COVID-19 and the smart specialisation strategy : policy actions and organisational policy capacities.
Date: 2022-07-04
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: EU Member State, EU regional policy, coronavirus disease, economic and social cohesion, research and development, social integration, sustainable development

COVID-19 and the smart specialisation strategy  

Policy actions and 
organisational policy 
capacities  

Inmaculada Perianez-Forte 

Clemente J. Navarro 

2022 

EUR 31128 EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This publication is a Technical 
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. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in 
this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact 
the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply 
the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any 
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 

Contact information  
Name: Inmaculada Perianez-Forte 
Address: Joint Research Centre 
Edificio EXPO   Calle Inca Garcilaso 3  
41092 Sevilla, Spain 
Email: inmaculada.perianez-forte@ec.europa.eu 

EU Science Hub 

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC129753 

EUR 31128 EN 

PDF 

ISBN 978-92-76-53656-7 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/120691 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022  

© European Union 2022  

The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 
December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, 
the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) 
licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate 
credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is 
not owned by the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. 

All content © European Union, 2022 

How to cite this report: Perianez-Forte I. and Navarro C., COVID-19 and the smart specialisation strategy, EUR 
31128  EN,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union,  Luxembourg,  2022,  ISBN  978-92-76-53656-7, 
doi:10.2760/120691, JRC129753. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contents 

1.  Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 

2.  Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 

3.  Portfolio contents: priorities adequacy................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 

Which priorities included in smart specialisation portfolios are more suitable to cope with the COVID-19 
pandemic?   .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 

Should any other priories be added? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 

4.  Actions to cope with covid-19 and the recovery period ................................................................................................................................... 10 

Improving smart specialisation strategies as regards covid-19 consequences. ...................................................................... 10 

Improving smart specialisation strategies for the recovery period ....................................................................................................... 13 

5.  Entities policy capacities: on capacity building challenges ............................................................................................................................ 17 

6.  Conclusions: from operational to political capacity building ........................................................................................................................ 22 

Reference ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 24 

List of tables ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25 

List of figures ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 

Annexe 1 SURVEY ON SMART SPECIALISATION STRATEGIES: POLICY CAPACITIES AND IMPLEMENTATION. 
(31/12/20) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 

Annexe 2 Policy actions as regards COVID-19 consequences ................................................................................................................... 39 

Annexe 3. Policy actions as regards the Recovery period. .............................................................................................................................. 40 

i 

 
 
 
 
 
Executive summary 

 

 

 

 

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a disruptive factor across Europe, affecting the implementation of 
smart specialisation and other policies. To address the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, the 
European Union and the Members States have promoted different policy initiatives.  

To  understand  how  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  affected  the  implementation  of  the  smart 
specialisation strategies and how governments have been influenced by the EU policy reforms in the 
last part of the 2014-2020 programming period, the Territorial Development Unit of the Joint Research 
Centre of the European Commission launched a survey at the end of 2020, together with the Pablo de 
Olavide University.  

The survey was addressed to the entities in charge of the smart specialisation strategies and sought 
to  collect  information  about  how  the  COVID-19  pandemic  had  affected  the  implementation  of  the 
smart specialisation strategies and how the entities in charge had managed the situation. Our analysis 
focuses on the organisational policy capacities and governance processes required to deal with COVID-
19 consequences. 

The main results show the contrast between the adequacy of smart specialisation strategies portfolio 
contents and administrative challenges to manage and implement it due to the COVID-19 pandemic 
and  the  Recovery  period.  Among  the  most  suitable  priorities  included  in  the  respondents´  smart 
specialisation  strategies  portfolio  to  cope  with  COVID19  consequences  are  Sustainable  innovation, 
KETs, the Digital Agenda and Public health and security. However, most entities highlight the need for 
policy actions to enhance their organisational structures and processes to increase actors' coordination, 
especially among governmental ones.  

  According to respondents the feature most needed is flexibility in rules and procedures to implement 

and justify ongoing projects. 

In sum, with respect to the pandemic crisis, the entities in charge of the smart specialisation strategies 
need  to  improve  their  operational  and  political  capacities  rather  than  smart  specialisation  policy 
contents.  

 

 

specialisation policies. Nevertheless, policy actions proposed and policy capacities self-assessments, 
made clear the importance of governance processes. It seems that entities can more easily mobilise 
and integrate social stakeholders in policy-making processes than other public organisations and their 
policies. 

  Finally

uired  to  improve  smart  specialisation 
strategies and governance processes show the existence of challenges. Entities indicate 
difficulties  coordinating  policy  actions  and  identifying  a  core  set  of  public  and 
social  actors,  focused  on  specific  functions  and  policy  sectors  in  governance 
processes.  

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements 

The authors would like to thank those policymakers who participated in the survey across Europe. Special thanks 
to Francesca Donati for the on-line survey design and management, her excellent work collecting answers from 
countries and  regions and  preliminary analyses.  Thanks also  go to Fernando Mérida, who provided valuable 
suggestions for elaborating the survey. The report also benefited from the support of Xabier Goenana (Head of 
Unit of the Knowledge for Finance, Innovation and Growth Unit of the JRC) and Alessandro Rainoldi (Head of 
the Territorial Development Unit of the JRC). Thanks to Karel H. Haegeman for his constant support and Anabela 
Santos  for  her  suggestions  for  the  graphs.  Finally,  special  thanks  go  to  Xenia  Garcia  Dominguez  and 
Massimiliano Fucci for the overall revision of the graphs and document.  

Authors  

Inmaculada Perianez-Forte, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Seville, Spain.  

Clemente J. Navarro, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Abstract 

This  report  aims  to  understand  how  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  affected  the  implementation  of  smart 
specialisation strategies in the last part of the 2014-2020 period. The report focuses on organisational policy 
capacities  and  governance  processes  required  to  deal  with  the  consequences  of  COVID-19.  A  survey  was 
launched  in  2020  to  collect  information  about  how  the  health  crisis  had  affected  implementation  of  smart 
specialisation strategies and how the entities in charge had managed the situation. The main results show the 
contrast  between  the  adequacy  of  smart  specialisation  strategies  portfolio  contents  and  administrative 
challenges in managing and implementing the strategies in times of crisis and during the recovery period. Almost 
all entities consider priorities included in their smart specialisation strategies portfolio  are adequate to  cope 
with  the  consequences  of  COVID19.  However,  most  highlight  actions  needed  to  enhance  organisational 
structures and processes to increase actors' coordination, especially governmental ones. In sum, the entities in 
charge of the smart specialisation strategies need to improve their operational and political capacities more 
than smart specialisation policy contents. 

3 

 
 
1.  Introduction 

The  COVID-19  pandemic  has  played  a  disruptive  factor  across  Europe,  affecting  smart  specialisation 
implementation  and  other  policies.  To  address  the  consequences  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  European 
Union and the Members States have promoted different policy initiatives. To understand how the COVID-19 
pandemic has affected the implementation of the smart specialisation strategies in the last part of the 2014-
2020  programming  period,  the  Territorial  Development  Unit  of  the  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 
Commission launched a survey, together with the Pablo de Olavide University, at the end of 2020. The survey 
addressed the entities in charge of the smart specialisation strategies. It sought to collect information about 
how the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the smart specialisation strategies and how the entities in charge 
had managed the situation. 

Based on the responses, this report focuses on one part of the survey: the organisational policy capacities and 
governance processes required to deal with COVID-19 consequences. The analysis provided pursues to shed 
light on the policy capacities and the type of actions needed in times of crisis. 

The experience of smart specialisation in the European Union has shown the smart specialisation policy poses 

management  and  implementation.  However,  previous  analyses  have  also  shown  these  challenges  vary 
  economic  development  and  institutional  robustness.  For  regions  with  more  robust 
economies and institutional frameworks in North and Central Europe, smart specialisation has been a valuable 
instrument to refine and improve previous experiences. For those regions with weaker economies, institutional 
and  governance  systems,  in  Southern  and  especially  Eastern  Europe,  smart  specialisation  implies  intense 
challenges but also learning opportunities as regards their institutional and governance capacities (Kroll, 2015; 
MacCann and Ortge-Argilés, 2016; Hasink and Gong, 2019; Trippl et al. 2020). 

