ArticlePDF Available

Exploring the scope of regions in challenge-oriented innovation policy: The case of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany

Authors:

Abstract

Recently, challenge-oriented innovation policy has become increasingly popular in political and scientific discussions. However, the extent to which such a challenge-based thinking has entered regional policy making is relatively unclear. This paper examines the scope of the regional level in promoting challenge-based innovation, focusing on the recent renewable energy innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The results show that while regional innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein aims to address several structural and transformational systemic failures, many other problems and challenges remain, as they are beyond the capacity of a single region to address. Based on this analysis, we draw four conclusions. First, similar to many other structurally weak regions, policymakers in Schleswig-Holstein are struggling with some of the same key challenges that the policy was originally designed to address. Second, multi-scalar governance and inter-scalar coordination are essential for managing regional sustainability transitions. Third, challenge-driven innovation policy is an extension of, rather than a replacement for, conventional regional innovation policy. Finally, environmental and economic goals should be well balanced in challenge-driven regional innovation policy design.
1
Exploring the scope of regions in challenge-oriented innovation policy: The case of
Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Robert Hassink1, Huiwen Gong*2,3, Klaas Fröhlich4, Arne Herr5
Email of corresponding author: Huiwen.Gong@eawag.ch
1 Department of Geography, Kiel University, Germany
2 Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Eawag, Switzerland
3 CIRCLE, Lund University, Sweden
3 DSN Connecting Knowledge Kiel, Germany
4 Effplan Jübek, Germany
This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published in European Planning Studies on
22 December 2021, available online:
https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/WNSXJG5SGACIUUDFIVGM/full?target=10.1080/09
654313.2021.2017857
Abstract
Recently, challenge-oriented innovation policy has become increasingly popular in political
and scientific discussions. However, the extent to which such a challenge-based thinking has
entered regional policy making is relatively unclear. This paper examines the scope of the
regional level in promoting challenge-based innovation, focusing on the recent renewable
energy innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. The results show that while
regional innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein aims to address several structural and
transformational systemic failures, many other problems and challenges remain, as they are
beyond the capacity of a single region to address. Based on this analysis, we draw four
conclusions. First, similar to many other structurally weak regions, policymakers in
Schleswig-Holstein are struggling with some of the same key challenges that the policy was
originally designed to address. Second, multi-scalar governance and inter-scalar coordination
are essential for managing regional sustainability transitions. Third, challenge-driven
innovation policy is an extension of, rather than a replacement for, conventional regional
innovation policy. Finally, environmental and economic goals should be well balanced in
challenge-driven regional innovation policy design.
Keywords: challenge-oriented innovation policy; regional innovation policy; renewable
energy; multi-scalar; Schleswig-Holstein; Germany
2
1. Introduction
During a long time, innovation policies were embedded in a relatively narrow understanding
of market-based, technology-driven innovation, without much questioning the need and
function of innovation (Coenen and Morgan, 2020). The current generation of innovation,
however, puts increasingly high hopes on solving many of the grand societal challenges, such
as climate change, pandemics, demographic changes, the widening of digital gaps,
environmental deterioration, and the loss of biodiversity, etc. (Coenen et al., 2015;
Mazzucato, 2018; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). Given the complexity of these challenges,
the current generation of innovations is also more complex than the previous generations
and is arguably characterized by higher uncertainty and risk (Mazzucato, 2018). In this
context, states are increasingly expected to play an important role in facilitating the new
generation of innovation, as the complexity of innovation requires various resources and
actors that are beyond the reach of individual firms. Because of that, challenge-oriented
policies
1
which 1) are geared towards transforming the (unsustainable) socio-technical
systems, and 2) involve different actors, organizations and ministries, and hence policy
fields, which are coordinated by the state, have been given much emphasis by policy
scholars (Diercks, et al., 2019; Grillitsch et al., 2020; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018). This
emerging approach is supposed to be more bottom-up, decentralized and focusing on
experimentation and learning among a broader group of actors, including niche actors.
While such a normative turn among policymakers at the supranational and national levels
have been increasingly observed (e.g., OECD, 2015; Germany’s Energiewende), relatively
little research has focused on the extent to which regions are embracing such challenge-
oriented development norms (Coenen et al., 2015; Grillitsch et al., 2020; Tödtling and Trippl,
2018; Uyarra et al., 2019; Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020), and what kind of system failures
and challenges are more effectively solved at the regional level (Wanzenböck and Frenken,
2020). Arguably, experimenting niche actors, as one group of key actors, can be particularly
found at the local and regional level, where they can play a role in regional innovation
policies (Tödtling and Trippl, 2018; Uyarra et al., 2019), and related smart specialization
(Foray, 2015) and new path development (Tödtling and Trippl, 2018).
Against this background, the paper aims to examine the scope of the regional level in
promoting challenge-oriented innovation from a policy making perspective (Tödtling et al.,
2021). In order to explore this issue the paper will first discuss trends in regional innovation
policy in more general terms. The paper will analyse the recent trend towards challenge-
oriented regional innovation policy with the help of the example of Schleswig-Holstein. The
northernmost state in Germany is an interesting case, not only because of a strong recent
growth of the Greens, one of the main political parties in Germany, and related concern
about climate change, but also because of its strong focus on supporting renewable energy
as important job creators (Steen et al., 2019; MWAVT, 2014). Moreover, since the peripheral
state has a structurally weak economy, the case could provide insights in whether challenge-
oriented regional innovation policies are a promising transformational road for lagging
1
These policies are referred to as, among others, challenge-driven innovation policy (Coenen et al., 2015),
innovation policy 3.0 (Grillitsch et al., 2019), mission-oriented policy (Mazzucato, 2018), and transformative
innovation policy (Schot and Steinmueller, 2018; Diercks et al., 2019). For the purpose of simplification, we use
the term ‘challenge-oriented innovation policy’ but draw insights from the literature dealing with the
abovementioned concepts.
3
regions, combing environmental and economic goals. Rather than showing a success story or
best practice example, this case study shows the multi-scalar governance issues and the
various failures/challenges that regional policies aim to tackle, indicating the complexity of
challenge-oriented innovation policy when implemented at the regional level.
In order to analyse Schleswig-Holstein, we have reviewed recent policy documents, as
challenge-oriented regional innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein only started in the mid-
2000s. We also collected and analyzed statements made by lobby organisations on policy
initiatives related to renewable energy. We have also carried out seven in-depth expert
interviews with key stakeholders in renewable energy industry and renewable energy-
related regional innovation policy in Schleswig-Holstein, including politicians, representatives
of lobby organisations and entrepreneurs.
Although the focus will be on challenge-oriented regional innovation policies in Schleswig-
Holstein as a whole, occasionally special attention will be paid to North Frisia, the county in
the upper North West of Schleswig-Holstein, as it is the state’s wind energy hotspot. The
paper will show how local favourable conditions for wind energy there, created awareness
for renewable energy in the 1980s. Although renewable energy has been figuring
prominently in regional innovation policy since the mid-2000s in both the cluster, smart
specialization and research and higher education policy, increasingly this challenge-oriented
regional innovation policy is financed and embedded in federal (national) policy initiatives.
The paper will also critically discuss different kind of failures (structural vs. transformational)
that regional innovation polices aim to tackle, as well as the recent crisis in wind energy and
the related dark sides or potential risks of these kind of policies particularly for lagging or
structurally weak regions, such as Schleswig-Holstein.
The paper is structured as follows. In the next section, we will describe recent trends
concerning challenge-oriented innovation policies and will particularly focus on the scope of
regions in these policies. In Section 3, we will then analyse the case of Schleswig-Holstein. In
the section afterwards, we evaluate the regional innovation policy on renewable energy
concerning the types of failures and challenges they managed to tackle (or not). We discuss
and draw 4 concludes in Section 5.
2. Challenge-oriented innovation policy and the role of regions
2.1 Different generations of innovation policy
As has been well summarized in several publications, over the last five decades or so,
innovation policies have gone through three generations (Grillitsch et al., 2020).
The first generation innovation policy (innovation for growth, according to Schot and
Steinmueller, 2018), aims at tackling market failures, adopts a linear innovation approach. It
assumes that scientific discoveries precede technological developments, which ultimately
lead to the commercialization of innovations. The rationale behind the introduction of such
policy instruments is neoclassical economics and the existence of factors that hinder
enterprises’ motivation in investing in basic research (Frenken, 2017; Grillitsch et al., 2020;
Weber and Rohracher, 2012). Innovation policy informed by this linear model has a rather
4
narrow focus in terms of both actors (e.g., universities, research institutes, and firms) and
instruments (favorable tax treatment, direct subsidies).
The second generation, in contrast, takes a systemic perspective (i.e. innovation systems
approach). This approach differs from the first generation innovation policy in its underlying
theory of innovation. Instead of taking a linear interpretation of innovation, policymakers
realize the interactive nature of innovation, in which a large variety of actors collectively
engage in conceiving, developing, and introducing ideas to the society (Grillitsch et al.,
2020). The rationale behind this type of innovation policy is that the existence of various
structural failures in the innovation systems has prevented the innovative activities from
happening in certain regions/countries/technological fields, and hence effective policy
interventions that aim at tackling these failures are required. Compared to Innovation Policy
1.0, the relevant actor groups have been expanded to include customers, intermediary
organizations, educational and training facilities, and public actors. Often used policy
instruments include public procurement, education and training of the workforce, building
clusters, science hubs and technopoles, providing project funds, etc. (Schot and
Steinmueller, 2018)
Unlike the first two types of innovation policy, the most recent approach pays more
attention to the directionality and quality of innovation, and it aims to address the grand
challenges we are facing today, and to transform the existing unsustainable socio-technical
systems to more sustainable, inclusive ones. The shift to such a challenge-oriented
innovation policy is emphasized as more than an incremental change in the innovation policy
domain (Diercks et al., 2019). Challenge-oriented innovation policy involves radical
innovation both in production and consumption, which in turn requires novel
(re)configuration of actors, networks, institutions and practices
2
. In contrast to the previous
approaches, this new generation of innovation policy aims at addressing not only market
failures and structural failures, but more importantly, it puts strong emphasis on resolving
transformational failuresfailures that are related to the transformation process (Weber
and Rohracher, 2012). Transformative failures, according to Weber and Rohracher (2012),
can be divided into directionality failure, demand articulation failure, policy coordination
failure and reflexivity failure (for a comprehensive overview, see Table 1). Grillitsch et al.
