Higher education for smart specialisation : towards strategic partnerships for innovation.
Date: 2018-01-16
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: entrepreneurship, higher education, innovation, regional development, research and development, research report, school-industry relations

Higher Education for Smart Specialisation 

Towards strategic partnerships for innovation 

John Edwards 
Elisabetta Marinelli  
Eskarne Arregui-Pabollet 
Louise Kempton 

S3 Policy Brief Series 

No. 23/2017

October 2017 

EUR  29023 EN 

This publication is a Technical report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science 
and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking 
process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither 
the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that 
might be made of this publication. 

Contact information  
Name: John Edwards 
Address: C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, E-41092 SEVILLA 
Email: John.Edwards@ec.europa.eu 
Tel.: +34 954487163  

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC109780 

EUR 29023 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-79-77331-0 

ISSN 1831-9424

doi:10.2760/376572 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017 

© European Union, 2017 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents 
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All images © European Union 2017, except: Coverpage – Source: Fotolio.com 

How to cite: Edwards J., Marinelli E., Arregui-Pabollet E., and Kempton L (2017) Higher Education for Smart 
Specialisation: Towards strategic partnerships for innovation S3 Policy Brief Series No. 23/2017, EUR 29023 
EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-79-77331-0, doi:10.2760/376572, 
JRC109780 

Contents 

Acknowledgments......................................................................... 2 

Executive Summary ...................................................................... 3 

1  Introduction .............................................................................. 6 

2  Conceptual background ............................................................. 8 

2.1 Models of university engagement .............................................. 8 

2.2 Universities and Smart Specialisation ....................................... 10 

2.3 Analytical framework for the comparison of HESS case-studies .... 11 

3. EU wide overview of regions and funding ................................ 15

3.1 Survey of the S3 Platform ....................................................... 15 

3.2 European Structural and Investment Funds: some insights on their 
ability to support HEIs .................................................................. 17 

4  Case Studies ............................................................................. 25 

4.1 Overview of the process .......................................................... 25 

4.2 Comparison of findings ........................................................... 26 

4.2.1 Contribution to the entrepreneurial discovery process ........... 26 

4.2.2 Support to a limited selection of priorities ........................... 29 

4.2.3 The role of HEIs in place based policies ............................... 32 

4.2.4 Broader understanding of innovation and research ............... 34 

4.3 Case study conclusions ........................................................... 35 

4.3.1 North East Romania ......................................................... 35 

4.3.2 Navarre .......................................................................... 36 

5. Policy lessons and next steps .................................................. 38

References ................................................................................... 40 

List of Figures, Tables and Boxes ................................................. 43 

1 

Acknowledgments 

The authors would like to thank Peter Baur and other colleagues from DG 
Education  and  Culture  who  have  supported  and  advised  on  the 
development  of  the  HESS  project.  In  addition,  the  authors  would  like  to 
acknowledge the work of Igor Campillo and Cosmina Mironov who assisted 
as  experts  for  the  two  pilot  case  studies  in  Navarra  and  North  East 
Romania, which provide evidence for some of this policy brief. Finally, the 
authors  are  grateful  to  Mark  Boden  from  the  Joint  Research  Centre  and 
John  Goddard  from  Newcastle  University  for  reviewing  draft  versions  of 
the document.  

2 

 
Executive Summary 

This  Policy  Brief  reports  on  the  first  phase  of  the  project  on  Higher 
Education for Smart Specialisation (HESS), which is managed by the Joint 
Research Centre (JRC) in partnership with DG Education and Culture.  The 
project was established in March 2016 as a result of work by the JRC's S3 
Platform  which  detected  the  need  to  understand  more  about  Higher 
Education  Institutions  (HEIs)  to  ensure  that  their  full  contribution  to  S3 
implementation was achieved. In particular, HESS explores how HEIs can 
contribute  to  smart  specialisation  more  broadly  than  through  knowledge 
production, appealing to their capabilities of human capital creation (in its 
different facets), knowledge dissemination and transfer, as well as support 
to entrepreneurship. 

Activities of HESS 

In  order  to  respond  to  these  aspects,  the  HESS  project  carries  out  two 
main  activities.  On  the  one  hand  it  analyses  the  European  policy  and 
funding  landscape  to  establish  how  HEIs  can  be  supported  in  a  broad 
sense  to  implement  Smart  Specialisation  Strategies  (S3).  On  the  other  it 
provides  targeted  support  to  selected  regions  in  Europe  by  undertaking 
'action  research'  in  partnership  with  regional  authorities,  the  local  HEIs 
and  other  stakeholders.  The  first  phase  of  the  project  has  analysed  the 
programming  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF) 
and  piloted  action  research  in  the  regions  of  Navarre  (Spain)  and  North 
East Romania. 

Building on existing knowledge 

The  policy  brief  starts  by  presenting  the  state  of  play  in  regard  to 
universities  and  smart  specialisation.  This  work  has  mainly  been 
conceptual  in  nature, such as  a previous JRC policy brief  from 2013. The 
HESS  project  follows  a  much  larger  amount  of  research  and  experience 
into  how  universities  can  contribute  to 
innovation  and  regional 
development,  and  the  policy  brief  analyses  some  of  the  main 
contributions,  including  concepts  such  as  the  'entrepreneurial'  and  'civic' 
university,  which  have  made  their  way  into  policy  making,  most  recently 
the  Communication  on  a  Renewed  EU  Agenda  for  Higher  Education 
(European  Commission  2017a).  The  policy  brief  tries  to  operationalise 
some  of  this  conceptual  background  with  a  framework  that  is  used  to 
analyse the results of the pilot case studies. It sets the scene for building 
an evidence base for HESS. 

3 

 
 
Baseline of evidence 

A baseline has been established for HESS in two ways. Firstly, a survey of 
the  S3  Platform  from  2015  has  been  analysed  to  establish  how  regional 
authorities perceive HEIs and their role in smart specialisation. It shows a 
clear  demand  for  wider  partnerships  that  cover  all  their  activities,  rather 
than  just  their  mission  of  knowledge  production.  A  second  part  of  the 
baseline  analyses  the  European  funding  framework,  and  in  particular  the 
European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  to  establish  the  extent  to  which  it  is 
supporting  the  development  of  human  capital  for  innovation.  The  results 
show  that  the  overall  budget  is  much  lower  than  for  research  under  the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  and  moreover  is  very 
unevenly  distributed  across  the  European  Union.  This  data  will  be 
complemented  in  the  future  with  information  on  actual  spending  and 
projects  supported,  but  indicates  where  to  look  for  evidence  of  how 
European  funds  can  help  mobilise  HEIs  in  a  broad  sense,  which  is  the 
main objective of the project.  

Piloting action research  

In order to understand the regional context for building partnerships with 
HEIs,  in-depth  case-study  research  is  the  most  appropriate  method. 
However, the HESS case studies are not just about collecting information; 
building on the JRC's experience with the S3 Platform peer reviews and its 
targeted  support  to  lagging  regions,  principles  and  methods  of  action 
research have been adopted. At its core, this means that the research will 
have  an  impact  on  the  object  being  studied  (in  this  case  the  partnership 
between regions and HEIs), and is therefore also akin to capacity building. 
HESS  aims  to  co-produce  knowledge  with  regions  in  Europe  and  build  a 
community of practice among them. The pilot  case studies were selected 
deliberately because of their different regional contexts in terms of levels 
of innovation and policy competences. In the case of North East Romania 
it  was  the  first  time  that  the  Regional  Development  Agency  and  the 
universities  came  together  to  discuss  a  regional  strategy.  In  the  case  of 
Navarre, which has follwed a regional innovation strategy for the last two 
decades,  the  action  research  had  a  different  purpose,  namely  to  explore 
more  specific  problems  in  cooperation,  such  as  the  link  with  vocational 
education and training and between the two main universities. The results 
are  analysed  in  one  section  of  the  policy  brief,  but  are  fully  reported  in 
separate  JRC  technical  reports  (Campillo  et  al.  2017,  Marinelli  et  al. 
2017). 

4 

 
 
Policy recommendations 

The  HESS  project  cannot  yet  make  very  specific  policy  recommendations 
at EU level while the evidence base is still being built  – although the two 
case  study  reports  do  this  for  those  regions.    The  intention  is  that 
following  another  round  of  action  research  in  the  next  project  phase,  a 
handbook for regional authorities will be produced that will provide much 
more  practical  guidance  on  how  to  build  a  partnership  with  local 
universities in the context of smart specialisation. However, based on the 
analysis  of  surveys  and  cases  studies  in  this  first  phase,  it  emerges  that 
the  European  funding  landscape  and  regulatory  environment  provide 
limited scope for HEI engagement in S3 beyond research activities. Smart 
specialisation is confined to one part of the ERDF that focuses much more 
on  research  compared  to  the  capabilities  of  HEIs  to  develop  and  retain 
talent, foster  entrepreneurship and engage with business on their human 
capital  needs.  Therefore  the  main  policy  recommendation  is  to  explore 
measures  to  better  support  human  capabilities  for  innovation  and 
application  of  new  technologies,  especially  in  Europe's  less  developed 
regions.  

5 

 
 
 
1 

Introduction 

Smart  specialisation  is  the  EU's  flagship  approach  for  knowledge  based 
regional development.1 It underpins the Cohesion Policy, since EU Member 
States are required to have Smart Specialisation Strategies (S3) to spend 
Thematic Objective one (TO1) of the European Structural and Investment 
Funds  (ESIF)  on  Research,  Innovation  and  Technological  Development.2 
Elements  of  the  Horizon  2020  programme  are 
linked  to  smart 
specialisation and guidance has been produced on creating synergies with 
the ESIF.3  However, while there is still a lack of evidence on the results, it 
is  becoming  clearer  that  the  success  of  S3  depends  on  a  much  closer 
integration of several other policy areas, not least Higher Education (HE). 
This is the main motivation behind the JRC project on Higher Education for 
Smart  Specialisation  (HESS),  initiated  in  partnership  with  DG  Education 
and  Culture.  This  policy  brief  presents  results  from  the  first  phase  of  the 
HESS project. 

Although  smart  specialisation  is  closely  linked  to  spending  TO1  of  the 
ESIF,  guidance  from  the  European  Commission  has  always  highlighted 
that  S3  is  best  served  by  a  comprehensive  policy  mix  (European 
Commission 2012, 2014b). However,  this has been difficult to implement 
for  a  number  of  reasons.  Firstly,  priority  setting  was  a  challenging  and 
long  process,  and  policy  mixes  have  consequently  tended  to  receive  less 
attention.  Secondly,  priorities  are  often  technologically  defined  and 
knowledge  production  orientated  without  consideration  of  economic 
demand,  an  essential  factor  but  one  which  requires  a  more  integrated 
policy mix. Thirdly, S3 governance structures that integrate ministries and 
stakeholders  at  different  geographical  levels  have  not  operated  well  or 
have  not  even  been  activated.  Finally,  and  perhaps  most  importantly, 
from  the  EU  level  down  there  have  been  few  concrete  incentives  to 
integrate  a  broader  range  of  policies.  The  natural  outcome  is  that  – 
notwithstanding  notable  examples  –  smart  specialisation  is  not  widely 
considered  outside  the  confines  of  ESIF  managing  authorities  responsible 
for TO1. 

