European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 45 Best Practices in Universities†Regional Engagement. Towards Smart Specialisation Cristina Å ERBÄ NICÄ â€oeconstantin Brã¢ncoveanu†University of Piteå ti, Romania cpantelica@yahoo. co. uk Abstract The aim of this paper is to highlight universities†contribution to the success of innovation systems in Europe†s most innovative regions, as determined by the recently published European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS. To this end, the study relies on two indicators used by the RIS, namely the percent of innovative enterprises collaborating with others and the number of public †private co-publications Furthermore, the study looks for qualitative evidence in secondary sources and highlights some important drivers behind the success of Europe†s top regions for cooperative research and networks. The results show that most of the innovation programmes in these regions focus on cooperation and on triple helix partnerships and involve frequent interactions between universities, businesses, policy-makers and innovation intermediaries. With a view to the future, universities are expected to bring their contribution to regional smart specialisation and act as intermediary bodies for the implementation of several delivery instruments, thus drawing from the best practice cases presented within this paper Keywords: universities†regional engagement, EU Regional Innovation Scoreboard, best practices, smart specialisation JEL Classification: I23, O38 1. Introduction According to the EU Agenda for the modernization of Europe†s higher education institutions, linking universities, research and business for excellence and regional development is a key issue for Member States and higher education institutions. In this respect, as centres of knowledge, expertise and learning, universities are expected to drive economic development in the territories where they are located: they should bring talented people into the region, harness regional strengths on a global scale and foster an open exchange of knowledge, staff and expertise. At the same time, universities should act as the centre of a knowledge network or cluster serving the local economy and society, if local and regional authorities implement smart specialisation strategies to concentrate resources on key priorities and maximise impact (EC COM 2011 In practice, there are numberless environmental determinants that influence universities†ability to engage at the regional level. According to OECD (2007), first of all, the higher education policy should have an explicit regional dimension, such as in the Nordic countries, where universities†engagement with the business and the community has been recognised and laid upon as a duty. Similarly, all the areas of national policy that may impact universities†role in their territories †Labour market and employment policies Science, technology and innovation policies, Competition policy and Regional and urban planning policies (Goddard and Puukka 2008)- should have public funding streams associated with them. Additionally, public agencies or local governments could launch specific initiatives ranging from training opportunities, small loans and direct services to Vol. 4 â Issue 2 â 2012 46 physical infrastructure, such as public incubators and science parks (Fini et al. 2011), that create a supportive environment and thus facilitate university †industry interactions Third, universities, business and governments should meet together within regional bodies and foster the dialogue with regional governance institutions, such as regional agencies, regional development organizations, city and municipal development offices planning commissions and local science councils (OECD 2007. As concluded by Goddard and Puukka (2008), to succeed, regional collaboration needs a national framework consistent between the domains of higher education and territorial development, which facilitates conjoint actions at the sub-national level Up to now, universities†impacts on regional territories have been assessed from a number of perspectives and Benneworth (2010) identified three waves of research: in the first wave, efforts were placed into calculating universities†economic impacts resulting mainly from direct purchasing of supplies by the university, the jobs emerging from the staff salary and student living expenditure in the region and universities†economic activity induced by additional expenditure in the regional supply chain. The second wave surveyed other kinds of impacts, including technology transfer and continuing education Finally, the third wave focused on universities†involvement in various regional economic development processes and in their role in supporting regional innovation systems Regional innovation systems are just one of the so-called territorial innovation models †a generic name for models of regional innovation in which local institutional dynamics play a significant role (Moulaert and Sekia 2003. According to Cooke (2001), a region is considered to have a RIS in place when its knowledge generation subsystem-universities research institutes, research associations, industry associations, training agencies technology transfer organisations, specialist consultancies, government development programmes, etc. -and its knowledge exploitation subsystem-the regional industrial structure and its clusters in particular, -are engaged