Six critical questions about smart specialization

ABSTRACT

During the last five years, we can observe a soaring academic interest in the concept of smart specialization. A burgeoning literature emerged both conceptually and empirically. In this paper, we pause for a while and take stock of six critiques so far identified in this emerging literature. The aim is to provide a critical lens for future research on smart specialization strategies and processes. We argue that: (1) Smart specialization is a confusing concept, as what it really means is diversification; (2) It is largely predicated on a conventional science and technology (S&T) model of innovation and regional economic development, whereas socio-ecological innovation and social innovation, have only been implicitly mentioned, at best; (3) It is the continuation of cluster policies, rather than a brand-new policy instrument; (4) It contains a delusional transformative hope, although the entrepreneurial discovery process could very likely lead to lock-ins; (5) Structurally weak regions might be less likely to benefit from smart specialization; and 6) more rigorous measurements of smart specialization are still needed. By engaging systematically with these six issues, we not only aim to improve the effects of smart specialization as a policy programme, but also to contribute to its conceptual advancement.

KEYWORDS:

• smart specialization
• critical questions
• regional innovation policies
• theoretical concept

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Robert Hassink http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7524-4577

Huiwen Gong http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4764-6867

Notes

1. There still seems to be confusion on how smart specialization strategies differs from cluster policy. One of the authors, for instance, asked at the Kick-off Conference of Maritime Stakeholder Platform in the Baltic Sea Region, supported by the European Commission, in Kiel, 26–27 March 2015, in a Session on Smart Specialization what smart specialization could add to existing cluster policies around the Baltic Sea and nobody could give a satisfying answer.

2. Regional institutional capacity is influenced by national political-administrative systems, giving regions in federal systems more autonomy and often a stronger capacity than regions in centralized systems (see Baier, Kroll, & Zenker, 2013).