Rethinking the Roles of Universities and Polytechnics in a Regional Innovation Environment

The article discusses the case of Finnish universities and polytechnics in re-defining their roles in regional development and especially in regional innovation environment. The so-called third task of universities, together with the regional relevance of polytechnics, has been a central topic in current regional and educational policies. The Finnish system of higher education and research is highly decentralised, including about 50 non-independent regional university units, most of them founded in order to enhance the regional effectiveness of universities. The article introduces the concept of “third task organisations” to describe these units within universities and polytechnics with regional effectiveness as their primary mission. In the article, the role of these units as both regional and scientific actors is discussed. The analysis identifies certain “non-traditional” forms of regional effectiveness of universities and polytechnics in the context of regional innovation environment. Building on this analysis, a new conceptual model of regional effectiveness is developed. As a case study, three different third task organisations within polytechnics and regional university units are analysed. It is argued that they form a challenge to the way universities, and perhaps polytechnics, too, define their role in regional innovation activities. They also problematise the common understanding of the way universities and polytechnics define their division of labour in regional development.

Social Capital in Building Regional Innovative Capability: A Theoretical and Conceptual Assessment

Innovative capability is widely seen to be the driving force in building regional competitive advantage. The present paradigm emphasises the interactive nature of the innovative processes, which sets demands on building regional innovation environment. There are certain theoretical frameworks and concepts that are considered to help in analysing the creation of regional innovative capability in the present networked development environment: social capital, regional innovation system, innovative milieu, learning economy, network leadership, creative tension, etc. These concepts are partly overlapping, but each of them gives different contribution for regional development strategies. Regional innovative capability is understood as firms? and other organisations? common innovative capability in a region. Therefore, it is formed of innovative capability of individual actors and innovation networks taking part in the regional innovation system. This combined innovative capability is, at its best, a lot more than the sum of individual parts of the system, mainly because of the achieved externalities in the networks. Network skills of the actors and mutual trust among the actors are often emphasised as assets for regional innovative capability, especially because of the often complex nature of multi-actor, interactive innovative processes. The concept of social capital is gaining importance in regional research. The concept has no commonly accepted definition, but usually it is understood as a specific form of capital, that is derived from social relations, norms, values and interaction within a community. Trust is often considered to the most important social mechanism creating social capital. It is widely accepted that social capital plays an important role in creating regional innovative capability. However, it is still far from clear what this role exactly is, and its relation to other relevant concepts has not been deeply examined. The current article is an attempt to clarify the conceptual framework related to the concept of social capital in the context of regional development. Another focus of the article is set on assessing the special contribution of social capital (in comparison with the other related concepts) in increasing regional innovative capability. Therefore, the main objectives of the article are: - to analyse the concept of social capital and its relation to other relevant concepts in the context of regional development, and - to explain the role of social capital in building regional innovative capability. A regional innovation system is essentially an unstable field of actors: their values, interests and purposes may differ significantly. Therefore, social capital cannot be based solely on shared values and purposes. We will argue that social capital is best understood as a formation of resources embedded in the social relations of the network. These resources can have their origin in the structural constitution of the network, trust-based relations between actors, or cognitive and emotional commitments to common goals or beliefs. This conception leads us to understand that social capital may play various different roles in the creation of regional innovative capability.

Measuring Regional Innovative Capability

Regional innovation environment has experienced remarkable changes in the recent decades. Innovativeness at regional level is seen as a consequence of networked co-operation in a regional innovation system, which sets demands for new kinds of regional innovation policy applications. The current article presents network-facilitating innovation policy (NFIP) as a policy tool for promoting regional innovative capability. The new policies are crying out for new means for evaluating changes in regional innovation systems. There have been some interesting efforts to develop adequate measures for regional innovativeness. However, there are several problems with the existing measures. There seems to be a lack of clear distinction between innovation performance and innovative capability, and a corresponding neglect of the latter. Moreover, it is argued that the existing measures undermine the processual nature of innovativeness as well as the importance of non-technological innovations. The present article tries to overcome some of these problems in the context of network-facilitating innovation policy. It outlines the framework of network-based innovative capability (NBIC) measure at a regional level. The article also presents the first experiences of applying NBIC measure in the Lahti region in Finland.