systematically in interactive learning through knowledge networks (Cooke 2001 Universities are assumed to accomplish a number of different functions in a regional innovation system and their contribution has been studied with respect to their roles as economic entities, commoditised knowledge producers, shapers of human capital and institutional actors in networks. The first two functions focus on universities†direct economic contribution to their region†s development and the latter two include non -economic sociocultural factors (Boucher G. et al. 2003. According to Todtling (2006 at the regional level, universities can serve as †antennas†for adopting external knowledge and mediator for local knowledge circulation, source of highly skilled labour, knowledge providers in university †industry linkages and incubators for academic spin-offs, a relatively new route for commercialisation of academic inventions. Therefore, regional innovation systems provide a means for universities to engage with their local environments on activities which benefit both regional partners whilst strengthening universities†own core activities (Benneworth, 2010. The present study can be placed within this wave of research, as it is envisaged to emphasize universities†roles in regional innovation systems, while looking at some best practices put forward by Europe†s most innovative regions European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 47 2. Research Method This study is aimed at highlighting universities†contribution to the success of regional innovation systems in Europe†s most innovative regions, as determined by the recently published European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (Hollanders, 2012. To this end, we analyse both quantitative and qualitative indicators describing the drivers of success using secondary sources form OECD, Erawatch and the European Regional Monitor database The European Regional Innovation Scoreboard (2012) provides a comparative assessment of innovation performance across 190 NUTS 1 and NUTS 2 regions of the European union, Croatia, Norway and Switzerland, using 12 indicators that describe the enablers, firm activities and innovation outputs. Given the fact that the data available at regional level remains considerably scarce, the 2012 RIS does not provide an absolute ranking of individual regions, but ranks four groups of regions at broadly similar levels of performance: innovation leaders, innovation followers, moderate innovators and modest innovators, each group identifying other three sub-levels of performance: high, medium and low In line with the results, the most innovative regions are situated typically in the most innovative countries, identified as such by the Innovation Union Scoreboard: Sweden Denmark, Germany and Finland, plus Switzerland †outside the EU27 area, while most of the moderate and modest innovators are found in Eastern and Southern Europe. In particular, Europe†s top innovative regions are the following: Hovedstaden in Denmark Etela-Suomi in Finland, Stockholm, Ostra Mellansverige and Sydsverige in Sweden Region Iemanique, Nordwestchweiz and Zurich in Switzerland and Baden-Wurttemberg Bayern, Hamburg and Hessen in Germany (Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 Two of the 12 indicators backing the Regional Innovation Scoreboard are used usually as proxies for assessing the level of co-operation for innovation between regional actors including universities: the percent of innovative enterprises collaborating with others for innovation measures the flow of knowledge between public research institutions and firms and between firms and other firms (i e. COLLABORATIVE NETWORKS while the number of public †private co-publications measures the active collaboration activities between business sector researchers and public sector researchers resulting in academic publications (i e. COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH. The data have been normalized using the min-max procedure, the maximum normalised score being thus equal to 1 and the minimum normalised score being equal to 0. Figure 1 presents those regions that have scored above the average(>0. 5) for at least one of the two indicators in discussion (two regions that have scored above 0. 5 for collaborative networks have been excluded from the list as they scored 0 for collaborative research The 2x2 matrix in Figure 1 allows the classification of Europe†s top regions for collaborative research and networks into four groups. The first one (in the bottom-right quadrant) is the group exhibiting high collaborative research patterns, being populated with regions predominantly from the UK and Germany, but also with the capital regions from Belgium and France. The second group (in the bottom †left part of the Figure 1) is the most heterogeneous one, as it integrates regions with comparably lower intensity collaborations. It should be mentioned here the fact that three out of four French regions belong to this group, together with other regions from Germany, Sweden, Austria Norway and Switzerland. The third quadrant (up †left) is the one that groups the regions Vol. 4 â Issue 2 â 2012 48 with the highest scores for the percent of innovative enterprises engaged in collaboration The Vlaams Gewst (BE2) region in Belgium is the absolute leader in this group, being followed by the Lansi-Suomi (FI19) region in Finland. The group also integrates three regions from