Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, Sweden and Norway
KATRI SUORSA
Suorsa, Katri (2007). Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, Sweden and Norway. Fennia 185: 1, pp. 15–29. Helsinki. ISSN 0015- 0010.
This article discusses how the national innovation policies in Finland, Sweden and Norway consider regionality, especially peripheral regions. This aspect is of interest considering how these three countries perform well in international competition while having substantial differences between different regions in terms of their economical development. The northernmost parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway are raised as examples as they are especially challenging areas in the context of innovation activities. As a theoretical background I intro- duce the concepts of innovation systems and innovation policy and define the challenges involved when implementing innovation policies in peripheral re- gions. The study is realised by analysing 20 innovation policy documents: ten from Finland, six from Sweden and four from Norway. I use qualitative content analysis as a research method. This investigation shows that, in spite of the im- portance of regions in innovation activities, national innovation policies in the research countries do not consider regionality, or, more specifically, the less- favoured regions. Meanwhile, regional innovation systems, especially institutes of higher education, are seen as important for the economic development and competitiveness of the countries and their national innovation systems.
Katri Suorsa, Department of Geography, PO Box 3000, FI-90014 University of Oulu, Finland or Lönnrot Institute, Kajaani University Consortium, PO Box 51, FI-87100 Kajaani, Finland. E-mail: [email protected].
Introduction tion technology business. In all the Nordic coun- tries, the ICT clusters of the capital cities are im- In a knowledge-based economy, knowledge crea- portant links between national and international tion and knowledge transfer are seen as the most networks (Mariussen 2004: 8). However, there are important devices for innovation creation and, substantial regional differences in innovation ac- subsequently, also for the economic growth of na- tivities and economic development in Finland, tions and regions. The importance of regions as Sweden and Norway. There are peripheral regions key arenas of innovation has increased because especially in the northernmost parts of these coun- the innovation process is, at present, understood tries. Their greatest challenges are their distant lo- as a regional phenomenon. However, when con- cation from the core areas and the lack of key ac- sidering innovations, the term ‘region’ usually re- tors in innovation process and resources, e.g. high- fers to the innovation centres of metropolitan areas tech enterprises, institutes of higher education and in more developed countries. Peripheries, i.e. re- R&D institutes. These factors generally decrease gions with fewer resources that are located far the opportunities for providing education and es- from core areas and main markets, are not nor- tablishing internationally competitive businesses mally recognised in innovation policies and strate- in peripheral regions when compared to the core gies. areas of the countries. Hence, especially young Northern Europe, especially Finland and Swe- people (i.e. potential future experts, entrepreneurs den, have enjoyed success in international compe- and innovators) are moving away from the periph- tition in the field of information and communica- eral northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Nor- 16 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) way (Gløersen et al. 2006; Jauhiainen 2006, derstanding of R&D infrastructures, changes in 2007). economy (i.e. globalisation), increasing co-opera- However, the concept of welfare state is based tion between different sectors of the economy, in- on the idea that all citizens, regardless of their sex, creasing role of ICT and knowledge transfer and age or the region where they live, are equally enti- new paradigms in economic theories (Lundvall & tled to the same rights and opportunities (e.g. edu- Borrás 1997; Biegelbauer & Borrás 2003). When cation and work). This is why equality and a bal- knowledge creation and transfer are considered anced regional development are also considered the most important devices for economic growth in the innovation policies of the Nordic countries and well-being, creating and sustaining innova- (Sotarauta & Srnivas 2005: 35). The policies con- tions are regarded as the keys to improved global sider innovation activities (i.e. research and devel- competitiveness (Cooke 2004; Corona et al. 2006). opment, possibilities for higher education, creat- Therefore, the role of innovation policies and, es- ing new knowledge and products) important for pecially, the tools used to promote companies’ in- the economic development of peripheral regions. novation activities are emphasised. Recent theo- Some innovation policy measures are directed es- ries also emphasise that companies’ ability to in- pecially at the less-favoured regions. For example, novate does not solely depend on the entrepre- the Northern Periphery Programme of the Europe- neurs, as also communities, and especially re- an Union is aimed at the peripheral regions of gions, have an effect on innovation processes Scotland, Norway, Sweden and Finland (Northern (Corona et al. 2006). This is why the focus of in- periphery… 2007). The problem is, however, that novation policies in the 1990s lay on institutions, the regions are faced with quite demanding chal- especially on creating bridging institutions, and lenges that make the promotion of innovation-re- networks. lated economic activities difficult. Lundvall and Borrás (1997: 37) define innova- The present study investigates how national in- tion policies as “elements of science, technology novation policies in three Nordic welfare states, and industrial policy that explicitly aim at promot- Finland, Sweden and Norway, consider peripheral ing the development, spread and efficient use of regions. I will first introduce the theoretical back- new products, services and processes in markets ground of the study and then describe the north- or