Stakeholder engagement through entrepreneurial discovery? Lessons from countries and regions in Central and Eastern Europe

Figures & data

Table 1. Baseline factors influencing the potential for a country to design and implement a RIS3

Country	State and centralisation	EU ranking for quality of governance/regional variations	Innovation performanceⁱ	University/industry research collaboration^vi (rank in EU28)	ESIF allocated to TO1^v per capita^viii/ranking (highest to lowest in EU28)
Estonia	Neoliberal, simple polity (unitary, executive government driven)*	16/No regional variation measured (single NUTS2)*	Moderate innovator	13	1
Latvia	Neoliberal, simple (unitary, executive government driven)*	21/No regional variation measured (single NUTS2)*	Moderate innovator	22	3
Lithuania	Neoliberal, simple (unitary, executive government driven)*	23/No regional variation measured (single NUTS2)*	Moderate innovator	12	5
Slovenia	Neocorporatist, compound (unitary, consensus based), but changing*	17/No regional variation measured (single NUTS2)*	Strong innovator	16	6
Czech Republic	Embedded neoliberal, somewhat decentralized (fading stakeholder power)*	18/Moderate regional variations (includes best CEE regions)*	Moderate innovator	18	4
Slovakia	Embedded neoliberal⁰ centralized (from government finance)^vii	20/small regional variations^iii	Moderate innovator	24	2
Croatia	Nonregime (weak state)⁰, strongly centralized	26/No regional variation^iv	Moderate innovator	27	11
Romania	Nonregime (weak state)⁰, strongly centralizedⁱⁱ	27/Large regional variations^iii	Modest innovator	23	18

Sources:

*Karo et al. (2017, pp. 275–6) and Charron et al. (2014); ⁰Bohle and Greskovits (2012)

ⁱThe European Innovation Scoreboard (ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards_en)

ⁱⁱAER (aer.eu/ror2017-weeks-focus-romania)

ⁱⁱⁱCharron et al. (2014)

^ivCharron et al. (2015)

^vThe portion of European Structural and Investment funds (ESIF) allocated for Thematic objective 1 (TO1) out of the whole amount of structural and investment funds provided to a country (see cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/1)

^viGlobal Innovation Index (www.globalinnovationindex.org/analysis-indicator)

^viiUCLG and OECD (2016)

^viiiPopulation data is from Eurostat (ec.europa.eu/eurostat) for 1/1/2013.

Table 2. An overview of the EDP in selected CEE countries and regions

Country/EDP characteristics	EDP with a broad range of stakeholders?	EDP a creative co-design?	EDP extended into implementation?
Lithuania	No	Yes	No
Slovenia	Yes	No	Yes
South Moravian region	No	Yes	Yes
West Romania region	Yes	Yes	Yes

Karo, E., Kattel, R., & Cepilovs, A. (2017). Can smart specialization and entrepreneurial eiscovery be organized by the government? Lessons from Central and Eastern Europe. In S. Radosevic, A. Curaj, R. Gheorghiu, L. Andreescu, & I. Wade (Eds.), Advances in the theory and practice of smart specialization (pp. 269–292). Academic Press.

 Google Scholar

Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2014). Regional governance matters: Quality of government within European Union member states. Regional Studies, 48(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770141

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2012). Capitalist diversity on Europe’s periphery. Cornell University Press.

 Google Scholar

Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2015). Mapping the regional divide in Europe: A measure for assessing quality of government in 206 European Regions. Social Indicators Research, 122(2), 315–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0702-y

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OECD. (2016). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Lithuania 2016.

 Google Scholar