Relations Between Levels of Governance and Benchmarking of RTDI Performances of EU Regions

Relations Between Levels of Governance and Benchmarking of RTDI Performances of EU Regions

Innoregio Conference

Mireille Lacave-Allemand

Michel Lacave

Lacave Allemand & Associés

Lacave Allemand & Associés - Innoregio

2

Introduction (1)• From the 1980’s, regional and local authorities

have been paying more and more attention to RTDI issues :– 2 oil-shocks entailing restructuring of industries– Growing consciousness of an accelerating pace of

innovation requiring more R&D input in businesses

Multiplication of science parks, technological parks, technopoles, based on local/regional initiatives + regional policies and programmes orientated supporting technology transfer and university-industry relationship


3

Introduction (2)• From the 1990’s, globalisation of markets +

implementation of the Single Market + growing rate of innovation in the ICT

dramatic increase of competition between nations and regions

all levels of government under pressure to offer the best possible conditions for innovation

- to existing industries

- to develop high technology/high value added activities : creation or attraction


4

Introduction (3)• Process supported by EU policies and

programmes from 1990 :– Community Initiative STRIDE– SPRINT / Science Parks Consultancy

Scheme– Innovation Programme (D.G. Enterprise) :

RITTS– Innovative Actions (Art. 10, ERDF) : RIS,

RIS+, and regional plans– Role of Structural Funds for promoting

innovation in eligible regions


5

Introduction (4)

• A newcomer from the late 90’s : « science » (and not only technology transfer and technological development) :– « Bio-industries » are typically science-based, the

same for nanotechnologies– National governments are developing « poles of

excellence » in specific regions/areas for improving competitiveness in the field of « global science »

– Scientific activities more and more appear as an « industrial sector » per se


6

Introduction (5)• Regions are more and more willing to support

« science » activities, and not only the classical technology transfer, university-industry relationship, to benefit from « science clusters »– Ex.: Lombardy (I) = support to 2 « centers of

excellence » focused on biotechnologies– Ex.: Midi-Pyrénées, Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur

(F) = « contracts » with CNRS for strengthening scientific strongholds

– Ex.: Oslo Business Region (Norway) = support to Ås agronomical research complex


7

Contents

1. Benchmarking Approach of Regional RTDI Performances

2. The KRELEGO Project


8

Benchmarking Approach (1)

• FP5 STRATA Programme (Strategic Analysis of Specific Political Issues - S&T) :– 2 projects on Benchmarking of Regional Foresight

concerning S&T

– STRATA Consolidating Workshop (April 22-23, 2002) : a paper « Mobilising regional foresight potential for an enlarged EU » (Christoph Koellreuter, Basel) presenting a project on the integration of regional benchmarking of RTDI performances into regional foresight


9


• Regional Innovation Strategies (RITTS, RIS) are exercises which are necessarily linked to some foresight effort at regional level between various actors and partners

• Common objectives of strategies and foresight :– Develop and favour regional cluster externalities

where there are existing regional industry clusters

– Support the creation of new regional industry and science clusters in order to stimulate regional economic development


10


• 5 steps for regional foresight :– Structured anticipation and projections of long-

term social, economic and technological developments and needs

– Interactive and participative methods : all relevant stakeholders have to come to the conclusion of the necessity to change

– Forging new networks and new alliances (intra- and inter-regional)

– Elaboration of a convincing strategic vision : making investments for the future acceptable to stakeholders


11


• Importance of regional benchmarking in this perspective :– Quality of regional foresight can be considerably

improved through an interregional dimension– Extraregional information will give regions a

clearer picture of their position vis-à-vis competing regions about possible futures , attractive policies…and bad ones

– Conditions of regional development will be improved through interregional comparisons of performance, processes, practices, policies and resources and extensive use of such information


12

Benchmarking Approach (5)• In many European countries, the political

competences necessary for innovation enhancing collective action are not at the appropriate level of government : too much power is still concentrated at the nat’l level

• In this case, regional benchmarking is even more important : adequate regional benchmarking is a decisive prerequisite for the elaboration, implementation and continuous evaluation of a strategic vision for the region

• The same for research and poles of excellence decided at nat’l level


13


• Elements of regional benchmarking :– Choice of regions against which the region

under consideration wants to be benchmarked (in principle : within the « league » to which the region belongs and/or neighbouring regions for issues of complementarities, competition and co-operation)


14


• Elements of regional benchmarking :– Comparison of performances with the following

benchmarks : regional GDP per capita and its disaggregation into as many industries as statistically possible

– Environment : CO2 emissions per capita, land use, forest damage, biodiversity,…

– Society : fair participation of all groups in the wealth created, social and cultural life, politics; unemployment rates, income, safety, health,…