(2020) argue that three aspects of the third generation challenge-oriented innovation policy
represent novels elements in comparison to the previous generations. First, the aim to
transition entire socio-technical systems; second, the emphasis on experimentation; and
third, the deliberate intention to destabilize unsustainable regimes. While this latest
challenge-oriented policy departs from the previous generations in important ways as shown
above, the novelty of this approach should not be overstated. In other words, there are still
strong connections between the challenge-oriented innovation policy and previous
perspectives (Grillitsch et al., 2020). For example, mission-oriented projects as described in
the STI innovation policy (first generation) share the challenged-driven nature of the most
recent challenge-oriented innovation policy. In addition, the challenge-oriented policy
usually features the deployment of multiple instruments that are used in the previous
generations and the involvement of different governmental departments and ministries. In
2
Although some fundamental issues are discussed around challenge-oriented innovation policies, for instance
about its contested nature and the role of the state vs. market (see Frenken, 2017; Karlson et al., 2021), it
would go beyond the scope of this paper to deal with them in detail.
5
other words, “policy mix” is an important feature of the recent generation of innovation
policy (Rogge and Reichardt, 2016).
Table 1: Overview of failures in the context of transformative change
Type of failure
Failure mechanism
Structural system
failures
Infrastructural
failure
Lack of physical and knowledge infrastructures due to large scale,
long time horizon of operation and ultimately too low return on
investment for private investors.
Institutional
failures
Hard institutional failure: Absence, excess or shortcomings of
formal institutions such as laws, regulations, and standards create
an unfavorable environment for innovation.
Soft institutional failure: Informal institutions (e.g. social norms
and values, culture, entrepreneurial spirit, trust, risk-taking) that
hinder innovation.
Interaction or
network failure
Strong network failure: Intensive cooperation in closely tied
networks leads to negative lock-in into established trajectories.
Weak network failure: too limited interaction and knowledge
exchange with other actors inhibits exploitation of
complementary sources of knowledge and processes of
interactive learning.
Capabilities failure
Lack of appropriate competencies and resources at actor and firm
level prevent the access to new knowledge, and lead to an
inability to adapt to changing circumstances, to open up novel
opportunities, and to switch from an old to a new technological
trajectory.
Transformational
system failures
Directionality
failure
Lack of shared vision regarding the goal and direction of the
transformation process; Inability of collective coordination of
distributed agents involved in shaping systemic change;
Insufficient regulation or standards to guide and consolidate the
direction of change; Lack of targeted funding for research,
development and demonstration projects and infrastructures to
establish corridors of acceptable development paths.
Demand
articulation failure
Insufficient spaces for anticipating and learning about user needs
to enable the uptake of innovations by users. Absence of orienting
and stimulating signals from public demand. Lack of demand-
articulating competencies.
Policy coordination
failure
Lack of multi-level policy coordination across different systemic
levels or between technological and sectoral systems; Lack of
horizontal coordination between research, technology and
innovation policies and sectoral policies; Lack of vertical
coordination between ministries and implementing agencies leads
to a deviation between strategic intentions and operational
implementation of policies; No coherence between public policies
and private sector institutions; No temporal coordination resulting
in mismatches related to the timing of interventions by different
actors.
Reflexivity failure
Insufficient ability of the system to monitor, anticipate and involve
actors in processes of self-governance; Lack of distributed
reflexive arrangements to connect different discursive spheres,
provide spaces for experimentation and learning; No adaptive
policy portfolios to keep options open and deal with uncertainty.
Source: adapted from Weber and Rohracher (2012)
6
2.2. Towards challenge-oriented regional innovation policies: place-specificity and multi-
scalarity
While the challenge-oriented innovation policy has been commonly seen as an important
approach in realizing sustainability transitions, increasingly, scholars criticize this approach
for its lack of geographical sensitivity. Grillitsch and Hansen (2019), for instance, complain
that there are very few insights in challenge-oriented innovation policy at the regional level
and a very limited understanding of how challenge-oriented innovation policy can take
different shapes in different regions (Grillitsch et al., 2020). One possible reason for the lack
of attention to geographical differences could be that many grand challenges are often seen
as global in nature. Therefore, solutions to such ‘big problems’ should be sought jointly by
the whole society. While this argument is reasonable in some way, it, however, overlooks
the fact that regions differ strongly in their urgencies, motivations and capabilities in solving
such problems. As Wanzenböck and Frenken (2020) have rightly pointed out, due to the
contested nature of problem identification as well as the contextual nature of problem
solving, these problems are actually best be addressed at the local level.
In order to analyze the potential role of the regions in challenge-oriented innovation policies,
it is necessary to first introduce and elaborate on regional innovation policies, which come in
different forms and with different measures. Overall, regional innovation policies consist of
four groups of measures (Hassink, 2020). First, a large range of financial aid schemes, such as
support for R&D, is devised both at national but in some countries also at regional level to
boost innovativeness of SMEs. Secondly, technology transfer and consultancy agencies,
including agencies providing general information and agencies linking mainly SMEs with
universities and public research establishments. Thirdly, all kind of land and property-led
policies, such as science and technology parks, incubator centers etc., aim at encouraging
the spatial clustering of high-tech firms and R&D organizations. Fourthly, the most recent
measures, particularly in a European context, focus on the smart specialization of regions
(Foray, 2015; Hassink and Gong, 2019), aiming at building on the complementarities that
exist in a region and encourage processes of path creation through related variety and cross-
sectoral collaboration.
In this latest version of regional innovation policy, there is a clear trend towards tailor-made,
place-based policy solutions (Barca et al., 2012), a trend that could contribute to challenge-
oriented innovation policy at the regional level. The key strengths of place-based approaches
to regional innovation policy (Barca et al., 2012; OECD, 2009) are that they take real places
with their unique institutional context seriously and that they aim at providing tailor-made
policy solutions. In this regard, the recent smart specialization emphasizes the place-based
approach as one of its four key priority-setting rationales next to related variety, revealed
competitive advantage and entrepreneurial discovery (Foray, 2015). As Vanthillo et al.
(2021) have argued, while regional policy in Europe in the 1990s-2000s focused primarily on
regional competitiveness and balanced regional development, a shift towards place-based,
mission-oriented policy can be observed in the last decade. Especially within the regional
innovation policy literature, increasingly one can observe a ‘normative turn’ (Uyarra et al.,
2019) in the field. Incumbent concepts forming the theoretical base of much regional
innovation policies, such as clusters, paths, regional innovation systems and smart
specialization increasingly refer to challenge-oriented issues, such as green innovation, and
sustainability transitions. Foray (2018), for instance, develops a framework for linking smart
7
specialization to missions (see also Benner, 2020). Moreover, in the next funding period
(20212027), the eligibility for European funding for smart specialization will focus stronger
on “the green dimension of Smart Specialisation ... in line with the European Green Deal”
(Landabaso, 2020; without page number), making it potentially an important strategy for
challenge-oriented regional innovation policy. Recently, there have also been attempts to
link innovation systems to challenge-oriented innovation policy (Hekkert et al., 2020). The
increasingly popular regional path development literature in economic geography also
started to explore sustainability and green growth as a mission for regional industrial and
economic development (Trippl et al., 2020).
Inspired by the seminal work of Tödtling and Trippl (2005), economic geographers have
recently developed typologies of regions for green growth, which can be discussed in
connection to challenge-oriented innovation policies. Grillitsch and Hansen (2019), for
instance, develop a useful typology of peripheral regions, regions specialized in green
industries, in dirty industries and metropolitan regions. Depending on the regional
preconditions available in the different types of regions, there is different room for path
upgrading, path diversification and new path creation. Moreover, the different preconditions
affect the capabilities of regional actors, network failures and institutional shortcomings.
They also identify different challenges/failures for achieving missions in the different kind of
regions (Grillitsch and Hansen, 2019).
While authors of the aforementioned studies have made substantial efforts in drawing our
attention to the regional level in the challenge-oriented innovation policy discussion, it is
equally important to mention that regions are also embedded in a multi-scalar context.
Arguably, multi-scalarity is even more important nowadays than in previous generations of
innovation policies, since grand challenges do not stop at the border. On the other hand,
tailor-made solutions and room for experimentation is often available locally and regionally.
