Monitoring innovation and territorial development in Europe: emergent strategic management

References

• Ahner, D., & Landabaso, M. (2011). Regional policies in times of austerity. European Review of Industrial Economics and Policy, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Altman, S. (1979). Performance monitoring systems for public managers. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 31–35. doi:10.2307/3110375
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachtler, J., & Mendez, C. (2011). Administrative reform and unintended consequences: An assessment of the EU cohesion policy ‘audit explosion’. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 746–765. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.586802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barca, F. (2009). An agenda for a reformed cohesion policy: A place-based approach to meeting European Union challenges and expectations. Independent Report Prepared at the Request of Danuta Hübner, Commissioner for Regional Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Barzelay, M. (1997). Central audit institutions and performance auditing: A comparative analysis of organizational strategies in the OECD. Governance, 10(3), 235–260. doi:10.1111/0952-1895.411997041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borras, S. (2012). Three tensions in the governance of science and technology. In D. Levi-Faur (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 429–440). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Capello, R. (2014). Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU cohesion policy reform: Introductory remarks. Scienze Regionali, 1(1), 5–13. doi:10.3280/SCRE2014-001001
   Google Scholar
• Coates, J. F. (1985). Foresight in federal government policymaking. Futures Research Quarterly, 1, 29–53.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, P. (2016). ‘Big data’ and policy learning. In G. Stoker & M. Evans (Eds.), Methods that matter: Social science and evidence-based policymaking. Bristol: The Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission. (2014). Guidance document on monitoring and evaluation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors. (2007). Special report no 1/2007 concerning the implementation of the mid-term processes on the structural funds 2000-2006 together with the commission’s replies, 2007/C 124/01. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament and Council. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European parliament and of the council laying down common provisions on the European regional development fund, the European social fund, the cohesion fund, the European agricultural fund for rural development and the European maritime and fisheries fund and laying down general provisions on the European regional development fund, the European social fund, the cohesion fund and the European maritime and fisheries fund. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union.
   Google Scholar
• Farole, T., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion policy in the European union: Growth, geography, institutions. Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 1089–1111. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2010.02161.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fetterman, D. (2000). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Floc’hlay, B., & Plottu, E. (1998). Democratic evaluation from empowerment evaluation to public decision-making. Evaluation, 4(3), 261–277. doi:10.1177/13563899822208590
   Google Scholar
• Florida, R. (1995). Toward the learning region. Futures, 27(5), 527–536. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(95)00021-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foray, D. (2015). Smart specialisation: Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Gianelle, C., & Kleibrink, A. (2015). Monitoring mechanisms for smart specialisation strategies, S3 policy brief series, 13/2015. Spain: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Hanberger, A. (2011). The real functions of evaluation and response systems. Evaluation, 17(4), 327–349. doi:10.1177/1356389011421697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hummelbrunner, R. (2006). Systemic evaluation in the field of regional development. In B. Williams & I. Imam (Eds.), Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology (pp. 161–180). Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress of Inverness.
   Google Scholar
• Keller, J., Markmann, C., & von der Gracht, H. A. (2015). Foresight support systems to facilitate regional innovations: A conceptualization case for a German logistics cluster. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 15–28. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.12.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kroll, H. (2015). Efforts to implement smart specialization in practice: Leading unlike horses to the water. European Planning Studies, 23(10), 2079–2098. doi:10.1080/09654313.2014.1003036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.
   Google Scholar
• Leeuw, F. L., & Furubo, J.-E. (2008). Evaluation systems: What are they and why study them? Evaluation, 14(2), 157–169. doi:10.1177/1356389007087537
   Google Scholar
• Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2015). Evaluating territorial strategies. In J. M. Valdaliso & J. R. Wilson (Eds.), Strategies for shaping territorial competitiveness (pp. 94–110). Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, P., & Ortega-Argilés, 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
• Mendez, C., & Bachtler, J. (2011). Administrative reform and unintended consequences: An assessment of the EU cohesion policy ‘audit explosion’. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(5), 746–765. doi:10.1080/13501763.2011.586802
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mierlo, B. V., Arkesteijn, M., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Enhancing the reflexivity of system innovation projects with system analyses. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 143–161. doi:10.1177/1098214010366046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning: Reconceiving roles for planning, plans, Planners. New York, NY: Free Press; Maxwell Macmillan Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Navarro, M., Gibaja, J. J., Franco, S., Murciego, A., Gianelle, C., Kleibrink, A., & Hegyi, F. B. (2014). Regional benchmarking in the smart specialisation process: Identification of reference regions based on structural similarity, S3 working paper, 03/2014. Spain: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Öhman, P., Häckner, E., Jansson, A.-M., & Tschudi, F. (2006). Swedish auditors’ view of auditing: Doing things right versus doing the right things. European Accounting Review, 15(1), 89–114. doi:10.1080/09638180500510475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plottu, B., & Plottu, E. (2009). Approaches to participation in evaluation: Some conditions for implementation. Evaluation, 15(3), 343–359. doi:10.1177/1356389009106357
   Google Scholar
• Power, M. (2000). The audit society: Second thoughts. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 111–119. doi:10.1111/1099-1123.00306
   Google Scholar
• Sabatier, P. A. (Ed.). (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F. (1993). Learning by monitoring: The institutions of economic development (Working Paper No. 102). New York, NY: Center for Law and Economic Studies, Columbia University School of Law.
   Google Scholar
• Sabel, C. F. (1995). Intelligible differences: On deliberate strategy and the exploration of possibility in economic life. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Società Italiana degli Economisti, Florence.
   Google Scholar
• Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77. doi:10.1007/s11205-006-0024-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saritas, O., Pace, L. A., & Stalpers, S. I. P. (2013). Stakeholder participation and dialogue in foresight. In K. Borch, S. M. Dingli, & M. S. Jorgensen (Eds.), Participation and interaction in foresight: Dialogue, dissemination and visions (pp. 35–69). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2008). Evaluating European regional innovation strategies. European Planning Studies, 16(8), 1145–1160. doi:10.1080/09654310802315849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar