Knowledge Dynamics and Policies for Regional Development: Towards a New Governance Paradigm

Abstract

If regional policies are to make a difference, they must address the underlying issues that propel growth in successful regions and hamper development in others. This implies that in the wake of structural changes like the ongoing change from an industrial towards a knowledge-economy paradigm, policies for regional economic development must be reconsidered. This article reviews the development of new forms of regional policy in the context of the governance challenges created by the emergence of new knowledge dynamics. Having outlined a conceptual framework and reviewed the literature on the transformation of regional policy in Europe, the article explores current policy patterns in European regions, combining the results of a survey of the policies regional development bodies in European regions, and the findings about the impact of public policies on the basis of an extensive series of in-depth case studies of economic change processes in firms and regions. It is concluded that although important changes have taken place with regard to adopting policies to emerging processes in the knowledge economy, further adjustments may be called for in order for localities to fully benefit from new knowledge dynamics in an increasingly global era.

Notes

At the national and European levels, systematic surveys have been undertaken as part of policy monitoring such as the work undertaken by the European Policies Research Centre at Strathclyde University by Douglas Yuill, John Bachtler and colleagues.

EU 27 except the two most recent members (Bulgaria and Romania) and the three micro-states (Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus).

For a full list of the organizations, see Halkier (2010).

For more details on the case study methodology used, see Halkier et al. (2010, pp. 6–8).

Calculated on the basis of the 2007 RDA survey database (N = 181 for organizations, 670 for policies) as reported in Halkier (2010).

Calculated on the basis of the 2007 RDA survey database (N = 181 for organizations, 670 for policies) as reported in Halkier (2010).

Calculated on the basis of the 2007 RDA survey database (N = 670 for policies) as reported in Halkier (2010).

Thanks are due to Rudolf Pastor, Stewart MacNeill, Andrea Stocchetti, Lise Smed Olsen, Margareta Dahlström, Karina Madsen Smed, Jesper Manniche and Robert Kaiser who undertook the analyses of policy impacts in across the sectors covered by the “EURODITE” case studies.

The transformation of percentage shares into tennis balls depends on the number of dimensions, which is either 3 or 4. In both cases, occurrence in less than 5% of the case studies was translated into “absent”, “present” required 5–24% or 5–19%, respectively, “common” 25–40% or 20–30%, respectively, and very common more than 40% or 30%. In all tables, the “all cases” category refers to analysis across all cases regardless of sector (rather than the mean of the relative scores for the seven sectors).