In  addition  to  these  regional  differences,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  has  added  a  disruptive  factor  across  the 
European  Union,  affecting  the  management,  implementation,  and  effectiveness  of  smart  specialisation  and 
other policies. However, this disruptive factor promoted different reactions and effects in different regions that 
could reinforce pre-existing differences due to their economic situation and institutional frameworks. 

Cohesion Policy and, therefore, implement smart specialisation strategies. These rules imply some flexibility in 
managing and justifying European Structural Funds. Have these rules been used by entities in charge of smart 
strategy policies? Do they think these rules help to cope with COVID-19 consequences? Do they think other rules 
could be used and proposed regarding CODID-19 and other similar disruptive factors in the future? 

This report focuses on the organisational policy capacities and governance processes required from the entities 
in  charge  of  the  smart  specialisation  to  deal  with  COVID-19  consequences.  Other  elements  included  in  the 
survey such as the use of flexibility rules established by the European Commission to deal with the potential 
impact of COVID-19 on EU Cohesion Policy and the role and perceptions of different stakeholders are analysed 
in another publication.  

4 

 
 
 
2.  Methodology 

The  sample  framework  for  this  survey  is  national  and  regional  entities  in  charge  of  smart  specialisation 
strategies in the European Union and other countries. The survey was sent to the 208 entities (28 national and 
181 regional) in the Member States and other countries that have established a smart specialisation strategy. 
Research work was done online from December 2020 to March 2021, and the final response rate is 45,2%, a 
total of 95 responses (88 from the Members States and Norway and eight from other countries). Response 
distribution shows that North and Central Europe entities have participated less than entities responsible for 
smart specialisation strategies in different regions (see table 1)1. 

Given the focus of this report, the sample framework used for our analyses includes all entities, including both 
Members  and  non-Members  States.  Nevertheless,  the  effective  sample  size  does  not  allow  very  complex 
multivariate analysis. Although other analyses have been performed to confirm the results, the most relevant 
results will be summarised using basic statistical techniques and tables (means or percentages). 

Table 1 Population and sample distributions by geographical areas 

Geographical Areas 

N  

Northern/Central 

103 

Southern 

Eastern 

Total 

58 

48 

209 

  n  

  36 

  32 

  27 

  95 

Response rate (%) 

35,0 

55,2 

56,3 

45,5 

Note: this table includes EU and non-EU entities with a smart specialisation policy N: Population; n: sample 

Previous studies about smart specialisation strategies and policy cohesion have shown countries and regions 
across Europe have different economic situations and institutional capacities (Kroll, 2015; Trippl et al., 2020). 
Our analysis also reflects differences across Europe  between three  broad  geographical areas: Northern and 
Central,  Southern  and  Eastern.  In  some  cases,  our  research  will  also  distinguish  between  convergence  and 
competitiveness regions (Gross domestic product   GDP - less or more than 75% EU average). 

1  Geographical  areas  included  the  following  countries  and  their  regions:  North  (Austria,  Belgium,  France,  Germany,  Finland,  Sweden, 
Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherland,  Sweden,  UK),  South  (Cyprus,  Greece,  Italy,  Malta,  Portugal, 
Spain), East (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia). Norway 
has been included in the North/Central group, and the other non-EU regions in the Eastern group.  

5 

 
 
 
                                           
3.  Portfolio contents: priorities adequacy 

A central aspect of smart specialisation policy is its portfolio content: selecting specialisation priorities. As a 
place-
Nevertheless, even if the pandemic intensity and its effects have differed across regions, its disruptive factor 
has  posed  a  common  challenge  to  adapting  policy  strategies  and  priorities.  We  explored  in  the  survey  the 
suitability  of  the  smart  specialisation  priorities to  address  the  COVID-19  pandemic.  The  rest  of  this  section 
presents the main findings. 

Do entities consider their priorities are suitable to cope with COVID-19 consequences in their territories? 

75% of entities think half or more of the priorities included in their current portfolios are suitable for coping 
with the consequences of COVID-19. Specifically, 32% feel more than half of them, and 22% think all of them 
are suitable. Geographical differences show Northern/Central regions find their smart specialisation contents 
more suitable than Southern regions, especially Eastern regions2. 

Figure 1. Priorities included  in smart  specialisation strategy suitability for coping with the consequences of 
COVID-19 and geographical areas 

None of them are suitable

Less than half of them

Half of them

More than half of them

All of them are suitable

Eastern

14.8

14.8

37

25.9

7.4

Northern/Central

2.8

8.3

25

33.3

30.6

Southern

0

37.5

6.3

34.4

21.9

Total

5.3

20

22.1

31.6

21.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

n = 95 responses, distribed by Northern/Central (36), Southern (32), Eastern (27) 

2 Differences between les and more developed regions differences are not statistically significant. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Which priorities included in smart specialisation portfolios are more suitable to cope with 
the COVID-19 pandemic?  

The survey asked for the three more suitable priorities from each entity to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. 
The selected priorities are evenly distributed across the different priority areas, although four categories stand 
out: Sustainable Innovation (19%), KETs (18%), Digital Agenda (17%) and Public health and security 
(15%). Finally, the following  priorities have been identified among the least  suitable  categories, maybe for 
their specificity or cross-cutting nature: Economic, Blue Growth and Aeronautic and Space3.  

Figure  2.  Most  suitable  specialisation  priorities included  in  smart  specialisation  strategies to  cope  with  the 
consequences of COVID-19 

Percentage over total responses  

19.1%

18.1%

17.0%

14.9%

Sustainable innovation

KETs

Digital agenda

Public health and security

Service innovation

Social innovation

Nature and biodiversity

R&D&i

Specific local policy prioritiy

6.4%

5.3%

4.8%

3.7%

3.2%

Cultural and creative industries

2.1%

Blue Growth

Economy

Areonautics and space

Other

1.6%

1.6%

1.1%

1.1%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 18.0% 20.0%

n: 188 responses.  

Note: this question included the option of multible choices 

Regarding the different geographical areas, priorities linked to innovations are more important in the 
North, especially Sustainable innovation priority (25,7%). In the South, the most important are KETs 
and  Public  health  and  security  (23,1%  respectively).  And,  finally,  in  the  Eastern,  Sustainable 
innovation  and  Digital  Agenda  (20,4%)  are  the  more  suitable  priorities  for  smart  specialisation 
strategies.  Others  include  Economy,  Aeronautics  and  space,  R&D&I,  Cultural  and  creative  industries,  Blue 
Growth,  Specific  local  policy  priority,  Nature  and  biodiversity,  Service  innovation,  Social  innovation,  etc.  The 
highest values go to Social innovation with 10.8 and Service innovation with 9.5 in Nothern/Central regions. 
R&D&I with 8.2 in Eastern regions (Figure 3). 

3 Entities responses have been classified according to smart specialisation priorities defined in the Smart Specialisation Platform (Sörvik 

and Kleibrink, 2015). 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure  3.  Most  suitable  specialisation  priorities  included  smart  specialisation  strategies  to  cope  with  the 
consequences of COVID-19 and geographical areas 

Percentage over total responses 

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

Northern/Central

Southern

Eastern

39.3%

23.1%

23.1%

25.7%

26.4%

24.5%

18.4%

20.4%

18.5%

20.4%

14.3%

13.5%

13.5%

10.8%

8.1%

Public health and
security

KETs

Digital agenda

Sustainable
innovation

Others

n: Total 188 responses: Northern/Central (74), Southern (65), Eastern (49) 

Note: Some initial values' graphs are different than cero to make more visual the differences.  

Crossing  priorities  data  with  development  levels  (figure  4),  the  most  suitable  priorities in  the  more 
developed/transition  areas  are  KETs  and  Sustainable  innovation  (18%  of  the  responses).  In 
comparison,  Digital  Agenda  and  Public  health  remain  at  13.5%.  In  the  less  developed  territorial 
areas, Digital agenda (21,4%), Sustainable innovation (20,2%) and Public Health (16.7%) stand as the most 
suitable priorities.  

