programme of Pirkanmaa 2011 -2014

xxv Regional Development Programme of Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014

xxvi Regional Development Programme of Satakunta 2011 -2014

xxvii Results of the OSKE programme

xxviii Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System

xxix The Research and Innovation Council of Finland, 2010. Research and Innovation Policy Guidelines for 2011 -2015

xxx The innovations in public procurements -programme of Tekes.


xxxi Wallin, J. & Laxell P. (2013). Alueet globaaleissa ekosysteemeissä. Osaamiskeskusohjelman loppuarviointi.

xxxii Helsingin sanomat. Kymenlaakson kilpailukyky on EU-aikana romahtanut eniten, väittää vertailu. 5.8.2013

xxxiii Maakuntaohjelma aluekehityksen välineenä: näkökulmina vaikuttavuus ja alueen kokonaiskehittäminen

xxxiv Etelä-Pohjanmaan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014

xxxv Maakuntaohjelma aluekehityksen välineenä: näkökulmina vaikuttavuus ja alueen kokonaiskehittäminen.

xxxvi Pohjanmaan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2014

xxxvii Keski-Suomen maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014

xxxviii Pirkanmaan maankuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014

xxxix Pirkanmaan maankuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014

xl Satakunnan maakuntaohjelman toteuttamissuunnitelma 2013 -2014

xli Protomo

xlii Suuntaamo

xliii New Factory

xliv Regional Development Programme of Etelä-Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014

xlv Regional Development Programme of Pohjanmaa 2011 -2014

xlvi Regional Development Programme of Keski-Suomi 2011 -2014

xlvii Regional Development Programme of Pirkanmaa 2011 -2014

xlviii Regional Development Programme of Satakunta 2011 -2014

technopolis |group| Belgium Avenue de Tervuren 12 B-1040 Brussels Belgium T +32 2 737 74 40 F +32 2 727 74 49 E [email protected] www.technopolis-group.com

Regional Innovation Monitor Plus - ec. · PDF fileRegional Innovation Report West Finland ......

Documents

Transcript of Regional Innovation Monitor Plus - ec. · PDF fileRegional Innovation Report West Finland ......