According to Trippl et al. (2020, 196): “… exploring what is within and what is beyond the
reach of regional innovation policy and what is influenced by policy at higher spatial scales
requires more attention in future work. Examining how regional green innovation policies
interact with national and supranational innovation and industrial policies and how they can
best be aligned with other policies such as sectoral and environmental policies should rank
high on future research agendas”. In the context of scales, Fitjar et al. (2019) come to some
very useful insights on the relations between the geographical scope of innovation and the
geographical scope of governance network, referring to oversight and subsidiarity. The
former refers to the situation that “… the (potential) impact of the innovation exceeds the
geographical scope of the governance network around the innovation process …”, whereas
the latter refers to the situation that “… the scope of the innovation governance network
exceeds the geographical scope of the innovation” (Fitjar et al., 2019, 7). In a multi-level
framework broad societal goals can be set to give direction at a national or transnational
level, while local units should be given autonomy to translate these goals into place-specific
policies, and to develop solutions in their own way (Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020). A good
example in this regard is Germany’s national challenge-oriented Energiewende policy, it has
been implemented in different ways at the regional level (Wellbrock, 2021; see also Fornahl
et al., 2012, concerning the support of offshore wind energy).
Overall, recent scholarly work in the general challenge-oriented policies has increasingly
plead for more geography-sensitive approaches toward innovation policies, especially with a
strong focus on different kind of regions. On the other hand, within regional innovation
8
policy studies, we see a clear trend towards regional challenge-oriented innovation policy
(e.g., Coenen et al., 2015; Trippl et al., 2020; Tödtling et al., 2020; Wanzenböck and Frenken,
2020). While challenge-oriented regional innovation policy is indeed gaining conceptual
popularity, so far, this topic has not been taken up much in empirical research. As a
response, this paper will analyze the recent renewable energy-related challenge-oriented
regional innovation policies in Schleswig-Holstein. By doing so, we aim to explore the policy
instruments that have been implemented in the region, the types of failures/challenges that
those policy documents aim to tackle, as well as lessons that could potentially be learnt from
this structurally-weak region in implementing challenge-oriented innovation policies.
3. A case study of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany
Schleswig-Holstein, Germany’s northernmost state, bordering Denmark, has both a relatively
low population and industry density. Within Germany, it also has slightly above-average
unemployment rates and below-average income and GDP per capita (Waidlein, 2019;
Schrader and Laaser, 2020). Due to a low density of manufacturing industry, as well as few
large enterprises with headquarters in the region, it also has limited private R&D facilities
and hence low scores on various innovation indicators, such as R&D employment, R&D
investments and patenting (Waidlein, 2019; EC, 2019). Schleswig-Holstein can be considered
as a structurally weak region in Western Germany, given its eligibility for regional policy
support at the national level (BMWi, 2021) and its geographical location as northernmost
state.
3.1 Wind energy and its importance in Schleswig-Holstein
Schleswig-Holstein has a long tradition in generating wind energy. After a first boom from
the end of the 19th Century until the early 1950s, when farmers in the western, most windy
part of the state, along the North Sea coast, installed Texas-style windmills, the second
boom started in the 1980s (GSHG, 2021). Growian (Große Windenergieanlage), the first
modern wind turbine in Germany, opened in 1983 in Kaiser-Wilhelm-Koog, County
Dithmarschen. In 1988, Germany’s first wind farm, Windenergiepark Westküste, was built on
the same site.
In the 1980s and 1990s, North Frisia, the most northwestern administrative district of
Schleswig-Holstein, developed into a wind energy hotspot. It mainly consists of a community
of (former) farmers who started to diversify into renewable energy, mainly wind, and who
became pioneers who enthused other citizens
3
. Since wind energy endogenously emerged
and started to grow, there is relatively little local resistance towards wind energy (expert
interviewee A and F), in contrast to other counties, such as in Dithmarschen, where external
companies were the main investors, and hence more resistance was formed. North Frisia is
the typical example of a broader movement of local energy transition with an increasing role
of prosumers and civic energy communities (Coenen et al., 2021). Recently several studies
3
Typical examples of these pioneers are Rainer Christiansen and Ove Petersen.
9
analyzed the North Frisian energy community from different perspectives, such as local
entrepreneurship, place and communities (Süsser et al., 2017) and regional varieties of
technological innovation systems (Rohe and Mattes, 2021). Rohe and Mattes (2021) consider
North Frisia as the typical example of a localist-grassroots configuration of innovation-based
regional energy transition.
Despite the thriving community in North Frisia, and the related green energy production,
green energy consumption and the jobs related to producing the installations and repairing
them, there are no large enterprises producing wind energy installations and hence private
R&D is also limited in Schleswig-Holstein. This is in contrast to Lower Saxony and Bremen
(Fornahl et al., 2012; Wellbrock, 2021). The only important player in Schleswig-Holstein, the
company formerly called REPower Systems, which emerged out of, among others, the
shipbuilder HSW in Husum, and which was then bought by Senvion, has recently gone
bankrupt. The production been has relocated to Portugal, only development function stays
in Schleswig-Holstein (expert interviewee A).
Concerning employment in the whole state of Schleswig-Holstein, Ulrich and Lehr (2018)
recently analyzed the number of jobs in renewable energy in Schleswig-Holstein compared
to overall figures in Germany, as well as other regions in Germany. For Germany as a whole,
we see a slight decrease, particularly due to decreasing number of jobs in solar energy. In
Schleswig-Holstein in total 19,000 people are working in the renewable energy sector, of
which a large share, around 12,850, in the wind energy sector (Ulrich and Lehr, 2018; Rohe
and Mattes, 2021).
3.2 Innovation policy related to wind energy in Schleswig-Holstein
3.2.1. Regional initiatives and policies
Although wind energy already played a role in state policies of Schleswig-Holstein concerning
wind turbine regulations, as well as environmental, energy and planning policies in the 1980s
(see Wellbrock, 2021), it is only since the mid-2000s that it gradually and increasingly
became part of a challenge-oriented regional industry and innovation policy. The latter is
embedded in and is supposed to cooperate with the above-mentioned neighbouring policy
fields. This trend has been partly caused by changing directionalities at the EU and national
level. As well will show below, while the policy documents collected are heterogeneous in
the sense that they include regional development strategy, innovation policy, smart
specialization, cluster and network policy, etc., they all (either implicitly or explicitly) aimed
to facilitate the development of renewable energy, which is linked to the challenge of
climate change, and the mission of Co2 emission reduction and achieving national and
international climate targets in Germany.
The regional development strategy (Ministerpräsident des Landes Schleswig-Holstein, 2016)
is one of the key recent overall documents in which the renewable energy mission has been
laid out (expert interviewee B). Moreover, the current coalition government, consisting of
the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP),
made clear pro renewable energy statements in its coalition agreement, aiming to make out
10
of Schleswig-Holstein the number one energy transition state in Germany, clearly also linking
it with industry policy and technology transfer and innovation support (Landesregierung
Schleswig-Hostein, 2017).
Concerning innovation policy, the key strategic document published by the state
government is the Regional Innovation Strategy Schleswig-Holstein (MWAVT, 2014), which
was the first of its kind, as the state government of Schleswig-Holstein was forced to develop
such a document in order to receive support from the EU ERDF fund for smart specialization.
Based on a strong involvement of and consultation with a broad group of regional
stakeholders from industry, policy and administration and mediated through several
workshops, twenty potential priority areas were selected and hundred action
recommendations given (see also Steen et al., 2019). Thereafter, state leaders selected five
specialization fields: maritime economy, life sciences, renewable energy, food sector and IT,
telecommunication and media. Many of the identified fields are related to different missions
that the whole society should strive to achieve, and renewable energy is most clearly linked
to the challenge of climate change, and the mission of Co2 emission reduction and achieving
national and international climate targets in Germany. The policy document aimed at
tackling several structural and transformational system failures, such as soft network
failures, capabilities and directionality failures.
Strongly related to the smart specialization strategy is Schleswig-Holstein’s somewhat older
cluster policy, targeting capabilities and weak network failures. It financially supports six
cluster initiatives, of which one is clearly devoted to grand societal challenges, namely the
Renewable Energy Network Agency Schleswig-Holstein (Erneuerbare Energien Schleswig-
Holstein EE.SH), which is based in Husum, North Frisia, the main wind energy region in
Schleswig-Holstein. The establishment of the cluster agency particularly aimed at addressing
problems and challenges such as connectivity and network problems, resource and
capability failures, matching problems, as well as directionality failures (Grashof, 2021).
Another support from the state was the establishment of a network organization called the
Schleswig-Holstein Centre of Excellence for Renewable energy and Climate Protection
(EEK.SH), clearly aiming at addressing weak network and capabilities failures. It links all main
research and higher education institutes in Schleswig-Holstein with competence and
expertise in these fields, namely the Universities of Applied Science of Kiel, Flensburg,
Lübeck and West Coast, as well as Kiel University.
In addition to smart specialization, cluster and network measures, some innovation policy
financial aid schemes by the state of Schleswig-Holstein are geared towards renewable
energy, including the scheme energy transition and environmental innovation
(Energiewende und Umweltinnovation). They target capability (R&D), as well as
infrastructure and directionality failures by encouraging innovation in renewable energy. The
energy transition part of the aid schemes is used for the development of power generation
plants for renewable energy and their key components, as well as for among others grid-
related innovations, intelligent energy distribution systems, and storage technologies
(Amtsblatt für Schleswig-Holstein, 2019).
Putting Schleswig-Holstein’s efforts in a broader, comparative perspective, it ranked number
one together with Baden-Württemberg concerning renewable energy indicators (Schill et al.,
2019), two states with the Greens in a coalition government. Schleswig-Holstein does
particularly well concerning the use of renewable energy, addressing demand articulation
11
failures, and the number of measures of the state government in supporting renewable
energy. It does, however, less well concerning the support and development of new
technologies related to renewable energy, which hints at weaknesses in addressing
capabilities failures (Schill et al., 2019).