inside private and public organisations. The ernmost parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway main focus is on the impact on economic perform- with respect to their locational, demographic and ance and social cohesion”. The major objective of economic peripherality and their challenges in im- an innovation policy is to enhance the learning plementing innovation activities. In Finland, the ability of firms, knowledge institutions and people. study area contains the regions of Northern Ostro- An innovation policy should also cope with the bothnia, Kainuu and Lapland; in Sweden, the Nor- possible negative effects of the learning economy, botten County; and, in Norway, Nordland, Troms such as social and regional polarisation (Lundvall and Finnmark. After presenting the background, I & Borrás 1997: 38). However, Tödtling and Trippl will introduce the research methods and materials (2005: 1204) state that innovation and regional as well as the main findings of the study. The study policies emphasising high-tech and knowledge- will end in a discussion of the challenges involved based or “creative” industries are targeted at suc- in enforcing innovation policies to the peripheral cessful regions. regions of northern Europe. The concept of innovation system, which is also used as a theoretical framework in this study, is used in politics to define actors with an effect on Innovation policy and peripherality innovation activities (Miettinen 2002). The main point in the innovation system framework is that Innovation policy and innovation systems innovations are developed through co-operation between different actors (e.g. firms, R&D institutes, In the 1990s, the concept of innovation policy has educational institutes, political organisations, etc.) changed from a research and technology policy to of the system. In that sense, the actors, their co- a more holistic innovation policy that integrates operation and relationships constitute the system other political sectors, such as education and (Lundvall et al. 2002: 219–220). Interactive learn- competition and regulatory, regional, agricultural ing between the actors of the system is emphasised and foreign policies. This results from a new un- especially in territorially based systems of innova- FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 17 tion (Gregersen & Johnson 1997: 482). The focus is to be reached, while the second represents the ef- on the innovation process and the factors that af- fort, time, distance or cost needed to reach them fect that process, not on innovations as such (Nel- (Spiekermann & Neubauer 2002: 7; Spiekermann son 1993). Besides market relations, also other re- & Aalbu 2004: 7–8). In the context of innovation, lations (power relations, trust and loyalty) are con- peripherality can also result from a lack of re- sidered (Lundvall & Maskell 2000: 359–369). A sources and networks. For example, according to functioning innovation system needs actors and Benneworth and Charles (2005: 539), a region can their co-operation at both the national and region- be defined as peripheral if it lacks the knowledge al levels. Political actors (e.g. governments, minis- resources that enable the creation of agglomera- tries) function at the national level and shape na- tion economies and the development of a com- tional systems (e.g. research, education, technolo- petitive advantage in knowledge-based activities. gy and innovation policies). The actual innovation Consequently, Copus (2001) uses the concept of processes happen between these actors at the re- aspatial peripherality to describe regions with gional level in firms, research institutes or projects. poor knowledge resources, e.g. poor quality of the The role of institutes of higher education is empha- local information technology infrastructure and no sised because they develop new knowledge and access or poor access to local, national and global educate people (Nelson 1993; Lundvall et al. institutional structures and networks. The regions 2002). that are aspatially peripheral face the greatest challenges in innovation activities. They need their Peripheries in innovation policy own policy measures to enhance their innovation activities and to prevent social and regional po- The innovation system framework is based on larisation. studies of successful regions, such as the Silicon In the case of innovation, the challenges of less- Valley. The results from those studies have been favoured regions usually lie in the lack of neces- regarded as universal and adaptable to every re- sary infrastructure, social capital, co-operation gion. However, there has lately been a shift of fo- partners and markets (Tödtling & Trippl 2005). The cus to studying also the less-favoured regions. lack of “dynamic clusters” and supporting institu- Nevertheless, the concepts used in studying suc- tions leads to a lower level of innovation activities cessful regions were originally developed to ex- compared with more central and agglomerated re- plain the rise of economically prosperous regions. gions. Therefore, national R&D funding is low in It is, therefore, difficult to adapt them to the condi- peripheral regions. Also networking is low, SMEs tions of economically challenging, less-favoured dominate the business and clusters are often miss- regions (Benneworth & Charles 2005: 540). This is ing or weakly performing. Consequently, less-fa- a challenge especially when the innovation sys- voured regions need to find new solutions for tem framework is used in innovation policy. building dynamic networks and co-operation Rosenfeld (2002) identifies the following three (Tödtling & Trippl 2005: 1208–1210). According types of less-favoured regions: first, older industr- to Morgan and Nauwelaers (1999), the challenge ialised regions dominated by labour-intensive in- is also that sticky “branches” (where tacit knowl- dustries that have lost their cost advantage to new- edge is emphasised and new knowledge is creat- ly industrialised regions, second, semi-industrial- ed) are often located in core regions, while “down- ised regions that had many small craft industries stream” activities are located in peripheries. that operate with low levels of technology and, “Downstream” activities are more mobile and can third, peripheral or less populated regions. The fo- thus move to different regions with lower produc- cus of this study is on peripheral regions. tion costs. Peripherality can originate from the physical/ Hassink (2005) claims that political lock-ins are geographical location or social situation of the re- a development challenge in less-favoured regions. gion. For example, Keeble et al. (1988, in Spieker- Old political practices are regarded effective even mann & Aalbu 2004: 7) define peripheral regions though the needs of industry have changed. Poli- as lacking accessibility to the main markets. In this cy-makers should both learn and unlearn (see also sense, the accessibility of a region determines its Lorenzen 2001). For example, Morgan (2004) crit- competitive advantage or disadvantage. The ac- icises the cluster-building innovation policy used cessibility of a region consists of two functions. in many countries. This policy often develops insti- The first represents the activities or opportunities tutions that supposedly create an innovative cli- 18 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) mate, but it does not consider the private sector. Locational peripherality Such an innovation policy is not effective if the learning ability of the region is not considered. When measuring accessibility (i.e. peripherality) Oughton et al. (2002) refer to the concept of a re- by travel cost indicators and potential accessibili- gional innovation paradox in innovation policy. In ty, the northernmost parts of Finland, Sweden and politics, there is a need to invest on innovation ac- Norway are very or extremely peripheral on the tivities in lagging regions, but the regions have a European scale. ESPON Project 2.1.1 (2007) iden- relatively low capacity to use public funds ear- tifies Kainuu and Finnmark as very peripheral and marked for investment in innovation-related ac- the other regions in the research area as peripher- tivities because of the lacking learning capacity al. The regions and their municipalities are also and infrastructure. According to Morgan and Nau- peripheral on the intra-Nordic scale, especially welaers (1999), the problem in innovation policy municipalities with a poor transport infrastructure is that it is still concentrated on R&D and a narrow (e.g. no airports or railways) (Spiekermann & Aal- understanding of innovation. As a consequence, bu 2004). Because of better motorway networks, less-favoured regions are not considered innova- municipalities in northern Sweden are more ac- tive because they do not have the required compe- cessible than those in northern Finland or Norway tence. (Spiekermann & Aalbu 2004) (Fig. 1). There are six According to Oughton et al. (2002), there is a airports with scheduled service in northern Nor- need for a policy that helps firms in peripheral re- way, five in Sweden and eight in Finland. The gions to utilise public funds. Thus, the policy amount of air travellers was over a million a year should also increase the level of R&D spending in in Tromsø, Langnes and Bodø in Norway; over the business and education sectors as well increase 500,000 in Luleå in Sweden and Oulu in Finland; the region’s ability to absorb public funding. over 100,000 in Alta, Kirkenes and Hammerfest in Hence, the innovative capacity of a firm is related Norway, Kiruna in Sweden, Rovaniemi, Kittilä and to the learning ability of the region. Therefore, Ivalo in Finland; and under 100,000 in Lakselv there is a need for an innovation infrastructure, and Banak in Norway, Gällivare and Pajala in possibilities for learning and creation of new Sweden, Kuusamo, Kajaani, Kemi-Tornio and knowledge. When using a broad understanding of Enontekiö in Finland (Finavia 2006; Statistics Nor- innovation (e.g. new methods in working, better way 2006; Statistics Sweden 2006). However, the and more effective networking relationships, etc.) Nordic peripheral regions are economically more less-favoured regions are considered more innova- developed than other European regions with low tive (Morgan & Nauwelaers 1999). Tödtling and accessibility. National assets and policies in edu- Trippl (2005: 1212–1215) emphasise that, in pe- cation, R&D and innovations help, to a certain de- ripheral regions, innovation policy should concen- gree, to overcome the locational disadvantage trate on “catching up learning”, attracting new (Spiekermann & Neubauer 2002: 36–40). Regard- firms to the region and strengthening potential ing aspatial peripherality (see Copus 2001), north- clusters. ern Finland, Sweden and Norway are not as pe- ripheral as other peripheral regions in Europe. Nevertheless, the Nordic peripheral regions have other disadvantages due to their distant location, Key features of the research area: e.g. very high travel costs of participating in Euro- northern Finland, Sweden and Norway pean co-operation and a high population loss re- sulting from negative net migration (Spiekermann The northern parts of Europe are peripheral when & Neubauer 2002: 36–40). Also, institutions of measuring with locational, demographic and edu- higher education and research centres are small cational as well as economical factors. Therefore, and few in number. northern Finland, Sweden and Norway have many challenges in innovation activities. For example, Demographic peripherality the number of relevant actors, e.g. innovative en- terprises, experts and institutes of higher educa- The northern parts of Finland, Sweden and Nor- tion, is low and geographical distances to main way are sparsely populated (Table 1). The regions markets and between actors are large. Hence, co- are relatively large. For example, the land area of operation and networking are challenging. northern Finland (150,000 km2) is 44.9 percent of FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 19
10° 20° 30° Finnmark
Higher education institute Capital city Alta Largest cities in region Tromsø 70° Airport Railway Troms Lapland
Norrbotten Bodø Northern Rovaniemi Ostrobothnia Nordland 65° Arctic Circle Luleå Kemi Oulu Kainuu
Kajaani
65° SWEDEN
FINLAND
NORWAY
60° Helsinki
60° Oslo Stockholm
0 100 55° Fig. 1. Research area: north- ernmost Finland, Sweden km 10° 20° and Norway.
Table 1. Statistics of the research area. Sources: Statistics Finland 2006; Statistics Norway 2006; Statistics Sweden 2006.
