Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
K. Frenken, F. Oort, T. Verburg (2007)
Related Variety, Unrelated Variety and Regional Economic GrowthRegional Studies, 41
K. Arrow (1962)
Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention
R. Veugelers, M. Mrak (2009)
Catching-up Member States and the Knowledge Economy of the European Union
(2009)
Structuring a policy response to a ‘grand challenge
P. Dasgupta (1988)
THE WELFARE ECONOMICS OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTIONOxford Review of Economic Policy, 4
(2013)
Can smart specialisation help overcome the regional innovation paradox ?
M. Trajtenberg (2011)
Can the Nelson-Arrow Paradigm Still Be the Beacon of Innovation Policy?
(2002)
“ Government support for commercial R & D : lessons from the Israeli experience ”
P. Aghion (2011)
Innovation Process and Policy: What Do We Learn from New Growth Theory?
David Bailey, S. Macneill (2008)
The Rover Task Force: A case study in proactive and reactive policy intervention?Regional Science Policy and Practice, 1
(2008)
Open innovation and nanotechnology : an opportunity for traditional industries ”
T. Bresnahan (2011)
Generality, Recombination, and Reuse
P. Romer (1994)
Implementing a National Technology Strategy with Self-Organizing Industry Investment Boards
Alanson Minkler (1993)
The Problem with Dispersed Knowledge: Firms in Theory and PracticeKyklos, 46
(2009)
Smart specialisation: the concept”, Knowledge for Growth: Prospects for Science, Technology and Innovation, Report, EUR 24047
R. Nelson (1959)
The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific ResearchJournal of Political Economy, 67
A. Agrawal, I. Cockburn, Alberto Galasso, Alexander Oettl (2012)
Why are Some Regions More Innovative than Others? The Role of Firm Size DiversityEntrepreneurship
R. Boschma, K. Frenken (2009)
Technological relatedness and regional branching, 47
(2003)
University research, industrial R&D and the anchor tenant hypothesis
Bronwyn Hall, J. Lerner (2009)
The Financing of R&D and InnovationEntrepreneurship & Finance eJournal
A. Agrawal, I. Cockburn (2003)
The Anchor Tenant Hypothesis: Exploring the Role of Large, Local, R&D-Intensive Firms in Regional Innovation Systems
M. Narasimham (2003)
The economics of knowledgeInt. J. Inf. Technol. Manag., 2
D. Foray, D. Mowery, R. Nelson (2012)
Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?Research Policy, 41
Arnaud Houssel, J. Houssel (1992)
L'évolution de la fabrique lyonnaise de soieries / Change in silk manufacturing in the Lyon region, 67
(2013)
“ Time for the real economy : innovative strategies for smart specialisation and the need for new forms of public enterprise ”
M. Percoco (2013)
Strategies of regional development in European regions: are they efficient?Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6
Edurne Montero, M. Aranguren, Mikel Navarro (2011)
Smart Specialisation Strategies: The Case of the Basque CountryOrkestra Working Paper Series in Territorial Competitiveness
S. Berger (2013)
Making in America: From Innovation to Market
R. Hausmann, D. Rodrik (2002)
Economic Development as Self-DiscoveryMacroeconomics eJournal
(2012)
New Structural Economics, The World Bank, Washington, DC
J. Hirshleifer (1971)
The Private and Social Value of Information and the Reward to Inventive ActivityThe American Economic Review, 61
Frank Neffke, M. Henning, R. Boschma (2011)
How Do Regions Diversify over Time? Industry Relatedness and the Development of New Growth Paths in RegionsEconomic Geography, 87
D. Rodrik (2014)
Green industrial policyOxford Review of Economic Policy, 30
D. Rodrik (2004)
Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First CenturyCEPR Discussion Paper Series
(2007)
Normalizing Industrial Policy, paper prepared for the Commission on Growth and Development, September
F. Machlup (1980)
Knowledge : its creation, distribution, and economic significance
Jean-Pierre Houssel (1992)
L'évolution de la fabrique lyonnaise de soieries
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on the distinction between smart specialisation and smart specialisation policy and it studies under what conditions a smart specialisation policy is necessary. Design/methodology/approach – A conceptual framework is built based on historical evidence of successful dynamics of structural changes at regional level qualified as “smart specialisation”. The identification of market and coordination failures that are likely to impede the occurrence of spontaneous process of smart specialisation makes a good case for a smart specialisation policy. Findings – The paper highlights important design principles for the policy process that should help to minimise potential risks of policy failures and policy capture. Research limitations/implications – The paper does assess the effect of smart specialisation on innovation and growth at regional level because it is too early to observe and measure effects. The paper confines itself to conjectures about the effects of such a policy. Practical implications – The paper makes recommendations and explains some of the practicalities about the implementation of the policy at regional level. Originality/value – The paper is one of the first dealing with the topic of smart specialisation policy.
European Journal of Innovation Management – Emerald Publishing
Published: Oct 7, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.