the UK and three from The netherlands, but also some regions from Portugal and Slovenia, whose performances in collaborative networks are notable. Finally, the forth group (upright) is the Leaders†group and is formed by four regions from the Netherlands, four regions from Sweden, one region from Norway and one from Denmark Figure 1. Europe†s top regions for collaborative research and networks *Source: Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012 *See Appendix 1 for Acronyms†list Regions in the fourth group (DK1, SE11, SE12, SE22, SE23, NL22, NL31, NL32, NL33 NL42, AT1) are subjected further to an in depth analysis based on extensive innovation †related policy documents available from Erawatch countries†profiles, Regional Innovation Monitor†s baseline profiles, and OECD regional profiles. The main purpose of the analysis is to identify those drivers behind the success of these regions, while looking for universities†contribution to that success. As Norway is not a EU27 member and does not share the same framework conditions with the other countries in this group, it won†t be subjected to analysis European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 49 3. Research Results Denmark is represented in the fourth group by its capital region-DK1 †Hovedstaden which is a Leader high region (Regional Innovation Monitor: Denmark 2012. Much of the success in regional cooperation was due to the Danish University Act that has designated a third task for universities (OECD 2007), but also to the new Government†s 2007 reform-â€oea structural reform of local and regional governanceâ€-that adopted the principle of public-private partnerships through the establishment of Regional Growth Forums (Erawatch country profile: Denmark, 2012. At present, there are six regional forums in Denmark that focus on innovation, human resources, attracting talent to the region and developing stronger clusters. The Capital Region Growth Forum in Hovedstaden (2007-2020) is the most important regional body for innovation and business development: on the one hand, it drafts the long term development strategy for the region and decides on which projects should be supported with funding; on the other hand, it develops business strategy for the region and facilitates regional innovation programmes, such as The Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster, Copenhagen Finance, Green Construction, CIBIT Accelerator etc. Regional Innovation Monitor: Denmark, 2012 A lot of literature has also been devoted to highlighting the merits of a very successful cross-border initiative: à resund Science Region, a research-based collaboration between Denmark and Sweden, centred on the cities of Copenhagen and Malmo and including 14 universities from both sides of the border, regional authorities and business. The ambition behind this initiative was to make à resund a leading world science region building on its status as third after London and Paris in biotechnical medical research (OECD 2007 Formed in 1997, the à resund Science Region is now functional through nine triple helix platforms providing a coordinating link between the universities and the community, e g à resund Food Network, Medicon Valley Academy, à resund Environment Academy à resund Design, à resund IT academy etc. Each platform is organized around core competencies in the region and the main activities are linked to networking, strategic information and communication, commercialization of research and innovation As for Sweden, there are four regions under review, three of them being Leader †high regions: SE11 †Stockholm, SE12-Ostra Mellansverige, SE22 †Sydsverige and one being Leader †medium: SE23 †Vastsverige (Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012. In Sweden, the regional policy was introduced first in 2001 by the government bill â€oea policy for growth and prosperity in the whole countryâ€, whose focus is on each region†s capacity in terms of economic growth and renewal. Many of the new policies are concentrated on so called strategic action plans †Regional Growth Programmes -VINNVAXT-aiming at creating economic, ecologic and social sustainable growth Erawatch country profile: Sweden). ) Similar to the Danish Regional Growth Forums, the Swedish VINNAXT is built on a triple helix rationale, with the aim to create bridges between academia and industry. According to the last evaluation, VINNVAXT programme is the leading in the world of this kind: 1000 for †profit companies were involved, 55 new products were developed, 25 start-ups companies were set up and all these have resulted in improved cooperation mechanisms (Melin et al. 2012 Collaborative platforms focusing on strengthening clusters in existing competitive areas e g. life science and ICT in Stockholm, cleantech, media and food networks in Sydsverigem, automotive, transport, health or maritime sector in Vastsverige etc. stay at Vol. 4 â Issue 2 â 2012 50 the heart of Swedish regional innovation programs. Additionally, a number of regional initiatives aim at developing the planning capability together with the most important regional stakeholders. For example, Innovation Power STHLM (2011-2012) is a project whose aim is to make a functional analysis of the innovative structure of Stockholm and presenting strategic competence areas for innovation, thus involving a large number of regional actors into the dialogue (Regional Innovation Monitor: Sweden, 2012 Similarly, the