1 / 18

Tallinn, 8 November 2012 Dr. Daniel Klimovský

Inter-sectoral partnerships at the regional level in Slovakia: Regional innovation policies and potentials for clustering. Tallinn, 8 November 2012 Dr. Daniel Klimovský. Slovak regions in the EU.

cliff
Download Presentation

Tallinn, 8 November 2012 Dr. Daniel Klimovský

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Inter-sectoralpartnershipsattheregionallevel in Slovakia:Regionalinnovationpolicies and potentialsforclustering Tallinn, 8 November 2012 Dr. Daniel Klimovský

  2. Slovak regions in the EU • The Slovak regions are except for the Bratislava region among the least developed EU regions • In this case we refer to regions at NUTS II regions, namely Bratislava, Western Slovakia, Central Slovakia and Eastern Slovakia

  3. Inter-regionaldisparities I

  4. Inter-regionaldisparities II

  5. Inter-regionaldisparities III A: GDP per capita B: State ofeducationalattainment C: Employment rate D: Invertedunemployment rate E: Averagesalary F: Timechangeofaveragesalary G: Addedvalue per employee H: Timechangeofaddedvalue I: Internet access J: Transport infrastructure

  6. Bratislava region • Bratislava region belongs tothe significantly more developed regions • It is the administrative and political, economic and socio-cultural center of the country • It has a relatively good location, which creates a kind of imaginary synergistic effect

  7. „Clusterpolicy“ in Slovakia • Slovakia lacks an official cluster policy • The first cluster was officially established in 2004 • The 2007-2010 period can be considered as a boom of clusters in Slovakia (13 new clusters) • According to the Innovation Strategy of Slovak Republic for the years 2007-2013 clusters are considered to be a tool that aims at sustainable development, increasing competitiveness and innovation potential of the involved entities

  8. Clusters in Slovakia I • Youngintermsofdurationofexistence • In somecasestheperformances are excellent • Muchsuccessful are thosethatwereestablished by bottom-upapproach • Someofthemwereestablishedlikeanoutcomeof „fashion“ • They are capable to helpthecompaniestoovercomeperiodofcrisis

  9. Clusters in Slovakia II

  10. Method • Method: interviewswithrepresentativesof: • Clusters • Regionalgovernments/localgovernments • Universities/other R&D institutions • Focus on mutualcooperation, understandingofoutcomesfromclustering (networking)

  11. Conclusion 1 • No qualitative differences in terms of institutional and normative settings • There is no qualitative difference among the selected regions in terms of institutional and normative settings of their regional innovation systems

  12. Conclusion 2 • Differences in terms of participation governance • Participation governance is defined like integrative, multi-dimensional, reflective approach which requires/comprises joint working of various stakeholders – followingthis definition we can state that there are significant differences between the Slovak regions • However, in the Trnava region the stakeholders/policy actors are involved into the regional innovation policy in a better way

  13. Conclusion 3 • Lack of regional research and development capacities • It is an incapability of private actors to take part in such processes – this incapability is connected to weak cooperation networks between the private enterprises and research and development institutions • In fact, there are only few strong innovateurs in the regions which spend most of regional research and development capacity

  14. Conclusion 4 • Undeveloped culture of innovation • Many small – i.e. focused on local market – private enterprises or entrepreneurs are not interested in innovations at all because neither their competitors nor suppliers and not even their customers are oriented towards innovations and there is not any pressure for innovative approaches

  15. Conclusion 5 • Lack of regional accountability and willingness to be engaged • Involvementand cooperation of regional governments with other stakeholders in lessdevelopedregionsis in many cases higher or average at least • Universitieswhich are situated in peripheralregions cooperate with otherstakeholdersmore willingly than the universities fromthe capital

  16. Conclusion 6 • Differentunderstandingofmutualimportance • Forlocal/regionalgovernments, privatecompanies are amongthefirstthree most importantpartners • Forprivatecompanies, local/regionalgovernments are 7th – 8th most important partner • Concerninguniversities/R&D institutions, theirimportancedepends on theirspecialization

  17. Potentialforfurtherclustering • Limitedbutstillonecanfindsomeareas • Itisexpectedthat a few new clusterswillbeestablished in thenext 2-3 years (bioenergy, bioagriculturalproduction, wood-processingindustries)

  18. Thankyouforyourattention. daniel.klimovsky@tuke.sk

More Related