Cluster analysis of regional innovation activity in Russia in 2010-2015

In this article, the indicators of innovation activity in Russian regions are discussed and the regions are divided into five groups, according to their performance in these indicators. Our cluster analysis is based on the recent research and includes several groups of indicators such as innovation activity of enterprises, training of highly qualified personnel, research and development, state support for innovation, and application of innovative technologies. We used the data provided by Rosstat (Federal State Statistics Service) for 83 Russian regions in the period between 2010 and 2015. In terms of their innovation activity, Russian regions can be divided into five groups, two of which are Moscow and St.Petersburg, the two biggest Russian cities that play a special role in Russian economy. Overall, the level of innovation activity in Russia can be assessed as lower middle, although in the given period some regions managed to improve their performance in this sphere. The average level of innovation activity varies considerably across regions, which means that the state innovation policy should be more diversified. Moscow, St.Petersburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Sverdlovsk regions have demonstrated consistent high-level performance and can thus be regarded as prospective centres of innovation. These centres can positively influence the neighbouring areas through the knowledge and technology spillover effect. Although no definitive conclusion can be drawn about the connection between the regions' geographical location and their innovation activity, there is evidence that the most active Russian regions tend to concentrate in the European part of the country. Our findings can be used as guidelines for devising and modifying federal and regional innovation policies.This research was supported by RFBR, research project 18-010-01190 А ' Models of innovation development factors and comparative advantages analysis in the Russian economy’

Assessing overall network structure in regional innovation policies: a case study of cluster policy in the West Midlands in the UK

Revisiting the theoretical roots of the key concepts of “embeddedness” and “networks” that underpin many recent regional innovation polices, this paper strives to achieve a more systematic understanding of the overall network structure of geographic agglomerations, which helps to form a more convincing model of regional development based on learning. This also helps to establish an analytical framework with indicators to assess the overall network structure in regional innovation policies. Employing the framework, the examination of cluster policy in the West Midlands highlights its weakness in addressing the overall cluster network structure and the contingent factors influencing the structure. The analysis suggests that there may be similar weaknesses in other regional innovation policies and the theories underpinning them as they share a common weakness in addressing the structural characteristics of overall networks

Indicators of university-industry knowledge transfer performance and their implications for universities: evidence from the UK’s HE-BCI survey

Focusing on the measurement of universities’ performance in knowledge transfer, we outline some critical issues connected with the choice of appropriate indicators: in particular, we argue that, in order to allow universities to correctly represent their knowledge transfer performance, indicators should include a variety of knowledge transfer activities, reflect a variety of impacts, allow comparability between institutions, and avoid the creation of perverse behavioural incentives. To illustrate these issues empirically, we discuss the case of the United Kingdom’s Higher Education –Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey. We show that the indicators used to measure and reward universities’ engagement in knowledge transfer are not fully comprehensive, they are better suited to capture the impact of certain types of activities than others and they are influenced by institutional strategies and characteristics rather than simply reflecting different performances. The conclusions explore some promising directions to address some of these problems

Large-scale transformation of socio-economic institutions - comparative case studies on CEECs: interim report

The general idea is to follow the Varieties-of-Capitalism literature on generating indicators on the economic systems actually implemented. However, this literature mostly concentrates on the enterprise (or micro) level in traditional OECD countries, categorizing countries between the extremes: liberal market economies and controlled market economies. It largely neglects the role of the government spending, the transition of former socialist countries and developing countries, and the political process behind the choice of an economic system. We broaden the perspective by combining the Varieties-of-Capitalism with the Worlds-of-Welfare-States literature in order to provide a comprehensive view on government activities in transition. With the perspective of our contribution to WWWforEurope, we concentrate especially on social welfare, innovation systems, macro stability, and, of course, how these aspects work together (or not) and are explained by the political background. We will a cluster analysis for OECD and European transition countries and comparative country studies on Slovakia and Hungary. These countries are of special relevance because they represent extreme cases (Slovakia: significant switch in transition path towards star performer, Hungary: muddling towards problem case). One part of the comparative work concentrates on the comparison of Slovakia with other new EU members that also face to challenge of state building after dissolution of one or the other sort (Czech Rep. and the Baltics). The other part of the comparative work concentrates on Hungary in comparison with the other EU-CEECs. A broad based comparison will most likely be possible on available data only. The possibility for deeper qualitative comparisons will have to be determined during the project. The comparative components will focus on the macroeconomic background (Slovakia) and the welfare state (Hungary) respectively. Cluster analysis (initially forseen for MS25) and comparative country studies allows us to draw conclusions for the EU by providing a first comparison of the position of CEECs with respect to the “old” EU members, most interestingly the southern crisis countries that are often categorized into a form called mixed market economies with sometimes contradicting institutional set ups. Do CEECs converge towards prototype models or do they (still) constitute own models

