December 2006 Peripheral Localities and Innovation Policies Learning from good practices between the Nordic countries Editors: Seija Virkkala and Kristiina Niemi Participants: _____________________________________________________________________ Finland Seija Virkkala, project manager, Chydenius Institute – Kokkola University Consortium Kristiina Niemi, Chydenius Institute – Kokkola University Consortium Iceland Hjalti Jóhannesson, University of Akureyri Research Institute (RHA) Guðmundur Ævar Oddsson, University of Akureyri Research Institute (RHA) Elín Aradóttir, University of Akureyri Research Institute (RHA) Norway Åge Mariussen, NIFU STEP Trond Einar Pedersen, NIFU STEP Sweden Riikka Ikonen, Nordregio Mats Johansson, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Folke Snickars, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) Denmark Klaus Lindegaard, Department for Rural Research and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark Monica Stoye, Department for Rural Research and Innovation, University of Southern Denmark Hanne Tanvig, Danish Centre for Rural Research and Development (Until 30 June, 2006) Reference members Ole Damsgaard, Nordregio Erik Gløersen, Nordregio II Title: Peripheral Localities and Innovation Policies: Learning from good practices between the Nordic Countries Nordic Innovation Centre (NICe) project number: 05007 Authors: Seija Virkkala, Kristiina Niemi, Guðmundur Ævar Oddsson, Hjalti Jóhannesson, Elín Aradóttir, Åge Mariussen, Trond Einar Pedersen, Riikka Ikonen, Mats Johansson, Klaus Lindegaard, Monica Stoye Institution(s): Chydenius Institute – Kokkola University Consortium, University of Akureyri Research Institute, NIFUSTEP, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), University of Southern Denmark, Nordregio Abstract: The focus of the PLIP project has been on local development policy supporting innovation processes in peripheral localities. The core phases of the project were a comparison of Nordic innovation policies from the point of view of small towns and rural areas, an analysis of good practices, a transferability analysis and the transfer of good practices, and the drawing of conclusions. Good practices were defined as locally anchored, consisting of something extraordinary, an achievement which was expected to have a potential for telling others something, giving them new ideas which they might use in practice. These good practices in innovation policies were looked for, analysed, compared and finally transferred to other regions. They were grouped according to their functions in: competence building, entrepreneurship and product innovation, and networking and co-ordination. The transferability analysis took place through workshops in the case study areas. The workshops showed that the local and regional actors were willing and able to relate to what was going on in other Nordic countries. We seem to have generated a need to know more, to see good practices in other countries and to make the learning process more efficient. One output from the workshops was a set of specific suggestions for policy initiatives to support the elements of the good practices recognised in the receiving areas. Our recommendation is to set up good practice networks consisting of receiving partners who aspire to learn to do a given good practice combined with networks of those who are already doing so and researchers capable of codifying the good practice, and organizing its transfer. Topic/NICe Focus Area: Innovation Policy ISSN: Language: English Pages: Key words: Innovation policy, periphery, manufacturing, tourism, small food producers, good practices in local innovation policy, transfer of good practices Distributed by: Contact persons: Nordic Innovation Centre Seija Virkkala, [email protected], Tel. +358-6-3248356 Stensberggata 25 University of Vaasa NO-0170 Oslo P.O. Box 700, FI-65101 Vaasa, FINLAND Norway Kristiina Niemi, [email protected] Chydenius Institute – Kokkola University Consortium P.O. Box 567, FI-67701 Kokkola, FINLAND Tel. +358-6-8294293 III Executive summary Objectives and core phases The focus of the PLIP project was on local development policy supporting innovation processes in peripheral localities. The overall objectives of PLIP were to • examine differences and similarities in local and national innovation policies between the Nordic countries from the point of view of peripheral areas, • study good innovation practices in peripheral Nordic areas, • analyse how to learn from the experiences of good practices in other Nordic localities, and • test a method of action research for transferring good practices in local innovation policies between the Nordic countries. The core phases of PLIP were • a comparison of Nordic innovation policies from the point of view of small towns and rural areas, • analysis of good practices, • transferability analysis and • transfer of good practices. A point of departure was good practices. The good practices were defined as locally anchored, consisting of something extraordinary, an achievement which was expected to have a potential for telling others something, giving them new ideas which they might use in practice. These good practices in innovation policies were looked for, analysed, compared and finally transferred to other regions. The processes, success factors, contexts, and impacts of the good practices were analysed, the transferable elements of each good practice evaluated, and the practices grouped according to their functions in: competence building, entrepreneurship and product innovation, and networking and co-ordination. Good practices were selected in the case study areas of all the Nordic countries. The good practices were: • Competence building: o Innovative co-operation between Centria Ylivieska and the SME’s in Oulu South, Finland o The STI – Innovation Centre competence-building activities for the furniture industry, Denmark • Entrepreneurship and product innovation: o Emigration Center at Hófsos in Northwest Iceland – innovation in culture-based tourism IV o Glomfjord – successful local-global networking, Norway • Networking and co-ordination: o Collaboration in tourism industry in Lofoten, Norway o Small food producers’ network and the Knowledge Centre for Food Development (VIFU), Denmark o Networking and knowledge transfer between large and small firms – IUC Dalarna, Sweden We developed the research method of the PLIP project from the learning history approach. The transferability analysis was made through 10 workshops. Results and conclusions If we look at innovation in the economies of the Nordic countries, the profiles are different. At the same time, there are certain common trends in innovation policies. A general trend in recent years is the shift from narrow science and technology-based policies to a broader innovation policy. All the Nordic countries are trying to strengthen regional innovation systems. The relations between innovation policy and regional policy are different. o Regional policy and innovation policy are separate fields in Finland and in Iceland. o In Norway, regional policy and innovation policy are integrated, hence regional policy considerations are an objective of overall national innovation policy. o In Sweden, they are partly overlapping through Regional Growth Programmes and in Denmark, there are some initiatives to strengthen the role of regional level in innovation policy. However, the national context was not so very prominent in the analysed good practices even if the national characteristics can be seen in the cases. Some good practices were uniquely dependent upon local or national systems in certain aspects. All good practices are examples of local or regional bottom-up activities in which the initiatives have came from the regional level. The focus group analysis worked well. o In the workshops, local and regional actors easily were willing and able to relate to what was going on in other Nordic countries. o We seem to have generated the need to know more, to visit the good practices in other countries, and make the learning process more efficient. o In several workshops a space opened for further discussions and codification of the rationale, modes of operation and achievements of participants. o One output of the workshops were specific suggestions for policy initiatives to support the elements found in the good practice in receiving areas. V For some participants it was difficult to take a position as an outsider looking upon and evaluating their own institution. What they could learn from others, would have to be improvements in their own specific modes of operation which could best be transmitted from others they could recognize as experts, i.e. professionals like themselves, in other countries. In some cases, there was a well organized regional partnership, the border to the national level being clearly established and defined. Some of the receiving case areas had institutionalized configurations between the regional and national level which was clearly different from that of the deliverer area of the good practice. A successful transfer seemed to depend on a redefinition of the regional – national divide which is an issue of national actors. In some countries, the regional – national divide obviously is dynamic and under debate, in other countries, this proved to be a cold lead, as the issue seemed to be locked. Similarly, it was hard to translate between local and regional levels. Recommendation: Good practice networks In order to transfer good practices successfully, the receiving group should be organized