Social Capital in Building Regional Innovative Capability: A Theoretical and Conceptual Assessment

Innovative capability is widely seen to be the driving force in building regional competitive advantage. The present paradigm emphasises the interactive nature of the innovative processes, which sets demands on building regional innovation environment. There are certain theoretical frameworks and concepts that are considered to help in analysing the creation of regional innovative capability in the present networked development environment: social capital, regional innovation system, innovative milieu, learning economy, network leadership, creative tension, etc. These concepts are partly overlapping, but each of them gives different contribution for regional development strategies. Regional innovative capability is understood as firms' and other organisations' common innovative capability in a region. Therefore, it is formed of innovative capability of individual actors and innovation networks taking part in the regional innovation system. This combined innovative capability is, at its best, a lot more than the sum of individual parts of the system, mainly because of the achieved externalities in the networks. Network skills of the actors and mutual trust among the actors are often emphasised as assets for regional innovative capability, especially because of the often complex nature of multi-actor, interactive innovative processes. The concept of social capital is gaining importance in regional research. The concept has no commonly accepted definition, but usually it is understood as a specific form of capital, that is derived from social relations, norms, values and interaction within a community. Trust is often considered to the most important social mechanism creating social capital. It is widely accepted that social capital plays an important role in creating regional innovative capability. However, it is still far from clear what this role exactly is, and its relation to other relevant concepts has not been deeply examined. The current article is an attempt to clarify the conceptual framework related to the concept of social capital in the context of regional development. Another focus of the article is set on assessing the special contribution of social capital (in comparison with the other related concepts) in increasing regional innovative capability. Therefore, the main objectives of the article are: - to analyse the concept of social capital and its relation to other relevant concepts in the context of regional development, and - to explain the role of social capital in building regional innovative capability. A regional innovation system is essentially an unstable field of actors: their values, interests and purposes may differ significantly. Therefore, social capital cannot be based solely on shared values and purposes. We will argue that social capital is best understood as a formation of resources embedded in the social relations of the network. These resources can have their origin in the structural constitution of the network, trust-based relations between actors, or cognitive and emotional commitments to common goals or beliefs. This conception leads us to understand that social capital may play various different roles in the creation of regional innovative capability

Rethinking the Roles of Universities and Polytechnics in a Regional Innovation Environment

The article discusses the case of Finnish universities and polytechnics in re-defining their roles in regional development and especially in regional innovation environment. The so-called third task of universities, together with the regional relevance of polytechnics, has been a central topic in current regional and educational policies. The Finnish system of higher education and research is highly decentralised, including about 50 non-independent regional university units, most of them founded in order to enhance the regional effectiveness of universities. The article introduces the concept of "third task organisations” to describe these units within universities and polytechnics with regional effectiveness as their primary mission. In the article, the role of these units as both regional and scientific actors is discussed. The analysis identifies certain "non-traditional” forms of regional effectiveness of universities and polytechnics in the context of regional innovation environment. Building on this analysis, a new conceptual model of regional effectiveness is developed. As a case study, three different third task organisations within polytechnics and regional university units are analysed. It is argued that they form a challenge to the way universities, and perhaps polytechnics, too, define their role in regional innovation activities. They also problematise the common understanding of the way universities and polytechnics define their division of labour in regional development

