IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v4y2018i1d10.1057_s41599-018-0136-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The making of responsive innovation policies: varieties of evidence and their contestation in the Basque Country

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Kleibrink

    (European Commission)

  • Edurne Magro

    (Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Deusto Business School)

Abstract

In the European Union (EU) multiple levels of governance interact in the design of public policies. Multi-level policies require a variety of evidence to define problems appropriately, set the right objectives and create suitable instruments to achieve them. How such a variety of evidence is used in practice, however, remains largely elusive. In 2013, the reformed EU Cohesion Policy brought about a sea change in the way governments must justify their investment priorities to support innovation and economic development. One of many new 'ex-ante conditionalities' sought to improve the design of regional innovation policies by putting strong emphasis on the underlying evidence base of policy strategies. A multitude of data sources had to be combined to meet this novel requirement in 120 regional and national strategy documents. Combining various data sources meaningfully was a necessary first step to engage with stakeholders from relevant business and research communities to jointly develop and decide on priorities for public investments. Stakeholder organisations had the opportunity to contest insights coming from official statistics. But how do governments reconcile insights from socio-economic analyses with differing views from stakeholders? We illustrate how such contestation of evidence has unfolded in the Basque Country. In this region, socio-economic analysis and broader stakeholder consultation rapidly confirmed three investment priorities that had been already quite established. Stakeholders from local governments, universities and other government departments contested this choice as not fully representative of the local potential and societal needs. Through their participation in a multi-stakeholder body advising the government they succeeded in adding four priorities that address local societal issues: sustainable food, urban living, culture and environmental protection. Our findings underline that rational planning using statistics gets governments only so far in meeting pressing societal challenges. Stakeholders contesting and complementing statistical insights make policies more responsive to local needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Kleibrink & Edurne Magro, 2018. "The making of responsive innovation policies: varieties of evidence and their contestation in the Basque Country," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-8, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0136-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0136-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-018-0136-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-018-0136-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susana Borrás & Jacint Jordana, 2016. "When regional innovation policies meet policy rationales and evidence: a plea for policy analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(12), pages 2133-2153, December.
    2. Alexander Kleibrink & Carlo Gianelle & Mathieu Doussineau, 2016. "Monitoring innovation and territorial development in Europe: emergent strategic management," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 1438-1458, August.
    3. Måns Nilsson & Andrew Jordan & John Turnpenny & Julia Hertin & Björn Nykvist & Duncan Russel, 2008. "The use and non-use of policy appraisal tools in public policy making: an analysis of three European countries and the European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 41(4), pages 335-355, December.
    4. Inger Midtkandal & Fatime Barbara Hegyi, 2014. "Taking stock of S3 Peer Review Workshops, S3 Working Paper Series No. 07/2014," JRC Research Reports JRC92890, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Henry Mintzberg, 1978. "Patterns in Strategy Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(9), pages 934-948, May.
    6. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & Ron Boschma & Joan Crespo & David L. Rigby, 2019. "Smart specialization policy in the European Union: relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(9), pages 1252-1268, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Alberto Arenal & Claudio Feijoo & Ana Moreno & Sergio Ramos & Cristina Armuña, 2021. "Entrepreneurship Policy Agenda in the European Union: A Text Mining Perspective," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(2), pages 243-271, March.
    2. Panori, Anastasia & Kakderi, Christina & Komninos, Nicos & Fellnhofer, Katharina & Reid, Alasdair & Mora, Luca, 2021. "Smart systems of innovation for smart places: Challenges in deploying digital platforms for co-creation and data-intelligence," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Laima Gerlitz & Christopher Meyer & Christopher Meyer & Gunnar Prause & Gunnar Prause, 2020. "Methodology approach on benchmarking Regional Innovation on Smart Specialisation (RIS3): a joint macro-regional tool to regional performance evaluation and monitoring in Central Europe," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(2), pages 1359-1385, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ricard Esparza-Masana, 2022. "Towards Smart Specialisation 2.0. Main Challenges When Updating Strategies," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 635-655, March.
    2. Xueyan Dong & Jingyu Gao & Sunny Li Sun & Kangtao Ye, 2021. "Doing extreme by doing good," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 291-315, March.
    3. CHEN, Helen S.Y., 2020. "Designing Sustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains," OSF Preprints m82ar, Center for Open Science.
    4. Niklas Lundström & Antti Mäenpää, 2017. "Wicked game of smart specialization: a player’s handbook," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(8), pages 1357-1374, August.
    5. Matthias Firgo & Fabian Gabelberger & Andreas Reinstaller & Yvonne Wolfmayr, 2024. "Assessing Regional Production Potential to Strengthen the Security of Supply in Strategic Products," WIFO Working Papers 670, WIFO.
    6. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    7. Denise M. Keele & Susan DeHart, 2011. "Partners of USEPA Climate Leaders: an Event Study on Stock Performance," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(8), pages 485-497, December.
    8. Bahar, Dany & Rosenow, Samuel & Stein, Ernesto & Wagner, Rodrigo, 2019. "Export take-offs and acceleration: Unpacking cross-sector linkages in the evolution of comparative advantage," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 48-60.
    9. Robert P. Garrett Jr. & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2015. "Internal Corporate Venture Operations Independence and Performance: A Knowledge–Based Perspective," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 39(4), pages 763-790, July.
    10. Enrico Bergamini & Georg Zachmann, 2020. "Exploring EU’s Regional Potential in Low-Carbon Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-28, December.
    11. Benjamin Davies & David C. Maré, 2020. "Delineating functional labour market areas with estimable classification stabilities," Working Papers 20_08, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    12. Stephen J. Procter & Michael Rowlinson & Louise McArdle, & John Hassard & Paul Forrester, 1994. "Flexibility, Politics & Strategy: In Defence of the Model of the Flexible Firm," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 8(2), pages 221-242, June.
    13. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Ben Slimane, Faten & Padilla Angulo, Laura, 2019. "Strategic change and corporate governance: Evidence from the stock exchange industry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 206-218.
    15. Tammy E. Beck & Donde Ashmos Plowman, 2009. "Experiencing Rare and Unusual Events Richly: The Role of Middle Managers in Animating and Guiding Organizational Interpretation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(5), pages 909-924, October.
    16. Hoe Chin Goi & Jiro Kokuryo, 2016. "Design of a University-Based Venture Gestation Program (UVGP)," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 24(01), pages 1-35, March.
    17. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    18. Ekaterina Prytkova, 2021. "ICT's Wide Web: a System-Level Analysis of ICT's Industrial Diffusion with Algorithmic Links," Jena Economics Research Papers 2021-005, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Vargas, Andrés & Sarmiento Erazo, Juan Pablo & Diaz, David, 2020. "Has Cost Benefit Analysis Improved Decisions in Colombia? Evidence from the Environmental Licensing Process," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. Esparza Masana, Ricard & Fernández, Tatiana, 2019. "Monitoring S3: Key dimensions and implications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:4:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-018-0136-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

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

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

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

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

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