Figure  4.  Most  suitable  specialisation  priorities  included  smart  specialisation  strategies  to  cope  with  the 
consequences of COVID-19 and development levels 

Percentage over total responses 

More developed/In transition

Less developed

36.5%

24.0%

21.4%

18.3%

17.9%

20.2%

18.3%

16.7%

13.5%

13.5%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

Public health and
security

Digital agenda

KETs

Sustainable
innovation

Others

n: Total 188 responses: Less developed (84), Mored developed/ in transition (104) 

Others priorities include: Economy, Aeronautics and space, R&D&I, Cultural and creative industries, Blue Growth, 
Specific  local  policy  prioritiy,  Nature  and  biodiversity,  Service  innovation,  Social  innovation  and  others.  The 
highest values go to Social innovation with 8.7 and Service innovation with 7.7 in more developed/in transition 
and R&D&I with 6.0 in less developed regions. 

8 

 
 
 
 
Should any other priories be added? 

Accordingly, with previous responses about the level of priorities adequacy (table 2), 72% of entities do not 
consider it necessary to include other specialisation priorities in their smart specialisation strategies portfolios. 
Those entities that indicate the need to have other priorities regarding COVID-19 consequences in their regions 
mention above all Public health and security (30,8%) followed by Digital agenda and Nature and biodiversity, 
mostly linked to ecotourism (about 19% both).  

Figure 5. Smart specialisation priorities considering COVID-19 consequences  

Percentage over total responses  

Public health and security

Digital agenda

Nature and biodiverisity

31%

19%

19%

Sustainable innovation

12%

KETs

Service innovation

Social innovation

4%

5%

0%

n: 26 responses 

8%

8%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

In  sum,  entities  consider  that  priorities  included  in  their  smart  specialisation  strategies  are 
almost suitable to cope with COVID-19 consequences in their territories. Only a few entities believe 
smart specialisation strategies should consist of other priorities.  

Entities selected: 1) as the more suitable priorities: Sustainable innovation, KETs, the Digital Agenda and 
Public health and security; 2) as a new new proposal: Public health and safety, the Digital Agenda, and, finally, 
Nature and biodiversity4. 

4 The number of responses for North/Central and Easter region is very low preventing to show results according to this variable. The same 

for the level of development variable.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
4.  Actions to cope with covid-19 and the recovery period 

In  addition  to  policy  contents  and  due  to  the  covid-19  crisis,  other  aspects  of  implementing  the  smart 
specialisation  strategies  could  need  some  changes.  This  section  analyses  perceived  required  changes  in 
management and governance processes. 

Improving smart specialisation strategies as regards covid-19 consequences. 

The  survey  included  a  question  to  explore  the  necessary  changes  in  implementing  the  smart  specialisation 
strategies given the COVID-19 crisis. This question asked about the need to introduce changes regarding three 
main aspects: 

  Smart  specialisation  strategies goals:  policy  portfolio  contents  as  priorities,  fund  allocation 

among them and projects calls. 

  Smart  specialisation  strategies management:  RIS3  entity  capacities, 

implementation 
(mechanisms to prevent delays and give more flexibility) and evaluation (reduce expected outcomes 
and prioritise among them).  

  Smart specialisation strategies governance: processes and structures.  

Responses were grouped in 12 items within each element following a five-

information, the percentage of entities that answ
According to entities 
responses, the most necessary action is flexibility in rules and procedures to implement and justify 
ongoing projects (26% think it is completely necessary).  

Table 2 Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 

Mean and percentage of the total responses 

Scale: 1: Not at all necessary; 5: Completely necessary 

Dimensions 

Items 

Promote call for projects other than existing ones 

Reallocate budgets between smart specialisation 
priorities 
Introduce new smart specialisation priorities 
Make rules and procedures more flexible to 
implement and justify ongoing projects 
Promote capacity building within RIS3 responsible 
administrations 
Prioritise/emphasise some specific outcomes over 
others in the final evaluation 
 Introduce new mechanisms to monitor and 
prevent delays in projects implementation 
Reduce levels of expected outcomes 
Promote new policy instruments (e.g. agreements, 
partnerships) 
Improve RIS3 governance structure and processes 

Promote specific processes to increase the 
involvement of relevant stakeholders to define 
the necessary adjustments 
Promote specific processes to increase the 
involvement of other relevant government 
agencies to define the necessary adjustments  

Goals: 
contents 

Management  

Governance 

n=95. 

Mean  
(Scale 1-5) 
3,24 

Completely 
necessary (%) 
16,8 

2,77 

2,42 
3,71 

3,41 

3,08 

3,06 

2,94 
3,36 

3,34 

3,24 

10,5 

11,6 
29,5 

16,8 

10,5 

14,7 

9,5 
18,9 

18,9 

16,8 

2,97 

9,5 

The introduction of new calls and new policy instruments to implement RIS3, the improvement of capacities 
among  administrators  in  charge  of  the  RIS3  and  governance  structures  and  processes  are  also  seen  as 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
necessary (completely necessary for about 15% of entities). However, the introduction of new specialisation 
priorities and budget reallocation is seen as less necessary. Only 8% and 7% of responses indicate these actions 
are completely necessary (table 3). 

Between  ¨Smart  specialisation  strategies¨  implementation  and  ¨Contents:  contents¨,  entities  have  situated 

non-
involvement  (completely  necessary  for  16%  and  9%  of  entities,  respectively).  And  entities  think  that 
prioritising/emphasising some outcomes over others is a better policy measure than reducing t expected results 
regarding the final smart specialisation strategies evaluation (about 10%). 

Figure 6. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19: main aspects 

Five-point scales. Mean and confidence interval (95%) 

These three scales have been computed as the average of their items. T-test analyses show differences between contents 
scale  and  management  and  governance  scales  are  statistically  significant.  Differences  between  management  and 
governance scales are not statistically significant (for p<0,05). 

In  sum,  COVID-19  consequences  do  not  require  essential  changes  in  smart  specialisation 
strategies  contents;  their  policy  portfolios'  priorities  are  suitable. Instead,  policy  measures  to 
improve governance and implementation processes are seen as more necessary: more capacity 
building, better governance structures and processes, and, above all, procedures flexibility.  The 
average  of  items  included  in  each  aspect  clearly  shows  the  difference  between  smart  specialisation 
strategies goals and the others.  

The  importance  of  policy  actions  to  cope  with  COVID-19  according  to  geographical  areas  show 
significant differences. Policy actions are seen as more necessary among Southern European entities, less 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
necessary in Central and Northern Europe. The difference between the three main aspects is the same across 
regions; only among Eastern regions, governance aspects are slightly higher than management aspects.  This 
pattern is similar between more and less developed territories: the scores given by the less developed countries 
are significantly higher (Figures 7 and 8).  

Figure 7. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 and European socio-spatial areas 

Means in scale 1-5 

Management

Governance

Goals (contents)

Southern

Eastern

3.66

3.63

3.4

2.98

3.54

Northern/Central

2.64

2.17

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

n: Total (95 responses): Northern/Central (36) , Southern (21), Eastern (27). 

Note: The  scale  used  for  different  questions  in  the  survey  is  from  1-5.  Values  statistically  significant  are 
indicated throughout the report. However, generally, the graphs in this report only represent selected values.  

Differences according to geographical and between development levels are statistically significant (p<0,05) 

Figure 8. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 and development levels 

Means in scale 1-5 

Management

Governance

Goals (contents)

Less developed

3.51

3.49

More developed/In transition

2.62

3.03

3.01

3

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

n: Total (95 responses): Less developed (44), More developed/In transition (51). 

Note:  differences  according  to  geographical  and  between  development  levels  are  statistically  significant 
(p<0,05) 

12 

 
 
 
 
Table 3 shows a summary according to the importance of dimensions and items analysed. Improvements in 
governance and implementation, specifically, some flexibility in project implementation, are seen as the most 
necessary. Instead, priorities established before the COVID-19 pandemic, fund allocation, and calls for projects 
are  already  valid  desp
analysis of the  most important aspect in each of the geographical areas show only minor differences. New 
policy  instruments  and  capacity  building  in  Northern  and  Central  regions,  promote  other  calls  and  capacity 
building in the South, flexibility, and better governance structures in Eastern regions (see table A1 in the Annex).  