3.2.2. Embedding the regional policy into a multi-scalar governance structure
Schleswig-Holstein’s challenge-oriented innovation policy supporting renewable energy is
clearly embedded in supra-national and federal (national) policy initiatives. Concerning the
former, many of the above-described measures are co-financed by the European
Commission’s ERDF fund (see also MWAVT, 2018). Concerning the latter, particularly the
Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) supports several challenge-oriented
initiatives.
First, Schleswig-Holstein benefits from the federal program “Smart Energy Showcases –
Digital Agenda for the Energy Transition” (SINTEG). SINTEG had a project running time from
2016 until 2020, involving ca. 60 partners and an investment volume of approximately €85
million. In the framework of that program, an interesting project has recently been
launched: NEW4.0 showcase Innovation Alliance for the North, which is an alliance
between Schleswig-Holstein and neighboring Hamburg (NEW4.0, 2020). This smart energy
network is supposed to be a showcase for other regions in Germany. It aims at supporting
the increase in power exports and energy self-consumption with the help of innovative
digital strategies. It consists of around hundred individual project activities with around
twenty-five demonstrators. Because it is strongly grid focused, it clearly addresses
infrastructure failures, and given its model character, it is also supposed to tackle both policy
coordination and soft network failures between states.
Secondly, the program “Test Beds of Energy Transition (Reallabore der Energiewende) is an
example of local experimentation supported by the national government. In the framework
of this program, two test beds in Schleswig-Holstein are supported: the “northern German
test bed” (in a cross-border sector coupling initiative with Hamburg and Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern) and ReWest100 (on sector coupling and hydrogen technology)
(Projektgesellschaft Norderelbe, 2019). These test beds or living labs (Reallabore) can be
clearly seen as part of a challenge-oriented regional innovation policy, supporting niche
development: protected spaces for niche development in the renewable energy field.
In Schleswig-Holstein, test beds play a particularly important role in supporting so-called
sector coupling, as well as putting renewable energy into hydrogen, which is the latest
strategy of the state of Schleswig-Holstein (expert interviewee B). Sector coupling “… refers
to the idea of interconnecting (integrating) the energy consuming sectors - buildings (heating
and cooling), transport, and industry - with the power producing sector” (Appunn, 2018). It is
extremely important in Schleswig-Holstein, as currently windmills often cannot be used
despite windy conditions, because of an overproduction of power (expert interviewee A).
Power to power would be possible with bigger and/or better storage in batteries for
instance. Sector coupling also means power to X, which is turning green power to
alternatives to power, such as hydrogen, heath, chemicals etc. Therefore, the two key issues
currently are sector coupling (power-to-X) and energy storage (hydrogen).
12
Particularly green hydrogen is currently intensively discussed in Schleswig-Holstein (see
Kruse and Wedemeier, 2021; Exner, 2020; Kieler Nachrichten, 2020b; MELUND, 2021). The
state of Schleswig-Holstein recently announced very ambitious plans to support its
development with no less than 30 million € until 2023. These initiatives are embedded in
recent initiatives by the federal government at the national level, as well as in recent extra-
regional collaboration efforts between the five northern German states (HY-5) to strongly
support green hydrogen (Kruse and Wedemeier, 2021; Preuß, 2021). These initiatives clearly
address policy coordination failures, both between sectors (such as energy and transport),
and scales (among different states). At the local level, small wind energy firms in the North
Frisia, such as GPJoule and Nordgröön play an important role in fostering the development
towards sector coupling and hydrogen (Enkhardt, 2020; expert interviewee B and F).
4. Are such challenge-oriented regional innovation policies effective in tackling failures and
challenges?
Overall, in Schleswig-Holstein, a challenge-oriented innovation policy can be observed with a
particular focus on supporting renewable energy. However, due to the lack of coordination
among interest groups in deciding the goals/directionalities of relevant policies, there is
actually little financial support from the state government for innovations in renewable
energy in Schleswig-Holstein, and most money comes from federal aid schemes (expert
interviewee A and F).
Moreover, our analysis shows that most challenge-oriented regional innovation policies in
Schleswig-Holstein show a strong tendency to address structural system failures (see Table
1), such as infrastructure, network, capabilities failures (albeit with different degrees of
success), whereas less attention has been paid to transformational failures (directionality,
policy coordination, demand articulation, reflexivity failures). The more recent multi-scalar
innovation policies have started to target both structural and transformational failures to
certain extent. EU and national policy initiatives are stronger geared towards addressing
directionality issues (pointing directions for the region), and facilitating experimentations
(e.g., test beds) and networking and policy coordination (e.g., sectoral coupling, alliances
between different states). At the regional level, however, many of the structural and
transformational failures or challenges still remain unchanged.
Regarding the problems with capabilities and resources, many of Schleswig-Holstein's
innovation policies (e.g. cluster policy, smart specialization, network policy) aimed at
improving the R&D and innovation capacities of enterprises, supporting local training and
skills development and knowledge spillovers, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral
collaborations, etc. However, these efforts do not automatically translate into local
capabilities, as local enterprises and research institutions are still relatively weak in
developing new renewable energy technologies (Schill et al., 2019).
When it comes to directionality failures, the identification of problems and challenges (i.e.
climate change) are mainly done at higher level (Germany-wide or EU), and several local
policymakers and implementers passively follow such narratives, without given due
consideration to local-specific challenges (e.g., structurally-weak regions, lack of innovation
13
capabilities, difficulties in upscaling, etc.). Moreover, since often the same regional actor
network repeatedly meet and decide about the narratives to follow, they often lack new
ideas. Expert interviewees A and G, for instance, criticized Schleswig-Holstein’s smart
specialization policy, for being a reactive strategy with few real innovations, since an
established set of actors passively followed the prescription given by the EU. So the ideal
subsidiarity of policy responsibilities suggested as by Wanzenböck and Frenken (2020)
states at upper levels give direction, while local units should aim to translate these goals into
place-specific policies, and to develop solutions in their own way, based on local
conditions has only been realized to a limited extent.
In terms of demand articulation, local actors have been active in the introduction of
renewable energy. In particular, in North Frisia, farmers and private companies are the most
active wind power developers. However, as Rohe and Mattes (2021) rightly noted, green
entrepreneurs in the region are highly specialized to serve regional demand. Due to the
locally focused nature of business innovation, not many Schleswig-Holstein companies have
experience in serving foreign markets. Therefore, expanding the market to other
regions/countries has been difficult, partly because of strong competition from other
regions, and partly because local activities are coordinated by an elite group of pioneers and
therefore it is not easy to integrate new ideas and outsiders (expert interview C). Similar to
Wanzenböck and Frenken (2020), we argue that market expansion not only requires regional
policies, but that higher level support is also crucial, otherwise local templates and models
cannot diffuse beyond the region's borders.
One of Schleswig-Holstein's weaknesses is seen in its limited focus on transregional
coordination (network and coordination failure) (see also Rohe and Mattes, 2021). It has
been argued that the lack of policy coordination creates barriers for realizing the broader
missions (Græslie and Steen, 2021). Such cross-regional coordination challenges can be
observed in R&D cooperation as well as in issues related to multi-scalar governance
(Ohlhorst et al., 2014). Several cases of interstate competition between the northern states
have led to a weakening of the renewable energy industry in Schleswig-Holstein (policy
coordination failure), such as the conflict with Hamburg over the international wind fair and
conflicts over grid infrastructure and distance regulations between wind turbines and houses
(expert interview B). What is needed, therefore, is better cross-state coordination and
cooperation with the other northern states of Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania, Bremen, and Hamburg for concerted action on renewable energy, as recently
announced for green hydrogen (Preuß, 2021). Moreover, there is also scope for this kind of
cross-regional cooperation in an EU context. This kind of cooperation is especially necessary
for a relatively small federal state like Schleswig-Holstein, and should be coordinated by
higher-level governmental bodies.
Furthermore, the strong and narrow focus on wind energy in a structurally weak region with
little private research and development and thin structures in the manufacturing industry is
also a vulnerable strategy, as is demonstrated in the recent Germany-wide wind energy
crisis. Recently, a decline in both jobs and renewable energy production has been observed
for the first time (Kieler Nachrichten, 2020a, 2020c, 2020d; DIW Econ, 2020). Senvion filed
for insolvency in early 2019, which has strong negative consequences for its subsidiary in
Rendsburg, Schleswig-Holstein. The recent crisis also leads to an exodus of skilled workers
from the region, as they are no longer needed (expert interview A). For each new wind
turbine, costs of between 100,000 and 300,000 euros are incurred for expert opinions. Since
14
the number of wind turbines built has declined sharply recently, these experts are no longer
earning money. Part of the current problems is related to the wind energy moratorium in
Schleswig-Holstein. It is considered a real bottleneck, as it has been extended several times
and negotiations take a long time due to the very strict regulations. This leads to
investments in innovation projects being halted (expert interviews A, D and E). Initially, there
was a delay due to a procedural error (institutional failure) in the state development plan
(Landesentwicklungsplan), resulting in a delay until 2021, which is a serious blow not only to
the transition to renewable energy, but also to investments in renewable energy-related
innovations, such as sector coupling. The moratorium has led to a loss of confidence and
significantly reduced planning certainty, which has negatively impacted direction and vision.
Given the high uncertainty of many green technologies, green growth goals in structurally
weak regions are best pursued in close coordination with other socioeconomic goals (e.g.,
stable employment, diversified industrial structures) to minimize the impact of unexpected
crises (Bugge et al., 2021), as noted above.