Measuring Regional Innovative Capability

Regional innovation environment has experienced remarkable changes in the recent decades. Innovativeness at regional level is seen as a consequence of networked co-operation in a regional innovation system, which sets demands for new kinds of regional innovation policy applications. The current article presents network-facilitating innovation policy (NFIP) as a policy tool for promoting regional innovative capability. The new policies are crying out for new means for evaluating changes in regional innovation systems. There have been some interesting efforts to develop adequate measures for regional innovativeness. However, there are several problems with the existing measures. There seems to be a lack of clear distinction between innovation performance and innovative capability, and a corresponding neglect of the latter. Moreover, it is argued that the existing measures undermine the processual nature of innovativeness as well as the importance of non-technological innovations. The present article tries to overcome some of these problems in the context of network-facilitating innovation policy. It outlines the framework of network-based innovative capability (NBIC) measure at a regional level. The article also presents the first experiences of applying NBIC measure in the Lahti region in Finland

Healthcare Access and Quality Index based on mortality from causes amenable to personal health care in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2015 : a novel analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Background National levels of personal health-care access and quality can be approximated by measuring mortality rates from causes that should not be fatal in the presence of effective medical care (ie, amenable mortality). Previous analyses of mortality amenable to health care only focused on high-income countries and faced several methodological challenges. In the present analysis, we use the highly standardised cause of death and risk factor estimates generated through the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) to improve and expand the quantification of personal health-care access and quality for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2015. Methods We mapped the most widely used list of causes amenable to personal health care developed by Nolte and McKee to 32 GBD causes. We accounted for variations in cause of death certification and misclassifications through the extensive data standardisation processes and redistribution algorithms developed for GBD. To isolate the effects of personal health-care access and quality, we risk-standardised cause-specific mortality rates for each geography-year by removing the joint effects of local environmental and behavioural risks, and adding back the global levels of risk exposure as estimated for GBD 2015. We employed principal component analysis to create a single, interpretable summary measure-the Healthcare Quality and Access (HAQ) Index-on a scale of 0 to 100. The HAQ Index showed strong convergence validity as compared with other health-system indicators, including health expenditure per capita (r= 0.88), an index of 11 universal health coverage interventions (r= 0.83), and human resources for health per 1000 (r= 0.77). We used free disposal hull analysis with bootstrapping to produce a frontier based on the relationship between the HAQ Index and the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a measure of overall development consisting of income per capita, average years of education, and total fertility rates. This frontier allowed us to better quantify the maximum levels of personal health-care access and quality achieved across the development spectrum, and pinpoint geographies where gaps between observed and potential levels have narrowed or widened over time. Findings Between 1990 and 2015, nearly all countries and territories saw their HAQ Index values improve; nonetheless, the difference between the highest and lowest observed HAQ Index was larger in 2015 than in 1990, ranging from 28.6 to 94.6. Of 195 geographies, 167 had statistically significant increases in HAQ Index levels since 1990, with South Korea, Turkey, Peru, China, and the Maldives recording among the largest gains by 2015. Performance on the HAQ Index and individual causes showed distinct patterns by region and level of development, yet substantial heterogeneities emerged for several causes, including cancers in highest-SDI countries; chronic kidney disease, diabetes, diarrhoeal diseases, and lower respiratory infections among middle-SDI countries; and measles and tetanus among lowest-SDI countries. While the global HAQ Index average rose from 40.7 (95% uncertainty interval, 39.0-42.8) in 1990 to 53.7 (52.2-55.4) in 2015, far less progress occurred in narrowing the gap between observed HAQ Index values and maximum levels achieved; at the global level, the difference between the observed and frontier HAQ Index only decreased from 21.2 in 1990 to 20.1 in 2015. If every country and territory had achieved the highest observed HAQ Index by their corresponding level of SDI, the global average would have been 73.8 in 2015. Several countries, particularly in eastern and western sub-Saharan Africa, reached HAQ Index values similar to or beyond their development levels, whereas others, namely in southern sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and south Asia, lagged behind what geographies of similar development attained between 1990 and 2015. Interpretation This novel extension of the GBD Study shows the untapped potential for personal health-care access and quality improvement across the development spectrum. Amid substantive advances in personal health care at the national level, heterogeneous patterns for individual causes in given countries or territories suggest that few places have consistently achieved optimal health-care access and quality across health-system functions and therapeutic areas. This is especially evident in middle-SDI countries, many of which have recently undergone or are currently experiencing epidemiological transitions. The HAQ Index, if paired with other measures of health-systemcharacteristics such as intervention coverage, could provide a robust avenue for tracking progress on universal health coverage and identifying local priorities for strengthening personal health-care quality and access throughout the world. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