In  the  HESS  project  Higher  Education  Institutions  (HEIs)4  are  considered 
broadly,  across  the  spectrum  of  all  their  activities,  from  research  to 

1  For  information  and  analysis  on  the  smart  specialisation  concept  and  its  implementation  see: 
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/knowledge-repository 
2 The ESIF have 11 Thematic Objectives, laid out in Article 9 of EU Regulation No 1303/2013 
3 The potential for combing the EU's Research and Innovation framework programmes and the ESIF is described 
in European Commission (2016)  
4 The terms universities and higher education institutions (HEIs) are used interchangeably and refer to public or 
private institutions that teach  from undergraduate level and/or are involved in research activity  

6 

education and external engagement. The policy brief starts with a  review 
of  the  conceptual  frameworks  that  help  outline  how  HE  can  contribute  to 
smart  specialisation.    The  second  part  provides  an  overview  of  how  HEIs 
are involved in the design and implementation of S3 across Europe based 
on two sources: firstly, it draws on a survey of the S3 Platform, a network 
of  national  and  regional  authorities  responsible  for  smart  specialisation, 
coordinated by the JRC. Secondly, it gives an overview of the EU funding 
framework, focusing in particular on the ESIF and the extent to which the 
European Social Fund is being deployed to implement S3. The third part of 
the policy brief analyses two case studies that were selected by the HESS 
project  as  pilots  for  action  research.  These  case  studies  had  three  aims: 
firstly  to  find  out  if  and  how  HE  is  considered  as  part  of  the  S3  process 
(the research); secondly to promote closer partnerships between regional 
authorities  and  the  local  HEIs  to  strengthen  their  role  in  smart 
specialisation (the action); and, last but not least, the case studies helped 
to  advance  the  conceptualisation  of  HEIs  in  S3  implementation.  The  final 
part  attempts  to  draw  some  policy  lessons,  reflects  on  the  first  twelve 
month  phase  of  the  HESS  project  and  suggests  new  research  questions 
and methods.   

7 

 
 
 
2 

Conceptual background 

Universities  and  other  HEIs  have  a  great  deal  to  contribute  to  and  gain 
from involvement with S3 (Goddard et al. 2013). Their potential goes far 
beyond their function as producers of new research, particularly in lagging 
or  peripheral  regions  where  supplying  and  creating  demand  for  human 
capital  and  skills  is  likely  to  be  a  more  critical  contribution  to  building 
regional  capacity  than  research  (European  Commission  2015,  Kempton 
2016,  Vallance  et  al.  2017).  The  HESS  project  looks  at  all  the  activities 
and  missions  of  HEIs,  but  pays  particular  attention  to  their  role  in 
nurturing human capabilities, both in terms of hard skills (especially STEM 
disciplines)  but  also  other  skills  in  support  of  entrepreneurship  and 
knowledge  management,  which  together  with  the  application  of  new 
technologies  can  have  a  big  impact  on  a  region's  development.    It  also 
recognises  that  there  is  no  ‘one  size  fits  all’  model  for  how  HEIs  are 
involved  in  S3  and  that  the  place  specific  context  will  largely  affect  their 
role and contribution (See Box 1).  

2.1 Models of university engagement 

Since  the  mid-1990s  academics  and  policy  makers  alike  have  attempted 
to  characterise  and  codify  relationships  between  universities  and  their 
contribution to local development, innovation and economic growth (Clark, 
1998,  Etzkowitz  and  Leydesdorff,  1995).    However  criticisms  of  these 
models  point  to  an  overly  narrow  focus  on  research  in  physical  sciences 
and  technology  transfer  which  neglects  teaching  and  knowledge  transfer 
through  students,  the  role  of  humanities  and  social  sciences,  and 
engagement  with  place-based  communities  and  civil  society  more 
generally.  This has generated a new literature around more holistic, non-
linear  models  of  university 
the  outside  world 
(Gunasekara 2006), partly driven by the aftermath of the economic crisis 
of  2008/9  and  the  need  to  respond  to  the  growth  of  ‘grand  challenges’ 
which  have  local  as  well  as  global  implications  (e.g.  ageing  population, 
climate  change,  migration  etc.).    These  models  attempt  to  capture  the 
development  of  universities  over  time  from  the  'Ivory  Tower'  stereotype 
and  are  compared  in  Table  1.  However,  caution  should  be  taken  with 
labels  –  both  for  the  reason  of  diversity  highlighted  above  and  because 
different  policy  makers  and  academics  have  used  the  same  term  to 
describe  different  characteristics  of  HEIs.  For  example,  the  HEInnovate 
self-assessment tool adopts the term 'Entrepreneurial HEI' to describe the 

interactions  with 

8 

 
attributes, objectives and activities5 of HEIs in a way that is closer to the 
concept  of  the  civic  university  (Goddard,  2009)  than  that  of  the 
entrepreneurial  university  (Etzkowitz,  2013).  This  is  illustrated  by  a 
concept note from HEInnovate, where Gibb et al. (2014) write that:  

"Entrepreneurial  higher  education  institutions  are  designed  to 
empower  staff  and  students 
to  demonstrate  enterprise, 
innovation  and  creativity  in  research,  teaching  and  pursuit  and 
use  of  knowledge  across  boundaries.  They  contribute  effectively 
to  the  enhancement  of  learning  in  a  societal  environment 
characterised  by  high  levels  of  uncertainty  and  complexity  and 
they are dedicated to creating public value via a process of open 
engagement,  mutual  learning,  discovery  and  exchange  with  all 
stakeholders in society - local, national and international." 

Table 1: Models of university engagement 

Model 

Ivory Tower 

Entrepreneurial 
University 

Civic University 

Characteristics  Traditional 

teaching 
methods for the 
elite, curiosity 
research, 
disciplinary 
silos. 

Concepts 

Authors/ 

References 

Strong focus on 
research, technological 
innovation, 
commercialisation and 
business development 
which involves 
mobilising the 
resources of the 
university for the 
benefit of the 
economic development 
of the city or region. 

Engagement embedded 
across the whole 
institution, providing 
opportunities for students, 
businesses and public 
institutions; managed to 
facilitate institution-wide 
engagement with the city 
and region of which it is 
part; operates on a global 
scale but uses its location 
to form its identity. 

Triple helix, science 
parks, technology 
transfer, incubators 

Etzkowitz (2013) 

Engaged research and 
teaching, science with and 
for society, quadruple 
helix, smart specialisation 

Goddard (2009), Goddard 
et al (2016), European 
Commission (2017) 

International 
networks/tools 

Campus Engage; Talloires Network; U-Multirank; Global University 
Network for Innovation (GUNI); HEInnovate; University Industry 
Innovation Network (UIIN) 

5 For more information about this framework see: https://heinnovate.eu/en  

9 

 
                                    
 
 
In section 2.3 where we introduce the analytical framework used by HESS 
so far, we refer to the different models in Table 1. However, whereas our 
framework  is  more  connected  to  that  of  the  civic  university,  on  a  policy 
level it is very similar to the objectives of HEInnovate, but with a stronger 
place based dimension. 

2.2 Universities and Smart Specialisation 

The  perceived  importance  of  universities  in  the  smart  specialisation 
process  led  to  a  first  S3  Platform  policy  brief  (European  Commission 
2013).  It  identified  four  types  of  capacities  in  universities  which  could 
allow  them  to  play  a  significant  role  in  the  definition  and  implementation 
of  S3,  as  shown  in  Figure  1.  It  also  analysed  the  obstacles  and  barriers 
which  prevented  them  from  assuming  this  role,  most  notably  the  lack  of 
mutual  understanding  between  them  and  those  responsible  for  the  S3. 
Finally, it highlighted that the focus of policy makers has historically been 
on  the  contribution  of  universities  to  the  supply  side  (i.e.  generating 
research,  sources  of  new  businesses  and  human  capital  etc.)  while  in 
lagging  or  peripheral  regions  weaknesses  on  the  demand  side  (e.g.  low 
levels  of  absorptive  capacity  among  the  local  private  sector)  have 
constrained the level of university/region cooperation for innovation. 

Figure 1: Capacities of universities in the context of smart specialisation 

10 

 
 
2.3 Analytical framework for the comparison of HESS case-studies 

Since  the  2013  policy  brief  there  have  been  a  number  of  initiatives  that 
have  explored  the  role  of  universities  in  S3,  including  the  Erasmus+ 
Thinking Smart project,6 the European University Association's S3 working 
group7, examples from the S3 Platform (European Commission 2014), and 
the JRC project on Targeted Support to Lagging Regions.8  This empirical 
work  has  allowed  the  identification  of  key  dimensions  of  S3  development 
and implementation and the mechanisms through which HEIs can support 
them. These are set out in Table 2 and are used to compare the two pilot 
HESS case studies in section 4 of this policy brief: 

Table 2: Framework to analyse the contribution of HEIs to S3 

Element of Smart 
Specialisation 

Entrepreneurial Process of 
Discovery (EDP) 

HEIs’ related activities  

Contribute through applied and 
interdisciplinary research 
Horizontal skills among graduates 

Support to a  limited 
selection of priorities 

Evolution of curricula and research portfolios 
to emerging priorities 

Innovation for all regions – 
Place based approach 

Embedded in regional governance 
Importance of the social sciences 

Broader understanding of 
innovation and research 

Respond to regional challenges 
Beyond third mission. 

Entrepreneurial Discovery Process (EDP): The term originally referred 
to  the  identification  of  areas  for  investment  in  research  and  innovation 
(i.e.  priority-areas),  through  an  inclusive  and  evidence-based  process 
grounded  in  stakeholders’  engagement.  As  indicated  by  Marinelli  and 
Periañez  (2017)  the  EDP  is  better  seen  as  a  continuous  activity,  which 
continues  throughout  S3  implementation.  In  this  context,  universities 
need  to  develop  capabilities  to  engage  and  interact  with  the  private  and 
public  sectors,  with  the  aim  of  jointly  identifying,  reviewing  and  revising 
priorities.  This  requires  an  understanding  of  entrepreneurial  and  market 
dynamics  as  well  as  policy  processes.  In  this  sense,  universities  that  are 
able to engage in applied and inter-disciplinary research are best suited to 
engage in the EDP. In this context, universities can play a highly valuable 
role in absorbing knowledge from outside the region and applying it to the 
local context (European Commission 2014).  

6 http://thinkingsmart.utad.pt/  
7 http://www.eua.be/policy-representation/research-innovation-policy/research-and-innovation-strategies-for-
smart-specialisation-(ris3) 
8 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3-in-lagging-regions  

11 

 
                                    
Support  to  a  limited  selection  of  priorities:  The  most  significant 
aspect  of  smart  specialisation  is  the  selection  of  priorities  to  channel 
funding and other strategic policy decisions. Universities are critical actors 
in  supplying  ideas  and  human  capital  that  underpin  priorities.  Many  are 
likely  to  have  specialisms  related  to  the  regional  priorities  (and  indeed 
contributed to their definition as discussed above). As priorities evolve and 
are better understood, training and research needs are likely to evolve or 
emerge  (i.e.  targeting  more  specific  population;  covering  new  niches, 
etc.).  Universities  are  critical  in  addressing  these  aspects,  in  organising 
activities  to  upskill  the  existing  workforce,  in  collaboration  with  other 
forms of education (further education, vocational and technical training). 

Place based approach to innovation: Smart specialisation was adopted 
by  the  Cohesion  Policy,  thus  giving  it  a  strong  place  based  dimension 
(McCann  and  Ortega-Argilés  2013).  A  place-based  policy  aims  to  realise 
the potential of local assets through tailored interventions (as opposed to 
'one  size  fits  all')  and  a  strong  'bottom-up'  engagement  supported  by  an 
adequate  institutional  and  governance  set-up  (Barca  2009).  HEIs  can 
support a place-based approach to innovation policy by contributing to the 
identification  of  regional  priorities,  in  line  with  their  own  strategies  and 
capabilities.  At  the  same  time,  their  ability  to  benefit  from  a  place-based 
strategy  depends  on  the  strengths  of  their  systemic  links  to  the  regional 
innovation  system.  In  such  cases  HEIs  have  spaces  to  interact  with 
regional  authorities  and  the  entrepreneurial  community,  either  through 
looser arrangements (e.g. ad hoc meetings/fora) or more formalised ones 
(e.g. sharing committees, participating in governing boards).   

An HEI that embeds its activities and governance follows most closely the 
'Engaged' and 'Civic' models of universities in  Table 1. At the same time, 
the  place-based  approach  in  smart  specialisation  would  promote  multiple 
models  and  tools  for  HEI  engagement,  depending  on  their  profiles  and 
potential,  which  can  be  contingent  on  both  regional  context  and  external 
factors such as the national regulation of higher education. These  factors 
are summarised in Box 1. 

The  strength  of  HEI  engagement  within  S3  should  not  be  understood 
exclusively  in  terms  of  STEM  disciplines.  Rather,  social  sciences  and 
humanities  also  have  their  role  to  play.  At  a  more  general  level,  social 
scientists  can  detect  and  articulate  societal  challenges  and  interpret 
stakeholder  positions  in  light  of  broader  contextual  factors  that  can 
ultimately  support  a  more  precise  identification  of  S3  priorities.  At  the 
same  time,  humanities  and  social  sciences  may,  in  their  own  right, 

12 

 
provide  opportunities  for  interdisciplinary  research  and  innovation  that 
would  otherwise  go  undetected.  Through  smart  specialisation  they  offer 
opportunities for collaboration between university departments, such as in 
the  field  of  cultural  heritage,  which  is  strongly  linked  to  important 
economic  sectors  such  as  tourism.    Similarly,  fields  like  telemedicine, 
which build on engineering and medical skills, can be enhanced by a good 
understanding of socio-demographic trends. 

A  broader  understanding  of  research  and  innovation  –  Smart 
specialisation  promotes  a  broader  understanding  of  research  and 
innovation,  in  both  process  (compared  to  linear  models)  and  objectives 
(for example social or eco innovation). Hence, the emphasis so far placed 
on 'technology transfer' and the concept of the 'entrepreneurial university' 
in  the  sense  of  commercialisation  of  knowledge,  should  be  broadened  to 
include  elements  identified  by  the  civic  university  literature.  In  the 
engaged or civic university model shown in Table 1, research and teaching 
also  address  societal  challenges  and  HEIs  systematically  engage  with  a 
large  number  of  stakeholders  (including  customers  and  civic  society  at 
large) not just firms. 

Figure 2: Distribution of HEIs in Europe 

Source: European Tertiary Education Register (2017) 

13 

 
  
Box 1: Factors that influence HEIs engagement in regional development 

Regional  context:  Regions  vary  in  terms  of  size,  population  and  other 
demographic  characteristic,  with  different  patterns  of  economic  development 
and innovation, depending on historic conditions, path dependencies and firm 
composition. These factors impact on the potential of universities to contribute 
to regional development. For example, in a region with very low levels of skills 
and aspiration among the population, the presence of a university alone is not 
enough  to  raise  levels  of  human  capital,  and    additional  interventions  will  be 
needed to create the stepping stones to higher education (e.g. improvements 
in secondary education, outreach programmes, sandwich courses etc.) 

Nature and structure of higher education: The HE landscape varies widely 
across EU regions.  More than one third of NUTS 3 regions have no university, 
a  quarter  have  just  one  while  others  (notably  in  metropolitan  areas)  have 
multiple  universities,  as  depicted  in  Figure  2.    There  may  be  a  mix  of  public 
and private, research intensive and vocational, large and small.  Issues related 
to  student  recruitment,  origin  and  retention  as  well  as  pedagogical  methods 
and  new  trends  in  HE  (such  as  distance  or  structured  learning)  and  links  to 
professional and vocational education all have a bearing on the extent to which 
local universities engage with the regional strategy. 

Policy and governance of higher education: In some places there are high 
levels  of  autonomy  for  both  the  institutions  and  academics.    This  means  that 
policy  makers  have  limited  capacity  to  intervene  in  shaping  HE  activities  and 
university leaders might not be able to make academics contribute to regional 
development.  Funding  also  has  an  influence  as  it  drives  behaviour  within 
universities.  If  the  emphasis  is  on  ‘research  excellence’  (as  defined  by 
international league tables) then universities and their staff may not see much 
incentive  in  working  locally.  There  are  also  questions  to  consider  around  the 
extent  to  which  higher  education  policy  is  either  spatially  blind  or  place 
sensitive – have HEIs been deliberately placed in HE and research ‘cold spots’?  
What does this mean for their links to other regional actors? 

Policy and Governance of Territorial Development - There are a range of 
governance  models  across  Europe,  including  federal  systems  (e.g.  Germany), 
autonomous  regions  (e.g.  Spain)  and  centralised  systems  (e.g.  Romania).  
Understanding  the  policy  and  governance  of  territorial  development  is 
important  in  assessing  the  potential  of  universities  (and  other  actors)  to 
become involved in S3.  Devolved regions will often have greater powers and 
control  over  funding  mechanisms  that  can  be  deployed  to  incentivise 
contributions to regional development compared to countries where policy and 
decision making takes place centrally. 

14 

 
 
 
 
3. EU wide overview of regions and funding 

3.1 Survey of the S3 Platform 

In  2011  the  S3  Platform  was  established  at  the  JRC  to  provide  advice  to 
national  and  regional  authorities  on  the  design  and  implementation  of 
their  S3.  A  total  of  179  regions  and  20  countries  have  joined  the 
Platform.9 In 2015 a survey of its members was carried out to understand 
the  role  of  different  institutions  in  smart  specialisation.  The  survey 
included  several  questions  about  how  regional  and  national  authorities 
perceive  HEIs10  and  therefore  provides  a  good  baseline  for  HESS,  even 
though it was undertaken a year before the project was launched.  

from  the  national 

The survey was sent to 354 policy makers from the S3 Platform database. 
Altogether, 138 responses were received from 87 authorities, representing 
25  different  EU  Member  States  and  two  candidate  countries.  24  of  the 
from  regional 
responses  were 
representatives.  Among  the  regional  responses  35  are  classified  as  less 
developed  regions  for  the  purposes  of  ESIF  eligibility,  16  as  transition 
regions  and  63  as  more  developed  regions.  A  cross  tabulation  of  results 
according  to  eligibility  statues  allows  an  analysis  of  how  regions  perceive 
the  role  of  HEIs  in  different  regional  settings,  which  results  in  four 
principal observations.   

level  and  114 

Firstly, as illustrated in Figure 3, the survey shows a strong disconnection 
between research and innovation  in  less developed regions. While over a 
third  of  respondents  from  these  regions  thought  the  levels  of  research 
were strong, only 13.9% believed this to be the case for innovation. This 
compares  with  transition  regions  where  the  gap  in  smaller,  and  more 
developed  regions  where  innovation  is  considered  to  be  stronger  than 
innovation (although research is still considerably stronger than the other 
two  categories  of  region).  The  graph  suggests  that  in  less  developed 
regions  research  capabilities  are  perceived  as  disconnected 
from 
innovation,  questions  how  the  former  can  enhance  the  latter,  and  what 
other elements of the innovation system should be supported. 

Secondly, although a high proportion of regions in all categories reported 
that  universities  have  been  highly  involved  in  S3  development,  their 
engagement with the region is seen to be more related to self-interest and 
short term financial gain rather than a mutual beneficial partnership. This 
is  shown  in  the  free  text  comments  made  by  regions  as  well  as  in  the 

9 This includes nine regions and two countries from outside the European Union.   
10 A survey of HEIs on how they perceive their role in smart specialisation may be launched in the future, using 
data from the European Tertiary Education Register (ETER). 

15 

 
                                    
answers  to  a  question  on  whether  universities  were  "protective  of  their 
own interests": in less developed regions 33.4% strongly agreed (score of 
six  or  seven  from  seven)  compared  to  21.3%  in  more  developed 
regions.11  Many  regions  reported  a  widening  role  for  universities  as  a 
result of smart specialisation. Whereas respondents from more developed 
regions  mostly  highlighted  links  with  business,  especially  in  engineering 
subjects, those from less developed regions were more likely to underline 
the role of local universities in the process of strategy formation, including 
'entrepreneurial discovery' and governance structures.  

Figure  3:  Perception  of  levels  of  research  and  innovation  in  S3  Platform 
regions (% of respondents giving a score of five or above from seven) 

Source: S3 Platform Survey on Institutions and Smart Specialisation 

Thirdly,  the  survey  shows  that  in  less  developed  regions  universities 
appear  to  have  less  capacity  to  apply  and  engage  in  publicly  funded 
innovation  projects  compared  to  their  counterparts  in  more  developed 
regions. The survey highlights the need for many universities, especially in 
Central and Eastern Europe, to build the skills and capabilities to apply for 
European projects and successfully deliver them.  

Finally,  and  most  significantly  for  the  HESS  project,  the  survey  reveals 
that  higher  education is much more important  for less developed regions 
in their efforts to build innovation capabilities. One of the survey questions 

11  Similar  results  were  reported  in  a  Fraunhofer  survey  of  S3  actors  who  perceive  universities  firstly  as 
representatives of their own interests (Kroll 2016). 

16 

 
 
                                    
asked respondents to rate the importance of six different policy areas, and 
in  the  case  of  higher  education,  25%  from  less  developed  regions  gave 
the  highest  score  compared  with  11.5%  from  more  developed  regions. 
This is illustrated in  Table  3 along with a similar difference in importance 
attached  to  vocational  training  between  categories  of  region.  In  their 
comments,  respondents  from  less  developed  regions  were  much  more 
likely  to  refer  to  vocational  training  and  lifelong  learning,  as  well  skills 
gaps, when asked about the role of universities, showing that  the role of 
higher  education  needs  to  be  widened  substantially  in  these  places  to 
meet demand.  For example, a respondent from a region that is much less 
developed  compared  to  its  country  as  whole,  commented  that  "in  our 
region  we  have  a  complete  deficit  of  [vocational  skills  and  lifelong 
learning],  where  the  competencies  of  the  workforce  does  not  fully 
correspond  to  the  competences  and  skills  that  the  firms  need  to  be 
competitive in a globalised economy". 

Table 3: Importance of different policy areas for the implementation of S3 
(% of respondents who gave a score of seven out of seven) 

Source: S3 Platform Survey on Institutions and Smart Specialisation 

Overall,  the  S3  Platform  survey  reveals  the  challenges  for  building 
partnerships  between  regions  and  universities  in  less  developed  regions. 
In  these  places  universities  are  being  asked  to  take  a  wider  role  than 
before, putting pressure on their ability to deliver.  The ESIF may be able 
to help, and therefore an overview of the European funding landscape can 
help to set the scene for the HESS project.  

3.2  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds:  some  insights  on  their 
ability to support HEIs 

The European Commission encourages national and regional authorities to 
deploy  a  range  of  funding  instruments  to  help  implement  their  S3  –  in 
addition  to  broader  structural  and  legislative  reforms  to  develop  regional 
innovation  systems  (European  Commission  2012).  Nevertheless,  the 

17 

Policy areaAllLess developed regionsMore developed regionsNorth West EuropeSouthern EuropeCentral & Eastern EuropeHigher Education16.2025.0011.508.0020.0024.20Vocational training12.5017.108.206.0012.2023.50Research and science42.8047.2037.7041.2036.0055.90Innovation in firms66.7069.4065.6064.7066.0070.60Infrastructure investments13.8019.4013.107.8014.0020.60Social innovation15.3025.7014.307.8028.009.10 
 
immediate  concern  is  that  European  funding  programmes  are  designed 
and managed in a way that contributes to smart specialisation. There are 
two  types;  on  the  one  hand  the  European  Commission's  centrally 
managed  programmes  for  research  and  innovation  (Horizon  2020), 
enterprise (COSME) and education (ERAMUS+); on the other hand a large 
amount  of  financial  resources  are  available  through  the  ESIF.  Synergies 
between  the  two  types  are  being  promoted  and  analysed,12  but  smart 
specialisation  is  most  relevant  to  the  ESIF  because  S3  is  an  'ex-ante 
conditionality' of spending these funds on research and innovation (TO1).  

As expected, initial analysis shows that a very high proportion of funding 
calls  of  ESIF  Operational  Programmes  (OPs)  under  TO1  on  research  and 
innovation  (R&I)  have  S3 related  selection  criteria  (Gianelle  et  al.  2017). 
While data on actual spending and project beneficiaries will soon become 
available,  HEIs  are  undoubtedly  significant  beneficiaries  under  this 
thematic  objective.  Although  this  will  hopefully  align  research  portfolios 
more closely to S3 priorities and promote technology transfer, it does not 
cover a critical element for regional development, namely human capital, 
for  which  the  most  relevant  fund  is  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF).  In 
particular,  the  most  specific  thematic  objective  for  higher  education  is 
TO10 on Investing in education,  training and vocational  training for skills 
and lifelong learning. The other relevant TOs are 8 (Promoting sustainable 
and  quality  employment  and  supporting  labour  mobility)  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  9 
combating  poverty  and 
discrimination). 

(Promoting 

inclusion, 

social 

The  move  back  to  multi-fund  OPs13  comprising  both  ERDF  and  ESF  has 
provided  an  opportunity  to  harness  the  ESF  to  implement  S3  in  an 
integrated  way.  However,  as  will  be  shown,  its  use  for  innovation  is 
limited  and  highly  heterogeneous  across  Member  States.  There  is  an 
obvious  reason  for  this:  the  ESF  and  ERDF  have  been  designed  and  are 
being managed independently at the EC level and often are implemented 
by different managing authorities at national and region levels.  

At the beginning of the HESS project it is useful to establish exactly how 
the ESF can be used for innovation and S3 implementation, and where in 
the EU  these funds have been programmed.  As spending and  beneficiary 
data becomes available it will be possible to assess how the ESF is actually 
spent  and  make  recommendations  for  the  future  programmes.  In  this 
section  data  from  the  European  Commission's  Infoview  database  is  used 

12 See the JRC project 'Stairway to Excellence':  http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/stairway-to-excellence  
13 In the 2007-2013 programming period only single fund OPs were permitted.  

18 

 
                                    
to analyse the programming of ESF. A keyword search is also applied to a 
group of countries to give an initial idea of what type of projects could be 
funded.  

In  addition  to  the  eleven  TOs  and  their  Investment  Priorities  established 
by  each  fund,  the  ESIF  are  programmed  and  monitored  across  more 
specific 'dimensions', including:  

  123 Intervention Fields; 
  7 Forms of investment (grants, prizes or financial instruments); 
  Types of territory (scale from largest urban or most rural); 
  7 Territorial Delivery Mechanisms; and 
  8 ESF Secondary Objectives 

For the purpose of the HESS project, the most interesting dimensions are 
the intervention fields and ESF secondary objectives, although others may 
be  useful  for  future  research  questions.  Box  2  lists  the  ESIF  dimensions 
most  likely  to  cover  funding  for  research,  education  and  innovation 
activities of HEIs. It must be stressed that categorising programmed funds 
is  approximate;  it  is  likely  that  projects  benefitting  HEIs  may  be 
categorised  in  different  intervention  fields  than  those  listed  in  the  table. 
Accurate figures on beneficiaries will only be possible by analysing project 
data.14  However,  these  dimensions  are  useful  for  establishing  the  overall 
picture of spending related to the missions of HEIs.  

Box 2: Dimensions of the ESIF most relevant to HEIs 

Intervention fields related to Higher Education 
049 - Education infrastructure for tertiary education 
116 - Improving the quality and efficiency of, and access to, tertiary and equivalent education with a 
view to increasing participation and attainment levels, especially for disadvantaged groups 

Intervention fields related to Research 
058 - Research and innovation infrastructure (public) 
059 - Research and innovation infrastructure (private, including science parks) 
060  -  Research  and  innovation  activities  in  public  research  centres  and  centres  of  competence 
including networking 
061 - Research and innovation activities in private research centres including networking 
062 - Technology transfer and university-enterprise cooperation primarily benefiting SMEs 

ESF Secondary Objectives 
04 - Strengthening research, technological development and innovation  

14 Data on project beneficiaries are not communicated to the Commission but Managing Authorities are obliged 
to publish it online (Article 116 Regulation 1303/2013) 

19 

 
 
                                    
 
 
The most comprehensive dimension of the ESIF for analysing the content 
of programmes is the intervention field. However, for the purposes of the 
HESS  project,  the  ESF  Secondary  Objective  on  Strengthening 
research, technological development and innovation is likely to give 
the clearest indication as to the volume and distribution of funds that may 
be spent on human capital and more specifically higher education in order 
to implement S3. 

There  are  two  striking  observations  from  analysing  this  programming 
data. The first is the very small proportion of the ESIF available for higher 
education  compared  to  other  elements  of  human  capital,  and  certainly 
compared to research. Figure 4 shows that just €6.4 billion is categorised 
for spending on higher education, including infrastructure. This compares 
to  more  than  €20  billion  in  the  categories  of  intervention  related  to 
research for which HEIs are likely to largely benefit. Furthermore, there is 
just  over  €1.6  billion  categorised  under  the  ESF  Secondary  Objective  for 
R&I, which represents just 0.46% of the entire budget of the ESIF. 

Figure  4:  Planned  investments  from  the  ESIF  by  Investment  Fields  most 
likely to benefit HEIs (in billion €) 

6.40 

20.50 

IF 49 and 116 (Higher
Education)

IF 58 - 62 (R&I funding
most relevant to HEIs)

All other ESI funds

320.84 

The  second  main  observation  from  analysing  the  ESIF  is  that  support  for 
non-research activities of HEIs is very uneven across the European Union. 
Figure 5 shows that almost half of the total amount of funds programmed 
for improving the quality and efficiency of tertiary education (Intervention 
field 116) can be found in just two Member States (Poland and Portugal). 
As  for  the  ESF  Secondary  Objective  on  Research  and  Innovation,  the 

20 

 
situation  is  even  more  heterogeneous.  Figure  6  shows  that  80%  of  this 
€1.6  billion  is  programmed  in  just  four  Member  States  (Germany,  Spain, 
Portugal  and  the  Czech  Republic).  It  is  also  possible  to  see  how  much  of 
this  ESF  Secondary  Objective  is  included  in  the  main  ESF  Thematic 
Objectives  (8-10),  giving  a  clear  picture  where  higher  education  may 
contribute  to  smart  specialisation  through  the  support  of  ESIF.  It  shows 
that  the  total  amount  of  €893  million  contributing  to  TO10  is  distributed 
more  evenly  than  for  the  other  TOs,  although  there  is  a  large 
concentration  in  three  Member  States  (Spain,  Germany  and  the  Czech 
Republic).  In  Portugal  a  larger  amount  contributes  to  labour  market 
interventions  (TO8)  but  in  many  other  countries,  notably  the  Czech 
Republic, this ESF secondary objective relates exclusively to education.  

When  analysed  at  the  level  of  Operational  Programmes,  it  allows  us  to 
identify  the  programmes  where  the  most  funds  have  been  programmed 
according  to  these  criteria.  While  these  planned  investments  may  not  be 
implemented, it indicates which regions could be analysed further. Figure 
7  shows  the  ten  programmes  with  the  most  planned  investment  under 
TO10  that  also  contributes  to  the  ESF  secondary  objective  for  R&I.  The 
most  significant  programme  by  a  large  margin  is  the  Czech  national 
ESF/ERDF programme for Research Development and Education.  

Figure 5: Planned investments from the ESIF under Intervention Field 116 by 
EU Member State (in million €) 

Sweden:

Belgium:

Denmark:

Malta:

Ireland:

Latvia:

Bulgaria:

Slovakia:

Greece:

Spain:

Germany:

Lithuania:

Croatia:

France:

Romania:

Hungary:

Czech Republic:

Italy:

Portugal:

Poland:

0

400

800

1,200

21 

 
 
Figure 6: Planned investments from the ESIF by ESF Secondary Objective 
on Research and Innovation linked to Thematic Objectives (in million €) 

UK

SK

RO

PT

PL

MT

LU

IT

IE

HR

GR

FR

FI

ES

DE

CZ

BG

08
09
10
Multi

0

100

200

300

400

500

Figure 7: ESIF Operational Programmes most relevant for HE spending on 
innovation (classified as both TO 10 and ESF secondary objective on R&I) 

(FI) Sustainable growth and jobs - ERDF/ESF

(DE) Brandenburg - ESF

(IT) Lazio  - ESF

(DE) Sachsen-Anhalt - ESF

(ES) Andalucía - ESF

(HR) Efficient Human Resources - ESF/YEI

(PT) Norte - ERDF/ESF

(DE) Sachsen - ESF

(DE) Federal Germany - ESF

(CZ) Research Development and Education -
ESF/ERDF

0

50

100

150

200

250
22 

 
 
 
This  analysis  of  the  programming  data  provides  an  overview  of  how  the 
budget of the ESIF is distributed across themes and regions. However, to 
understand  better  the  content  of  the  programmes,  we  have  performed  a 
pilot  key  word  search  for  six  of  the  main  EU  languages:  English,  French, 
German,  Spanish,  Italian  and  Polish.  Programmes  written  in  these 
languages  were  searched  for  both  a  list  of  single  keywords  and  for 
coincidence  in  the  same  statements  of  a  more  limited  number  of  core 
keywords  (e.g.  smart  specialisation,  universities,  higher  education).  The 
results,  displayed  in  Table  4,  show  that  as  expected  the  more  generic 
keywords such as higher education, degrees and universities are recorded 
many  times.  More  specific  keywords  such  as  the  entrepreneurial 
university, PhD studies or university management are recorded much less. 
Combined  terms  are  also  rare  but  the  results  of  this  pilot  do  allow  us  to 
identify  the  Operational  Programmes  in  which  they  feature,  and  thus  the 
possibility for further analysis.  

Table 4: Results of ESIF Keyword search related to Higher Education and 
Smart Specialisation 

Single terms 

Academia 

Business support  

COFUND 

College, colleges 

45 

28 

3 

28 

Lifelong learning 

Lifelong training  

Master's course 

Master's degree 

Continuous education 

48 

Mobility of researchers, 
Research mobility 

62 

11 

6 

12 

36 

Curricula, curriculum 

32 

PhD candidates 

16 

Degree course, degree 
courses 

104 

Degree, degrees 

117 

Doctoral programme 

Doctorate 

3 

4 

economic impact 

15 

Education 

Entrepreneurial 
university 

128 

1 

PhD studies 

Polytechnic, 
polytechnics 

Postdoctoral 

Postgraduate 

Rector 

RIS3 

Science park, Science 
parks 

3 

4 

6 

13 

1 

1 

15 

23 

 
 
 
 
Facilities 

130 

Skills accreditation 

19 

Further Education 

Governance 

HEI, HEIs 

8 

1 

48 

Smart specialisation 

69 

social impact 

Spin-offs 

6 

46 

88 

Higher Education 

100 

Student, students 

Higher Education 
Institution, Higher 
Education Institutions 

Innovation support 

Knowledge institution, 
knowledge institutions 

24 

17 

34 

Study, studies 

150 

Tertiary Education 

Thesis 

29 

7 

Laboratory, laboratories  26 

University management  1 

Labs 

Leadership 

Selected combined 
terms 

Education AND smart 
specialisation 

Higher education AND 
smart specialisation 

Spin offs AND smart 
specialisation  

Studies AND smart 
specialisation 

Universities AND smart 
specialisation 

Vocational training AND 
smart specialisation 

Curricula AND smart 
specialisation 

25 

1 

7 

3 

6 

4 

5 

1 

2 

University, universities 

278 

Vocational training 

160 

Leadership AND 
university 

Governance AND 
university 

Governance AND higher 
education 

Higher education AND 
courses 

Postgraduate AND 
smart specialisation 

Postdoctoral AND smart 
specialisation 

1 

1 

1 

6 

1 

1 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4 

Case Studies 

4.1 Overview of the process 

The two regions selected as pilot case studies were  Navarre in Spain and 
North East Romania. Together with JRC researchers and external experts 
both regions undertook a process of investigation and reflection into how 
their local HEIs were contributing to smart specialisation. An integral part 
of the work was to build stronger partnerships between policy makers, the 
HEIs and the wider innovation community. A further objective of the pilot 
case  studies  was  to  test  the  methodology  in  order  to  inform  future 
development of the HESS project itself. 

The  methods  were  broadly  the  same  in  both  places,  though  with  some 
adjustments to reflect differences in the two regional contexts.  The three 
stages  undertaken  in  each  region  is  described  in  Box  3.  The  full  written 
results  of  the  pilot  case  studies  are  in  the  form  of  JRC  technical  reports 
(Campillo et al. 2017, Marinelli et al. 2017). 

 Box 3: The three stage process of the HESS pilot case studies 

Stage 1  Exploratory Workshops:  These  took  place  in  May  (Navarre)  and 
June  (NE  Romania)  2016  with  representatives  from  HEIs  and  other 
regional  bodies.    They  aimed  to  understand  how  the  HE  system  is 
integrated  into  the  S3  policy  mix  and  how  HEIs  are  contributing  to 
implementation.  The  workshops  also  aimed  to  narrow  down  the 
analytical  objectives  of  the  case-study  and  initiate  a  process  of  self-
reflection to address the implications of S3 for regional governance.   

Stage 2  Semi-structured  in-depth  interviews:  These  took  place  during 
November  and  December  2016  and  consisted  of  12  (Navarre)  and  21 
(NE Romania) interviews with key university representatives and in the 
case  of  Navarre,  regional  government  and  industry  representatives. 
The  interviews  lasted  approximately  two  hours  each  and  discussed  in 
more  depth  the  issues  that  were  identified  in  the  respective 
exploratory workshops. 

Stage 3  Validation  Workshops:  These  were  held  in  December  2016  with  14 
including 
(Navarre)  and  25  (North  East  Romania)  participants 
university  representatives,  regional  government  and  agencies,  exerts 
and JRC researchers. The main objectives were to present and validate 
the  results  from  the  previous  steps,  discuss  policy  and  strategy 
implications,  and  to  identify  potential  actions  that  could  be  taken 
onwards by the stakeholders. 

In  NE  Romania  where  the  process  of  involving  universities  in  regional 
innovation  strategies  is  less  developed  this  workshop  was  targeted 
primarily  at  university  leaders.  In  Navarre  where  universities  are 
already  quite  well  embedded  in  regional  innovation  this  included  a 
wider stakeholder group. 

25 

 
 
 
4.2 Comparison of findings 

The  findings  of  the  case  studies  are  analysed  here  following  the 
framework  introduced  in  Section  2,  with  each  of  the  four  elements  of 
smart  specialisation  and  their  impact  on  HEIs,  namely:  prioritisation, 
entrepreneurial discovery, the place based approach and open innovation.  

Table 5 Key characteristics of the case studies 

North East Romania 

Navarre 

•  North  East  Romania  has  the  lowest 
GDP  per  capita  among  all  Romanian 
regions,  with  €4900  per  inhabitant 
compared  to  €8100  in  Romania  as  a 
whole and €28900 in the EU28. 

•  Main  cities:  Iasi,  Suceava,  Bacau, 
Piatra Neamt, Botosani and Vaslui. 

low-tech 

•  Economic  activity  is  concentrated  in 
low-skilled, 
sectors. 
Manufacturing  represents  20.2%  of 
GVA,  and  professional,  scientific  and 
technical  activities  account  for  only 
4.2%  of  GVA.  While  agriculture, 
forestry  and  fishing  account  for  8.5% 
of value added they account for 50.2% 
of employment. 

•  The  regional  innovation  system  is  in 
its  early  stages  of  development,  with 
weak  systemic  links  among  knowledge 
regional 
actors, 
governance 
limited 
tradition  of  knowledge  and  technology 
transfer. 

emergent 
structure  and 

an 

• North East Romania is home to seven 
public  and  four  private  HEIs.  Three  of 
the  regional  universities  rank  among 
the top 10 in the country. 

•  Universities  are  mainly  focussed  on 
education,  followed  by  research,  with 
"third  mission"  activities  (technology 
transfer  and  societal  engagement)  still 
at an incipient stage. 

•  GDP  per  capita  is  above  the  EU 
average,  and  the  third  highest  among 
Spanish regions.  

•  Navarre  is  a  moderate  innovator  in 
EU28,  according  to  the  2016  Regional 
Innovation  Monitor.  Out  of  the  17 
Spanish  regions,  only  Navarre  and  the 
Basque  Country  display  an  R&D 
intensity above the EU average  

•  17%  of  the  total  active  population  is 
employed as research personnel (FTE). 

•  The  region  is  a  high  performer  in 
tertiary education attainment with 69% 
of  the  population  aged  30-34  having 
completed  tertiary  education,  above 
the Spanish average (60%). 

•  Since  2000,  R&D  and  innovation 
support  policies  have  been  shaped  by 
successive regional technological plans, 
with  high 
levels  of  stability  and 
continuity  in  the  staff  designing  these 
plans. 

•  Navarre  is  home  to  two  universities: 
The UPNA, a public university, strong in 
technology  transfer  and  engineering 
fields. The UNAV is a private university 
positioned first in Spain in teaching and 
excelling in the bio-medical field. 

4.2.1 Contribution to the entrepreneurial discovery process   

Following  the  conceptual  framework  introduced  in  section  2,  the  role  of 
HEIs in the EDP refers to their engagement in the activities that allow the 
regions to identify S3 priorities and to keep reflecting and refining them.  

26 

 
As indicated by Healy (2017), the North East RDA has a strong legacy of 
progressive actions in the field of regional innovation. Indeed, it was one 
of the first RDAs in Romania to begin the process of developing a regional 
S3,  helped  by  the  knowledge  acquired  with  previous  involvement  in  EU 
projects  and  regional  innovation  networks,  as  well  as  its  experience  with 
consultative  and  bottom-up  approaches  (ibid).  While  the  region  started 
working  on  its  strategy  back  in  2013,  since  2016  it  has  been  developed 
further through a partnership with the JRC.15  

HEIs  in  the  region  have  been  among  the  actors  involved  in  the 
identification  and  refinement  of  priorities,  throughout  the  so  called 
Entrepreneurial  Discovery  Process.  Indeed,  the  selected  priorities  reflect 
the area of expertise of the universities, as indicated in Table 6. 

Table 6: Public Universities’ links to S3 priorities in North East Romania 

HE Institutions 

“Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University 

S3 Priority Areas  

ICT,  Tourism,  across  all  priorities  through 
interdisciplinary & entrepreneurship courses 

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University 

Textile, ICT, 

“Grigore  T.  Popa”  University  of  Medicine 
and Pharmacy 

“Ion  Ionescu  de  la  Brad”  University  of 
Agricultural  Sciences  and  Veterinary 
Medicine 

“George  Enescu”  National  University  of 
Arts  

“Stefan cel Mare” University  

“Vasile Alecsandri” University 

Biotechnology  (Pharmaceutical);  ICT  (Public 
Health); Tourism(Medical recovery) 

Agro-Food,  Biotechnology,  Tourism  (Slow 
food/Healthy food) 

Tourism  (New  media/Creative  and  Cultural 
Industries) 

ICT, 
Biotechnology(Pharmaceutical) 

Tourism, 

Agrofood, 

Environment,  Tourism  (kineto  therapy  and 
medical recovery) 

The  EDP  in  North  East  Romania  was  based  first  on  technical  meetings 
which  identified the priority areas and  then, with the support of the  JRC, 
on a set of structured participatory workshops which allowed stakeholders 
to  start  operationalising  the  afore-mentioned  priority  areas.  Universities 
were  always  present  in  these  gatherings,  and  were  active  in  different 
capacities (i.e. as simple contributors in the brainstorming, or presenters, 
chairs  of  discussions).  As  well  contributing  with  ideas,  the  presence  of 

15  North  East  Romania  is  part  of  the  JRC  project  on  RIS3  Targeted  Support  in  Lagging  Regions: 

http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ris3-in-lagging-regions 

27 

 
                                    
universities  ensured  that  the  scientific  and  technological  capacity  of  the 
region was taken into account when exploring entrepreneurial ideas. 

Given  that  the  regional  innovation  ecosystem  in  Navarre  is  much  more 
advanced,  it  has  been  easier  for  universities  to  be  closely  involved  with 
the  EDP.  In  recent  years  the  system  has  been  boosted  by  the  launch  in 
2013  of  the  AdiTech  Corporation  which  brings  together  the  six  different 
technology  centres,  institutes  and  industry  associations  of  Navarre 
(including  the  research  institutes  and  centres  of  the  both  universities) 
under one organisation.  This provides an important instrument to position 
and  enhance  the  involvement  of  the  universities  in  Navarre  S3 
deployment.  In  order  to  ensure  the  interdisciplinary  approach  and 
strategic vision of the institutes to contribute to the region, the institutes 
share  a  common  building  and  have  a  single  Head  of  Business 
Development  to  support  the  scientific  directors  in  the  management  of 
knowledge transfer, regional engagement and international projection.  

in 

in  Navarre  have  actively  participated 

Both  universities 
the 
entrepreneurial discovery process design for the definition of the  Navarre 
S3,  including  playing  an  active  part  in  working  groups  and  decision-
making bodies. University involvement has been at the highest level, with 
rectors and vice-rectors leading the process, which has resulted in a very 
strong role for the universities in shaping the regional innovation strategy. 
The  broader  academic  community  engagement  and  awareness  of  the  S3 
process  has  not  been  considered  a  key  aspect  in  the  first  stages  of  the 
strategy's definition, which has mostly involved senior managers.  

The  recent  creation  of  research  institutes  by  both  universities  could  be  a 
vehicle  for  the  involvement  of  the  academic  community  in  S3,  as  their 
research fields match very well with the S3 selected priority areas and its 
personnel has been closer to the S3 process. The institutes want to boost 
interdisciplinary,  world-class  and  more  integrated  research  capacities  to 
better  respond  to  the  S3.  Furthermore,  very  interestingly,  some  of  the 
institutes'  have 
integrated  capacities  outside  the  university,  with 
agreements  between  both  universities,  the  regional  administration  and 
healthcare  services,  which  reinforces  the  structuring  role  that  the  new 
instrument might have and the central role of universities.  

As  an  example,  the  INARBE  research  institute  of  the  UPNA  has  been 
recognised to have an important role in S3, particularly in the generation 
of  knowledge,  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  strategy  and  processes. 
Nevertheless  certain  limiting  factors  need  to  be  addressed,  including  the 
restrictive regulations applied to university professors, the time devoted to 

28 

 
teaching and research and high levels of bureaucracy. The creation of the 
Business and Social Forum by the UPNA has generated a space to discuss 
and  enable  the  identification  of  emerging  needs  of  the  business 
environment,  improve  the  employability  of  upcoming  PhDs,  and  the 
introduction  of  entrepreneurial  skills  in  curricula.  The  Forum  has  worked 
with  more  than  20  regional  business  stakeholders  to  define  and  launch 
Industrial PhDs. 

In  terms  of  human  capital  retention,  the  fact  that  two  universities  are 
based in a small region attracts an important number of higher education 
students relative to the total population. The UPNA has strong connections 
to  the  business  fabric  of  the  region  and  plays  a  central  role  in  the 
retention  of  talent,  whereas  the  UNAV  is  a  well-recognised  organisation 
that  attracts  an  important  number  of  international  students  and 
researchers.  Nevertheless,  both  universities  think  Navarre  would  greatly 
benefit  from  the  design  and  implementation  of  a  programme  to  attract 
international researchers. Experiences such as Ikerbasque16 in the Basque 
Country  or  ICREA17  in  Catalonia  could  increase  the  knowledge  base  of 
Navarre,  fostering  international  connections  and  helping  to  create  a 
climate of excellence that permeates into the innovation system, having a 
strong impact on S3 implementation. 

4.2.2 Support to a limited selection of priorities 

In North East Romania and Navarre, the teaching and research strengths 
of the HEIs are well aligned to the S3 priorities. In North East Romania an 
analysis  of  universities’  profile  was  a  key  part  of  strategy  formation, 
whereas in Navarre this was not the case, save for the priority of health. 
To a certain extent this reflects very different levels of development of the 
regional  innovation  systems.18  Compared  to  North  East  Romania  there  is 
much more innovation in Navarre from a wide variety of economic actors, 
and  therefore  the  analytical  basis  (including  the  type  of  indicators)  and 
the  selection  process  was  considerably  wider.  North  East  Romania  is  the 
country's least economically developed region but is home to some of its 
most high performing universities and a very dynamic RDA. Therefore the 

16  Ikerbasque  was  created  by  the  Basque  government  in  2007  with  the  mission  to  develop  and  consolidate 
scientific research in the Basque Country, attracting international talent to the Basque Country and helping 
researchers 
. 
http://www.ikerbasque.net/en/ 

innovation  organisations  of 

the  Basque  Country. 

research  and 

to  work 

in 

17  ICREA  works  with  Catalan  universities  and  research  centres  to  integrate  ICREA  research  professors  in  the 
Catalan  research  system.  It  attracts  researchers  from  all  over  the  world  to  Catalonia  offering  permanent 
positions. https://www.icrea.cat/en/ 

18 The regional innovation monitor classes North East Romania as an 'Modest Innovator' (less than 50% of the 
EU  average),  whereas  Navarre  is  classed  as  an  'Innovation  Follower'  (higher  than  the  EU  average).  It  is 
one of only two regions in Spain (the other being the Basque Country) to be ranked in this category. 

29 

 
                                    
universities  have  a  potentially  much  larger  role  to  play  in  knowledge 
driven development. This said, there was a perception in Navarre that the 
S3  would  have  benefitted  significantly  from  a  more  comprehensive  audit 
of the regional higher education system and which  (sub-)disciplines have 
most potential to drive innovation.  

There  are  also  differences  between  the  two  regions  when  it  comes  to 
supply  and  demand  for  human  capital  in  the  labour  market.  As  a  less 
developed  region  the  mismatches  are  much  greater  in  North  East 
Romania. In some cases (mostly in social sciences, humanities, business, 
law  etc.)  there  is  an  oversupply  of  graduates  while  other  areas 
(engineering,  medical,  IT,  textiles)  there  are  not  enough  graduates  to 
meet  demand.    In  some  cases  (e.g.  textiles)  it  is  difficult  to  recruit 
students to these programmes, in other cases (e.g. IT) the problem is the 
‘brain  drain’  of  graduates  moving  out  of  the  region.  Interestingly,  in 
Navarre,  while  employers  consider  the  level  of  technical  competence  of 
graduates to be high and aligned to the region's industrial profile, they see 
a need for stronger horizontal skills such as entrepreneurship and problem 
solving.  

Figure 8: Navarre's "Innovation Tree" 

Source: Government of Navarre (2016) 

30 

 
 
Unlike most S3, education and training has in fact been included as one of 
the  horizontal  priorities  in  Navarre's  S3,  as  illustrated  in  Figure  8.  The 
objective  is  to  support  innovative  education  oriented  towards  values  and 
professional skills for the future. In its policy mix the strategy states that 
it will boost quality higher education and vocational education and training 
that is linked to the needs of firms and focused on strategic sectors, and 
enhance  the  skills  and  competencies  for  employability  and  life-long 
learning.      The  introduction  of  education  and  training  priorities,  including 
higher  education  in  the  Navarre  S3  is  very  positive  and  shows  that  the 
region has given a key role to the education mission of universities in the 
achievement  of  the  ambitious  objectives  set  by  the  strategy.  From  the 
university  side,  the  UPNA  has  gone  through  an  important  re-organisation 
of the nature and range of the education it offers that shows the relevance 
given by the university and engagement from the education mission to the 
S3.  These  new  provisions  are  based  on  careful  considerations  of  the 
alignment  with  Navarra's  S3  priority  areas  and  the  response  to  regional 
societal  demands,  and  as  such  have  been  included  in  the  2016-2019 
Strategic Plan. 

In  North  East  Romania  the  system  consists  of  seven  public  and  four 
private HEIs, and each tends to be specialised in few scientific disciplines. 
Overall  they  complement  each  other  relatively  well  in  terms  of  subject 
matter, however the HESS project has highlighted the need for improved  
inter-institutional  coordination  for  cooperation  in  teaching,  research  and 
other  activities  supportive  of  innovation.  For  example,  private  sector 
engagement  in  course-design,  while  not  uncommon,  appears  largely  left 
to  the  initiatives  of  individual  professors  with  no  formal  structure  to 
facilitate such processes. An effort to coordinate and support these ad hoc 
personal  initiatives,  either  within  each  HEI  or  across  them,  appears 
important to maximise and scale-up their impact. 

Furthermore, the centralised nature of higher education policy (and public 
administration  in  general)  in  Romania  limits  the  flexibility  for  HEIs  to 
adapt their activities, such as new academic courses or distance learning, 
to  regional  demands.  The  situation  in  Navarre  is  much  different.  HEIs 
enjoy  high  levels  of  autonomy  from  the  central  state  and  the  public 
university  is  funded  and  administered  by  the  regional  government, 
providing  the  conditions  for  an  alignment  of  strategies.  The  Public 
University  of  Navarre  (UPNA)  is  a  relatively  young  institution,  being 
founded  in  1987  with  an  explicitly  regional  mission.  In  fact  85%  of  the 
students are from Navarre and the range of education on offer is designed 

31 

 
larger 

together with the regional government. In contrast, the Private University 
of  Navarre  (UNAV)  which 
is  more  connected 
is  slightly 
internationally, both in terms of research networks and students, of which 
only  38%  come  from  the  region.    It  is  a  leading  research  institution  in  a 
number of disciplines, especially medicine and the bio-economy. Although 
it is not embedded in the region like the public university, UNAV makes a 
crucial contribution to its economy, directly due to its presence, but also in 
terms of new firm creation, industry collaboration and internationalisation. 
In  fact,  there  is  a  potential  for  very  fruitful  cooperation  between  the  two 
universities  in  Navarre  because  of  their  different  but  complementarity 
profiles.  The  system  as  a  whole  could  become  very  powerful  in  adapting 
international  knowledge  to  the  local  context.  Nurturing  a  system  of 
governance  to  promote  cooperation  between  the  universities  and  a  joint 
dialogue with industry could enhance this process.  

The  launch  of  Aditech  Corporation  has  addressed  the  existing  rivalries 
between  some  of  the  research  centres  and  university  research  groups. 
Aditech  has  brought  under  one  umbrella  six  technology  centres,  three 
research  centres,  industry  associations  and  the  two  universities  of 
Navarre.  It  aims  to  create  a  new  ecosystem  that  brings  together  new 
forms of establishing research centre-university-business collaborations in 
the value chain, especially focused on the implementation and application 
of  innovative  products  and  services.  The  increased  integration  of 
universities in the new Aditech ecosystem, whose initial aim was to bring 
together  research  and  technology  centres,  could  introduce  additional 
structuring  of  the  research  capacities,  enhance  applied  research  and 
transfer of knowledge from universities.  

4.2.3 The role of HEIs in place based policies 

The  ability  of  HEIs  to  engage  in  place-based  policies  clearly  depends  on 
different facets of the regional context and its policy competences. In this 
respect the two pilot case studies could not differ more.   

Regarding sub-national governance, the region of North East Romania has 
no administrative status and is constituted as a NUTS2 territorial unit and 
as  a  framework  for  the  implementation  of  regional  development  policies 
and use of Structural Funds. It has a Regional Development Agency (RDA) 
governed  by  a  Regional  Development  Council  (RDC),  but  its  formal 
responsibilities  remain  very  limited.  The  RDA  has  pro-actively  developed 
an S3 for North East Romania but has limited influence on its policy mix. 
There  is  an  ESIF  regional  operational  programme  but  it  is  managed 
centrally by the national government. Furthermore, beyond the RDA there 

32 

 
are few place-based institutions such as clusters and business associations 
that  can  generate  bottom  up  ideas  for  collaboration  between  the 
universities and enterprises.  

Despite  the  context,  the  HESS  project  revealed  avenues  for  embedding 
HEIs  in  place-based  policy.  HEIs  are  also  actively  involved  in  the 
governance  of  S3.  In  particular,  academics  are  part  of  the  Regional 
Innovation  Consortium,  the  partnership  structure  coordinating  the 
governance of the S3. The Consortium provides feedback on the structure 
and  mix  of  policies  in  the  strategy,  potentially  proposing  updates  or 
revisions and identifying relevant sources of funding. The consortium has 
an Advisory Commission to identify funding possibilities for the S3 project 
portfolio  and  to  provide  information  on  the  implemented  projects. 
Furthermore,  the  governance  structure  also  includes  an  Academic  Task 
Force, comprising the academic representatives of the Regional Innovation 
Consortium, which has an evaluation and advisory role.  

In contrast, Navarre retains policy competences in most of the areas in its 
S3 policy mix. The Government of Navarre has been continuously defining 
and  implementing  successive  regional  innovation  policies,  addressing  the 
reinforcement  of  the  regional  scientific  and  technological  research 
infrastructure  and  resources  as  well  as  the  stimulation  of  the  innovation 
capabilities  and  performance  of  the  business  sector.    The  objective  is  to 
integrate regional innovation into the European Research Area and global 
networks.    Support  for  innovation  activities  are  carried  out  by  means  of 
financing  R&D  projects  for  companies  and  research  organizations. 
Collaborative  projects,  either  at  a  national  or  international  level,  are 
particularly encouraged.  

The  Navarre  Government  as  well  as  the  research  and  innovation 
stakeholders of the region have acknowledged the importance of involving 
universities  in  the  S3.  The  Rector  of  the  UPNA  is  a  member  of  the  S3 
steering committee and both universities are involved at the highest level 
of  governance,  where  the  final  decisions  are  made.  However,  staff  at 
faculty level who may be more closely involved in projects linked to S3 are 
much  less  familiar  with  the  regional  strategy  and  its  objectives.  They 
spoke  about  a  lack  of  clarity  on  how  the  S3  process  will  evolve  after  the 
definition  of  the  S3  priority  areas  and  the  way  the  project  prioritisation 
and decision making process will be set up.  

The  HESS  case  study  has  helped  to  identify  certain  limiting  factors  that 
hinder  the  stronger  involvement  of  universities  in  the  S3.  The  national 
regulation  of  the  structure  and  governance  of  universities  does  not 

33 

 
provide  the  flexibility  needed  for  the  recruitment  of  university  professors 
with different profiles and contract types. The S3 processes require more 
flexibility  in  terms  of  the  possibility  of  professors  to  devote  time  outside 
teaching  and  research  activities.  This  type  of  engagement  with  regional 
actors and S3 processes is carried out on top of their official activities and 
is  very  much  based  on  the  individual  motivation  and  engagement  of 
professors  than  in  a  systematic  and  regulated  manner.  Moreover,  these 
processes  require  different  researchers’  profiles  to  the  general  academic 
professor  profile,  which  is  interested  in  working  in  multi-stakeholder 
collaborative  projects,  applied  research  and  closer  to  the  policymaking 
cycle.  A  potential  way  of  overcoming  these  obstacles  are  hybrid 
organisations  that  are  under  the  umbrella  of  university  governance  but 
can  develop  partnerships  with  outside  organisations  in  a  flexible  manner 
and can hire personnel outside the university regulatory requirements.  

4.2.4 Broader understanding of innovation and research 

In  North  East  Romania  HEIs  reported  a  strong  shared  recognition  of  the 
university's  role  as  a  boundary  spanner  and  of  the  value  of  engagement 
with the public sector and with society at large. While HEIs and their staff 
show  awareness  of  the  importance  of  being  present  in  different 
organisations (including NGOs, civic society etc.) in their field of interest, 
these activities are pursued on an ad hoc, individual basis. University staff 
members are voluntarily involved in different decision making committees 
at  local  and  county  level.  HEIs  showed  awareness  of  the  importance  of 
being present in different organizations (including NGOs, civil society etc.) 
in their field of interest. However, academics engaging with the society do 
so  because  they  are  personally  motivated,  rather  than  because  there  is 
institutional or sectoral encouragement. In terms of actionable proposals, 
the  study  indicates  a  need  for  capacity-building  process  to  improve 
engagement, as well as awareness-raising to recognise the effort of HEIs 
participating in activities with the territory. 

HEIs  in  North  East  Romania  stressed  that  S3  also  puts  new  demands  on 
the  topics  of  research,  demanding  that  more  attention  be  paid  to  local 
socio-economic  challenges  (for  instance,  specific  health  issues  in  rural 
areas remote from cities). For this to succeed however there needs to be 
more intra-regional and interdisciplinary collaboration among HEIs. This is 
nevertheless  extremely  challenging,  as  local  universities  do  not  have  a 
tradition  of  collaboration,  nor  do  funding  streams  and  evaluation 
frameworks encourage such approaches.  

34 

 
The  Navarra  case  has  also  shown  the  importance  of  the  societal 
recognition  of  the  university  activity  for  its  own  sake  as  a  clear  and 
distinct  contribution  to  the  region,  and  especially  to  individual  teachers 
and  researchers  collaborating  in  projects  of  public  interest.  The  stronger 
orientation of regional programmes/initiatives towards societal challenges 
would  be  welcomed  by  innovation  actors  as  it  is  believed  that  this  could 
become a catalyst for new forms of cooperation with the university 

The  cross-border  collaborations  with  Aquitaine  and  Basque  Country 
regions can boost the outward looking perspective of the Navarre S3, and 
contribute to better integrating the region into international value chains. 
The  recent  formal  engagement  of  Navarra  in  the  Euroregion  EGTCP 
governance envisions a new framework of potential collaborations that can 
have  an  important  impact  through  the  S3  process.  Nevertheless,  more 
awareness  of  existing  cross-border  collaboration  opportunities  should  be 
raised  by  the  Navarre  government  to  foster  this  partially  untapped 
potential.  

4.3 Case study conclusions  

4.3.1 North East Romania 

The  results  from  the  fieldwork  show  that  there  is  significant  potential  for 
universities in North East Romania to supply the human capital needed to 
increase  innovation  and  implement  the  region's  S3.  The  universities 
provide  high  quality  education  and  attract  students  to  its  main  cities. 
There  are  positive  examples  of  engagement  with  business,  whether 
through  student  placements  or  co-design  of  courses.  Yet  a  lack  of 
structured cooperation at an institutional level limits their impact. There is 
openness  among  the  staff  to  contribute  to  entrepreneurial  education, 
lifelong  learning  and  professional  training,  outside  the  traditional  course 
structure  and  student  profile.  Finally,  increased  capacity  at  regional  level 
for tracking graduates and understanding the labour market seems to be 
essential  for  progress.  It  is  critical  that  the  RDA  and  the  other  actors 
governing  S3  are  able  to  capitalise  on  the  willingness  of  local  HEIs  and 
find ways to implement the lines of activities identified through the HESS 
project.  

It  also  seems  essential  to  allow  universities  to  participate  more  in 
international  networks,  and  to  build  the  capacities  for  knowledge 
absorption.  This  could  be  done  by  centring  research  efforts  on  local 
challenges  (societal,  techno-economic,  environmental  or  health-related) 
and fostering collaboration among regional research actors.  

35 

 
The  very  limited  development  of  technology  transfer  in  the  region  places 
local  HEIs  in  a  difficult  position.  On  the  one  hand  they  are  important 
regional  research  actors,  on  the  other  they  have  had  limited  incentives, 
capacity  and  (intermittent)  policy  support  to  engage  in  technology 
transfer. 

While  the  HESS  fieldwork  was  extremely  fruitful  and  identified  relevant 
avenues for policy decisions, its most important outcome is the definition 
of  a  strategic  vision  for  regional  development  among  HEIs  and  with  the 
RDA.    HEIs  have  perceived  themselves  not  only  as  providers  of  human 
capital, but also as critical actors for regional development.  

This  is  an  achievement  not  to  be  underestimated  and  it  is  especially 
relevant  for  the  EU's  peripheral  regions.  Indeed,  it  suggests  that  the 
concept  of  smart  specialisation  and  stakeholders’  collaboration 
is 
appealing and gathers commitment also in areas that have little tradition 
of dialogue and cooperation in innovation, where universities are strongly 
anchored to traditional models.  

4.3.2 Navarre 

The  two  main  universities  of  the  region,  UPNA  and  UNAV,  are 
complementary  and  can  contribute  differently  to  regional  development 
based  on  their  main  strengths.  UPNA  is  a  more  regionally  oriented 
university with strong connections to the territory as well as interregional 
collaborations.  UNAV  is  well  rooted  in  Navarre  but  displays  a  clear 
international talent attraction and research university vocation. The HESS 
case  study  has  shown  that  a  more  sustained  and  systematic  institutional 
collaboration  between  both  universities  could  considerably  strengthen 
their contribution to the S3. The strategies of the universities themselves 
should be carefully considered in the implementation of the S3 and in the 
reflection of the different type of contributions they can make. 

The  case  study  has  raised  the  need  to  establish  more  links  and 
collaborations between higher and vocational education, as they can both 
complement  each  other  in  their  contributions  to  the  S3.  The  regional 
government has given strategic importance to the plan for the range and 
types  of  vocational  education  and  training  on  offer  that  has  been  shaped 
in collaboration with different education, social and economic actors of the 
region.  The  plan  was  informed  in  particular  by  the  stated  demand  from 
employers and the perspective of students. There is a clear opportunity to 
fully  exploit  the  Vocational  Education  and  Training  provided  by  national 
accredited centres of reference in energy (CENIFER) and health (ESTNA), 

36 

 
which are very close to the needs of the region and especially  focused in 
the  education  and 
future 
employability. 

training  of  students 

to  ensure 

their 

While there are genuine efforts to align the teaching and other activities of 
the  universities  with  regional  priorities  and  employer  demands,  there 
could  be  more  anticipation  and  mapping  of  future  needs  in  terms  of 
of 
educational  models 
education, 
entrepreneurship.  The  universities  are  also  asked  to  develop  more 
‘transversal’  skills  in  graduates  as  well  as  deep  but  narrow  technical 
competencies, which are sought by regional employers.  

innovative 

promotion 

and 

The  industrial  PhD  or  traction  programmes  that  promote  collaboration 
between companies, technology centres and research institutes have been 
welcomed  as  important  instruments  put  in  place  by  the  government  that 
will contribute to the S3 priority areas. The fact that the instruments have 
been  jointly  defined  in  cooperation  with  research  and  innovation  actors 
helps  to  make  them  suitable  to  address  the  challenges 
faced. 
Nevertheless,  additional  efforts  by  the  actors  to  shape  the  specific 
activities,  projects  and  initiatives  that  will  be  promoted  under  the  S3 
education  and  training  cross-cutting  factor  would  be  beneficial  to  ensure 
the  timely  achievement  of  the  proposed  results  in  coordination  with  the 
activities launched in the six vertical priority axes.  

37 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Policy lessons and next steps 

The  first  phase  of  the  HESS  project  has  simultaneously  shown  the 
potential of HEIs to contribute to smart specialisation in Europe's regions, 
while identifying major obstacles to the engagement of the HE sector with 
innovation and regional development.  