5. Discussion and conclusions
With the help of analysing the challenge-oriented policies in Schleswig-Holstein, as well as
the relevant actors involved, this paper contributes to a nuanced understanding of the role
of regions in the new generation of challenge-oriented policies. Renewable energy,
particularly wind, are one of the key missions in the state’s regional innovation strategy and
several structural and transformational system failures, such as soft network and capabilities
failures, are addressed in that strategy, whereas other failures, such as directionality and
reflexivity failures, are either not sufficiently addressed or addressed at national or EU level.
Based on our analysis, we draw four main conclusions.
First, similar to Grillitsch et al. (2019)’s analysis of the Strategic Innovation Programmes
(SIPs) in Sweden, we find that regional policymakers in Schleswig-Holstein struggle with
some of the same key challenges that these policies were set out to address in the first place
(policy coordination, demand articulation, directionality, reflexivity). Therefore, while the
transformative innovation narrative is attractive in policy domain, our case study shows that
the emerging innovation policy’s actual potential for sustainable transition is not easily
achieved, and that such transformations might actually come at a high price, especially in
structurally weak peripheral regions. An important question is therefore how to solve this
challenge with the help of higher-level governments, which brings us to the second point of
discussion multi-scalar governance coordination.
While solutions to some structural and transformative innovation challenges/failures, such
as the soft network and the capabilities failure, can be found at the regional level, solving
other problems is beyond the capabilities of regions alone (Köhler et al., 2021). Not only do
regional actors face challenges and obstacles related to structural innovation systems, they
also face problems and difficulties related to priority setting, upscaling of local innovations,
competition and coordination within and across different regions and sectors, and a lack of
quality institutions to facilitate policy learning (related to failures and challenges in
transformative innovation systems) (Gibbs and Jensen, 2021). Therefore, support from
higher-level governments is needed not only to diffuse the initial grassroots innovations to
similar regions, but more importantly to coordinate the interests of different regions and
15
sectors to enable a truly sustainable transition in a broader geographic context (Köhler et al.,
2021; Wanzenböck and Frenken, 2020).
Grand societal challenges do not stop at the border of the region, so multi-scalar governance
and policies are sine qua non for tackling them and hence for challenge-oriented innovation
policies. Compared to previous generations of regional innovation policies, which first
strongly focused on generally supporting the innovativeness of SMEs and were then
increasingly based on regional innovation systems, clusters and smart specialization, the
current challenge-oriented regional innovation policies is therefore more embedded in a
multi-scalar way, even in a federal political system, such as Germany. However, that does
not mean the end of the importance for the regional level for innovation policies and
innovation systems. As has been illustrated in this paper, each region has its own potential
and own specific challenges to tackle and some regions have favourable conditions, such as
North Frisia in Schleswig-Holstein concerning wind energy. Moreover, at the local and
regional level there is room for experimentation and fostering niche innovations, as is shown
along the North Sea coast of Schleswig-Holstein, which can put pressure on regimes
hindering necessary changes to tackle grand societal challenges.
Third, the normative shift towards sustainable development can be observed in Schleswig-
Holstein's regional innovation policy, which has become more heterogeneous. However,
such challenge-oriented measures are only one part of the overall regional innovation policy.
Other, more general and horizontal innovation policies are still in place, and vertical policies,
such as cluster policies for non-mission sectors like tourism, are still important. The example
of Schleswig-Holstein in Germany shows that regional innovation policy is becoming more
challenge-oriented, but this is an extension rather than a replacement of a somewhat
conventional innovation policy (for a similar argument, see Grillitsch et al., 2020). Successful
implementation of policy for transformative change depends on widespread legitimacy that
is related to policy rationales. Therefore, a degree of continuity in transformative change in
the form of building on existing actors and policy actions in particular places is central
(Bugge et al., 2021). The demarcation between the new challenge-oriented and the
conventional regional innovation policy is not fixed, but is in constant flux, depending on
regional conditions and political factors, such as the quality of governance, the ability to
develop a regional vision supported by a large group of heterogeneous actors, and the ability
to overcome lock-ins and the influence of vested interests by established organizations that
block the transition.
Finally, balancing economic/industrial competitiveness with sustainable development is a
tightrope walk for regional decision makers that needs to be well-balanced (Gibbs and
Jensen, 2021). Scientists should be more reflexive when making policy proposals for
peripheral regions, as the goal of environmental sustainability should not be achieved at the
cost of hindering the development of regional economies, but both aspects should go hand
in hand. As Bugge et al. (2021) rightly argued, existing industry actors and resources in
regions can become drivers of transformative change if mission problems can be solved with
solutions that offer economic opportunities (for a similar argument, see Gibbs and Jensen,
2021). In contrast, policies that address societal challenges while creating economic
uncertainty typically face strong resistance and therefore have low political feasibility (Vona,
2019). In structurally weak regions, two birds can be killed with one stone (overcoming
major challenges and sustaining regional economic development). A challenge-oriented
innovation policy and strategy could offer structurally weak regions the opportunity to catch
16
up in certain emerging areas where they have competitive advantages. However, our study
on renewable energy in Schleswig-Holstein has also shown that there is no guarantee of
success and the question of how sustainability transitions can be made economically viable
and attractive for structurally weak regions therefore requires further research.
All in all, our paper has focused on renewable energy as one target of challenge-oriented
regional innovation policy. There are of course other targets of this kind of policy in
Schleswig-Holstein, such as food or life sciences, that could be researched in the future in a
comparative perspective, in order to explore and compare our conclusions in a broader
sectoral setting. Moreover, it would also be fruitful to examine more closely what makes
innovation policy truly "mission/challenge oriented" if this normative turn is asserted to be
essential to regional policymaking in the contemporary era.
References
Amtsblatt für Schleswig-Holstein (2019). Ausgabe 15. Juli 2019. Kiel: Innenministerium.
Appunn, K. (2018). Sector CouplingShaping an Integrated Renewable Energy
System. Journalism for the Energy Transition.
Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez‐Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development
intervention: place‐based versus place‐neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52,
134-152.
Benner, M. (2020). Six additional questions about smart specialization: implications for
regional innovation policy 4.0. European Planning Studies, 28(8), 1667-1684.
BMWi (2021). Koordinierungsrahmen der Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der
regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ ab 1. März 2021. Berlin: Federal Ministry for Economic
Affairs and Energy.
Bugge, M. M., Andersen, A. D., & Steen, M. (2021). The role of regional innovation systems
in mission-oriented innovation policy. Trondheim: FME NTANS Working Paper 00/20.
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., & Rekers, J. V. (2015). Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An
Economic Geography Perspective. Geography Compass, 9(9), 483-496.
Coenen, L., & Morgan, K. (2020). Evolving geographies of innovation: Existing paradigms,
critiques and possible alternatives. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of
Geography, 74(1), 13-24.
Coenen, L., Hansen, T., Glasmeier, A., & Hassink, R. (2021). Regional Foundations of Energy
Transitions. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 14(2), 219-233.
Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing
variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894.
DIW Econ (2020). Die wirtschaftliche Bedeutung der Windenergie an Land in Schleswig-
Holstein; Eine Kurzexpertise von DIW Econ. Berlin: DIW Econ.
EC (2019). Regional Innovation Scoreboard. Brussels: European Commission.
Enkhardt, S. (2020). North German pilot hydrogen project gets cash boost. PV Magazine.
17
Exner, U. (2020). Kieler Träume. Die Welt 13-12-2020.
Fitjar, R. D., Benneworth, P., & Asheim, B. T. (2019). Towards regional responsible research
and innovation? Integrating RRI and RIS3 in European innovation policy. Science and Public
Policy.
Foray, D. (2015). Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation
Policy. Abingdon: Routledge.
Foray, D. (2018). Smart specialization strategies as a case of mission-oriented policya case
study on the emergence of new policy practices. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5),
817-832.
Fornahl, D., Hassink, R., Klaerding, C., Mossig, I., & Schröder, H. (2012). From the old path of
shipbuilding onto the new path of offshore wind energy? The case of northern
Germany. European Planning Studies, 20(5), 835-855.
Frenken, K. (2017). A complexity-theoretic perspective on innovation policy. Complexity,
Innovation and Policy, 3(1), 35-47.
Gibbs, D., & Jensen, P. D. (2021). Chasing after the wind? Green economy strategies, path
creation and transitions in the offshore wind industry. Regional Studies, 1-12.
Grashof, N. (2021). Putting the watering can awaytowards a targeted (problem-oriented)
cluster policy framework. Research Policy, 50(9), 104335.
Græslie, L. S., & Steen, M. (2021). Integrating policy instruments for mission-oriented
innovation. In ISPIM Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-9). The International Society for
Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM).
Grillitsch, M., & Hansen, T. (2019). Green industry development in different types of
regions. European Planning Studies, 27(11), 2163-2183.
Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., Coenen, L., Miörner, J., & Moodysson, J. (2019). Innovation policy
for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in
Sweden. Research Policy, 48(4), 1048-1061.
Grillitsch, M., Hansen, T., & Madsen, S. (2020). How novel is Transformative Innovation
Policy? (No. 2020/8). Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and
Competences in the Learning Economy.
GSHG (2021). Windenergie. Gesellschaft für Schleswig-Holsteinische Geschichte
https://geschichte-s-h.de/
Hassink, R. (2020). Advancing place-based regional innovation policies. In: González-López,
M. and B. T. Asheim (eds.), Regions and Innovation Policies in Europe; Learning from the
Margins. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 30-45.
Hassink, R., & Gong, H. (2019). Six critical questions about smart specialization. European
Planning Studies, 27(10), 2049-2065.
Hekkert, M. P., Janssen, M. J., Wesseling, J. H., & Negro, S. O. (2020). Mission-oriented
innovation systems. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 76-79.