PRIM project (2008-2011) in Ostra Mellansverige (Process and Relations in Innovative Environments) is aimed at prioritizing regional development initiatives for existing innovation systems, with a focus on cooperation between incubators and the region†s universities (Regional Innovation Monitor: Sweden, 2012. Finally, the Knowledge Navigator programme in Stockholm (2008 †2011/2012) involves different universities and regional institutions to create a working model for knowledge transfer between academia and business, with a focus on SMES Austria†s regional research and innovation policy is linked mainly to three types of activities: innovation infrastructures (incubators), cluster initiatives and co-financing of federal programmes. Currently, there are more than 100 incubators (â€oeimpulszentrenâ€) and 20 technology parks throughout the country, more than 40 cluster initiatives linking companies and research institutions around thematic priorities (e g. automotive suppliers wood and wood products, plastics, environmental technologies, biotechnologies etc. and numerous competence centre programmes performed by industry-academia partnerships The Universities of Applied sciences focus on applied research and technology transfer mainly addressing regional companies, playing a straightforward role in driving innovation at the regional level. Universities†cooperative activities are strongly encouraged by the federal supported programme COIN (Cooperation and Innovation whose goal is to promote firms†interaction and cooperation with universities and research institutes, but also with other innovative companies (Erawatch country profile: Austria 2012 Regarding the Ostosterreich (AT1) region in Austria, it integrates three Federal States Burgenland (AT11), Lower Austria (AT12) and Vienna (AT13. As pointed out in their regional profiles, the EU Structural Funds have given a major impetus for research and innovation activities: e g.,, in Lower Austria, much of the overall regional strategy has been developed jointly with the Structural Funds Operational Programme, tailored to its requirements and oriented towards enhancing regional competitiveness and strengthening the region through mobilising endogenous potentials, competitive tourism, better environment, energy use and risk prevention. Similarly, the regional action plan drafted by the state government of Burgenland-Innovation Offensive Burgenland-comprises three major fields of action related to intensifying the awareness of the importance of innovation within the region, establishing and supporting qualification measures initializing funding measures for firms'R&d activities, fostering advisory services and establishing agency infrastructures (eg. the Business & Innovation Centre) and cooperation structures. Regarding Vienna, its main regional policy document †Strengthening regional competitiveness and integrative urban development in Vienna 2007-2013 (ERDF Operational Programme) †defines three priority axes: Innovation and the knowledge based economy, Integrative city development and Technical support. It should be noted here that The City of Vienna encourages application-oriented research through the Innovation and technology centre (ZIT) that serves as the technology promotion agency of the region and the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF that promotes different initiatives, such as Vienna Research Groups for Young Investigators addressing universities and research institutions that want to attract European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 51 excellent young researchers to Vienna for founding their own research group (Regional Innovation Monitor: Austria 2012 Finally, in The netherlands, there is a legal requirement for higher education institutions to engage regionally. In this respect, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation is shaping the regional policy for universities, particularly around research application and innovation (OECD 2007. Although the national level is responsible for the research policy in The netherlands, there still is a specific policy programme that focuses on regional development: the Regional Attention and Action for Knowledge circulation programme (RAAK) that aims to improve knowledge exchange between SME€ s and Universities of Applied sciences and to inform about new and existing forms of collaboration and activities in the field of knowledge exchange between universities of applied sciences and SME€ s (Erawatch country profile: The netherlands, 2012. â€oethe Peaks in the Delta†(Pid) is the Dutch strategy aimed at supporting existing regional strengths and higher education institutions are seen as nodes in the regions. For example in the Pid East (NL22-Gelderland), the †peaks†are formed by innovative clusters around three universities, while priorities are related to strong research topics such as food, nutrition, health and technology. Similarly, the †peaks†in the Delta North Wing NL31-Utrecht and NL32-Noord Holland) are focusing on creative industries, ICT new media, life science, but also on finding solutions for ageing population or on optimizing the space use of business areas. The South Wing (NL33 †Zuid Hooland) and the South East Wing (NL41 †Noord Brabant, NL42-Limburg) are among the most industrialized regions in the world and the focus here is on logistics, horticulture, life & health (around University of Maastricht), international law, peace