Power Point presentation related to the main conclusions of the publication PLAYING THE LONG GAME: Experimenting Smart Specialisation in the Basque Country written by Edurne Magro, James Wilson, Mari Jose Aranguren, Mikel Navarro and Kevin Morgan. The work analyses the implementation of the Smart Specialisation Strategy RIS3 in The Basque Country. It focuses on the changes that had taken place since 2016 in (i) the actors involved, (ii) the activities underlying the strategy & (iii) the evaluation mechanisms.

1. PLAYING THE LONG GAME:
Experimenting Smart
Specialisation in the Basque
Country
Basque Country & Wales Territorial
Competitiveness Forum
DBS, Bilbao, 27th Feb 2020
James Wilson
@jamierwilson

2. 2
TERRITORIAL STRATEGY & RIS3
• The growing popularity of ‘territorial strategy’ over the last
decade incorporates various elements:
• Recognition of the importance of place-based, context-specific innovation
policies and associated institutions (Barca et al,, 2012; Gertler, 2018)
• Desire to support the structural transformation of regional economies
over time (Boschma and Frenken, 2011, Frenken et al, 2007; Foray, 2018)
• Emergence of ‘new industrial policy’ (or industrial strategy) (Rodrik, 2004;
Bailey et al., 2015, 2018)
• Concern with the need for innovation to be driven by societal challenges
or ‘missions’ (Breznitz et al, 2018; Kuhlman and Rip, 2018; Mazzucato, 2018)
In this context RIS3 has been described as:
“the most ambitious regional innovation
programme ever to be launched in the
European Union” (Morgan, 2017)

3. 3
WIND THE CLOCK BACK TO 2016 …
We presented a
report focused
on the early
implementation
of the Basque
RIS3, from its
launch in 2014
… based on
analysis of
documentation
and interviews
with 36 key
players in the
Basque RIS3

4. 4
BASQUE COUNTRY RIS3
• Basque S3 formally set out in
the Science, Technology and
Innovation Plan 2020,
published at the end of 2014
A key novelty has been the explicit introduction of entrepreneurial discovery
dynamics to a mature innovation system with well-embedded institutions
• Not a radical change: built
on stable & consistent
approach to industrial
development policy over 30
years (continuity-in-change)
1980s
• Industrial
restructuring
• STI Investments
1990s
• Efficiency-driven
competitiveness
• Cluster policy
2000s
• Focus on
innovation
• Diversification
based on R&D
2010s
• Explicit RIS3
• New governance
• ‘entrepreneurial
discovery’

5. 5
RIS3 PRIORITIES
Biociencias
Salud
ScientificandTechnological
Business Capabilities
Opportunity Niches
Food
Urban Habitat
Cultural and Creative
Industries
Ecosystems
Bioscience
Health
Advanced
Manufacturing
Energy

6. 6
RIS3 GOVERNANCE
Key Change: More
distributed leadership,
within & beyond
government
Key Change: A ‘living’
RIS3 must scale-up &
widen innovation
cooperation

7. 7
KEY FINDINGS FROM 2016 STUDY
• Critical voices: New ‘Advisory Group’ playing a direct advisory role to the
President/Ministers and influencing day-to-day decisions
• Breaking down silos: Serious attempts to work across government
departments, partially successful
• Multi-level governance: Mechanisms in place to address multi-level
governance issues, but remain under-developed
• Policy mix evolution: Changes in other policies (cluster policy,
technology & innovation policies) to support the strategy
• EDP Organisation and Structure: Heterogeneous approach across 7
Steering Groups, but emergence of more ‘distributed’ leadership
evident
• Civil society / societal challenges: Remain largely outside of dynamics

8. 8
WIND THE CLOCK FORWARD TO 2019 …
We published a second report which
analyses the evolution of RIS3
implementation in the Basque
Country
… again based on analysis of
documentation and interviews with
28 key players in the Basque RIS3
(from business, government &
research)
… focused specifically on the changes
that had taken place since 2016 in (i)
the actors involved, (ii) the activities
underlying the strategy & (iii) the
evaluation mechanisms

9. 9
PHASES OF STRATEGY
Phase 1: Design
(2014)
•Analysis and
Identification of
Priorities
•Science, Technology
& Innovation Plan
2020
Phase 2: Early
Implementation
(2015)
•New governance
mechanisms
•‘Ground Rules’
•Steering Groups
established
Phase 3:
Implementation
& Evolution
(2016-2019)
• Evolution of Steering
Groups
• Refining Priorities
• Transversal concerns
• Evaluation framework
1st Orkestra Report
2nd Orkestra Report

10. 10
KEY FINDINGS FROM 2019 STUDY
• EDP Organisation and structure: Significant changes, reflecting
experimentation & adaptation of strategy; consolidation of distributed
leadership
• Actors: Greater involvement of firms; recognition of importance of
integrating SMEs; more proactive involvement of universities; continued
absence of civil society actors
• Strategy: Shift to a ‘living strategy’ with different speeds and depths of
steering group dynamics; little change in focus of activities within each
group; but evolution in overall configuration of priorities; movement to
projects at higher TRLs; greater involvement in EU projects
• Evaluation practice: Development of indicator framework for strategy as
a whole; experimentation with evaluation processes in most Steering
Groups

11. 11
2 LEVELS OF INSTITUTIONS SUPPORTING EDP
Level 2: Micro-processes of particularising and valorising priorities
• Emergent, heterogenous processes of entrepreneurial discovery
• Significant granularity in terms of strategic activities
• Involve more and different actors (bottom-up)
• Emergence of distributed leadership
• Supported by emerging activity-specific evaluation processes
• Critical role in fostering experimentation and keeping the strategy alive
Level 1: Overall governance architecture & ‘rules of the game’
• Overarching framework for entrepreneurial discovery to take place
• Very broadly-identified strategic priorities
• Led and shaped by government (top-down)
• Establishment of coordination framework primarily within government
• Development of general evaluation framework
• Critical role in providing coherence at regional level

12. 12
CONCLUSIONS / DISCUSSION POINTS
• Linear plans giving way to living strategies: Reflected in changing
configuration of priorities, but keeping strategies alive requires significant
institutional innovations at the macro & micro levels
• Joined-up and adaptive policy: Silo working cultures & policy inertia not easy
to break down, but territorial strategies combined with new institutional
mechanisms can take steps in that direction
• Monitoring and evaluation: Context of pursuing RIS3 can catalyse advances,
as the need for strategic policy intelligence becomes more visible
• Transversality: Tendency towards addressing transversal issues
(internationalisation, skills, new business models, entrepreneurship),
reflective of inherent difficulties in vertical prioritisation?
• Missing elements: Pending challenges in better integrating SMEs and social
challenges into territorial strategy processes
• Scaling up at EU level: Issues around the voice of regions within EU
dynamics & policy instruments that facilitate inter-regional coordination to
facilitate cross-border value chains

13. 13
AND THE LONG GAME CONTINUES …
• New PCTI Euskadi 2030 currently being developed
o Explicit links to SDGs
o Evolution of priorities
o Linking transitions & transversal initiatives

14. Download at:
www.orkestra.deusto.es/en/research/publications
Thank you
Eskerrik asko
Gracias