18
Karlson, N., Sandström, C., & Wennberg, K. (2021). Bureaucrats or Markets in Innovation
Policy?a critique of the entrepreneurial state. The Review of Austrian Economics, 34(1), 81-
95.
Kieler Nachrichten (2020a). Jobmaschine und Wertschöpfungsmotor. Kieler Nachrichten 26-
2-2020.
Kieler Nachrichten (2020b). Rückenwind für einen grünen Energieträger. Kieler Nachrichten
21-10-2020.
Kieler Nachrichten (2020c). Schleswig-Holsteins Windkraft erstmals in Rückwärtsgang. Kieler
Nachrichten 16-1-2020.
Kieler Nachrichten (2020d). Windkraft verliert erstmals an Leistung. Kieler Nachrichten 16-1-
2020.
Köhler, J., Dütschke, E., & Wittmayer, J. (2021). Introduction to “Zooming in and out: Special
issue on local transition governance”. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 40,
203-206.
Kruse, M., Wedemeier, J. (2021). Potenzial grüner Wasserstoff: langer Weg der Entwicklung,
kurze Zeit bis zur Umsetzung. Wirtschaftsdienst, 101(1), 26-32.
Landesregierung Schleswig-Holstein (2017). Das Ziel verbindet weltoffen - wirtschaftlich wie
ökologisch stark menschlich (Koalitionsvertrag). Kiel: Landesregierung.
Landabaso M (2020). From S3 to S4: towards sustainable smart specialisation strategies.
(unpublished manuscript)
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European
Union. Brussels: European Commission.
MELUND (2021). Gutachten H2-Erzeugung und Märkte Schleswig-Holstein. Kiel:
Ministeriums für Energiewende, Landwirtschaft, Umwelt, Natur und Digitalisierung des
Landes Schleswig-Holstein.
Ministerpräsident des Landes Schleswig-Holstein (2016). Landesentwicklungsstrategie
Schleswig-Holstein 2030 (Entwurf). Kiel.
MWAVT (2014). Strategiebericht Regionale Innovationsstrategie Schleswig-Holstein. Kiel:
Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit, Verkehr und Technologie des Landes Schleswig-Holstein.
MWAVT (2018). Operationelles Programm des Europäischen Fonds für regionale Entwicklung
(EFRE) in Schleswig-Holstein 2014-2020. Kiel: Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Arbeit, Verkehr und
Technologie des Landes Schleswig-Holstein.
NEW4.0 (2020). Innovationsallianz aus Hamburg und Schleswig-Holstein zum Energiesystem
der Zukunft. Hamburg: NEW4.0.
OECD (2009). Regions Matter: Economic Recovery, Innovation and Sustainable Growth. Paris:
OECD.
OECD (2015). System Innovation: Synthesis Report. Paris: OECD.
19
Ohlhorst, D., Tews, K., & Schreurs, M. (2014). Energiewende als Herausforderung der
Koordination im Mehrebenensystem. In Im Hürdenlauf zur Energiewende (pp. 93-104).
Springer VS, Wiesbaden.
Preuß, O. (2021). Jetzt wirbt der Norden weltweit um Investitionen in „grünen“ Wasserstoff.
Die Welt 15-3-2021.
Projektgesellschaft Norderelbe (2019). Regionales Entwicklungskonzept für die Region
Westküste 2019: Endbericht https://www.rk-westküste.de/themen/regionales-
entwicklungskonzept
Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended
concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy, 45(8), 1620-1635.
Rohe, S., & Mattes, J. (2021). What about the regional level? Regional configurations of
Technological Innovation Systems. Vienna: PEGIS 2021/01.
Schill, W. P., Diekmann, J., & Püttner, A. (2019). Sechster Bundesländervergleich erneuerbare
Energien: Schleswig-Holstein und Baden-Württemberg an der Spitze. DIW-
Wochenbericht, 86(48), 881-894.
Schot, J. & Steinmueller, W.E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of
innovation and transformative change. Research Policy 47, 9, 1554-1567.
Schrader, K., & Laaser, C. F. (2020). Industrielle Strukturen und Potentiale im Norden: Eine
regionale Analyse der deutsch-dänischen Industrielandschaft (No. 31). Kiel: Institut für
Weltwirtschaft, Kieler Beiträge zur Wirtschaftspolitik.
Steen, M., Faller, F., & Fyhn Ullern, E. (2019). Fostering renewable energy with smart
specialisation? Insights into European innovation policy. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-
Norwegian Journal of Geography, 73(1), 39-52.
Süsser, D., Döring, M., & Ratter, B. M. (2017). Harvesting energy: Place and local
entrepreneurship in community-based renewable energy transition. Energy Policy, 101, 332-
341.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional
innovation policy approach. Research policy, 34(8), 1203-1219.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018). Regional innovation policies for new path development
beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views. European Planning Studies, 26(9), 1779-
1795.
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M., & Frangenheim, A. (2020). Policy options for green regional
development: Adopting a production and application perspective. Science and Public Policy,
47(6), 865-875.
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M., & Desch, V. (2021). New directions for RIS studies and policies in the
face of grand societal challenges. European Planning Studies (forthcoming).
Trippl, M., Baumgartinger-Seiringer, S., Frangenheim, A., Isaksen, A., & Rypestøl, J. O. (2020).
Unravelling green regional industrial path development: Regional preconditions, asset
modification and agency. Geoforum, 111, 189-197.
20
Ulrich, P., & Lehr, U. (2018). Erneuerbar beschäftigt in den Bundesländern: Bericht zur
aktualisierten Abschätzung der Bruttobeschäftigung 2016 in den Bundesländern (No.
2018/02). GWS Research Report.
Uyarra, E., Ribeiro, B., & Dale-Clough, L. (2019). Exploring the normative turn in regional
innovation policy: responsibility and the quest for public value. European Planning Studies,
27(12), 2359-2375.
Vanthillo, T., Beckers, J., & Verhetsel, A. (2021). The changing nature of regional policy in
Europe. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 37(1), 201-220.
Vona, F. (2019). Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’
argument is so persistent and how to overturn it. Climate Policy, 19(4), 524-532.
Waidlein, N. (2019). Wirtschaft und Wachstum in Schleswig-Holstein. In: Knelangen, W. and
F. Boyken (eds.), Politik und Regieren in Schleswig-Holstein. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 63-85.
Wanzenböck, I., & Frenken, K. (2020). The subsidiarity principle in innovation policy for
societal challenges. Global Transitions, 2, 51-59.
Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation
policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-
level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-
1047.
Wellbrock, J. (2021). Actors, Institutions and Innovation Processes in New Path Creation
The Regional Emergence and Evolution of Wind Energy Technology in Germany. Hanover
University, PhD thesis.
... As a result, a growing number of studies on new concepts such as responsible innovations (Owen et al. 2013;Sjøtun and Solheim 2023), mission-oriented (Mazzucato 2018), challengeoriented (Hassink et al. 2022), and transformative innovation policies (Schot and Steinmueller 2018) have become increasingly popular among policy-makers at several spatial levels, both in coordinated and liberal market economies (Mazzucato 2018;Tödtling et al. 2022). This new generation of innovation policy argues for a broader understanding of innovation that includes social and institutional innovations besides those in technological and business fields. ...
... Such a normative turn (Uyarra et al. 2019) in regional innovation policy research, however, does not mean that the previous generations of innovation policies are obsolete. Rather, the new generation of innovation policy is often an extension of, rather than a replacement for, conventional regional innovation policy (Hassink et al. 2022). ...
... Another recent development in the regional innovation policy domain is the acknowledgement of wicked problems related to sustainability transitions and regional transformations being ill-defined, contextual and often contested at local levels (Wanzenböck and Frenken 2020). Due to such wickedness, multi-scalar / inter-scalar policy coordination seems to be essential for the new generation regional innovation policy to be effective (Hassink et al. 2022). Here, the principle of subsidiarity in innovation policy is the key (Wanzenböck and Frenken 2020). ...
... Although there have been reviews of RIS (Doloreux & Gomez, 2018;Fernandes et al., 2021), we see three reasons for an updated review. First, despite the importance of the traditional RIS concept, it is increasingly scrutinized due to significant social challenges and global economic uncertainties (Asheim et al., 2020;Hassink et al., 2022;Tödtling et al., 2022). Secondly, research on RIS has advanced in terms of multi-scale policies and global perspectives (Blažek & Steen, 2022;Frangenheim, 2023;Rohe & Mattes, 2022). ...
... According to Tödtling & Trippl (2013), the transformation of RIS involves not just changes within the industry itself but also the reconfiguration of the RIS, encompassing various aspects such as knowledge creation, policy support, and network building. However, RIS may face various challenges in promoting these transitions, including institutional inertia or institutional void, path dependence, and a lack of coordination and cooperation (Coenen et al., 2018;Hassink et al., 2022;Sandulli et al., 2021;Tödtling & Trippl, 2013). Tödtling et al. (2022) recently introduced the challenge-oriented regional innovation system (CoRIS) to conceptualize the role of RIS in facilitating regional transitions in a reaction to grand societal challenges, such as climate change. ...
... Research in this phase increasingly shifts the focus of innovation from merely promoting regional economic growth to achieving sustainable development, addressing grand societal challenges such as climate change, resource depletion, and environmental degradation (Asheim et al., 2020;Martin, 2020;Trippl et al., 2023). To address grand societal challenges, RIS must address deep transformation and reconfiguration through multi-scalar governance and policy cooperation (Asheim et al., 2020;Hassink et al., 2022;Trippl et al., 2023). This involves not only technological innovation but also changes in socio-technical systems and institutions (Martin, 2020;Sovacool et al., 2024;Terstriep et al., 2020). ...