Northern Finland Northern Sweden Northern Norway Northern Kainuu Lapland Norrbotten Nordland Troms Finnmark Ostrobothnia Land area (km2) 35,290 21,567 93,004 98,249 36,074 24,884 45,757 Population 378,006 85,303 185,800 251,740 236,257 153,585 72,937 Population density (people/km2) 10.7 4.0 2.0 2.6 6.5 6.2 1.6 Netmigration 344 –593 –719 –347 –774 285 –402 GDP per capita (€) 26,309 20,620 24,870 28,324 27,236 28,376 24,667 GDP per capita 92 70 85 93 80 83 72 (index: country average=100) Tax revenue (Million €) 1840 386 924 1164 1844 412 1240 (1.6) (per cent of total national) (6.1) (1.3) (3.1) (2.7) (2.4) (0.5) Unemployment rate 10.5 17.5 12.9 7.7 4.7 4.1 5.7 20 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) the area of Finland, but the population (649,000) pulsory school). In all, the level of education in the is only 13.7 percent of the whole population of research region is lower than the national average, Finland. Northern Norway (107,000 km2) contains which is 25 percent in Finland, 34 percent in Swe- 33.0 percent of the land surface of Norway, and den and 24 percent in Norway (Statistics Finland the population (462,000) is 10.1 percent of the 2006; Statistics Norway 2006; Statistics Sweden population. Norrbotten County (98,000 km2) cov- 2006). Furthermore, the level of education is high- ers 22.4 percent of the land area of Sweden, while er in regions with a university. Similarly, economic the population (252,000) is 2.8 percent of the pop- performance seems better in regions where the ulation of Sweden. The municipalities are relative- level of education is higher. ly small. The largest city is Oulu (population 126,000) in northern Finland. Other large cities Economic peripherality are Luleå (population 72,000) in northern Sweden and Tromsø (population 62,000) in northern Nor- ESPON Project 2.1.1 (2007) calculates the typolo- way (Fig. 1). Except for Northern Ostrobothnia in gies of lagging regions on the basis of GDP per Finland and Troms in Norway, the regions in the inhabitant and unemployment rate. In 2001, Kai- research area lost inhabitants in 2005 (Statistics nuu and Lapland were identified as lagging- re Finland 2006; Statistics Norway 2006; Statistics gions, Northern Ostrobothnia as a potentially lag- Sweden 2006). ging region and the other regions in the research As Morgan (2004) states, localised learning is area as non-lagging. Compared with the respec- important in the innovation activities of firms (see tive national averages, the unemployment rates in also Morgan & Nauwelaers 1999; Lorenzen 2001). northern Finland, northern Sweden and northern For localised learning, universities are important Norway are higher (Table 1). The national average while they create new knowledge and educate in Finland is 6.4 percent; in Sweden, 4.6 percent; people. The research area contains four universi- and in Norway, 4.1 percent (Statistics Finland ties and 10 university colleges or universities of 2006; Statistics Norway 2006; Statistics Sweden applied sciences. They are relatively small, espe- 2006). The gross domestic product per capita is cially in Norway (Table 2 and Fig. 1). also lower than the national average. However, Education statistics differ from each other in there are differences in the economic situations Sweden, Norway and Finland. Therefore, compari- between the regions in the research area. Northern son is difficult. In this study, I define higher educa- Ostrobothnia and Norrbotten are close to the na- tion as lasting about 13–14 years (including com- tional average, whereas Kainuu and Finnmark are
Table 2. Education statistics in northernmost Finland, Sweden and Norway. Sources: Ministry of Education 2005; Statistics Finland 2006; Statistics Norway 2006; Statistics Sweden 2006. Region People with a degree on higher Higher education institute (number of students in 2002) education (per cent) Northern Finland Northern Ostrobothnia 23.6 University of Oulu (15,800) University of Lapland (Rovaniemi) (7900) Oulu University of Applied Sciences (4000) Kainuu 18.8 Rovaniemi University of Applied Sciences (3000) Kemi-Tornio University of Applied Sciences (2800) Lapland 20.7 Kajaani Polytechnic (2000) Northern Sweden 29.0 Luleå University of Technology (10,200) Northern Norway Nordland 20.9 University of Tromsø (5500) Bodø university college (4100) Finnmark University College (Alta) (1900) Troms 22.6 Harstad university college (1400) Nesna university college (1100) Narvik university college (1100) Finnmark 19.8 Saami University College (Kautokeino) (200) FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 21 quite far from it. The tax revenue that the state got used also in other studies (e.g. GoodNIP 2003; Eu- from those areas is low. The state got 6.1 percent ropean trend chart… 2005a, 2005b, 2005c). of its tax revenues from Northern Ostrobothnia in The documents will be examined using qualita- 2002, and only 1.3 percent from Kainuu and 3.1 tive content analysis. Content analysis is the most percent from Lapland. The tax revenue from often used method in qualitative research and can Norrbotten county was 2.7 percent of the total tax be performed in many different ways (Tuomi & revenue of Sweden in 2004. Norway offers a tax Sarajärvi 2002: 105), making it a flexible tool of reduction to the residents of the most northern analysis (White & Marsh 2006). I have chosen parts of the country. Therefore, the tax revenues qualitative content analysis as my purpose is to were very low, namely 2.4 percent from Nord- gain a general idea of the innovation policy docu- land, 1.6 percent from Troms and 0.5 percent from ments in the context of regionality and find out Finnmark in 2006. The most important employ- how the regions are discussed in the text. My aim ment sectors are similar in all the research regions. is to analyse the documents as a text, not as a Most people are employed in the service sector means to construct reality (cf. discursive analysis). (especially health care and social work), in indus- This makes qualitative content analysis the most try and trade, hotels and restaurants (Eures 2006; suitable tool (see Tuomi & Sarajärvi 2002: 105). Statistics Finland 2006; Statistics Norway 2006). However, there are some weaknesses in the meth- However, manufacturing, mining and quarrying od. For example, Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2002) argue also employ people in northern Sweden and north- that the analysis of the content analysis is often ern Norway (Eures 2006). only a superficial presentation of the results that are not interpreted properly. White and Marsh (2006) maintain that the qualitative method is sub- Research questions and materials jective. Researchers may miss some of the analyti- cal concepts because the analysis involves inter- The present article discusses the ways the national preting the text while simultaneously counting the innovation policies in Finland, Sweden and Nor- concepts and words. Also the categorisation might way consider regionality. By regionality I mean change during the research (i.e. when the research- regions as such, activities that happen at the re- er finds different or better ways of categorising). In gional level, and the qualities of locations and re- this study I adhered to my first categorisation. gions. The main focus is on less-favoured periph- However, another person might have used other eral regions. I discuss how much the regions are categories