Forouzanfar MH, Afshin A, Alexander LT, et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. LANCET. 2016;388(10053):1659-1724.Background The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2015 provides an up-to-date synthesis of the evidence for risk factor exposure and the attributable burden of disease. By providing national and subnational assessments spanning the past 25 years, this study can inform debates on the importance of addressing risks in context. Methods We used the comparative risk assessment framework developed for previous iterations of the Global Burden of Disease Study to estimate attributable deaths, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and trends in exposure by age group, sex, year, and geography for 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks from 1990 to 2015. This study included 388 risk-outcome pairs that met World Cancer Research Fund-defined criteria for convincing or probable evidence. We extracted relative risk and exposure estimates from randomised controlled trials, cohorts, pooled cohorts, household surveys, census data, satellite data, and other sources. We used statistical models to pool data, adjust for bias, and incorporate covariates. We developed a metric that allows comparisons of exposure across risk factors-the summary exposure value. Using the counterfactual scenario of theoretical minimum risk level, we estimated the portion of deaths and DALYs that could be attributed to a given risk. We decomposed trends in attributable burden into contributions from population growth, population age structure, risk exposure, and risk-deleted cause-specific DALY rates. We characterised risk exposure in relation to a Socio-demographic Index (SDI). Findings Between 1990 and 2015, global exposure to unsafe sanitation, household air pollution, childhood underweight, childhood stunting, and smoking each decreased by more than 25%. Global exposure for several occupational risks, high body-mass index (BMI), and drug use increased by more than 25% over the same period. All risks jointly evaluated in 2015 accounted for 57.8% (95% CI 56.6-58.8) of global deaths and 41.2% (39.8-42.8) of DALYs. In 2015, the ten largest contributors to global DALYs among Level 3 risks were high systolic blood pressure (211.8 million [192.7 million to 231.1 million] global DALYs), smoking (148.6 million [134.2 million to 163.1 million]), high fasting plasma glucose (143.1 million [125.1 million to 163.5 million]), high BMI (120.1 million [83.8 million to 158.4 million]), childhood undernutrition (113.3 million [103.9 million to 123.4 million]), ambient particulate matter (103.1 million [90.8 million to 115.1 million]), high total cholesterol (88.7 million [74.6 million to 105.7 million]), household air pollution (85.6 million [66.7 million to 106.1 million]), alcohol use (85.0 million [77.2 million to 93.0 million]), and diets high in sodium (83.0 million [49.3 million to 127.5 million]). From 1990 to 2015, attributable DALYs declined for micronutrient deficiencies, childhood undernutrition, unsafe sanitation and water, and household air pollution; reductions in risk-deleted DALY rates rather than reductions in exposure drove these declines. Rising exposure contributed to notable increases in attributable DALYs from high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, occupational carcinogens, and drug use. Environmental risks and childhood undernutrition declined steadily with SDI; low physical activity, high BMI, and high fasting plasma glucose increased with SDI. In 119 countries, metabolic risks, such as high BMI and fasting plasma glucose, contributed the most attributable DALYs in 2015. Regionally, smoking still ranked among the leading five risk factors for attributable DALYs in 109 countries; childhood underweight and unsafe sex remained primary drivers of early death and disability in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Interpretation Declines in some key environmental risks have contributed to declines in critical infectious diseases. Some risks appear to be invariant to SDI. Increasing risks, including high BMI, high fasting plasma glucose, drug use, and some occupational exposures, contribute to rising burden from some conditions, but also provide opportunities for intervention. Some highly preventable risks, such as smoking, remain major causes of attributable DALYs, even as exposure is declining. Public policy makers need to pay attention to the risks that are increasingly major contributors to global burden. Copyright (C) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd