Search

This paper explores the dynamics of inter-sectoral technological integration by introducing the concept of bridging platform as a node of pervasive technologies, whose collective broad applicability may enhance the connection between ‘distant’ knowledge by offering a technological coupling. Using data on patents obtained from the CRIOS-PATSTAT database for four EU countries (Germany, UK, France and Italy), we provide empirical evidence that bridging platforms are likely to connect more effectively innovations across distant technological domains, fostering inter-sectoral technological integration and the development of original innovation. Public research organisations are also found to play a crucial role in terms of technological integration and original innovation due to their higher capacity to access and use bridging platforms within their innovation activities.

This paper assesses the impact of regional technological diversification on the emergence of new innovators across EU regions. Integrating analyses from regional economics, economic geography and technological change literatures, we explore the role that the regional embeddedness of actors characterised by diverse technological competencies may have in fostering novel and sustained interactions leading to new technological combinations. In particular, we test whether greater technological diversification improve regional ‘combinatorial’ opportunities leading to the emergence of new innovators. The analysis is based on panel data obtained merging regional economic data from Eurostat and patent data from the CRIOS-PATSTAT database over the period 1997–2006, covering 178 regions across 10 EU Countries. Accounting for different measures of economic and innovative activity at the NUTS2 level, our findings suggest that the regional co-location of diverse technological competencies contributes to the entry of new innovators, thereby shaping technological change and industry dynamics. Thus, this paper brings to the fore a better understanding of the relationship between regional diversity and technological change.

The Europe's 2020 Strategy clearly outlines the ambition for EU member states to pursue a smart, sustainable and inclusive growth: this means designing a the strategy that aims at achieving a socio-ecological transition by fostering economic growth as well as social development (e.g. with respect to employment, gender or cultural aspects) whilst also pushing for Europe's green shift. To deliver the EU 2020 strategy a new definition of competitiveness needs to be considered. Aiginger et al. (2013) propose defining competitiveness as the ability to deliver beyond-GDP goals. Competitiveness should be based on capabilities like skills, innovation, institutions, an empowering social system, and ecological ambitions. Outcomes should be defined by the achievement of ecological, social and economic goals. The new industrial policy for Europe will be underpinned by four game changers: (a) From GDP to beyond-GDP (b) A new definition of competitiveness (c) the green shift and (d) high road growth. Aiginger (2015) proposes to define industrial policy as economic policy to promote the competitiveness of a country or region, where competitiveness is defined as the ability to deliver the beyond-GDP goals. This means an industrial policy that shows leadership towards Europe's green shift; this means not only pursuing - for instance - energy efficiency and applications of the circular economy, but that supports the conversion of the economy into a green-intensive economy with the creation of new sectors, new processes, new products and the emergence of "green gazelles", that can deliver growth and jobs through ecological innovations. Industrial policy should foster the long-run transition, not decelerate structural change. This is a demanding challenge, given vested interests and the traditional role of governments to preserve the status quo and national champions. Refocusing on the economy's industrial base is a necessity to anchor long term socio-economic prosperity, particularly after the experience of bubbles in financial and real estate markets. A new industrial policy for Europe should therefore pursue a balanced economy and support the transition of traditional, narrowly defined manufacturing sectors to an advanced and distributed manufacturing sector able of greater value creation, innovation and creativity.

The policy brief synthesises key policy findings from Area 3. The over-riding goal is to foster the transition to a new growth path for Europe, with a dynamic manufacturing and services base, greater social inclusiveness, less unemployment and higher sustainability based on excellence in clean technologies. Embarking on a growth path that leverages current technological chances, that is ecologically compatible and that delivers greater and more shared prosperity requires a vision that is able to set long term, clear and transparent targets and to draw pathways to reach them. Businesses require certainty to take risks and create the jobs that societies and communities need to flourish and prosper. Economic growth, social inclusion and ecological ambitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but neither are they mutually supportive. In the New Industrial Policy that this brief presents, we see a real opportunity for developing a policy agenda that is capable of transforming some of the trade-offs into potential synergies, problems into solutions and constraints into advantages. Our research has encompassed five key questions: (a) How can we redefine competitiveness so as to encompass social and ecological objectives and to motivate a new industrial policy needed for technology shifts and inclusive, sustainable growth? (b) How do we realign innovation and industrial performance towards social and ecological objectives? (c) What is the impact of green innovation on growth, employment and social cohesion? (d) How can entrepreneurial dynamics drive smart and sustainable growth? (e) How can intangible assets and the quality of academic research act as drivers of change? This Policy Brief outlines the essential elements of the New Industrial Policy for Europe (NIPE) for a more smart, inclusive and sustainable growth.

In recent years, offshoring and outsourcing have transformed fundamentally nationally based auto sectors into global networks of design, production and distribution across the global value chains coordinated by the major automotive Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). As manufacturing activities tended to be shifted to low-labour cost locations in Asia, Africa and Latin America, high-end design, R&D, product development have stayed anchored mostly to high-cost and high knowledge-intensive home economy locations (perhaps with the except of some design and styling activities which are often located in major end markets around the world. However, very recently the weaknesses of and risks inherent in such global value chains (GVCs) have been exposed, triggering attempts to rethink their nature and also raising possibilities to reshore some manufacturing activities to home countries. A combination of a more competitive exchange rate (despite the very recent appreciation of sterling), increased transport costs, rising wages in key areas of China, and a greater awareness of supply chain resilience have all contributed to a perceived change in some business fundamentals. The potential for some supply chain relocalisation also links in with the servitisation of manufacturing including the auto sector and shift to a hybrid model where manufacturing and services are increasingly intertwined. However, there are limits as to how far this can go and these raise some important questions and issues over the possible role for industrial policy.

This paper explores the meaning of reshoring and its drivers in the case of UK manufacturing and in particular its automotive sector. Drawing on interviews, policy reviews and a range of recent surveys, the paper finds that while reshoring is a discernable trend in UK manufacturing, it is less pronounced than many have claimed and that – in the UK case at least - there are severe limits as to how far this reshoring trend can go, particularly in relation to the availability of skills and finance in the supply chain. This is in turn raises questions over the stance of British policy and whether more could be done, with comparisons made to US experience.

The object of this paper is to reconceptualise cultural intermediaries and cultural intermediation in a way that may not only allow a coherent understanding of the various functions associated with these actors, but may also enable systematic empirical analyses of their effects on other cultural, social and economic phenomena. This paper employs a value chain approach to develop a typology of cultural intermediation that may enable a more systematic analysis of cultural intermediaries and cultural intermediation. It presents maps of cultural intermediation in England as well as the three major cities: London, Birmingham and Manchester.

International audience; The policy and academic debate on industrial clusters has developed in a context dominated by ‘industry champions’ which are not necessarily national. Despite the fact that indust ial dist icts first emerged and indeed were first studied in England by Alfred Marshall over 100 years ago, the spatial dimension of economic activities has in fact been marginal to much of the economic and policy debate in the UK. The idea that industrial clusters could be engines of regional growth was only seriously taken on board in the late 1990s by the newly created Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in England, and by development agencies in Scotland and Wales. Regional and cluster policies were subsequently used as a key part of UK regions’ economic strategies over the late 1990s and 2000s; despite some successes, question marks now remain over their future in England at least given the abolition of RDAs there from 2012. Favouring a supposedly ‘localist’ rather than regional agenda, the coalition Government elected in 2010 has replaced RDAs with smaller-scale Local Enterprise Partnership (LEPs) at the sub-regional level. With more limited powers than RDAs and much less funding, time will tell how these LEPs will perform in economic development terms generally and in terms of cluster policies specifically.

This paper explores the dynamics of inter-sectoral technological integration by introducing the concept of bridging platform as a node of pervasive technologies, whose collective broad applicability may enhance the connection between ‘distant’ knowledge by offering a technological coupling. Using data on patents obtained from the CRIOS-PATSTAT database for four EU countries (Germany, UK, France and Italy), we provide empirical evidence that bridging platforms are likely to connect more effectively innovations across distant technological domains, fostering inter-sectoral technological integration and the development of original innovation. Public research organisations are also found to play a crucial role in terms of technological integration and original innovation due to their higher capacity to access and use bridging platforms within their innovation activities.