... Within this scientific literature, the few available studies at the regional level have been limited to qualitative analyses (see Hassink et al., 2022;Cappellano, Uyarra and Flanagan, 2024). This paper aims to provide the first quantitative study on how EU regions have aligned their innovation and policy endeavours to tackle exposure to climate change effects at regional level. ...
... The literature on challenge-oriented policies-including Missions-has predominantly addressed national programs (see Larrue, 2021;Rohracher, Coenen and Kordas, 2023;Rohracher and Ornetzeder, 2024). While studies inspecting challenge-oriented policies at the regional level have been limited to qualitative case studies (see Hassink et al., 2022;Cappellano, Uyarra and Flanagan, 2024) Our study extends the understanding of the regional missionoriented approach by considering the place-specific engagement with societal challenges, the possible (mis) alignment between science and technological innovation and policy directionality (Cappellano et al., 2022;Hassink et al., 2022). ...
... The literature on challenge-oriented policies-including Missions-has predominantly addressed national programs (see Larrue, 2021;Rohracher, Coenen and Kordas, 2023;Rohracher and Ornetzeder, 2024). While studies inspecting challenge-oriented policies at the regional level have been limited to qualitative case studies (see Hassink et al., 2022;Cappellano, Uyarra and Flanagan, 2024) Our study extends the understanding of the regional missionoriented approach by considering the place-specific engagement with societal challenges, the possible (mis) alignment between science and technological innovation and policy directionality (Cappellano et al., 2022;Hassink et al., 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper analyses how EU regions have aligned their innovation and policy endeavours to tackle exposure to the effects of Climate Change at regional level. Scholars hailed the need to orienting efforts and resources to tackle societal challenges. However, we have little empirical evidence on the alignment of R&I ecosystems and policy endeavours towards tackling Climate Change. Using regression analysis, we assess the relationship between such directionality and the exposure to risk of disasters (i.e., coastal floods, river floods, and landslides)that each region faces in the short, medium, and long term due to Climate Change. Results show a positive relationship between risk projection and climate change preparedness. However, a more in-depth analysis demonstrates the complexity of such geographical "problem-solution convergence": investigating whether the EU regions most at risk of being affected by climate change are also the ones most ready to target climate change through an aligned combination of R&I and policy efforts. Findings show that more developed regions appear more ready to tackle climate change effects compared to transition and less developed regions. These findings suggest that more support is needed for less developed regions facing major Climate Change-related risks
... To avoid directionality failures (Weber and Rohracher 2012), a more thorough understanding of the territorial dimension of the challenge-oriented innovation policy is therefore essential. Following this line of reasoning, this paper (Hassink et al. 2022;Isaksen, Trippl, and Mayer 2022). Orienting policy to target SCs requires an effort to orchestrate a multitude of actors -at different scales -whose interests might be mutually conflictual (Kuhlmann and Rip 2018). ...
... Orienting policy to target SCs requires an effort to orchestrate a multitude of actors -at different scales -whose interests might be mutually conflictual (Kuhlmann and Rip 2018). Actor complexity and multi-level governance makes the framing process of SCs a place-based practice Miedzinski et al. 2021;Hassink et al. 2022). ...
... We mobilise, the 'trinity of change agency' framework (Grillitsch and Sotarauta 2020) and 'border function' framework (Sohn and Licheron 2018) to provide new insights into how actors navigate opportunity spaces to solve problems related to SC. Research on regional challenge-oriented policy lacks empirical evidence, except in a few studies (e.g. Hassink et al. 2022). This paper enriches the literature, expanding the scope of the knowledge and opening new research avenues. ...
Article
This paper explores the operationalization of policy directionality in terms of goal consistency as well as the spatial dimensions of problems and solutions. The study focuses on cross-border regions (CBRs), since they are engaged in cooperation to tackle common challenges. This study employs a comparative analysis across two EU CBRs, drawing on a theoretical framework that integrates the trinity of agency scholarships and the literature on the multiplicity of border functions. By combining these perspectives, we aim to illustrate how agents navigate the opportunity spaces generated within CBRs. This paper aims to shed light on the interplay between agents to navigate the conditions that the presence of international border generates in the EU cross-border regions (CBR)s to tackle Societal Challenges (SC)s. Through this integrated framework, we explore how agents perceive, interpret, and respond to the complex dynamics and possibilities that emerge in CBRs, shedding light on the interplay between structure and agency in these unique spatial settings. The findings show how SC can be framed at different scales with ambivalent results in terms of consistency of policy goals. Framed through the trinity agency framework, actors interacted collectively to generate and transfer knowledge in the CBRs. ARTICLE HISTORY
... Schot and Steinmueller, 2018) emphasise the need for innovation to deliver broader societal and environmental benefits in addition to economic growth. Despite the latent potential of new innovation policy approaches to resolve pressing local and global problems, scholars caution that their design and implementation requires considerable sensitivity towards the spatial dimension of industrial development dynamics and their embeddedness in place-specific contexts shaped by local culture, institutions, and identities (Hassink et al., 2021;. Specific places may also face pressing challenges that are not directly related to global wicked problems, and which may worsen if local policymakers allocate scarce resources to distant global problems (Allan et al., 2023). ...
... Place-based leaders achieve such outcomes by articulating collective visions of the future that integrate expectations of what such a future 'ought' to look like (Hassink et al., 2021;Miörner and Trippl, 2019). Recent contributions from the emerging research stream on the geography of legitimation point out the importance of mobilising local discourses and narratives in support of emerging industrial paths and associated technological change (Binz and Gong, 2021;MacKinnon et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
In this paper we enrich the concept of place-based leadership. Building on social movement theory, our analysis of the clean growth mission development in Greater Manchester (UK) reveals the role of place-based leadership in mobilising and coordinating framing processes that linked the global climate change problem with local challenges, articulated local benefits of its resolution , and provided justification for local change efforts. We draw on theories of the policy process (i.e. Multiple Streams Framework) to shed light on how place-based leaders frame problems and solutions strategically to engender policy change. While framing processes had an impact on local policy agendas, we do not find evidence of accelerated implementation, pointing to the important distinctions between problem ownership and solution ownership in the context of wicked problems. Our findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the role of multi-level governance and localised agency in problem-based policymaking for sustainable regional development.
... Thereby, Northern Germany qualified itself through the diverse nature of regions including large cities (Hamburg, Bremen) on the one hand and more rural regions (Lüneburg, Weser-Ems) on the other hand. Also, the region has been analysed in the context of sustainable transition, matching the focus of this paper (Hassink et al., 2021;). This regional subset complements Morisson et al. (2020) who conducted a network analysis based on the Italian region of Calabria. ...
... Northern Germany matches this suggestion, and the analysis blends in with other papers assigning the region an important role for a sustainable transition (e.g. Hassink et al., 2021;. ...
Article
Full-text available
Innovation represents one of the most crucial levers for regional prosperity and sectoral renewal. Additionally, it is applied to address challenges such as a sustainable transition and the battle against climate change. Since innovation is the result of cooperation between different actors with different backgrounds, the topic is increasingly studied from a systemic perspective. Here, not only internal cooperation but also cross-border connections between regions become important. While smart specialisation, a European policy for innovation and cohesion, highlights the role of interregional cooperation, practical manifestations and research on this aspect have remained limited so far. This article addresses this gap by discussing the relevance of interregional cooperation for knowledge creation and presents empirical evidence on cooperation between organisations in different European regions in the field of environmental sustainability. The underlying dataset was constructed from Horizon 2020 (H2020) research projects with Northern Germany as an exemplary set of regions chosen as the core of a social network analysis (SNA). The findings reveal that involvement in interregional projects is concentrated particularly in urban regions and correlates with GDP and population density. On the other hand, also organisations in regions with different structural characteristics are involved in interregional cooperation, and H2020 managed to introduce new cooperation patterns. Finally, the empirical data do not adequately match the regional smart specialisation strategies (S3) which raises questions on updating smart specialisation as a policy.
... Lack of coordination could create barriers to PULs sustainable development. To avoid this, Hassink et al. (2021) suggest that coordination processes should not only take place among various policies and planning instruments but also cover horizontal coordination between policies and research/technology, vertical coordination between responsible stakeholders acting in a hierarchical planning structure, and temporal coordination among long-term and short-term interventions by different governance actors. Trying to answer the question of what could be 'appropriate', 'effective', or 'balanced' policy mixes, Flanagan et al. (2011) noted that coordination of PIs is very demanding or hardly impossible due to governance systems' complexity and fragmentation. ...
Article
Full-text available
Peri-Urban Landscapes (PULs) are transitional areas composed of a mix of natural and anthropogenic land covers. The unsustainable character of many PULs is widely recognised, but their governance is particularly challenging. The paper moves from the hypothesis that addressing some of the sustainability challenges of PULs requires the combination of multiple Policy Instruments (PIs), i.e., a policy mix. An online survey was developed to collect cases of PULs governance with a twofold purpose: i) to identify and describe existing PIs implemented in PULs, and ii) to investigate which combinations of PIs are adopted to address specific categories of sustainability challenges. Fifty valid answers describing 47 cases of PULs governance from 26 countries were collected and analysed. The results confirm the presence of a policy mix approach, suggesting the need for a plurality of PIs to govern the dynamics and complexities of PULs. Moreover, the results indicate an important role of the regional governance level, a dominating presence of top-down instruments, and a need for more effective inclusion of citizens into policy-making processes related to PULs. A reflection on the findings considering the existing literature on governance experimentation suggests governance mixes for PULs as potential approaches to address some of the shortcomings of the analysed policy mixes.