or interpreted the concepts differently, considered, what are the main themes connected which might have yielded different study results. them and what kinds of regions are considered in The categories, or analytical constructs (see the innovation policy documents in Finland, Swe- White & Marsh 2006), are based on existing theo- den and Norway, using the northernmost parts of ries and previous research. Regionality and the the countries as examples (Fig. 1). northern periphery are used as the main themes. This study is based on the policy strategy docu- First I marked all the paragraphs that dealt with ments for innovation in the countries in question. I regions (e.g. regional innovation systems, regional investigated the most recent documents from the development, the regional task of universities) and most important public actors of the innovation sys- innovation activities (e.g. education, R&D). In all, tems in Finland, Norway and Sweden. The study 285 paragraphs were selected from Finnish docu- material consists of 20 documents, ten from Fin- ments, 441 from the Swedish and 301 from the land, six from Sweden and four from Norway. Nine Norwegian ones. After that I analysed the selected of them are written in English, four in Finnish, five paragraphs according to the following three cate- in Swedish and three in Norwegian. The analysed gories: society, practical activities and governance. documents are from public funding organisations The categories were divided in subcategories (see and public administration, and they are the most Table 3). I counted the number of times a category significant innovation policy documents from the was used in each document and also studied investigated countries. The documents include the which categories were combined in the docu- actors’ innovation strategies (e.g. the education ments. After that I studied what kinds of regions and research strategy of the Finnish Ministry of were discussed and how the peripheral regions Education) and the innovation policy guidelines of were taken into consideration in innovation-relat- the governments. The same documents have been ed policy documents. 22 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007)
Table 3. Categories used in the analysis. Themes Categories Society Practical activities Governance Regionality economy technology policy Northern periphery regional development education, research co-operation programmes, financial support
Empirical analysis of innovation part of the European System of Innovation. For ex- policies ample, the structural funds, the innovation policy of the EU and the innovation and regional devel- Despite the similarities in the social structures of opment programmes have an effect on innovation Finland, Sweden and Norway, there are differenc- policy and systems in the research countries es in their innovation policies. This derives mostly (Gregersen & Johnson 1997: 486–489). The main from the differences in their economic structure actors of the innovation systems in Finland, Swe- (see Cooke 2004). Norway has rich natural re- den and Norway are mentioned in Appendix 1. sources (e.g. oil) and is dependent on export of The role of the regional level in innovation pol- raw materials. Therefore, it has just recently devel- icy has strengthened during the recent years. Sev- oped a comprehensive research, technology and eral programmes are directed to the development innovation policy. There are large international of regions. The most important are the Centre of corporations in Sweden that are active in R&D. Expertise Programme and Regional Centre Pro- Therefore, expenditure on R&D is high in the pri- gramme organised by the Ministry of the Interior in vate sector. Public R&D funding is relatively low, Finland; Regional Growth Programmes and VIN- but the amount of money invested in it is rising. In NVÄXT organised by VINNOVA in Sweden; and Finland the public sector has influenced the econ- SkatteFUNN in Norway. In addition, there are re- omy, especially the research and innovation poli- gional technology parks in several locations in cy, since the 1960s. One reason is that Finland has Finland, Sweden and Norway (European trend no natural resources besides wood, and has not chart… 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). The innovation had any large, internationally active R&D corpora- policy programmes of the regions mostly deal with tions before Nokia (Gergils 2006; see also Euro- higher education and business development. Nev- pean trend chart… 2006a, 2006b, 2006c). ertheless, the organising actors of the national in- In Finland, Sweden and Norway, the concept of novation systems are physically located in the core an innovation system is used in innovation policy. regions (i.e. the capital city region) of the studied The main public actors are almost the same in countries. Most of the implementing actors (higher these three countries. However, in terms of region- educational institutes, enterprises, technology ality, there are some differences. In Finland and centres, research institutes) are distributed more Sweden there are no actors that would directly widely, although they also tend to be concentrated deal with regional aspects on the national level, in certain regions (see Gergils 2006). whereas in Norway the Ministry of Local Govern- ment and Regional Development is a main actor Innovation policy documents in the studied in the national innovation policy. The tasks of the countries actors also differ slightly between the countries. In Sweden the parliament, the council of state and The material regarding national innovation poli- the ministries design the general policy. The public cies in Finland, Sweden and Norway is varied in funding organisations formulate and realise tech- terms of their specific purpose. Documents written nology and innovation policies (European trend by ministries or governments are mostly proposals chart… 2005a). In Finland the Science and Tech- on how to improve the innovation or research nology Council and in Norway the Research Coun- policies. These documents are more detailed and cil of Norway formulate the innovation policy longer, especially the Swedish and Norwegian which is then implemented by public funding or- proposals from the government. The length of the ganisations and R&D institutes (European trend 20 analysed documents varies from 15 pages (85 chart… 2005b, 2005c). Finland, Sweden and even paragraphs) to 110 pages (455 paragraphs) in Fin- Norway (although not a member of the EU) are land, from 49 pages (172 paragraphs) to 301 pages FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 23