Table 3 Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19: a summary according to aspects and items 
importance 

Dimensions 

Items 

More 
necessary 

New  mechanisms  to  monitor 
and prevent delays 

Make  rules  and  procedures  more 
flexible 

Less necessary 

More necessary 

Management:  
implementation 
and evaluation 

Reduce 
outcomes 

levels  of  expected 

Capacity 
responsible administrations 

building  within 

RIS3 

Emphasise 
outcomes 

some 

specific 

involvement 
adjustment 

for  necessary 

New policy instruments 

Governance structures and process 

Governance: 
Actors,  Structures 
and Processes 

Goals: priorities 

New priorities 

Reallocate budgets 

Less 
necessary 

necessary adjustment 

Calls other than existing ones 

Improving smart specialisation strategies for the recovery period 

Are the same kind of actions needed for the Recovery period? Entities' responses confirm the suitability of their 
smart specialisation strategies contents and highlight the entrepreneurial discovery process (EDP) as a central 
tool  in  smart  specialisation  policy  as  the  active  involvement  of  stakeholders  in  smart  specialisation  policy 
processes. The need to introduce new priorities is the only item that falls below the "neutral" response category, 
confirming previous analysis about the adequacy of smart specialisation strategies portfolio contents to deal 
with  both  the  pandemic  and  the  recovery  period.  Only  7%  of  entities think  that  introducing  different  smart 
specialisaiton  priorities  is  a  ¨completely  necessary¨  action.  On  the  contrary,  management  and  governance 
aspects  are  highlighted  as  more  necessary.  Specifically,  governance  structures  and  processes  to  improve 
coordination  and  communication  and  different  policy  instruments  seem  to  be  more  critical  than  increasing 
actors' involvement regarding the Recovery Period. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4 Policy actions as regards the Recovery period 

Aspects 

Items  

Mean 

(scale 1-5) 

Completely 
necessary (%) 

Goals: 
contents 

Introduce  different 
priorities 

smart 

specialisation 

2,45 

7,4 

Apply  Entrepreneurial  Discovery  Process  as  a 
central tool in smart specialisation policy 

3,67 

Management 

Promote different policy instruments to those 
used up to now 

3,38 

Increase  the  involvement  of  other  relevant 
government departments/agencies 

3,20 

Increase  the  involvement  of  other  relevant 
stakeholders 

3,47 

34,7 

20,0 

14,7 

18,9 

Governance 

Improve governance structures and processes 
coordination  between  public 
to  ensure 
departments 
smart 
specialisation policy 

concerned 

with 

3,55 

25,3 

Better 
processes as regards stakeholders 

communication  and  participation 

3,61 

27,4 

n: 95. Scale: 1: Not at all necessary; 5: Completely necessary 

A scale has been computed for each aspect showing the importance to enhance management and governance 
issues over portfolio contents (means equal to 3,53; 3,46 and 2,45, respectively, in table 6)5. Eastern and less 
developed regions show high values in three scales. However, there is also a general tendency to rate as more 
necessary  the  proposals  in  the  management  category,  which  receives  higher  scores  both  in  Northern  and 
Southern areas and a similar to governance one in Eastern area.  

Table 5 Policy actions regarding the recovery period: socio-spatial areas and development levels. 

Means in scale 1-5 

Aspects 

Geographical areas 

Development level 

Total 

Northern/ 

Central 

1,92 

2,97 

2,88 

36 

Southern 

Eastern 

Less 

More/In 
transition 

2,91 

4,01 

3,90 

32 

2,63 

3,69 

3,71 

27 

2,61 

2,31 

3,81 

3,28 

3,76 

3,20 

44 

51 

2,45 

3,53 

3,46 

95 

Goals (priorities) 

Management 

Governance  

n 

Note: differences according to geographical and development levels are statistically significant; exception made 
of goals between less and more developed territories (p<0,05) 

5  These three scales have been computed as the average of their items. T-test analyses show differences between contents scale and 
management and governance scales are statistically significant. Differences between management and governance scales are not 
statistically significant (for p<0,05). 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
                                           
Figure 9. Policy actions regarding the recovery period: socio-spatial areas 

Means in scale 1-5 

Management

Governance

Goals (priorities)

Southern

Eastern

Northern/Central

1.92

2.91

2.97

2.88

2.63

4.01

3.9

3.69
3.71

1.8

2.3

2.8

3.3

3.8

Means in scale 1-5 

n: Total (95 responses): Northern/Central (36) , Southern (32), Eastern (27). 

Figure 10. Policy actions regarding the recovery period: development levels 

Means in scale 1-5 

Management

Governance

Goals (priorities)

Less

2.61

3.81

3.76

More/In transition

2.31

3.28

3.2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

n: Total (95 responses): Less developed (44), More developed/In transition (51). 

Note: differences according to geographical and development levels are statistically significant; exception made 
of goals between less and more developed territories (p<0,05) 

In summary, those items related to organisational processes, stakeholder inclusion and communication are 
considered the most necessary ones that receive the highest scores (see table 9). According to the data, 
changes in these items are needed in smart specialisation policy regarding the coming Recovery period.  

15 

 
 
 
 
 
The answers concerning the  recovery  period are in line with the  policy actions to cope with COVID-19 ones. 
There is a tendency among respondents in the South and East areas to give greater importance to actions in all 
categories,  even  if  the  difference  between  aspects  is  similar  across  regions:  management  and  governance 
improvements are needed to develop the already designed policy contents. The evaluation of priorities included 
in smart specialisation strategies and actions required to cope with COVID-19 and the Recovery period shows 
entities believe their portfolios were and are appropriate to deal with the consequences of this disruptive event. 
And generally, they think fund allocation and other calls for projects require less attention than management 
or governance aspects. Only a few entities mention the need to include Health and security as a new priority in 
their smart specialisation strategies; especially, among Southern and Eastern regions. 

Table 6 Policy actions as regards the Recovery period: a summary according to aspects and items importance. 

Dimensions 

Items 

Less necessary 

More necessary 

More 
necessary  

Management 

Different policy instruments 

EDP as a central tool 

Governance: 
Actors,  Structures 
and Processes 

 Relevant 
department/agencies  

government 

Communication  and  participation 
process 

Relevant stakeholders  

Structures  and  process  btw  public 
departments 

Goals: priorities 

New priories  

Less 
necessary 

On the contrary, operational aspects linked to smart specialisation strategies management appear as the main 
important actions required, especially procedures flexibility regarding COVID-19.  However, regardless of this 

involvement also require more attention. And EDP, a process that requires organisational capacities to involve 
stakeholders  in  RIS  governance  processes,  appears  as  a  crucial  tool  to  enhance  these  aspects  according  to 
smart specialisation strategies entities. 

In sum, results suggest that entities perceive an imbalance between policy portfolio design and their policy 
capacities  to  manage  and  implement  it,  especially  in  those  territories  with  more  socio-economic  and 
institutional challenges. In the following sections, some aspects regarding policy capacities and governance 
processes will be analysed.   

16 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
5.  Entities policy capacities: on capacity building challenges  

Previous  results  and  other  studies  show  the  importance  of  capacity  building  in  smart  specialisation  policy, 
specifically regarding smart specialisation strategies entities capacities as public organisations in charge of this 
policy (Guzzo et al., 2018). Organisational policy capacity describes the ability of entities in charge of public 
policies to ensure a good policy design and implementation. Therefore, organisational capacity is an essential 
element  to  guarantee  policy  effectiveness.  These  capacities  related  to  the  three  main  aspects:  analytical 
capacities regarding information and evidence used to develop different policy tasks; operational capacities to 
ensure organisational process needed to perform necessary policy tasks; and political policy capacities related 
to relationships, support and alliances with other governmental and non-governmental actors (Moore, 1995; 
Mulherjee and Singh, 2019). 

The survey proposed three statements to obtain a general self-
indicate their agreement to each of them using a five-
According  to  them,  analytical  capacities  are  higher  than  political  and  operational  capacities.  Most  of  them 
declare they obtain and use rel

ies 

stakeholders.  This  percentage  is  equal  to  66%  for  the  existence  of  systems  and  procedures  to  ensure  the 
effective use of resources to accomplish the smart specialisation strategies goals statement (Table 10). 