Evaluation of the main achievements of cohesion policy programmes and projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions (from 1989-1993 programme period to the present)

Against a background of inconclusive evidence of the results of EU Cohesion policy since 1989, the aim of this study has been to evaluate the main achievements of EU Cohesion policy programmes and projects and their effectiveness and utility over the longer term in 15 selected regions of the EU15. Specifically, the main objectives of the study were twofold: (i) to examine the achievements of all programmes co-financed by the ERDF and, where applicable, the Cohesion Fund, which have been implemented in the 15 selected regions from 1989 to 2012 (regional programmes and national programmes implemented in the regions); and (ii) to assess the relevance of programmes and the effectiveness and utility of programme achievement

The changing face of innovation policy: implications for the Northern Ireland economy

No description supplie

Estándares territoriales de innovación : análisis de las regiones de Portugal

Competitiveness among regions and innovation dynamics are intimately related and depend on a solid and effective innovation system. This study aims to measure innovativeness in different Portuguese regions and to evaluate the nature of the innovation process and the relationship between innovativeness and its region of origin. To characterize the territorial innovation processes and to identify innovation patterns by regions, it analyzes their main distinctive factors, based on the Community Innovation Survey results for each region. Thus, it compares the Portuguese regions by verifying the existence of subjacent clusters and finding out the characteristics that distinguish the different groups of regions. The results point to the existence of four groups of regions, and the factors identified are related to the innovation process, namely objectives of innovation, sources of innovation, collaborative networks, triple helix performance, and obstacles to innovation.RESUMEN: La competitividad entre las regiones y la dinámica de la innovación están íntimamente relacionadas y dependen de un sistema de innovación sólida y eficaz. Este estudio tiene como objetivo medir la capacidad de innovación en diferentes regiones portuguesas y evaluar la naturaleza del proceso de innovación y la relación entre la capacidad de innovación y su región de origen. Para la caracterización de los procesos de innovación territoriales y identificar estándares de innovación en las regiones, este artículo analiza sus factores distintivos principales, con base en los resultados de las encuestas comunitarias sobre innovación para cada región. Por lo tanto, se comparan las regiones portuguesas mediante la verificación de la existencia de agrupaciones subyacentes y descubrir las características que distinguen a los diferentes grupos de regiones. Los resultados apuntan a la existencia de cuatro grupos de regiones, y los factores identificados están relacionados con el proceso de innovación, es decir, los objetivos de la innovación, las fuentes de innovación, redes de colaboración, el funcionamiento de la triple hélice, y los obstáculos a la innovación.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Policy Lessons from the Fifth EWCS: The Pursuit of More and Better Jobs

[Excerpt] This report examines the evidence and policy lessons that can be drawn from the findings of the fifth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) carried out in 2010. The focus is on the links between working conditions and labour market participation in the light of the EU’s longstanding policy pursuit of more and better jobs. The report also assesses how the EWCS is valued by policy users and researchers, and where its further development or usage could enhance EU policy on employment and social developments. The contribution of the fifth EWCS was assessed on the basis of the mix of evidence available to policymakers, including: the extent to which EWCS data or findings are cited or used by representatives of European and national authorities, research centres and researchers; secondary analyses of EWCS data and other research which addresses current policy concerns; interviews with key users of EWCS data, especially those working in EU-level policymaking and research centres. The current economic and social policy concerns and objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy are not dramatically different from those in earlier times. However, there has been a steady increase in the level of cooperation between Member States around a mutual learning and target-based approach, supported by greater use of monitoring indicators. While the EWCS initially focused on evidence on working conditions, it has progressively developed its coverage. Today it embraces a range of issues including workplace organisation and innovation, patterns of working time and job quality. The EWCS has been particularly successful in highlighting trends, convergences and divergences through the development of indicators of policy concerns such as the quality of jobs or workplace risks (physical or psychological). It has provided new insights and understanding – often through innovative multidisciplinary research – on matters such as the relationship between different aspects of life at the workplace, and between the workplace and the household