On  the  one  hand,  policy  makers  perceive  HEIs  as  central  to  smart 
specialisation,  in  particular  for  the  development  and  retention  of  human 
capital.  The  S3  Platform  survey  showed  that  higher  education  is  seen  as 
particularly  important  for  S3  implementation  by  less  developed  regions. 
Furthermore, in the public consultation on smart specialisation conducted 
by  DG  Regional  and  Urban  policy,  respondents  identified  skills  and 
education  as  the  second  most  important  element  in  S3  processes 
(European  Commission  2017c,  p37).  These  surveys  also  suggest  HEIs 
have  become  more  involved  in  innovation  eco-systems  at  regional  level, 
and  the  action  research  in  Navarre  and  to  a  lesser  extent  in  North  East 
Romania  shows  that  senior  university  managers  have  been  closely 
involved in S3 governance structures. Yet at faculty and operational level, 
engagement  with  S3  is  still  patchy,  sporadic  and  usually  based  on 
individual  relationships  rather  than  a  comprehensive  and  corporate 
university strategy.  

in 

the 

In fact, the HESS project has shown that the contribution of HEIs to S3 is 
limited  by  several  factors  tied  to  the  multi-level  nature  of  the  EU  and  its 
Member  States.  While  smart  specialisation  is  an  EU  initiative,  European 
level intervention is mostly restricted to the negotiation of ESIF OPs in the 
area  of  R&I.  Yet,  the  aspiration  for  S3  to  be  economic  modernisation 
strategies,  as  repeated 
latest  Communication  on  Smart 
Specialisation  (European  Commission  2017b),  requires  a  much  broader 
set  of  policy  tools  which  are  beyond  the  remit  of  the  European 
Commission.  For  instance  HE  systems,  a  competence  of  member  states, 
rarely  provide  career  incentives  to  engage  with  regional  stakeholders, 
from  business  to  the  public  sector  and  civil  society.  At  the  EU  level  it  is 
only  possible  to  issue  recommendations  through  the  European  Semester 
process  (for  example  Latvia  has  been  encouraged  to  rationalise  its  HE 
sector and link it to S3 priorities). Furthermore, harnessing HE for regional 
needs is much more difficult in highly centralised Member States such as 
Romania  than  in  those  with  more  autonomy  for  HE  such  as  Spain.  The 
widening  out  of  smart  specialisation  requires  more  integrated  policy 
making  from  EU  level  down.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  very  limited  use  of 

38 

 
the ESF for innovation, and yet investment in people rather than research 
has  been  identified  by  S3  policy  makers  and  practitioners  a  priority, 
especially  in  less  developed  regions.  The  next  generation  of  ESIF  post 
2020  should  explore  ways  to  better  integrate  the  different  ex-ante 
conditionalities and funds. 

Nevertheless,  despite  these  obstacles,  the  HESS  project  has  started  to 
highlight  cases  where  HEIs  can  really  make  a  difference  to  smart 
specialisation. This reservoir of European knowledge needs to be built and 
disseminated  further,  especially  when  it  comes  to  the  role  of  HEIs  in 
developing  and  retaining  talent  in  regions  that  are  facing  demographic 
challenges. Examples of how the ESF as well as ERDF have been used to 
strengthen this role are particularly needed. This will be a priority for the 
HESS project as  it  moves  forward. Further analysis of ESIF  programming 
and  implementation  together  with  Country  Specific  Recommendations  of 
the European Semester can help to target regions and countries for action 
research.  This  in  turn  will  help  build  a  European  Community  of  Practice 
that is committed to forwarding this agenda. 

39 

References 

Barca,  F.  (2009).  An  Agenda  for  a  Reformed  Cohesion  Policy:  A  place-
based  approach  to meeting  European  Union  challenges  and  expectations. 
Brussels. 

Campillo,  I.,  E.  Arregui  Pabollet  and  J.  Gomez  Prieto  (2017).  Higher 
Education  for  Smart  Specialisation:  The  case  of  Navarre.  JRC  Technical 
Report. Seville. 

Clark,  B.  R.  (1998).  Creating  Entrepreneurial  Universities:  Organization 
Pathways of Transformation. Guildford, Pergamon  

Etzkowitz,  H.  (2013).  "Anatomy  of  the  entrepreneurial  university."  Social 
Science Information 52(3): 486-511. 

Etzkowitz,  H.  and  L.  Leydesdorff  (1995).  "The  Triple  Helix---University-
for  Knowledge-Based 
Industry-Government  Relations:  A  Laboratory 
Economic Development." EASST Review 14: 14-19. 

European  Commission  (2012).  Guide  to  Research  and  Innovation 
Strategies for Smart Specialisation, European Commission. 

European  Commission  (2013).  Universities  and  Smart  Specialisation.  S3 
Policy Brief Series, JRC Technical Reports. Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2014a).  University-Regional  Partnerships:  Case 
Studies. Joint Research Centre. Seville, Joint Research Centre. 

European Commission (2014b). RIS3 Implementation and Policy Mixes S3 
Policy Brief Series 07/2014, JRC Technical Reports. Luxembourg. 

European  Commission  (2015).  Perspectives  for  Research  and  Innovation 
Strategies  for  Smart  Specialisation  (RIS3)  in  the  wider  context  of  the 
Europe  2020  Growth  Strategy.  DG  Research.  Luxembourg,  Publications 
Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2016).  EU  Funds  working  together  for  jobs  and 
growth:  Synergies  between  the  R&I  Framework  Programmes  and  the 
European  Structural  &  Investment  Funds.  D.  R.  a.  Innovation. 
Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union. 

European  Commission  (2017a).  A  Renewed  EU  Agenda  for  Higher 
Education, COM(2017) 247 final. 

European  Commission  (2017b).  Strengthening  Innovation  in  Europe's 
Regions: Strategies for resilient, inclusive and sustainable growth. 

European  Commission  (2017c).  Commission  Staff  Working  Document 
accopanying the Communication on Strengthening Innovation in Europe's 
Regions:  Towards  resilient,  inclusive  and  sustainable  growth  at  territorial 
level, SWD(2017) 264 final. 

European Tertiary Education Register (2017). ETER brief n. 4. The regional 
dimension of higher education. 

40 

European  University  Association  (2015).  Universities  promoting  regional 
innovation  across  Europe:  Recommendation  of  the  2015  EUA  Expert 
Group on RIS3 meeting and workshop outcomes. Brussels, EUA. 

Foray,  D.  and  B.  Hall  (2009).  Smart  Specialisation  –  The  Concept. 
Knowledge Economists Policy Brief n° 9. Brussels, European Commission. 

Gianelle, C., F. Guzzo and K. Mieszkowski (2017). Smart Specialisation at 
work: Analysis of the calls launched under ERDF Operational Programmes. 
JRC Technical Report. Seville, Joint Research Centre. 

Gibb,  A.,  A.  Hofer  and  M.  Klofsten  (2014).  The  Entrepreneurial  Higher 
Education  Institution:  A  Review  of  the  Concept  and  its  Relevance  Today. 
HEInnovate Concept Note, www.heinnovate.eu    

Goddard, J. (2009). Reinventing the Civic University. London, NESTA. 

Goddard, J., L.  Kempton and P. Vallance  (2013). "Universities and Smart 
Specialisation:  challenges,  tensions,  and  opportunities  for  the  innovation 
strategies of European regions." Ekonomiaz. 

Goddard,  J.,  E.  Hazelkorn,  L.  Kempton  and  P.  Vallance  (2016).  The  Civic 
University:  The  Policy  and  Leadership  Challenges.  Cheltenham,  Edward 
Elgar. 

Government of Navarre (2016). Navarre S3 Smart Specialisation Strategy 
http://www.sodena.com/images/estrategia-regional/Navarre_S3.pdf  

Gunasekara, C. (2006). "Universities and associative regional governance: 
Australian  evidence  in  non-core  metropolitan  regions."  Regional  Studies 
40: 727-741. 

Hazelkorn,  E.  (2016).  Contemporary  debates  part  2:  initiatives,  and 
governance and organisational structures. The Civic University: The Policy 
and  Leadership  Challenges.  J.  Goddard,  E.  Hazelkorn,  L.  Kempton  and  P. 
Vallance. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing. 

Kempton,  L.  (2016).  "Delivering  Smart  Specialisation  in  Peripheral 
Regions: the Role of Universities." Regional Studies/Regional Science. 

Kroll,  H.  (2016).  Policy  Brief  on  Smart  Specialisation.  Karlsruhe, 
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI. 

Kyriakou,  D.,  M.  Palazuelos  Martínez,  I.  Periáñez-Forte  and  A.  Rainoldi, 
Eds. (2017). Governing Smart Specialisation. Abingdon, Routledge. 

Marinelli,  E.,  I.  Perianez  (2017)  Smart  Specialisation  at  work:  The 
entrepreneurial  discovery  as  a  continuous  process.  JRC  Technical  Report. 
Seville. 

Marinelli,  E.,  J.  Edwards  and  C.  Mironov  (2017).  Higher  Education  for 
Smart  Specialisation:  The  case  of  North  East  Romania.  JRC  Technical 
Report. Seville. 

McCann, P. and R. Ortega-Argilés (2013). "Smart Specialization, Regional 
Growth  and  Applications  to  European  Union  Cohesion  Policy."  Regional 
Studies: 1-12. 

41 

 
Vallance,  P.,  J.  Blažek,  J.  Edwards  and  V.  Květoň  (2017).  "Smart 
specialisation  in  regions  with  less-developed  research  and  innovation 
systems:  A  changing  role  for  universities?"  Environment  and  Planning  C: 
Politics and Space: 2399654417705137. 

42 

 
 
 
List of Figures, Tables and Boxes 

Figures 

Figure 1: Capacities of universities in the context of smart specialisation 10 

Figure 2: Distribution of HEIs in Europe ............................................. 13 

Figure 3: Perception of levels of research and innovation in S3 Platform 
regions (% of respondents giving a score of five or above from seven) .. 16 

Figure 4: Planned investments from the ESIF by Investment Fields most 
likely to benefit HEIs (in billion €) ..................................................... 20 

Figure 5: Planned investments from the ESIF under Intervention Field 116 
by EU Member State (in million €) .................................................... 21 

Figure 6: Planned investments from the ESIF by ESF Secondary Objective 
on Research and Innovation linked to Thematic Objectives (in million €) 22 

Figure 7: ESIF Operational Programmes most relevant for HE spending on 
innovation (classified as both TO 10 and ESF secondary objective on R&I)
 .................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 8: Navarre's "Innovation Tree" ............................................... 30 

Tables 

Table 1: Models of university engagement ........................................... 9 

Table 2: Framework to analyse the contribution of HEIs to S3 .............. 11 

Table 3: Importance of different policy areas for the implementation of S3 
(% of respondents who gave a score of six or seven out of seven) ........ 17 

Table 4: Results of ESIF Keyword search related to Higher Education and 
Smart Specialisation........................................................................ 23 

Table 5 Key characteristics of the case studies ................................... 26 

Table 6: Public Universities’ links to S3 priorities in North East Romania  27 

Boxes 

Box 1: Factors that influence HEIs engagement in  regional development
 .................................................................................................... 14 

Box 2: Dimensions of the ESIF most relevant to HEIs .......................... 19 

Box 3: The three stage process of the HESS pilot case studies ............. 25 

43 

GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

- by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: http://europa.eu 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe 
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact). 

K
J
-
N
A
-
2
9
0
2
3
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/376572 

ISBN 978-92-79-77331-0