(1336 paragraphs) in Sweden and from 41 pages The analysis indicated that regional aspects (189 paragraphs) to 201 pages (1139 paragraphs) were not considered as important in the national in Norway (see Appendix 2). innovation policy documents. Only 835 of 9641 The analysis shows that in Sweden the innova- paragraphs (8.7 per cent) mentioned regionality tion policy is more focused on the research policy and innovation activities together. There were than in the other two countries. Especially the slight differences between countries. In Finland, headings of the documents mostly deal with edu- the total number of paragraphs in the analysed cation and research. The Swedish documents did documents was 2459, and regionality and innova- not mention the terms ‘innovation policy’ or ‘in- tion activities were mentioned in 285 (11.6 per- novation system’ as often as the Norwegian and cent) of them, in Sweden the total number was Finnish ones. ‘Innovation system’ was a popular 4583 and regionality and innovation activities term particularly in the Finnish documents. This were mentioned in 441 paragraphs (9.7 percent), observation is related to the differences in national while in Norway the total number of paragraphs innovation systems and policies which are more was 2644 and regionality and innovation activities holistic in Finland than in Sweden, where innova- were mentioned in 109 of them (4.1 percent). tion-related policies are mostly directed at educa- There were differences between documents. Some tion and research systems (see Gergils 2006). The focused more on regionality and innovation activi- organisation that published the document affected ties than the others. The difference was based only its content. This was especially evident in Finland, on the purpose of the document, not on the or- where innovation policy is defined by more actors ganisation that had published the document. Some than in Sweden and Norway. For example, docu- documents were directed more to the regional ments by the Ministry of Education and the Acad- level, while the aim of the other documents was to emy of Finland mostly deal with education and develop the whole nation. In Finland, the docu- research subjects. Documents from Tekes (Finnish ment that considered regionality the most was Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) Alueiden elinvoima syntyy innovaatioista (“The vi- and the Ministry of Trade and Industry consider tality of regions arise from innovations”) by Tekes economic topics. All the documents were future- (47.8 percent); in Sweden, En politik för tillväxt oriented: their purpose was to find solutions for och livskraft i hela landet (“A policy for growth and creating successful future policies to develop the vitality for the whole country”) by the government country in question. Nevertheless, most of them (22.0 percent); and in Norway, From idea to value also discussed the past innovation policy, educa- by the Ministry of Trade and Industry (21.7 per- tion and research systems and economic progress cent). as well as present threats to the economy. All the documents emphasised the importance of co-op- Regionality in innovation policy documents eration between actors, and therefore the idea of an innovation system was built into the texts. Nev- When considering regionality, innovation policy ertheless, the innovation system or its actors were documents in Finland, Sweden and Norway dealt not defined in any document. mainly with the same themes (Table 4). The most
Table 4. Main themes in innovation policy documents (number of paragraphs; percents in brackets). Country Economy Regional Education, Cooperation Technology Programmes, Policy Total development research financing Finland 34 39 84 28 2 58 40 285 (11.9) (13.7) (29.5) (9.8) (0.7) (20.4) (14.0) (100) Sweden 60 25 140 35 13 118 50 441 (13.6) (5.7) (31.7) (7.9) (2.9) (26.8) (11.3) (100) Norway 46 13 71 12 6 109 44 301 (15.3) (4.3) (23.6) (4.0) (2.0) (36.2) (14.6) (100) Total 140 77 295 75 21 285 134 1027 (13.6) (7.5) (28.7) (7.3) (2.0) (27.8) (13.0) (100) 24 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) frequently occurring main theme in Finland and Most aid and programmes were only ideas, not Sweden was that of practical activities, especially concrete programmes. Education and research research and education. The role of the education were also often mentioned together with economy system, not only higher education but also basic (106 paragraphs) and co-operation (116 para- and adult education, was considered important for graphs). These paragraphs dealt mostly with higher the development of regions. The documents also education institutions, the importance of educa- emphasised that research in different sectors affect tion and research for regional economical devel- the economy as well as the social development opment, and co-operation between research insti- and welfare of regions. In Norway the main theme tutes and other regional actors. These issues were was governance, especially programmes and fi- emphasised even more when the main category nancing, which were the second in Finland and and subcategory were combined (e.g. economy Sweden. Programmes and funding were either and education + education and economy, 186 concrete programmes or funds aiming to develop paragraphs). This kind of analysis also shows that regions (e.g. funds for less favoured regions in most of the programmes were directed to educa- Sweden) or ideas of programmes aiming to in- tion and research (225 paragraphs), economic crease networking and co-operation between ac- (144 paragraphs) and co-operation (122 para- tors within a region and between regions. This re- graphs) issues rather than to regional development fers to the general idea of innovation policy as a (73 paragraphs). tool for promoting financing and co-operation be- Despite today’s stressed importance of ICT, tech- tween actors. However, the documents did not nology as such was not often mentioned when re- consider regional differences or the actors missing garding innovation activities and regions (see Ta- in regions. This refers to a regional innovation par- bles 4 and 5). The themes addressed with technol- adox: the need to fund innovation activities in all ogy were mainly broadband connections that regions whether or not they can benefit from fund- should cover the whole country or distance educa- ing (see Oughton et al. 2002). tion that is carried out via the Internet. I attempted to find out which themes were men- tioned together by first selecting the main category and then categorising the other themes that were Peripheral regions in innovation policy referred to. Therefore, there could be many sub- documents categories with one main category. The themes most often mentioned together were programmes This study shows that the term ‘region’ was a vague dealing with the economy (130 paragraphs) and concept in innovation policy documents in Fin- education and research (101 paragraphs) (Table 5). land, Sweden and Norway. The regions that were These paragraphs dealt mostly with financial aid named were mostly municipalities or counties, es- or programmes with the purpose of boosting the pecially when talking about less-favoured regions. economic growth of the regions, or education and Successful city regions and rural areas were also research programmes to enhance either the educa- mentioned. Otherwise the term ‘region’ was quite tional level of people or research in every region. abstract, e.g. “regions should enhance their
