Mari Jose Aranguren, Edurne Magro, Mikel Navarro and James Wilson, researchers at Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness, present this paper regarding the multilevel Governance on Smart Specialisation design and implementation processes. The paper was presented at the 3rd International Conference on Geography of Innovation celebrated in Toulouse (France) in January 2016.

1. Governance of the RIS3 Entrepreneurial
Discovery Process:
What is in the Spotlight?
Mari José Aranguren, Edurne Magro, Mikel Navarro and James Wilson
Orkestra and Deusto Business School
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh
Framework Programme for research, technological development and
demonstration under grant agreement number 320131.

2. Territorial Strategy as Discovery
• Territorial strategy undergoing a popularity boom
– In Europe debate being shaped around RIS3
– European Commission Guide (2012) & growing academic literature (Foray, 2013,
2015; Kroll, 2015; McCann & Ortega-Argilés, 2013; Morgan, 2013; Navarro et al,
2013; Thissen et al, 2013; Valdaliso & Wilson, 2015)
• The defining characteristic of a smart specialisation strategy is that priorities
should emerge from an ‘entrepreneurial discovery process’ (EDP)
– Territorial strategy, not government strategy: participation of ‘quadruple helix’
• The design phase of RIS3 has been characterized by ‘entrepreneurial discovery’
to a greater or lesser extent in different regions
– This paper analyses the governance of the RIS3 design process in 8 regions
– It aims to draw implications for the ongoing implementation of RIS3

3. Why Governance?
• EDP requires shift from fixed plans to open processes
– Territorial strategy is ‘alive’
• EDP is sensitive
– Ultimately about making choices about thematic priorities, which are difficult
• EDP is complex
– Multiple levels of territory, multiple layers & domains of decision-making
RIS3 Governance: Dialogue,
involvement, engagement &
coordination processes
through which RIS3 decision-
making takes place
Governance refers to all processes of governing,
whether undertaken by a government, market,
or network, whether over a family, tribe, formal
or informal organization, or territory, and
whether through laws, norms, power, or
language (Bevir, 2012)

4. Governance processes and RIS3 dynamics
• Governance literature recognises the role of different elements affecting
governance modes:
– Importance of the context: socio-economic and structural factors (Edler et al., 2003;
Davoudi et al., 2008)
– Importance of governing (public-private) networks (Peters, 1998; Rhodes, 2007)
– Power relationships between actors; hierarchical and non-hierarchical modes of
coordination (Risse, 2012); from co- ordination to collaboration (OECD, 2012)
– Path dependency (Peters & Pierre, 1998) and change mechanisms, affecting both
the regional structural dimensions and actors dynamics
RIS3 strategies have introduced a greater emphasis on governance relationships
amongst different actors (from a quadruple helix perspective), and it is these
relationships that could really influence the EDP and could make a difference to an
effective RIS3 design and implementation

5. Research Approach
• Smart specialisation is a concept where practical implementation is running
ahead of theoretical understanding
– FP7 smartspec project designed to integrate theoretical developments with ongoing
observation and analysis of RIS practice in case regions
• This research is built from a meta-analysis of 8 of the regional cases that have
been studied as part of the FP7 Smartspec project
– Common set of research questions covering all aspects of RIS3 design process
– Fieldwork conducted between 2014 and the start of 2015
– Interviews with key regional stakeholders & desk analysis of key regional documents
• Analysis of data guided by a proposed RIS3 governance framework

6. RIS3 Governance Framework
Path dependency &
change mechanisms
Quadruple helix
structures and power
RIS3 decision-making dynamics
CONDITIONS
CONDITIONS
Feedsback
Feedsback
General regional features (including economic
specialisation & clusters)
General Regional
context & structure
Institutional
structures &
dynamics
RIS3 Governance

7. Case Regions
Bremen Navarra PACA Scania Basilicata Eszak Alfold North East Slovenia
Country Germany Spain France Sweden Italy Hungary Romania Slovenia
NUTS level of RIS3 NUTS1 NUTS2 NUTS2 NUTS3 NUTS2 NUTS2 NUTS2 NUTS 1
Population (thousands) 664 639 4937 1.411 576 1492 3294 2059
GDP pc (2013, EU28 = 100) 159 116 102 107 69 42 34 82
R&D Spending 2.69 1.79 2.00 3.89 0.57 1.28 0.3 2.59
Regional Innovation
Scoreboard
Follower Follower Follower Leader Moderate Modest Modest Follower/
Moderate
Regional Innovation
System Type
Thick
(spec)
Thick
(spec)
Thick
(div)
Thick
(div)
Thin Thin Thin Thin

8. Quadruple helix structures and power
Bremen Navarra PACA Scania Basilicata Eszak Alfold North East Slovenia
High regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy;
dominant
role for
regional
government
&
development
agencies;
strong
research &
business
actors
(MNCs), but
largely
unconnected
to regional
strategy
Medium
regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; strong
and leading
regional
government;
strong
universities &
research
institutions;
high presence
of MNCs;
strong
employers and
trade unions
associations
Medium regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; very
strong HE and
research
institutions,
linked to policy
but disconnected
from firms; high
presence of small
firms & large firm
subsidiaries;
Numerous
support
institutions;
efforts to
improve public-
private
networking
Low regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; strong
role of regional
government
(co-ordinator);
strong role of
HE and research
institutions;
Strong role of
business related
organisations
(intermediaries)
Medium
regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; Strong
role of regional
government;
weak
university;
strong
presence of
research
centres, but
isolated; high
presence of
MNCs and
weak presence
of SMEs
Low regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; Weak
role for
regional
government;
leading role for
proactive
universities;
limited role for
business
(MNCs
unconnected
to regional
strategy)
Low regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; teaching-
focused HE
institutions with
weak research;
strong public
research
institutions
without
connection with
regional actors;
presence of
MNC branch
plants; low SME
absorptive
capacity
Low regional
autonomy in
innovation
policy; weak
regional councils,
dependent on
municipalities;
strong HE and
research
institutions, not
connected to
firms; high FDI
and weak
domestic firms;
presence of
some NGOs;
Some
interpersonal
networks based
on proximity
Disconnected quadruple helix structures & strong (regional or national) government power

9. Path dependency & change mechanisms
Bremen Navarra PACA Scania Basilicata Eszak Alfold North East Slovenia
RIS3 based on
previous cluster
approach; risk
aversion among
policy-makers;
incremental
change around
path extension
Planning
culture; RIS3
strategy of
some form
since 2010,
with vertical
priorities &
quadruple
helix
involvement;
government
leadership &
economic /
political
context
provide key
change
mechanisms
Strong role for
existing clusters
(competitiveness
poles) in
prioritisation
process; user-
driven
innovation &
concentration on
knowledge
domains with
strong market
potential are key
change
mechanisms
Strong basis
and history of
innovation
policy; shift
from cluster
policy to
platforms, and
from research
based policy to
systemic
innovation
policies;
change through
recombination
Strong path
dependence
driven by EU
influence;
reliance on
creating new
institutions
(layering) as
change
mechanism
Fast changing and
flexible approach
to policy since
joining EU; EU
directives and
national policy
leadership
provide main
change
mechanisms
Path
dependence
determined
by national
level and
vision of key
national
ministries;
RIS 3 process
could be
seen as a
change
mechanism
at regional
level
High turnover
of policies,
fragmentation
and lack of
learning; EU
directives and
political
context provide
main change
mechanisms
Stronger path dependency in more developed regions (with context-specific change
mechanisms), & external (top-down) forces are key sources of change in less developed regions

10. RIS3 decision-making dynamics
Bremen Navarra PACA Scania Basilicata Eszak Alfold North East Slovenia
Government
led; strong role
of RDAs at sub-
regional level;
limited
research & SME
involvement;
some
involvement of
MNCs located
in region
Active PPP to
develop RIS3;
initially
government
led, with
other
stakeholders
as followers;
political
instability led
to
politicisation
& stalling of
process
Widespread
participation;
steering
committee
includes regional
actors & is based
on a permanent
regional
conference on
innovation;
initial frustration
of HE & research
actors with
strong market
orientation
Strong
involvement of
regional triple
helix;
leadership is
systemic &
collective in
nature, lead by
regional
government;
national
government
and large
municipalities
involved in
decision-
making
Regional
government as
managing
authority;
business not
involved; No
formal &
established
participation;
only informal
mechanisms.
Widespread
participation of
quadruple helix at
sub-regional level;
strong university
plays key role;
final decision-
making
dependent on
national level
implementation
RIS3 design
at national
level; didn’t
involve
RDAs,
counties or
firms; inputs
dominated
by HE &
research
institutions
RIS3 designed
at national
level with
limited
participation, &
strong role of
HE and
research
institutions;
mayors, firms
& NGOs
involved in
regional
councils
Remain almost exclusively government led (regional or national), with a key role for research
in some cases, but very little explicit business involvement

11. General Conclusions
• In all cases we can observe that two elements of the quadruple helix dominate,
which tends towards a government-scientific biased ‘entrepreneurial discovery
process’
• Limits between different quadruple helix actors still very much exist: slow
adoption of ‘new governance’
• A variety of coordination mechanisms exist in various stages of development,
and they tend to be more formal where there is a stronger top-down element
to RIS3 design
• The design phase of RIS3 has demonstrated some signs of promoting
mechanisms for change and altering policy path dependencies
• It is often people rather than organisations that are involved in RIS3
governance processes, which creates issues for continuity and highlights the
often overlooked ‘human element’ in innovation strategy/policy

12. Multilevel governance: Specific conclusions and implications
• Multi-level governance appears to be a key element in the design phase of RIS3
strategies
• This is embedded in the institutional structures and dynamics and has been
playing a determining role in shaping RIS decision-making dynamics
• Three typologies emerge:
1. Single level: One clear level has dominated the design phase
2. Top-down multilevel: The design phased has been multi-level, shaped from the national level
3. Networked multilevel: The design phase been multi-level, with balanced engagement
• We hypothesise that these typologies that have strongly marked governance
relationships in the design phase, will be even more important in the
implementation phase
– Signs that RIS3 is forcing multi-level governance issues to be taken seriously
– But very much the start of a process, as funding sources from different levels will shape
possibilities for implementation

13. Thank You / Merci
Mari José Aranguren, Edurne Magro, Mikel Navarro and James Wilson
Orkestra and Deusto Business School
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh
Framework Programme for research, technological development and
demonstration under grant agreement number 320131.