Table 7 Smart specialisation strategies entities policy capacities: overall self-assessment 

Mean 

(1-5 scale) 

Agree+Strongly 
agree (%) 

Analytical: The entity obtains and uses relevant data and information for 
smart 
(management, 
specialisation 
implementation, and evaluation) 

strategies  decision  making 

4,0 

83,7 

Organisational: The entity has systems and procedures to ensure effective 
use of resources to accomplish smart specialisation strategies goals 

3,7 

Political:  The  entity  has  the  support  and  cooperation  of  relevant 
government and non-government stakeholders 

3,9 

66,0 

72,5 

N=91. Note: scale 1. Totally disagree   5. Strongly agree.  

These three items are  combined to compute a  general scale about policy capacities (as their average). This 
scale shows Eastern entities do a worse self-assessment of their organisational capacities than Southern and 
North/Central entities. Nevertheless, analytical capacities are higher among Southern entities and managerial 
and political capacities among Northern entities (Figure 11)6.   

6 According to T-test performed, significant differences exist between item measuring analytical capacities and the other two. Not significant 
differences exist between item measuring managerial and political capacities (for p<0,05). Differences between geographical area 
are statistically significant for analytical capacities (p<0,05) and the global scale (p<0,10). 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                           
Figure 11 Policy capacities according to geographical areas 

Means and confidence interval (95%). Scales 1-5. 

To provide more detailed information about policy capacities, a question was proposed about the difficulty to 
carry  out  different  relevant  smart  specialisation  strategies  activities.  These  include  activities  related  to 
managerial and organisational processes, coordination with other policies, communication with stakeholders 
and society, and support from relevant non-governmental and governmental stakeholders. A five-point scale 

challenges posed by different smart specialisation strategies activities, and in that way, their policy capacities 
to perform them. 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8 Smart specialisation strategies organisational policy capacities: difficulties to perform activities  

Incorporating 
new  management 
processes, techniques, and skills among 
employees 

 Introducing changes within the entity to 
accomplish  proposed  objectives  (e.g. 
new organisational processes, tasks) 

Operational: 
management 
and 
organizacional 
processes 

Produce  synergies  between  smart 
specialisation  strategies  and  other 
initiatives  funded  by  the  EU  in  your 
region 

Policies 
coordination 

 Implementing joint actions for regional 
development  (in  your  region)  between 
smart  specialisation  strategies  and 
other public policies 

Means (scales 1-5) 

Northern 

Difficult+ 

Very  

Central 

Southern  Eastern  Total 

difficult 

3,19 

3,56 

3,78 

3,49 

50,60 

3,31 

3,44 

3,48 

3,41 

47,30 

2,72 

3,22 

3,63 

3,16 

31,90 

2,69 

3,06 

3,63 

3,10 

37,40 

 Stakeholders 
support 

Gaining  support  and  involvement  from 
key  policy-makers  and  government 
agencies 

2,78 

3,00 

3,44 

3,05 

31,90 

Gaining  support  and  involvement  from 
relevant non-government stakeholders  2,91 

2,75 

3,15 

2,92 

24,20 

Ensuring  effective  communication  of 
decisions, calls, and previous results to 
stakeholders 

2,91 

2,75 

3,37 

2,99 

27,50 

Communication 

Ensuring effective communication with 
society  about  smart  specialisation 
initiatives and their results 

3,25 

3,53 

3,74 

3,49 

51,70 

Cases: North/Central: 32; Southern: 32; Eastern: 27, Total=91. All differences between geographical areas  are 

19 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
Figure 12 Smart specialisation strategies organisational policy capacities: difficulties to perform activities 

Means (scales 1-5) 

Eastern

Southern

Northern/Central

 Introducing changes within the entity to accomplish
proposed objectives (e.g. new organisational processes,
tasks)

3.48

3.44

3.31

Ensuring effective communication with society about
smart specialisation initiatives and their results

Incorporating new management processes, techniques,
and skills among employees

Ensuring effective communication of decisions, calls, and
previous results to stakeholders

Gaining support and involvement from relevant non-
government stakeholders

Gaining support and involvement from key policy-makers
and government agencies

2.75

2.91

2.75

2.91

3

2.78

3.74

3.53

3.78

3.56

3.25

3.19

3.37

3.15

3.44

3.63

3.63

Produce synergies between smart specialisation
strategies and other initiatives funded by the EU in your
region

 Implementing joint actions for regional development (in
your region) between smart specialisation strategies and
other public policies

3.22

3.06

2.72

2.69

n total=91 North/Central: 32; Southern: 32; Eastern: 27, 

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

3.7

20 

 
 
 
 
 
Managerial  and  organisational  processes  are  the  cornerstone  of  challenges  to  entities  policy  capacities: 
introducing new organisational changes and processes are the most challenging task (table 11). Communication 
with  society  to  disseminate  initiatives  and  results  is  also  a  difficult  task  for  entities.  On  the  contrary, 
communication  with  and  support  of  non-governmental  stakeholders  are  the  most  straightforward  tasks. 
Between operational challenges and a man
-administrative support and 
coordination could also be considered a relevant challenge for smart specialisation strategies entities. Entities 
declare  policy  coordination  and  support  from  other  public  actors  more  difficult  than  relations  with  non-
governmental stakeholders, and also indicate they have less capacity to involve other public actors than non-
governmental stakeholders.   

Differences between geographical areas show challenges increase from North/Central entities to Eastern ones. 
However,  the  relative  importance  of  organisational,  inter-
relations is almost the same in each geographical area. In sum, entities declare they have more operational 
problems  dealing  with  administrative  process  and  communication  with  society  than  gaining  support  from 
relevant  stakeholders  or  communicating  with  them.  However,  their  responses  indicate  more  difficulties 
regarding  governmental  than  non-governmental  ones,  and  they  also  indicate  problems  in  promoting  policy 
coordination. Therefore, although operational capacity building related to organisational structure and process 
requires attention, entities responses also demonstrate the relevance of enhancing political capacities regarding 
inter-administrative coordination in their regions.  

Table 9 Challenges for smart specialisation strategies entities policy capacities: a summary 

Dimensions 

Items 

Less important 

More important 

Processes and skills 

Organisational 
changes  

Communication with 
society 

More 
important 

Operational and communication 

Synergies between policies 

Support and communication 

Less 
important 

smart 

Between 
specialisation 
strategies 
other EU policies 

and 

Between  RIS  and 
other 
regional 
policies 

Communication 
with 
stakeholders  

Governmental 
stakeholders 
support 

Non-
government 
stakeholders 
support 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
6.  Conclusions: from operational to political capacity building 

The main results show the contrast between the adequacy of smart specialisation strategies portfolio contents 
and administrative challenges to manage and implement it due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Recovery 
period.  Almost  all  entities  consider  priorities  included  in  their  smart  specialisation  strategies  portfolio  are 
adequate  to  cope  with  COVID19  consequences.  However,  most  of  them  highlight  actions  to  enhance  their 
organisational  structures  and  processes.  In  the  second  place, the  need  to  improve  governance  structures  to 
increase actors coordination, above all, among governmental ones. In sum,  the entities in charge of the smart 
specialisation  strategies  need  to  improve  their  operational  and  political  capacities  more  than  smart 
specialisation policy contents. 

The  analysis  of 
implement  smart  specialisation  policies.  This  issue  is  the  cornerstone  of  capacity  building  for  them. 
Nevertheless,  policy  actions  proposed  and  policy  capacities self-assessments  made  clear the  importance  of 
governance  processes.  Entities  can  more  easily  mobilise  and  integrate  social  stakeholders  in  policy-making 
processes than other public organisations and their policies. 

processes  show  the  importance  of  their  operational  challenges.  The  analysis  of  their  organisational  policy 
capacities confirms it. However, these analyses also show the existence of challenges related to governance 
structures and processes. Entities indicate difficulties coordinating policy actions and identifying a core set of 
public and social actors focused on specific functions and policy sectors in governance processes who are are 
crucial to smart specialisation policies due to the resources and acknowledgement that they provide.  

Table 10 Smart specialisation policy and COVID-19: actions, organisational capacities and governance. 