Table 5. Themes mentioned together in innovation policy documents. Subcategory Main category economy regional education, cooperation technology programmes policy development research economy 42 80 36 19 14 15 regional development 37 44 16 21 9 9 education, research 106 79 116 21 39 21 cooperation 33 17 58 4 21 11 technology 7 8 5 0 0 0 programmes 130 64 186 101 24 45 policy 55 54 68 38 12 35 FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 25 strengths”, “co-operation between universities and ments regarded the growing economical gap be- other regional actors”, “universities improve the tween regions as a threat to the society. Neverthe- regional economy”, etc. When emphasising high- less, the documents considered the concentration er education and the role of universities in region- of economic activities in certain regions with edu- al development, peripheral regions with only a cated workforce and research opportunities as few educational and research institutes are left economically more effective. This shows that the outside the innovation policy measures that are ideas of a welfare society, and especially regional directed to co-operation and building of new policies focusing on the even development of the knowledge. Universities’ spheres of influence whole country and gaining global competitive- were not identified, either. ness, are often in mismatch. However, some docu- Regions are mostly regarded as homogenous in ments emphasised that competitiveness is gained innovation policy documents. Regional differenc- through balanced regional development. es were not considered. Nonetheless, the docu- ments emphasised that regionally specific charac- teristics need to be taken into account when tar- Conclusions geting innovation policy measures. Regarding dif- ferences between regions, Finland was different The purpose of this study was to investigate how than the other two studied countries. The Finnish the national innovation policies in Finland, Swe- documents mostly dealt with growth centres and den and Norway take regionality, especially the their responsibility to develop the surrounding re- less-favoured peripheral regions, into considera- gions that are lagging behind in development. The tion. The analysis shows that regionality is not northern parts of Finland were not mentioned at widely discussed in the Finnish, Swedish and Nor- all. This goes to indicate that the Finnish innova- wegian national innovation policy documents. Re- tion policy is directed more to strong regions than gional innovation systems, and especially the role economically lagging regions. In Sweden and in of institutions of higher education, are seen as im- Norway the documents were more detailed and portant for the countries’ economic development, also peripheral, northern regions were mentioned. competitiveness and national innovation systems. For example, the documents discussed the chal- It is also considered important for every region to lenges (e.g. lack of skilled workforce, entrepre- have the same opportunities for economic and so- neurs and innovative firms) as well as the strengths cial development. Every region should use its own (e.g. the strong space technology cluster in north- strengths in economic development. ern Sweden) of the northern parts of the countries. Innovation policy at the national level does not The Norwegian documents named a number of consider the differences between regions. In fact, programmes directed to northern Norway. The dif- the concept of regionality remains quite abstract in ferences between countries in the amount of de- innovation policy documents. The regions (or their tails in the documents reflect the differences in boundaries) are not defined. This is interesting, be- their innovation policies. According to Gergils cause in the academic debate innovation activities (2006), innovation policies in Sweden and Nor- are seen as regional phenomena (e.g. Lundvall & way are more top-down governed than in Finland, Maskell 2000). Furthermore, institutions of higher where proposals to concrete actions come from education are considered vital for the economic the regions themselves or sectors that implement development of the countries. The co-operation of the actions. This is why the Finnish national inno- institutions of higher education and actors in re- vation policy documents do not discuss regions in gions and between regions is emphasised. How- much detail. ever, regional differences in e.g. the amount of ac- The principles of the welfare state were well il- tors are not considered in the documents. What lustrated by the documents. For example, the doc- exactly is the effective geographical distance be- uments considered it important for all regions to tween actors and how large is the geographical have the same opportunities for education, recrea- coverage of the influence of an institution of higher tion, entrepreneurship and culture. This was espe- education? For example, the institutions of higher cially the case in education and research docu- education in northern Finland, Sweden and Nor- ments. However, regions should also take respon- way are small and distances between them large. sibility for their economical development by en- The national innovation policies in Finland, hancing their areas of strength, since the docu- Sweden and Norway consider balanced regional 26 Katri Suorsa FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) development important. However, most measures ence Foundation of the University of Oulu and the are targeted at regions that already have more pos- Geography Graduate School of Finland. I also much sibilities and strengths than the peripheral regions appreciate the referees’ constructive comments. in the northern parts of the countries. The threat is that regional disparities will grow. To secure bal- anced regional development, public policies need to create programmes to develop regional oppor- REFERENCES tunities for regional innovation activities. Howev- Benneworth P & D Charles (2005). University spin- er, the reality (“what is done”) and the strategies off policies and economic development in less (“what should be done”) are not in line. The chal- successful regions: learning from two decades of lenges of peripheral regions, for example, the policy practice. European Planning Studies 13: 4, northern parts of Finland, are well recognised. Es- 538–557. pecially in Kainuu and Lapland, the population is Biegelbauer PS & S Borrás (2003). Introduction: ideas declining and ageing, unemployment is high and and the transition from technology to innovation policy. In Biegelbauer P & S Borrás (eds). Innova- regions do not attract new businesses or people. tion policies in Europe and the US, 1–16. Ashgate, Many innovation policy measures are supposed to Hampshire. develop the whole country. In reality, some actions Cooke P (2004). Introduction: regional innovation even decrease the opportunities of less-favoured systems – an evolutionary approach. In Cooke P, regions and innovation policy measures do not M Heidenreich & HJ Braczyk (eds). Regional in- reach them. For example, the Ministry of Educa- novation systems. The role of governances in a globalized world, 1–18. 2nd ed. Routledge, Lon- tion is, at present, studying whether there are too don. many institutions of higher education in Finland Copus AK (2001). From core-periphery to polycentric and discussing whether the teaching in certain development: concepts of spatial and aspatial pe- fields of science should be closed in smaller uni- ripherality. European Planning Studies 9: 4, 539– versity units or whether the universities should be 552. united into larger ones. Such decreases in educa- Corona L, J Doutriaux & SA Mian (2006). Building tion funding will have an effect on the affected re- knowledge regions in North America. Emerging technology innovation poles. 301 p. Edward El- gions’ ability to make use of innovation policy gar, Cheltenham. measures and programmes (see Oughton et al. Espon Project 2.1.1 (2007). Spatial typologies NUTS 2002). Most innovation policy programmes are di- level 3.