and safety (The hague Academy for local governance), but also IT solutions †given the presence here of Philips company. In 2010, the Pid evaluation showed that the programme, in general, seemed to be effective or at least would be effective in the future and that it resulted in significantly improved cooperation and knowledge sharing between governments, institutions and companies (Regional Innovation Monitor: The netherlands, 2012. There are also some very successful initiatives in The netherlands aimed at fostering the cooperation between regional actors †including universities, such as the Knowledge Vouchers programme that offers incentives to enterprises to purchase services from knowledge institutes to improve innovation processes, the Business to Science Portal initiative through which entrepreneurs are connected to academic experts or the Lectors and knowledge circles policy of appointing a growing number of lectures and knowledge circles at the institutions of higher professional education, with the aim to improve their external orientation, especially with regard to SMES (Regional Innovation Monitor: the Netherlands, 2012 4. Conclusions. Towards Smart Specialisation So far, the case studies have pointed to a number of best practices related to different policies, governance structures and dedicated programmes aimed at stimulating regional growth through structured interactions between innovation†s actors. It is noteworthy to remind here the existence of laws and regulations that designate a clear third task for universities, but also the high support for cluster-formation, networks and collaborative platforms through different funding programmes such as Regional Growth Forums in Denmark, Regional Growth Programmes in Sweden or the Dutch â€oepeaks in the Delta†Vol. 4 â Issue 2 â 2012 52 Programme †all of them being built on the Triple Helix logic, with frequent interactions between universities, business and government. For all the countries and regions under review there are, however, some challenges for the future: in Denmark, there is still some evidence that the knowledge diffusion from universities to enterprises isn†t functioning optimally yet (Erawatch country profile: Denmark 2012), so efforts should continue. In Sweden, the evaluation of VINNVAXT programme revealed a modest participation of SME€ s (Regional Innovation Monitor 2011 Annual Report, 2012), but also a further need for regional coordination. As regards The netherlands, the Pid evaluation concludes that more collaboration between the actors is needed still. Despite these difficulties, it is important to mention the fact that for all the countries †but especially for Austria-the EU€ s Cohesion policy has acted as one of the strongest drivers for increased attention paid to the regional policy, but also for a focus on cooperation for innovation According to the Regional Innovation Monitor conclusions, †the underlying characteristics for world-class performing regions is that most programmes focus on cooperation; they had sound coordinating mechanisms with a view to triple helix partnerships and the development of new collaboration structures†(Regional Innovation Monitor 2011 Annual Report, 2012, p. iv-v). This approach is integrated also in the â€oesmart specialisation†concept that represents the new paradigm at the EU level. The new concept encourages the concentration of human, financial and innovative resources in a few globally competitive areas, thus being suitable for both leader regions that might invest in the invention of a generic technology and for less advanced regions, that are better advised to invest in the development of the applications of a generic technology or service innovation in one or several important areas of the regional economy or in developing cross-sectoral approaches (EC COM 2010/553 Acknowledgment This work was cofinanced through the European Social Fund through The Sectoral Operational Programme Human resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/1. 5/S/59184 †Performance and excellence in postdoctoral research in Romanian economic science domain†References Benneworth, P. 2010: University engagement and regional innovation. European Centre for Strategic Management of Universities. Available from http://www. highereducationmanagement. eu/images/stories/modern%20conference%20regional %20innovation-executive%20report. pdf Boucher, G.,Conway, C. and Van der Meer, E. 2003: Tiers of engagement by universities in their region†s Development. Regional Studies 37 (9: 887†897 Cooke, P. 2001: Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change 10: 945†974 European commission (2010: Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020. EC COM 2010/553, Brussels. Available from http://ec. europa. eu/regional policy/sources/docoffic/official/communic/smart growth/comm2010 553 en. pdf European commission (2011: Supporting growth and jobs †an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher education systems, EC COM 2011/567, Brussels. Available from http://eur-lex. europa. eu/Lexuriserv/Lexuriserv. do? uri=COM: 2011: 0567: FIN: EN: PDF European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 53 European commission (2011: Connecting Universities to Regional Growth: A Practical Guide A guide to help improve the contribution of universities to regional development, with a view to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, in a sustainable way, September 