The EU initiative for “Smart Specialisation Strategies” (S3) is animating the policy debate thanks to an interesting and innovative approach. However, this rapid success has left some mismatches from theory to practice that have emerged after the first round of implementation, and related considerations. To reflect on the S3 notion, we discuss the cases of Milan and Brussels which, in our view, question relevant theoretical elements: two advanced urban areas with entirely different institutional and spatial settings facing structural challenges and significant opportunities to keep a high level of competitiveness. This article aims to compare these two cases around four analytical dimensions: the multi-scale aspect of issues addressed; the relationships between the urban core and the surrounding areas; the possibility to govern the structural changes in the economy leading to jobs creation; and the capacity to locally embed economic development. We conclude arguing that time and space are fundamental variables to understand the dynamics leading to a ‘successful’ S3 implementation regarding the replicability of experiences associated to the scale of intervention, the long-term effects and risk-taking attitudes.
The EU has characterised regional policies in Europe since 1980s through the ‘Cohesion Policy’ (CP) and is still providing lagging regions with significant amount of funds. Furthermore, these policies have pushed Member States towards institutional decentralisation to better tailor policy intervention across regions. The current crisis has determined strong and highly heterogeneous impacts across EU regions pushing to reconsider main development policies to maximise their effects. While national effects and policies have been largely debated, regional and local consequences of the crisis have been left relatively marginal. In an updated strategic context (EU2020), the EU institutions have approved a reform of the CP as an investment policy aimed at reaching the European growth and jobs targets, and to operate in a radically different context. Specifically, the current reductions in national-regional transfers limit the margin of manoeuvre for regions, determining three main risks: Being incapable to effectively respond to place-specific challenges, reducing capabilities to sustain public investments projects focusing on short-term responses and undermining the process of regional decentralisation that allowed for place-based interventions. In order to address these challenges, the Territorial Capital (TC) approach is a promising explorative hypothesis, based on the recognition of the value of localised assets influencing regional productivity. The fundamental distinction is between the regional endowment of TC and the regional economic performance. According to this approach, the paper proposes to take into consideration these distinctions promoting investments in assets constituting the TC to support long-term regional productivity, and not only on the current regional performance that is affected by the economic cycle. A preliminary analysis is proposed for Italy to show both the decrease in public investments and the possibility to implement the TC approach based on already-available indicators.
In the knowledge era, the importance of highly-qualified human capital has been widely recognized as a key factor for local economic development, especially for those areas specialized in science and technology (S&T). Assuming a regional perspective, the capacity to attract this kind of people is both a sign of territorial competitiveness and a way to further reinforce this by boosting the quality of the local labour market in a self-reinforcing process. In line with this perspective, universities play a fundamental role because they can attract students from elsewhere, and then provide local firms with qualified workers. On the other hand, this process is particularly detrimental for territories suffering ‘brain drain’. This paper aims to show this process of selective migration in the case of Italian S&T university students. Specifically, we use a spatial gravity model to show that university students move from Southern towards Northern regions to study in S&T universities, and this mechanism is driven by the dynamism of local labour markets, and not just by the quality of universities. In our view, these results are supportive of the hypothesis that skill-biased migration occurs also very early in the lives of migrants, i.e., at the time they choose university.
This paper looks at a little-explored role that universities can play: that of representing a channel for brain gain, enabling regions to attract bright students who may decide to stay after they have graduated. In this way, universities can be a source of selective migration processes and possibly of diverging development paths, by augmenting the capability of economically dynamic regions to attract bright people from the lagging regions. In this paper, we argue that student mobility behaviour is a function not only of the quality of universities, but also of local labour market conditions in the destination locations. The paper relies on a gravity model, and shows that graduate migrations respond to several determinants, among which graduate job vacancies (that is, the dynamism of the local labour market) appear to be essential.
Lo sviluppo delle aree metropolitane richiede conoscenze complesse per progettare e implementare le politiche pubbliche. L’acquisizione di queste conoscenze, l’adattamento ai diversi contesti e la capacità di far fronte alle necessità emergenti sono elementi strategici per lo sviluppo territoriale, identificando una nuova area di “governance” orientata all’apprendimento per l’implementazione delle politiche pubbliche.
Partendo da tre casi studio di politiche implementate nella Regione di Bruxelles-Capitale, le strategie messe dei diversi attori saranno discusse alla luce di un contesto di forte regionalizzazione che, a partire dal 1989, ha radicalmente ridefinito il quadro istituzionale belga. Se da un lato le politiche europee hanno agito come stimolo esogeno, le diverse capacità degli attori locale di adattarsi e re-agire alle sfide metropolitane evidenziano la necessità di avere molteplici ed eterogenee fonti di conoscenza, di avere consapevolezza di come queste vengono selezionate ed utilizzate, ed infine di come preservarle nel lungo periodo.
Articolo pubblicato sul numero speciale dei Quaderni Svimez (n. 47).
While R&D activities are known for being unevenly distributed across space, how EU policy contributed to their regional dynamics is less explored. Since the 1980s, the EU Framework Programmes (FP) have promoted and supported transnational R&D projects through open and highly competitive calls for funding driven by ‘scientific excellence’ regardless of location. This paper aims to show the drivers of this spatial distribution and evolution of FP participations, arguing that this depends on cumulative effects of regional economic development and growth, while scientific specialization rarely is the best strategy to improve regional competitiveness in terms of FP participations.
In order to promote “cohesion, competitiveness and cooperation” across Europe, the EU has established a common regional policy to support underdeveloped territories. This EU regional policy required to set up a very complex mechanism to implement such a huge effort to coordinate many interventions across highly differentiated territories. However, those territories are provided with very different institutional settings, and then the mechanism to coordinate all of them becomes particularly complex. The aim of this paper is to discuss the EU multi-level governance for structural funds (SFs), revising the origin, rationale and evolution of this policy in order to identify the limits of the institutional mechanism for the implementation of this policy. These limits will show their effects on the unstable distribution of SFs across the EU regions on a long-term perspective. Results show that the intervention of the EU is neither constant nor stable across regions, independently from their development paths. This instability should provide further arguments on the discussion about the SF policy and governance in order to take into considerations also institutional limits of the EU.