Aspect  

General pattern 

More important in each socio-economic area 

 (specific categories) 

North/ 

Central 

South 

East 

Actions 
regards 
COVID19 

as 

More 
important 

Management:  capacity 
building and flexibility 

New 
instruments 

policy 

New  calls  for 
projects 

Governance  

structures 

Governance and actors 

Less 
important 

Portfolio Contents 

as 

More 
important 

Managements: 
and new tools 

EDP 

Actions 
regards 
Recovery 
Period 

Governance and actors 

Less 
important 

Portfolio contents 

other 

Involve 
relevant 
stakeholders 

Coordination 
between 
public 
departments 

Stakeholders: 
better 
communication and 
participation 

Better 

Analytical 

Medium 

High 

Low 

Policy 
capacities: 
levels 

Worse 

Management 

High 

Medium 

Low 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Policy 
capacities: 
challenges 

More 
important 

Organisational 
management 

Organisational 
process 

Communication  with 
society 

Management 
process 
skills 

and 

Management 
process and skills 

Less 
important 

Support and 

Both 

Both 

communication  with 
stakeholders 

support 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reference 

Aranguren,  MJ.;  Magro,  E.;  Navarro,  M.  and  Wilson,  J.R.  (2019):  Governance  of  the  territorial  entrepreneurial 
discovery process: looking under the bonnet of RIS3, Regional Studies, 53:4, 451-461. 

design and implementation S3 Working Paper Series No. 15/2018, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. 

Marinelli,  E.  and  Periañez-Forte,  I.  (2017):  Smart  Specialisation  at  work:  The  entrepreneurial  discovery  as  a 
continuous process S3 Working Paper Series No. 12/2017, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. 

McCann, Ph. And Ortega-Argilés (2015): Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European 
Union Cohesion Policy, Regional Studies, 49:8, 1291-1302. 

Moore,  M.H.  (1995):  Creating  public  value:  strategic  management  in  governments,  Cambridge,  Harvard 
University Press 

Mukherjee, I. and Singh, A. (2019): Policy effectiveness and capacity: two sides of the design coin, Policy Design 
and Practice, 2(2): 103-144.  

Periañez-Forte, I. and Wilson, J. (2021): Entrepreneurial discovery process across Europe: tools and mechanisms, 
Smart Specialisation-JRC Policy Insights, February 2021. 

Sörvik,  J.  and  Kleibrink,  A.  (2015):  Mapping  Innovation  Priorities  and  Specialisation  Patterns  in  Europe,  S3 
Working Paper Series No 08/2015, European Commission, Joint Research Centre. 

Aranguren,  MJ.;  Magro,  E.;  Navarro,  M.  and  Wilson,  J.R.  (2019):  Governance  of  the  territorial  entrepreneurial 
discovery process: looking under the bonnet of RIS3, Regional Studies, 53:4, 451-461. 

24 

 
 
 
 
List of tables 

Table 1 Population and sample distributions by geographical areas .............................................. 5 

Table 2 Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 ................................................10 

Table 3 Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19: a summary according to aspects and items 
importance .............................................................................................................13 

Table 4 Policy actions as regards the Recovery period ............................................................14 

Table 5 Policy actions regarding the recovery period: socio-spatial areas and development levels. ...........14 

Table 6 Policy actions as regards the Recovery period: a summary according to aspects and items 
importance..............................................................................................................16 

Table 7 Smart specialisation strategies entities policy capacities: overall self-assessment....................17 

Table 8 Smart specialisation strategies organisational policy capacities: difficulties to perform activities ...19 

Table 9 Challenges for smart specialisation strategies entities policy capacities: a summary .................21 

Table 10 Smart specialisation policy and COVID-19: actions, organisational capacities and governance. ....22 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
List of figures 

Figure 1. Priorities included in smart specialisation strategy suitability for coping with the consequences of 
COVID-19 and geographical areas .................................................................................... 6 

Figure 2. Most suitable specialisation priorities included in smart specialisation strategies to cope with the 
consequences of COVID-19 ............................................................................................ 7 

Figure 3. Most suitable specialisation priorities included smart specialisation strategies to cope with the 
consequences of COVID-19 and geographical areas ................................................................ 8 

Figure 4. Most suitable specialisation priorities included smart specialisation strategies to cope with the 
consequences of COVID-19 and development levels ................................................................ 8 

Figure 5. Smart specialisation priorities considering COVID-19 consequences ................................... 9 

Figure 6. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19: main aspects ..............................11 

Figure 7. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 and European socio-spatial areas ........12 

Figure 8. Policy actions regarding the consequences of COVID-19 and development levels ...................12 

Figure 9. Policy actions regarding the recovery period: socio-spatial areas .....................................15 

Figure 10. Policy actions regarding the recovery period: development levels ...................................15 

Figure 11 Policy capacities according to geographical areas .....................................................18 

Figure 12 Smart specialisation strategies organisational policy capacities: difficulties to perform activities 20 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Annexe 1 SURVEY ON SMART SPECIALISATION STRATEGIES: POLICY CAPACITIES AND 
IMPLEMENTATION. (31/12/20) 

The B.3 Territorial Development Unit of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) is developing different research activities 
to analyse the Smart Specialisation Strategies (RIS3) implementation across EU countries and regions. 

This survey aims to understand some aspects of the entity in charge responsible of the RIS3 management and 
the  factors  affecting  RIS3  implementation  (during  the  programming  period  2014-2020).  Due  to  the  current 
relevance of COVID-19 pandemic, some questions try to understand its impact on RIS3 activities. 

The survey is addressed to the institutions in charge of the design and implementation of regional and national 
RIS3. Ideally, the survey should be completed by personnel directly involved in RIS3 design and implementation. 

Answering the survey will not take more than 15-20 minutes. Please, answer questions as regards your region 
or country according to your RIS3 (regional or national).  

The  survey  is  not  constructed  to  elicit  confidential  information. Nevertheless,  should  you  consider  that  any 
element of the survey may raise confidentiality issues please contact the JRC. The name/data of the individual 
participants will not be made public. 

Contacts for enquiry Inmaculada.Perianez-Forte@ec.europa.eu 

Fernando.MERIDA-MARTIN@ec.europa.eu  

Q01. Countries 

Q01i. Countries/Regions 

Q02. Please indicate the institution you are representing 

A.THE ENTITY IN CHARGE OF RIS3. 

The following questions are devoted to understanding some aspects of the entity in charge of the RIS3. 

Q101.Which  of  the  following  options  best  describes  the  institution/entity  in  charge  of  RIS3  in  your 
region/country? 

1. A public department/organisation only focused on RIS3 (go to Q102) 

2. A public department/organisation with broader policy responsibilities (go to Q101a) 

3. A public agency only focused on RIS3 (go to Q102) 

4. A public agency with broader policy responsibilities (go to Q101a) 

5. A non-public entity (go to Q103) 

Q101a. Please indicate other policy responsibilities in charge of the entity 

1. No  

2. Yes 

1. Higher education 

2. Vocational education 

3. Research and Innovation 

4. Economic development  

5. Employment 

6. ESIF Management in the region/country 

7. Other (please specify) (go to Q102a) 

Q101b.  Other 

27 

 
 
 
Q102. Did the entity exist before 2014? 

1. No  

2. Yes 

Q103. Approximately, how many full-time equivalent employees are working specifically on RIS3 policy design, 
implementation, and evaluation in your entity? 

Q104. Does your entity have 

1. No  

2. Yes 

1. An information system that includes indicators to monitor RIS3 implementation  

2. An information system that includes RIS3 outcomes and impact indicators 

3. Stable external services (consultancy or academic organisations) to support RIS3 activities  

4. An intermediate evaluation report carried out before 2020. 

Q105. Does the entity have the legal power to make decisions about strategic aspects of the RIS3? E.g. to define 

1. No  

2. Yes 

Q106. Does the 

1. No (go to Q107)  

2. Yes (go to Q106a) 

1. Are an input among others to decision making  

2. Should be discussed before any decision making 

3. Are binding decision to be incorporate in RIS3 policy actions  

Q106b. Which of the following stakeholders are represented in such a collective governing body? 

1. No  

2. Yes 

1. HEI and Universities  

2. Vocational Education and Training Institutions (VETs) 

3. Research and technology organisations  

4. Intermediary organisations 

5. European Union institutions  

6. National government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

7. Regional government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

8. Local governments and administrations 

9. Large or transnational companies  

10. Local and SME companies  

11. Financial actors   

12. Trade unions  

14. Prosumers, users, and their associations  

 services, dependent and elderly people) 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
15. Mass media  

16. RIS3 responsible body 

Q106c. Which of the following departments/agencies are represented in such a collective governing body? 

