On the policy space of smart specialization strategies

References

• Aghion, P. (2012). Innovation process and policy: What do we learn from new growth theory? In J. Lerner & S. Stern (Eds.), The rate and direction of inventive activity revisited (pp. 515–520). Chicago, IL: NBER, University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, S. (2013). Making in America: From innovation to market. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2011). Technological relatedness and regional branching. In H. Bathelt, M. P. Feldman, & D. F. Kogler (Eds.), Beyond territory, dynamic geographies of knowledge creation, diffusion and innovation (pp. 128–155). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• David, P.A., & Metcalfe, S. (2008). Only connect: Academic-business research collaboration and the formation of ecologies of innovation. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, SIEPR Discussion Paper, n°07–33.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation: The concept. In Knowledge for growth: Prospects for science, technology and innovation. Report, EUR 24047. European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., & Frenken, K. (2016). Related variety and smart specialization, draft. Lausanne: Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne.
   Google Scholar
• Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs. Research Policy, 41(10), 1697–1702. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2006). Doomed to choose: Industrial policy as predicament, draft. Blue Sky Seminar, Center for International Development, Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Haussmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics, 72, 603–633. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3878(03)00124-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hirschman, A.O. (1967/1995). Development project observed. Washington, DC: A.Brookings Classic.
   Google Scholar
• Hirshleifer, J. (1971). The private and social value of information and the reward to inventive activity. American Economic Review, 61(4), 561–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, A. (2012). Choosing races and placing bets: UK national innovation policy and the globalisation of innovation systems. In D. Greenaway (Ed.), The UK in a global world (pp. 37–70). London: Center for Economic Policy Research.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P. (2015). The regional and urban policy of the European Union: Cohesion, results-orientation and smart specialisation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argiles, R. (2015). Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1291–1302. doi:10.1080/00343404.2013.799769
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muscio, A., L. Rivera Leon, & A. Reid. (2015). An empirical test of the regional innovation paradox: Can smart specialisation help overcome the regional innovation paradox? Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(2), 153–171. doi:10.1080/17487870.2015.1013545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Percoco, M. (2013). Strategies of regional development in European regions: Are they efficient? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 6, 303–318. doi:10.1093/cjres/rst011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. (2004). Industrial policy for the 21st century, UNIDO, working paper, Harvard University, reprinted as chapter 4 in: (2007) One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. (2013). Green industrial policy. Working paper. School of Social Science, IAS Princeton.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. (2004). Beyond principal-agent governance: Experimentalist organizations, learning and accountability. Amsterdam: WRR – Wetenschappelijke Raad Voor Het Regeringsbeleid.
   Google Scholar
• Trajtenberg, M. (2012). Can the Nelson-arrow paradigm still be the beacon of innovation policy? In J. Lerner & S. Stern (Eds.), The rate and direction of inventive activity revisited (pp. 679–684). Chicago: NBER, Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Veugelers, R., & Mrak, M. (2009). Catching-up member states and the knowledge economy of the European Union. In Knowledge for growth: Prospects for science, technology and innovation. Report, EUR 24047, European Union.
   Google Scholar