... An example from Northern Germany (Schleswig-Holstein) shows that actors are liable for the consequences of their actions and might be challenged by the administrative courts. At the beginning of 2015, the Higher Administrative Court of Schleswig declared all regional plans in Schleswig-Holstein invalid due to legal errors (Hassink et al. 2021). It thus overturned the spatial governance of onshore wind power for an entire state in one court ruling, which led to a moratorium for new wind installations until the end of 2021 and the re-initiation of spatial planning processes. ...
Article
Full-text available
We shed light on wicked problems in the German energy transition. Our methods consist of a multiple-case study and multi-criteria analysis, utilising the wicked problems theoretical framework introduced by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber [1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4 (2): 155–169. Accessed August 20, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730]. Results from the energy supply, heating/cooling, transport, and industry sectors illustrate where and how the 10-point frame of wicked problems manifests in the German energy transition. The four cases exhibit more wicked tendencies in the governance domain than the technical domain and differ in their degrees of technology maturity, policy regulation, and knowledge states. We do not find that the German energy transition is inherently wicked. However, wickedness unfolds through the social setting into which technical solutions of the energy transition are embedded. We aim to highlight these intricacies and encourage scrutinising these wicked facets early on.
Article
Full-text available
This paper explores avenues for cross-fertilisation between the mission-oriented approach and Cohesion Policy. It argues in favor of mutual policy learning between the two to address some of their respective shortcomings: Cohesion Policy is facing a gradual erosion of its identity, whereas the mission-oriented approach needs a stronger territorial perspective. The mission-oriented approach could offer a theoretical blueprint for reorganizing Cohesion Policy priorities around few missions, linking more explicitly its objectives to major societal challenges so as to reinforce its rationale and revive its political ownership. Moreover, Cohesion Policy can draw inspiration from the concept of directionality to strengthen its result-orientation dimension. It should be also assessed whether the missions' blending of top-down and bottom-up approaches can inspire ideas to streamline the complex governance of Cohesion Policy. The mission-oriented approach can benefit from adopting Cohesion Policy peculiar architecture enabling joint broad priorities to be adapted to territorial contexts and into regional strategies. The mission-oriented approach could also learn from the Cohesion Policy goal of maximizing equity and efficiency, its focus on empowering regions, and its redistributive approach to foster the full potential of all EU regions to tackle societal challenges.
Article
Innovation is expected to play a key role for the green transition of existing economic structures. In Europe, this fact relates particularly to the concept of smart specialisation which is the key EU instrument for innovation and cohesion policy. While an increasing number of policy papers argues in favour of updating smart specialisation, considering, particularly the European Green Deal, others advise not to overcharge the instrument and focus on its original purpose. In this context, the article shows how smart specialisation has undergone several transformations since its proclamation and how its purpose has been adapted over time. A bibliometric analysis on the development of environmental sustainability in regional innovation highlights that both areas are interlinked since decades. On this basis, it is concluded that regional innovation and green transition can mutually benefit. Leveraging the transformative and collaborative nature of smart specialisation might constitute the basis for successfully rolling out the European Green Deal at the regional level.
Article
Full-text available
The regional innovation system (RIS) approach has become a widely used framework for examining the dynamics of innovation across space and for crafting policies to promote the innovation capacity of regions. The dominant focus has been on technological and business innovation enhancing competitiveness and economic growth. In light of persistent environmental and social challenges such as climate change, aging and growing inequalities, this understanding appears to be too narrow. We argue that the RIS approach requires a critical reassessment for informing the next generation of regional innovation policies. We explore how RIS scholarship and policies could benefit from an alternative understanding of the innovation process. Inspired by recent work on mission-oriented and transformative innovation policies, we develop the notion of ‘challenge-oriented RISs’ (CoRISs). In contrast to conventional understandings of RISs, this approach embraces a more critical view of innovation, captures the directionality of change, opens up to new innovation actors at different territorial scales and pays more attention to the application side and upscaling of innovation within the region and beyond. Acknowledging that regions vary in their capacity for transformative change and challenge-oriented innovation, the article outlines new directions for place-based innovation policies.
Article
Full-text available
Due to a spatial turn in the socio-technical transition literature, the geography of energy transitions has recently been taken increasingly seriously, leading to burgeoning research output on regional energy transitions since early 2010. Amidst this wealth of publications, however, it can be difficult to keep track of its diverse and constantly evolving landscape. This editorial therefore aims at developing a framework that allows for bringing multiple approaches to regional energy transitions into conversation with each other and that helps to understand and explain the complexity of these interdependencies in ways that go beyond observing regional variety in energy transitions.
Article
Full-text available
It is argued that innovation policy based on notions of market failure or system failure is too limited in the context of current societal challenges. I propose a third, complexity-theoretic approach. This approach starts from the observation that most innovations are related to existing activities, and that policy’s additionality is highest for unrelated diversification. To trigger unrelated diversification into activities that contribute to solving societal challenges, government’s main task is to organize the process of demand articulation. This process leads to clear and manageable societal objectives that effectively guide a temporary collation of actors to develop solutions bottom-up. The combination of a broad coalition, a clear objective and tentative governance are the means to cope with the inherent complexity of modern-day innovation.
Article
Full-text available
Zusammenfassung Das Thema Wasserstoff wird seit längerem diskutiert, doch jüngst hat es im Zuge des Corona-Konjunkturpakets des Bundes einen spürbaren Bedeutungszuwachs erfahren. Eine Wasserstoffwirtschaft verspricht die notwendige nachhaltige Transformation der Wirtschaft bei gleichzeitigem Erhalt der Industriestruktur, zusätzliche Arbeitsplätze und Wachstumspotenziale in einer resilienteren Ökonomie.
Article
Regional innovation policy must not only strive for economic competitiveness, but also push novel and more sustainable technological solutions. The complex and multi-scalar process of developing and diffusing new technologies is captured by the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) framework. However, the approach neglects regional heterogeneity and lacks a nuanced and systematic understanding of how technological change plays out differently across places. We thus complement TIS with insights from the literature on Regional Innovation Systems (RIS), which offers manifold comparisons and typologies of institutional contexts for regional innovation. We argue that three ideal-typical configurations – localist-grassroots, interactive-networked, and globalist-dirigiste – exist at the intersection between a technological and specific regional innovation system. We discuss how these regional configurations contribute differently to knowledge creation and market formation within the overall TIS and point to the innovation-related challenges they are confronted with. We illustrate our conceptual arguments with a brief comparative case study on three regions in the TIS for onshore wind energy. Overall, this paper contributes to the literature on the geographies of innovation and sustainability transitions, introduces a framework for analyzing regional heterogeneity in TIS, and enables more fine-grained technology- and place-specific policy interventions at the regional level.
Article
There has been a growing interest by both academics and policymakers at the local and regional scales in the development of a green economy both to promote economic development and to achieve environmental policy aims. Despite this, there is little evidence about whether either the economic or the environmental aims are being met, nor how local and regional authorities are promoting and developing green economies in their localities. In order to address these issues, this paper explores the development of the offshore wind industry in North West Germany, drawing upon sustainability transitions research and the path creation literature.
Article
In view of the undisputed promising effects of regional clusters and spurred by lighthouse examples such as Silicon Valley, cluster policies have been popular in many countries worldwide. However, in recent years the complaints have become louder about the actual economic relevance and efficiency of such regional innovation policies. In particular, the high degree of standardization in the so far applied cluster policies, focusing primarily on collaborative incentives to strengthen the relational density in clusters, have been criticized as being rather ineffective and costly to society. In order to solve this one-size-fits-all problem, it has been proposed that cluster policies should instead focus on the concrete conditions and needs within regional clusters. The aim of this paper is to respond to this call by considering firm-, cluster- and market-/industry-specific particularities. Based on an extensive systematic review of the empirical literature about the relationship between clusters and firms’ performances, an overview about relevant conditions is elaborated. By integrating such an overview with the general policy rationales it becomes possible to identify potential problems, e.g. in terms of missing absorptive capacities, which cluster policy can purposefully address. For each identified problem, a potential targeted (problem-oriented) policy intervention is therefore suggested. The corresponding result of this procedure is a policy-framework that offers an increased practical value in terms of bringing forth specific adaptive cluster policies rather than one-size-fits-all policies and thereby contributing to a more sophisticated understanding of the design of cluster policies.
Article
Transitions research has paid increasing attention to the different spatial scales of transitions. This special section considers whether fundamental changes in structures, cultures and practices can be addressed at local or district scales. This focus on local scales also draws the attention to different types of local actors, their roles, activities, networks and interactions. Conceptual papers develop typologies addressing the dynamics of local transitions and suggest strategies for making transitions last. It is argued that local governance has limited personnel and financial resources to support transitions. Network development is one strategy for addressing this. Case studies confirm that local context is important in understanding transitions processes, along with their relationships to higher levels of governance.
Article
This article charts the changing context of regional economic development and the advancement of both policy thinking and analysis on this issue. The shift away from ‘traditional’ regional policies, designed to bring about regional convergence, towards new approaches, designed to exploit the economic development potential of regions, is the focus of the article. Specific attention is paid to the emergence of regional development strategies in the process, where ‘regions’ may be defined functionally rather than administratively. We outline the elements of such strategies—including redefining objectives, new types of interventions, involvement of new actors, and the broadening and integration of regional interventions—which distinguish them from traditional policy and which will determine the degree of success achieved. In conclusion, the paper raises two points of interest, namely the need for more inclusive regional development processes and better implementation of these demanding strategies.