2011 http://ec. europa. eu/regional policy/sources/docgener/presenta/universities2011/universities2011 en. pdf European commission (2012: Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation. March 2012. Available from http://s3platform. jrc. ec. europa. eu/en/c/document library/get file? uuid=e50397e3-f2b1-4086 -8608-7b86e69e8553&groupid=10157 European commission. Erawatch (2012: Country profiles: Denmark, Sweden, Austria Netherlands. Available from http://erawatch. jrc. ec. europa. eu/erawatch/opencms/information/country pages/se/country EU †DRIVERS (2011: Universities†involvement in regional smart specialisation strategy Background Report. Second EU-DRIVERS Annual Conference, Brussels, 1 december 2011 Fini, R.,Grimaldi, R.,Santoni, S, . and M. Sobrero (2011): Complements or substitutes? The role of universities and local context in supporting the creation of academic spin-offs. Research Policy 40 (8): 1113-1127 Goddard, J. B. and J. Puukka (2008: The engagement of higher education institutions in regional development: an overview of the opportunities and challenges. Higher education Management and Policy 20 (2): 3-33 Hollanders, H. 2012. Regional Innovation Scoreboard (RIS)( 2012: A report prepared for European commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Brussels. Available from http://ec. europa. eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/ris-2012 en. pdf Melin G.,Fridholm, T.,HÃ¥KANSSON A.,Jansson, T.,Stern P, . and N. Thorell (2012): Erawatch country report 2011: Sweden. ERAWATCH Network †Technopolis Group Moulaert, F. and F. Sekia (2003: Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional studies 37 (3): 289-302 OECD (2007: Higher education and Regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged. OECD Publishing, Paris ***Regional Innovation Monitor (2011: Annual Report 2012. Governance, policies, and perspectives in European regions. A report produced by Fraunhofer ISI in association with UNU -MERIT & technopolis group, 5 september 2012. Available from: http://www. rim -europa. eu/index. cfm? q=p. reportdetails&id=16006 ***Regional Innovation Monitor (2012: Baseline profiles (Denmark, Sweden, Austria Netherlands). ) Available from: http://www. rim-europa. eu/index. cfm? q=p. regionselect Tà dtling, F. 2006: The Role of Universities in Innovation Systems and Regional Economies Expert meeting on â€oethe future of academic researchâ€, Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration, 19-20 october 2006 Vol. 4 â Issue 2 â 2012 54 Appendix 1 Europe†s Top Regions for Innovation Linkages Acronym Country Region Position in RIS AT1 Austria Ostosterreich Leader low AT2 Austria Sudosterreich Follower high AT3 Austria Westosterreich Follower medium BE1 Belgium Region de Bruxelles-Capitale Leader low BE2 Belgium Vlaams Gewest Leader medium BE3 Belgium Region Wallonne Follower high CZ1 Czech republic Praha Leader medium CZ5 Czech republic Severovychod Follower medium CH01 Switzerland Region lemanique Leader †high CH03 Switzerland Nordwestschweiz Leader †high CH06 Switzerland Zentralschweiz Leader †medium CH07 Switzerland Ticino Leader †medium DE1 Germany Baden-Wurttemberg Leader high DE2 Germany Bayern Leader high DE3 Germany Berlin Leader high DE5 Germany Bremen Leader medium DE6 Germany Hamburg Leader †high DEA Germany Nordrhein-Westfalen Leader †low Deb Germany Rheinland-Pfalz Leader †medium DE7 Germany Hessen Leader †high DK01 Denmark Hovedstaden Leader high DK02 Denmark Sjalland Follower high DK03 Denmark Syddanmark Follower high DK04 Denmark Midtjylland Leader low DK05 Denmark Nordjylland Follower high ES3 Spain Comunidad de Madrid Follower high FI13 Finland Ita-Suomi Follower †medium FI18 Finland Etela-Suomi Leader high FI19 Finland Lansi-Suomi Leader high FI1A Finland Pohjois-Suomi Leader medium FR1 France Ile de france Leader †medium FR5 France Ouest (FR) Follower †low FR6 France Sud-Ouest (FR) Follower †high FR7 France Centre-Est (FR) Leader low NL11 Netherlands Groningen Follower †high NL12 Netherlands Friesland (NL) Moderate †low NL13 Netherlands Drenthe Moderate †medium NL21 Netherlands Overijssel Follower †low NL22 Netherlands Gelderland Follower †high NL23 Netherlands Flevoland Follower †high NL31 Netherlands Utrecht Leader †medium NL32 Netherlands Noord-Holland Leader †medium NL33 Netherlands Zuid-Holland Leader †low NL34 Netherlands Zeeland Moderate †high NL41 Netherlands Noord-Brabant Leader †medium NL42 Netherlands Limburg (NL) Follower †high NO01 Norway Oslo og Akershus Follower †high NO03 Norway Sor-Ostlandet Follower †low NO05 Norway Vestlandet Follower †low NO06 Norway Trondelag Follower †medium PT16 Portugal Centro (PT) Follower †low European Journal of Interdisciplinary studies 55 PT17 Portugal Lisboa Leader low SE11 Sweden Stockholm Leader †high SE12 Sweden Ostra Mellansverige Leader †high SE21 Sweden Smaland med oarna Follower †medium SE22 Sweden Sydsverige Leader †high SE23 Sweden Vastsverige Leader †medium SE31 Sweden Norra Mellansverige Moderate †high SE32 Sweden Mellersta Norrland Follower †low SE33 Sweden Ovre Norrland Leader †high SI02 Slovenia Zahodna Slovenija Follower high UKD United kingdom North West (UK) Follower high UKH United kingdom East of England Leader medium UKI United kingdom London Follower high UKJ United kingdom South East (UK) Leader medium Source: Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2012

< Back - Next >

Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011