15


• Elements of regional benchmarking = Particular attention has to be paid to determinants of regional economic development :– Relative importance of location factors for the

region : surveys covering « location sensitive » companies; quantitative parameters (linking performance indicators to factors contributing to the explanation of regional economic performance


16

Benchmarking Approach (9)Some Conclusions

• Benchmarking is not necessarily with the « best », but with one region (or more) which makes sense

• Benchmarking is about social learning, i.e. a prerequisite for strategic and foresight exercises

• Benchmarking is a continuous task• It is linked to the so-called « Lisbon strategy »


17

Benchmarking Approach (10)Some Conclusions

• RITTS-RIS exercises have in general paid few attention to the politico-institutional « machinery » : MERIT-CURDS Evaluation Study benchmarking has to take into account this aspect (+our own experience)

• All the more because policies and programmes aimed at setting-up « poles of excellence » at national (sometimes regional) level (+ EU) and they have a decisive impact on regional economies concerned


18

The KRELEGO Project (1)

• KRELEGO = Knowledge-based Regions and Levels of Governance

(STRATA Programme (end of FP5) – Call for Proposals 2001 – Accompanying Measures)

• General Objective : contribute to prepare European Regions (EU, EEA, pre-accession) to improve their competitiveness at global level through « science » and RTDI strategies and policies, providing them with a Europe-wide « cadre de référence » regarding relations between levels of governance


19

Objectives (2)

• Specific Objectives :1. Initiating the constitution of a think-tank of policy-

makers, experts, scientists, at both national and regional level in order to clearly identify the objectives of the various groups of key actors concerning RTDI in regions in front of global science and global markets and improve their collaboration


20

Objectives (3)

• Specific Objectives :2. Developing a benchmarking approach relying on :a) Six regional case studies assessing the efficiency

and effectiveness of policies and programmes and benchmarking of the « politico-institutional machinery » with respects to levels of governance and their interaction

b) Follow-up of the implementation of the programmes of « Poles of Excellence » (PoE) in the 6 regions/areas


21

Objectives (4)

• Specific Objectives :3. Proposing a framework for decision-support

scenarios addressing the issue of strategies, policies and programmes of the regions in front of global science and global markets, relying on a 3-dimensional matrix : centralised/federal state – university-dominated research/national organisations-dominated research – presence/absence of an embedded culture of partnership


22

Regions / areas (5)

• Regions/areas concerned with PoE :France : Languedoc-Roussillon (Agropolis and

Genopole) - Rhône-Alpes (Genopole Lyon-Grenoble and PAXIS

Germany : BioRegion Rhein-Neckar Triangle

Italy : Lombardy (PTP and Biopolo, Bio-aree, PAXIS)

Norway : Oslo Business Region (Oslo Teknopol, Centers of Excellence)

Spain : Cantabria (no PoE)


23

Partners (6)

• Partners :France : CEPEL (CNRS), CERAT (CNRS), Lacave

Allemand & Associés)

Germany : BioRegion Rhein-Neckar Triangle, TechnologiePark Heidelberg

Italy : Lombardy Region, Fondazione PTP, Finlombarda

Norway : Oslo Business Region, STEP Group

Spain : SODERCAN, Información y Desarrollo


24

Benchmarks &Problematics (7)

• 4 Benchmarks :– Capacity of the different levels of governance to

identify and define compatible and/or common objectives (1. Objectives)

– Capacity of the different levels of governance to collaborate in implementing their objectives through appropriate instruments and procedures (2. Instruments and Procedures)


25

Benchmarks & Problematics (8)

• 4 Benchmarks :– Capacity of the different levels of governance to

connect and valorise the different types of int’l networking (science, public authorities, business) for improving competitiveness (3. Netwworking)

– Awareness of the different levels of governance of the direct and indirect economic impact of RTDI activities in each/region area (4. Awareness)


26

Methodology (9)

• Implementation of the Benchmarking Approach :

– Review of the explicit regional strategies and policies (RITTS, RIS, Innovative Actions, Contrats de Plan Etat-Région, etc.)

– Interviews of key actors : regional and national policy-makers in the field of RTDI policies, managers of PoE, leading scientists at regional level, innovative companies

– Constitution of a small database– Use of updated statistical data (Eurostat)


27

Next Step : FP6 EoI

• « TERRITORIAL MANAGEMENT OF EXCELLENCE »

• Open to new participants• Follow-up of what will hapen with the FP6

« Networks of Excellence »• Focus on the development of « science

clusters » and how they interact with the regions economies : policy-shaping, policy-making, implementation

• « Public service », « business models », « alternative regulatory models »

Relations Between Levels of Governance and Benchmarking of RTDI Performances of EU Regions

Documents

Transcript of Relations Between Levels of Governance and Benchmarking of RTDI Performances of EU Regions