1. No  

2. Yes 

1. Research and Innovation 

3. Economic development  

4. Employment 

5. Public Works, transport, infrastructures 

6. Environment/Energy/Sustainability 

7. Agriculture (agrofood) 

8. Health  

10. Culture, tourism, leisure, 

Q107.  Based  on  your  experience,  independently  from  the  formal  procedures,  how  influential  is  each  of  the 
following actors over RIS3 activities 

1. Not at all influential  

2. Slightly influential 

3. Somewhat influential  

4. Very influential  

5. One of the most influential actors 

1. HEI and Universities  

2. Vocational Education and Training Institutions (VETs) 

3. Research and technology organisations  

4. Intermediary organisations 

5. European Union institutions  

6. National government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

7. Regional government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

8. Local governments and administrations 

9. Large or transnational companies  

10. Local and SME companies  

11. Financial actors   

12. Trade unions  

14. Prosumers, users, and their associations  

15. Mass media  

17. RIS3 responsible body 

B. IMPLEMENTATION OF SMART SPECIALISATION POLICY AND COVID-19 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
This section aims to understand aspects of the RIS3 implementation, and the adaptations introduced due to the 
consequences of COVID19 pandemic in your region/country. 

Q201. How would you rate the importance of the following factors as facilitators of the RIS3 implementation 
in your region/country? 

1. Not important 

2. Slightly important 

3. Moderately important 

4. Important 

5. Very important  

1. Own agency resources and c

2. Relations between managerial and political authorities 

3. European Commission guidelines to design, implement and evaluate RIS3 

4. Availability of stakeholders with knowledge and capacity to develop initiatives 

5. RIS3 budget in your region/country 

7. Relations with other departments/public agencies in your region/country 

8. Relations among stakeholders in the regional innovation ecosystem 

11. European Commission regulations and procedures 

12. Rules used to design projects calls 

13. Entrepreneurial Discovery Process: previous experience and results in your region/country 

Q202. Just before the COVID-19 pandemic, what was your assessment of the level of implementation of the 

RIS3 action plan? Please consider implementation as financial execution of FEDER Funds allocated to RIS3  

Please indicate the percentage in the following space 

0%-100% 

Q203. How many of the priorities included in your smart specialisation strategy are suitable for coping with the 
consequences of COVID-19 in your region/country?  

1. None of them are suitable 

2. Less than half of them  

3. Half of them  

4. More than half of them  

5. All of them are suitable 

Q204. Could you please indicate the three most suitable specialisation priorities included in your RIS3 to cope 
with the consequences of COVID-19 in your region/country? 

Q205. Do you think smart specialisation priorities not included in your smart specialisation strategy should be 
prioritised considering the consequences of COVID-19 in your region?  

1. No (go to Q206) 

2. Yes (Go to Q205a) 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Q205a. Please could you indicate these smart specialisation priorities? 

Q206.  To  what  extent  is  it  necessary  to  adopt  the  following  policy  actions  in  your  RIS3  regarding  the 
consequences of COVID-19 in your region/country? 

1. Not at all necessary 

2. Slightly necessary  

3. Somewhat necessary  

4. Fairly necessary  

5. Completely necessary 

1. Introduce new smart specialisation priorities 

2. Reallocate budgets between smart specialisation priorities  

3. Promote call for projects other than existing ones  

4. Promote new policy instruments (e.g. agreements, partnerships) 

5. Introduce new mechanisms to monitor and prevent delays in projects implementation 

6. Make rules and procedures more flexible to implement and justify ongoing projects 

7. Reduce levels of expected outcomes 

8. Prioritise/emphasise specific outcomes over others in the final evaluation  

9. Promote specific processes to increase the involvement of other relevant government agencies to define the 
necessary adjustments 

10. Promote specific processes to increase the involvement of relevant stakeholders to   define the necessary 
adjustments 

11. Promote capacity building within RIS3 responsible administrations 

12. Improve RIS3 governance structure and processes 

Q207.  What  is  your  estimation  about  the  level  of  the  RIS3  implementation  at  the  end  of  the  2014-2020 

programming period? Please consider implementation as financial execution of FEDER Funds allocated to RIS3  

Please indicate the percentage in the following space 

extent would it be necessary to adopt the following policy 

0%-100% 

actions in your smart specialisation policy? 

1. Not at all necessary  

2. Slightly necessary   

3. Somewhat necessary  

4. Fairly necessary  

5. Completely necessary 

1. Introduce different smart specialisation priorities 

2. Promote different policy instruments to those used up to now 

3. Increase the involvement of other relevant government departments/agencies 

4. Increase the involvement of other relevant stakeholders 

5. Improve governance structures and processes to ensure coordination between public departments concerned 
with smart specialisation policy 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
6. Better communication and participation processes as regards stakeholders  

7. Apply Entrepreneurial Discovery Process as a central tool in smart specialisation policy 

response to the COVID-19 outbreak. These rules introduce flexibility in 

-Action plans: thematic concentration is not required 

-Procedures: Partnership Agreements amendments not necessary, postponement of summary reports 

-Funds financing: under certain circumstances 100% co-financing, financing of finalised projects, or SMEs 

-Funds management: transfer of resources between different funds (ERDF, ESF, and CF) 

-General: COVID-19 outbreak can be invoked as a reason for force majeure  

Q301. Have these rules been used to manage RIS3 in your region/country? 

1. No need to use  

2. Already used  

3. Will use  

1. Action plans 

2. Procedures 

3. Fund financing 

4. Funds management 

5. General 

Q302.  As  regards  RIS3,  could  you  rate  the  usefulness  of  the  following  rules  to  cope  with  the  COVID-19 
pandemic? 

1. Not at all useful 

2. Not very useful 

3. Neutral 

4. Useful 

5. Very useful  

1. Action plans 

2. Procedures 

3. Fund financing 

4. Funds management 

5. General 

Q303. Please, could you indicate other possible flexibility rules that could be promoted to cope with COVID-19?  

Q304. Please, rate the importance of ESIF in your region/country as... 

1. Not important at all   

2. Of little importance 

3. Of average importance  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. Very important  

5. Absolutely essential  

1. A critical source of economic funds to develop RIS3  

2. A useful instrument to promote policies better than those already in place 

3. An effective instrument to improve regional innovation system performance (economic growth, employment, 

D. RIS3 MANAGEMENT 

This section is devoted to understand some aspects of organisational and management processes linked to the 
RIS3 

Q401. Please rate the quality of evidence  used by the entity to make policy decisions related to the Smart 
specialisation strategy. 

1. Very low 

2. Low 

3. Neutral 

4. High 

5. Very high 

1.  To  improve  the  decisions  taken  by  the  RIS3  team  (e.g.  definition  of  smart  specialisation  priorities  and 

2. To monitor the RIS3 implementation (e.g. objectives accomplished, resources spent, etc.). 

3. To ensure synergies between the RIS3 and other policies (e.g. information and existing analyses of other 
policies, the information provided by managers and public officials,...) 

4. To align the RIS3 priorities with market opportunities (e.g. existing analysis of this issue, consultations with 

Q402. As regards RIS3 management, how frequently does your entity perform the following tasks? 

1. Less than once a year 

2. Once a year  

3. Every six months 

4. Every three months 

5. Once a month  

1. To provide skills and information to RIS3 team to efficiently manage the design and implementation of the 
Smart specialisation strategy (e.g. training, exchange of experiences, field visits). 

2. To update the policy actions/calls/smart specialisation strategy according to the information obtained about 
its the implementation. 

3.  To  organise  meetings  with  other  public  departments  to  ensure  policy  coordination  with  the  smart 
specialisation strategy. 

4. To organise meetings with private actors to ensure the alignment of policy action with market demands. 

Q403.  As regards RIS3  management,  how  would you rate the level of  difficulty in performing the following 
actions in your entity? 

1. Very easy 

2. Easy 

3. Neutral 

4. Difficult 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
5. Very difficult 

1. Produce synergies between RIS3 and other initiatives funded by the EU in your region 

2. Incorporating new management processes, techniques, and skills among employees 

3. Ensuring effective communication with society about smart specialisation initiatives and their results. 

4. Implementing joint actions for regional development (in your region) between RIS3 and other public policies 

5. Introducing changes within the entity to accomplish proposed objectives (e.g. new organisational processes, 

6. Gaining support and involvement from key policy-makers and government agencies 

7. Gaining support and involvement from relevant non-government stakeholders 

8. Ensuring effective communication of decisions, calls, and previous results to stakeholders  

Q404. Do you agree with the following sentences describing your entity?  