73 p. European Commission, Enterprise Directo- tional economies. Paper presented at Nordregio, rate-General. April 2004. European trend chart on innovation. Annual innova- Miettinen R (2002). National innovation system. Sci- tion policy report for Norway 2004–2005 (2006c). entific concept or political rhetoric. 168 p. Edita, 61 p. European Commission, Enterprise Directo- Helsinki. rate-General. Ministry of Education (2005). Education statistics. Finavia (2006). Matkustajat: 11/2006. (Passengers:
Innovation Innovation Norway GIEK Ministry of Local and Government Regional Development
Norway (Stortinget) Parliament The Ministry of Education Research Council of Norway (7) Universities Colleges (26) SINTEF Argentum
… 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).
Swedish Private Swedish Private Venture Equity & Capital Knowledge Knowledge Foundation Invest in Sweden Invest Agency European trend chart ALMI Business Partner Ministry of Education, Industry etc., Ministry of Ministry of Environment, Defence, other ministries VINNOVA NUTEK Sweden Government The Ministry of Finance Research Council (21) Universities Colleges (42) Innovation Bridge Industrifonden
Employment Employment and Economic Development Centres Other public research institutes (19) Private Private Venture Capitalists Parliament Ministry of education, Trade Ministry of and Industry, Other ministries TEKES
Technical Technical Centre Research (VTT) Foundation for Foundation Finnish Invention Industry Investment LTD
Finland Government The Technology Science and Council of Finland Academy Universities (20) Polytechnics (29) Sitra Finnvera Finpro Science and Technology Parks
APPENDIX 1. Main actors of innovation systems in Finland, Sweden and Norway (based on Sweden and Norway systems in Finland, APPENDIX 1. Main actors of innovation policy General Promoting and supporting organisations Education and public research organisations Linkages and technology transfer capital Venture support FENNIA 185: 1 (2007) Regionality, innovation policy and peripheral regions in Finland, … 29
APPENDIX 2. Research material. Document1 Published Language Pages/ Analyzed Main theme paragraphs paragraphs (number) Finland 1 2003 English 140 / 373 19 Governance (programmes, financing 8) 2 2001 English 52 / 170 26 Governance (programmes, financing 7, policy 6) 3 2004 English 56 / 402 55 Innovation (education, research 35) 4 2003 Finnish 20 / 84 4 Society (regional development 3) 5 2004 Finnish 110 / 455 43 Governance (programmes, financing 11, policy 19) 6 2003 Finnish 31 / 182 87 Innovation (education, research 23, cooperation 11) 7 2002 English 31 / 230 2 Society 8 2001 English 15 / 85 5 no main theme 9 2003 English 63 / 231 27 Society (economy 4, regional development 10) 10 2006 Finnish 40 / 247 15 Innovation (education, research 16) Sweden 11 2004 English 49 / 172 17 no main themes 12 2000 Swedish 49 / 196 2 no main themes 13 2000 Swedish 301 / 1336 63 Innovation (education, research 36, cooperation 5, technology 2) 14 2001 Swedish 49 / 199 14 Governance (programmes, financing 3, policy 3) 15 2001 Swedish 207 / 1205 266 Governance (programmes, financing 74, policy 33) 16 2005 Swedish 290 / 1430 75 Innovation (education, research 33, cooperation 8) Norway 17 English 41 / 189 40 Governance (programmes, financing 11, policy 9) 18 2003 Norwegian 48 / 353 58 Governance (programmes, financing 32, policy 9) 19 2005 Norwegian 151 / 963 142 Governance (programmes, financing 49, policy 25) (nynorsk) 20 2005 Norwegian 201 / 1139 61 Innovation (education, research 35, cooperation 4)
1 Analysed documents
Finland 1 Academy of Finland: Scientific Research in Finland – A Review of Its Quality and Impact in the Early 2000s; 2 Ministry of Trade and Industry: Business Environment Policy in the New Economy; 3 Ministry of Education: Education and Research 2003–2008. Development Plan; 4 Ministry of Education: Strategy of Ministry of Education 2015 (Opetusministeriön strate- gia 2015); 5 Council of State: Strategy document of the Government 2004 (Hallituksen strategia-asiakirja 2004. Hallituksen poikkihallinnolliset politiikkaohjelmat ja politiikat); 6 Tekes: Alueiden elinvoima syntyy innovaatioista; 7 Tekes: The future is in knowledge and competence; 8 Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland: Innovation Policy: Competent, Learning Competitive Finland; 9 Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland: Knowledge, innovation and interna- tionalisation; 10 Science and Technology Policy Council of Finland: Science, Technology, Innovations (Tiede, Teknologia, innovaatiot)
Sweden 11 Ministry of Industry: Employment and Communication; Ministry of Education: Innovative Sweden; 12 Regeringens prop- osition 1999/2000:81. Forskning för framtiden – en ny organisation för forskningsfinansiering; 13 Regeringens proposition 2000/01:3. Forskning och förnyelse; 14 Regeringens proposition 2001/02:2. FoU och samverkan i innovationssystemet; 15 Regeringens proposition 2001/02:4. En politik för tillväxt och livskraft i hela landet; 16 Regeringens proposition 2004/05:80. Forskning för ett bättre liv
Norway 17 Ministry of Trade and Industry: From Idea to Value. The Government’s Plan for a Comprehensive Innovation Policy; 18 St.prp.nr.51 (2002–2003). Virkemidler for et innovativt og nyskapende næringsliv; 19 St.meld.nr.25 (2004–2005). Om re- gionalpolitiken; 20 St.meld.nr.20 (2004–2005). Vilje til forskning