1 / 25

Enhancing Regional Networking Capabilities: Evidence from a Policy Framework (2002-2008)

This study examines how regional policies impact organizations' networking abilities for innovation. It analyzes innovation network policy interventions in Tuscany from 2002 to 2008 to assess their effectiveness in fostering successful innovation networks. The research explores the structure of successful collaboration networks, emphasizing the importance of cognitive diversity, balance between novelty and stability, and the role of intermediaries in facilitating interactions. The study also compares network formation and consolidation phases to evaluate the long-term effects of policy participation on networking capabilities.

cora-vinson
Download Presentation

Enhancing Regional Networking Capabilities: Evidence from a Policy Framework (2002-2008)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Whatpolicies to supportregionalnetworking capabilities? Evidencefrom a regionalinnovation policy framework 2002-2008 Annalisa Caloffi, Federica Rossi, Margherita RussoUniversità di Padova, Birkbeck College, Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia Complexity in the Real World: From policy intelligence to intelligent policy ECCS’12, Bruxelles, 5-6 September 2012

  2. Introduction General features of a regional policy_SPD 2000-2006 (2002-2008) Heterogeneity of project networks Stability of participants and relationships over time Effects of participation to policies on organizations’ ability to: • form heterogeneous networks • engage in stable relationships • activate relationships in general Some preliminary conclusions & furtherdevelopments

  3. Introduction 1/3 • Public policies in support of innovation networks: • increasinglypopular • usuallyaimedat promotion of R&D collaborations, technology transfer, innovationdiffusion • do they help organizationsimprovetheirnetworking capabilities? • beingable to accessexternalknowledgethrough networking isincreasinglyimportant to innovate and compete successfully • notallorganizations are equallyable to engage in effective networking

  4. Introduction 2/3 • Objective of analysis: • exploit a veryoriginal and comprehensivedataset of innovation networks policy interventionsfundedby Tuscany’sregionalgovernmentin 2002-2008 (SPD 2000-2006) • assesswhetherthesepolicieshavecontributed to improving the participants’ ability to form “successful” innovation networks with externalpartners • “learning” / “behavioraladditionality” effects

  5. Introduction 3/3 • Keyelements of network structureassociated with success in collaborative innovation and knowledgetransmission • heterogeneity in participants’ competences and outlook: balance between cognitive distance and proximity • noveltyvs. stability: balance between new and stablerelationships • involvement of “intermediaries” to facilitate contact and communicationamongorganizations with differentcompetences, languages, cognitive frameworks • The policy programmesweanalyzeincluded some requirements (“constraints”) aimedatpromotingheterogeneity, repeatedcollaborations and the involvement of intermediaries

  6. General features of policy programmes_2002-2008 1/5 timeline • Constraints in networks’ basiccompositionimposedonly in the 200-2005 programmes • Twoperiods: network formation(2002-2005) vs. network consolidation (206-2008) • Didparticipationin the first periodinfluencethe organizations’ ability to network “successfully” in the secondperiod?

  7. General features of policy programmes_2002-2008 2/5

  8. General features of policy programmes_2002-2008 3/5 • Fundingby programme • Fundingby technologicalfield

  9. General features of policy programmes_2002-2008 4/5 • Participants by number and funding

  10. Heterogeneity of networks and programmes1/3 • Heterogeneity of project networks within each programme bubbles proportional to project funding heterogeneity index 2002_ITT 2002_171 2002_172 2004_171 2004_171E 2005_171 2006_VIN 2007_171 2008_171 programme without minimum heterogeneity constraint

  11. Heterogeneity of networks and programmes2/3 • Heterogeneity of project networks within each programme box plot heterogeneity index programme without minimum heterogeneity constraint

  12. Heterogeneity of networks and programmes3/3 • Heterogeneity of project networks and number of participants

  13. Stability vs. novelty 1/3 • of network participants

  14. Stability vs. novelty 2/3 • of relationships between participants

  15. Stability vs. novelty 3/3 • of relationships between participants by participants’ types Note to table: The index is calculated as the ratio between the share of stable/continuous relationships of a certain type and the share of stable/continuous relationships overall. The index is zero when no stable/continuous relationships of that type were present in the programme. The earliest programme, RPIA ITT_2002, is not displayed since, by definition, it includes only relationships that are new to the policy.

  16. The “learningeffects” of policies 1/8 By participating in policy-supportedinnovation networks, do organizationsimprovetheir networking abilities? • Effects of participation to policies on organizations’ ability to • form innovative heterogeneous networks • engage in stable relationships: two periods analysis: formation vs. consolidation stage

  17. 2/8 Controls: type of organization, % projects in each technology field

  18. Average heterogeneity of organization’s networks in 2006-8 3/8 Ent -***, CC -***, %Opto-**, %OrgChem-**, %Biotech-**,%Multi-* Number of obs:197; Prob> F: 0.0000; R-squared:0.4229; sign. * 0.1, ** 0.01 *** 0.001

  19. Share of organization’s relationships in 2006-8 that were already active in 2002-5 4/8 LG +***, %OrgChem-*, %Biotech-**,%Multi-** Number of obs:197; Prob> F: 0.0000; R-squared:0.4853; sign. * 0.1, ** 0.01 *** 0.001

  20. Effects of participation to policies on organizations’ ability to activate relationships: SNA approach Indicators of network structure 5/8

  21. Likelihood to activate relationships in 2006-8 6/8 Controls: programme in which agents may meet (VIN_2006, 2007_171, 2008_171); dummy = 1 if agent type was required by the policy (constrained)

  22. Likelihood to activate relationships in 2006-8 7/8 Log pseudolikelihood = -1239.45; Wald chi2(12) = 715.54; pseudo R2 = 0.2851. Sign: *** = 1%; ** = 5%; * = 10%.

  23. Likelihood to activate relationships in 2006-8 Log pseudolikelihood = -1607.29; Wald chi2(33) = 930.07; pseudo R2 = 0.2678. Sign: *** = 1%; ** = 5%; * = 10%. 8/8

  24. Preliminary conclusionsfor more effective policies fostering innovation networks • What have we learned from policy analysis? • Policy rules • and heterogeneity of network composition • and novelty vs. stability • and involvement of intermediaries • Need for instruments to assess the “learning effects”(or “behaviouraladditionality”) of policies: • network construction and analysis • new indicators • ABMs?

  25. Furtherdevelopments • Has the innovation policy programme produced long lasting results ? • Innovation and collaborative behaviour of these organizations after the end of the policy programme (behaviouraladditionality) • Role of intermediaries • Which types of organizations did play the role of brokers and “bridges” in the programmes? • To which extent those agents were able to foster the ability of more marginal agents to become more central? • Comparative analysis of network policies in other regions in Italy and in Europe • Resources, processes and outcomes of regionalvariety of innovationpolicies in SMEsregionalsystems

More Related