1. Strongly disagree 

2. Disagree 

3. Neither agree or disagree (neutral) 

4. Agree 

5. Strongly agree  

1.  The  entity  obtains  and  uses  relevant  data  and  information  for  RIS3  decision  making  (management, 
implementation, and evaluation)  

2. The entity has systems and procedures to ensure effective use of resources to accomplish RIS3 goals 

3. The entity has the support and cooperation of relevant government and non-government stakeholders 

E. RIS3, COVID-19 AND STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVEMENT  

Q501. Please indicate the level of stakeholders´ participation in these processes 

1. Very low 

2. Low 

3. Neutral 

4. High 

5. Very high 

1. HEI and Universities  

2. Vocational Education and Training Institutions (VETs) 

3. Research and technology organisations  

4. Intermediary organisations 

5. European Union institutions  

6. National government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

7. Regional government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

8. Local governments and administrations 

9. Large or transnational companies  

10. Local and SME companies  

11. Financial actors   

34 

 
 
 
 
 
12. Trade unions  

14. Prosumers, users, and their associations  

15. Mass media 

Q502. Please indicate the level of participation by the following public offices, departments, or agencies in your 
region/country in these processes. 

1. Very low 

2. Low 

3. Neutral 

4. High 

5. Very high 

1. Research and Innovation 

2. Education: universities, v

3. Economic development  

4. Employment 

5. Public Works, transport, infrastructures 

6. Environment/Energy/Sustainability 

7. Agriculture (agro-food) 

8. Health  

9. Social policies (elderly,

Q503. Please indicate the most important type of contribution provided by each group of stakeholders to policy 
processes designed to help cope with the COVID-19      pandemic  

1. No 

2. Yes 

Specialised knowledge/expertise  

Leadership: capacity to influence and mobilise other 

Legitimacy 

Resources and capacity to develop initiatives 

None of them 

1. HEI and Universities  

2. Vocational Education and Training Institutions (VETs) 

3. Research and technology organisations  

4. Intermediary organisations 

5. European Union institutions  

6. National government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

7. Regional government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

8. Local governments and administrations 

9. Large or transnational companies  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10. Local and SME companies  

11. Financial actors   

12. Trade unions  

14. Prosumers, users, and their associations  

15. Mass media  

17. RIS3 responsible body 

 dependent and elderly people) 

Q504.  Independently  from  the  formal  procedures,  how  influential  is  each  of  the  following  stakeholders  to 
introduce changes in the RIS3 as regards the consequences of COVID-19? 

1. Not at all influential  

2. Slightly influential 

3. Somewhat influential  

4. Very influential  

5. One of the most influential actors 

1. HEI and Universities  

2. Vocational Education and Training Institutions (VETs) 

3. Research and technology organisations  

4. Intermediary organisations 

5. European Union institutions  

6. National government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

7. Regional government and administration (different from RIS responsible body) 

8. Local governments and administrations 

9. Large or transnational companies  

10. Local and SME companies  

11. Financial actors   

12. Trade unions  

14. Prosumers, users, and their associations  

15. Mass media  

16. RIS3 responsible body 

, dependent and elderly people,

Q505. How far do you agree with the following statements about the effect of COVID-19 on smart specialisation 
policy in your region/country? 

1. Strongly disagree  

2. Disagree 

3. Neither agree or disagree 

4. Agree 

5. Strongly agree 

1. Promoted administrative and management innovations in your entity 

2. Increased mobilisation and interaction among actors involved in smart specialisation policy  

3. Increased innovative proposals by stakeholders 

36 

 
 
 
4.  Promoted  new  online  platform  to  improve  communication  among  actors  engaged  in  smart  specialisation 
policy 

5. Increased interest of private actors in the smart specialisation policy  

6. Increased interest of public institution in the smart specialisation policy 

7. Eroded trust between actor engaged in the regional innovation system  

Q506. Has your entity have used any of the following processes to involve stakeholders in RIS3 adaptation to 
COVID-19? Please, indicate the use of online instruments in each case  

1. No  

2. Yes, only face-to-face 

3. Yes, face-to-face and online instruments 

4. Yes, only on-line instruments  

to inform about RIS3 activities 

2. Surveys, consultations, information gathering about stakeholders 

3. Meetings, communications, to exchange information 

4. Focus groups, meetings, deliberative processes to encourage consensus-building regarding recommendations 
to be adopted by public actors) 

5. Formal instruments or bodies to adopt shared decisions included in policymaking (e.g. Organisms, decision-
processes to produce formal co-decisions between public actors and stakeholders)  

Q507. Could you indicate whether your region/country has developed new ways to organise EDP activities due 
to the COVID-19 crisis? If yes, could you provide some information about these new activities? 

37 

 
 
 
 
 
F. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC AND EXPERIENCE 

Finally, could you answer the following socio-demographic questions?  

Q601. Gender 

1. Female 

2. Male 

3. Do not answer 

Q602. Which best describes the category of your current position  

1. Administrative staff 

2. Management staff 

Public policy-related work 

Q604. Please indicate your name and email (name and email will not be released publicly) 

Name: 

Email: 

Q605. Please, could you indicate a web link to your RIS3 action plan (in English, if possible)? 

38 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Annexe 2 Policy actions as regards COVID-19 consequences 

Aspect 

Northern/Central  Southern 

Eastern 

Total 

Introduce new smart specialisation priorities 

1,92 

Reallocate 
budgets 
specialisation priorities 

between 

smart 

2,00 

Promote  call  for  projects  other  than  existing 
ones 

2,58 

2,94 

3,41 

3,84 

2,48 

3,04 

2,42 

2,77 

3,41 

3,24 

Promote  new  policy 
agreements, partnerships) 

instruments 

(e.g. 

2,83 

3,75 

3,59 

3,36 

Introduce  new  mechanisms  to  monitor  and 
prevent delays in projects implementation 

2,47 

Make  rules  and  procedures  more  flexible  to 
implement and justify ongoing projects 

3,14 

Reduce levels of expected outcomes 

2,33 

Prioritise/emphasise  some  specific  outcomes 
over others in the final evaluation 

2,72 

3,56 

4,28 

3,16 

3,44 

3,26 

3,06 

3,78 

3,48 

3,15 

3,71 

2,94 

3,08 

Promote  specific  processes  to  increase  the 
involvement  of  other  relevant  government 
agencies to define the necessary adjustments 

2,31 

3,41 

3,33 

2,97 

Promote  specific  processes  to  increase  the 
involvement 
stakeholders 
toÂ  define the necessary adjustments 

relevant 

of 

2,69 

3,63 

3,52 

3,24 

Promote  capacity  building  within  smart 
specialisation 
responsible 
strategies 
administrations 

2,89 

3,88 

3,56 

3,41 

Improve 
governance structure and processes 

specialisation 

smart 

strategies 

2,72 

3,72 

3,7 

3,34 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annexe 3. Policy actions as regards the Recovery period. 

Aspects 

Northern/Central 

Southern  Eastern 

Total 

Introduce different smart specialisation priorities 

1,92 

2,91 

2,63 

2,45 

Promote  different  policy  instruments  to  those  used  up  to 
now 

2,81 

3,88 

3,56 

3,38 

Increase  the  involvement  of  other  relevant  government 
departments/agencies 

2,53 

3,69 

3,52 

3,2 

Increase the involvement of other relevant stakeholders 

3,03 

3,81 

3,67 

3,47 

Improve  governance  structures  and  processes  to  ensure 
coordination  between  public  departments  concerned  with 
smart specialisation policy 

2,92 

4,16 

3,67 

3,55 

Better  communication  and  participation  processes  as 
regards stakeholders 

3,03 

3,94 

4 

3,61 

Apply Entrepreneurial Discovery Process as a central tool in 
smart specialisation policy 

3,14 

4,16 

3,81 

3,67 

All differences are statistically significant (p<0,05) 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
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: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

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: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

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: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publications. 
Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
3
1
1
2
8
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/120691 

ISBN 978-92-76-53656-7