National and local intertwined Co-evolution in the governance of science and innovation in Finland PhD, Senior Researcher Unit for Science, Technology and Innovation Studies University of Tampere Photo by Erkki Karen Mika.Kautonen@uta.fi www.uta.fi/tasti/english.html
Introduction In Finland, science policy is in the hands of central government and regions/localities do not directly have any say in the formulation of science policies. However, Finnish city-regions have influenced national science policies indirectly and the interaction of national and local policies has unfolded in time in innovation and science arenas. Innovation policy responsibility is distributed widely. This presentation focuses particularly on how different policies, local and national, have coevolved in the context of multi-level governance. Global and national developments and policies are intertwined and they have clearly influenced local developments. However, in the following it is also demonstrated how local developments and policies have fed into larger developmental patterns, making it possible to talk about the co-evolution of national and local developments, rather than simply about top-down or bottom-up policies. * * * Mostly the presentation is based on the article in the special issue on Regional Governance and Science Policy of Regional Studies Journal, Vol. 41.8, pp. 1085-1098, November 2007 Co-evolution of the Finnish National and Local Innovation and Science Arenas: Towards a Dynamic Understanding of Multi-Level Governance by Markku Sotarauta &
Locally focus on three Finnish city-regions: Tampere (esp. in presentation) Jyväskylä Expansion from traditional to science-based trajectories Seinäjoki From agriculture to strengthened knowledge capacity. In Finland, innovation system national-local in character (Schienstock & Kautonen 1998, Kautonen 2006) About the data: In addition to secondary data such as strategic plans, memoranda, evaluations, approximately 200 interviews
Co-evolution and multi-level governance 1/2 Theoretical views on the local-global interplay: in 1970s, global forces such as MNC, international capital and division of labour in 1980s, challenged by bottom-up approach (e.g. Stöhr 1984, Ohmae 1995) in 2000s, towards a more balanced view. Argued that the twin pitfall celebratory bottom-up worship globalist or state-centric view on sub-national phenomena should be avoided/abandoned.
Co-evolution and multi-level governance 2/2 Governance self-organizing, inter-organizational networks characterized by interdependence between organizations. Interactions game-like, rooted in trust and regulated by the rules of the game negotiated and agreed by network participants (Rhodes 2000, 61). Co-evolution: if two or more agents and/or their environments influence each other s selection and/or retention processes and if a series of variations takes place in them. If an agent merely responds to another agent s presence or activities by adaptation, not seen as co-evolution (Murmann 2003; Lewin & Volberda 1999; Sotarauta & Srinivas 2006). New development paths often cannot be planned and foreseen, but spontaneous and unexpected (Boschma & Lambooy 1999). Policy-makers thus adapters rather than optimizers, trial-and-errors (Metcalfe 1994).
Case Finland Context: until 1980s dependence on raw material-driven production and exports Until 1990s absorbing policies and models created elsewhere in catching up (Georghiou et al. 2003). Finland s R&D expenditure / GDP one of the lowest in the industrialized countries until 1980s (Hermans et al. 2005). Three major phases in the evolution of STI policies: Building the basic structures and institutions (from WWII to 1970s) Technology orientation (1980s) Building the knowledge-based society and the national innovation system (from 1990s) (Slightly modified from Lemola 2002 and Georghiou et al. 2003)
Building the basic structures and institutions (from WWII to 1970s) In higher education academic traditionalist doctrine (Kivinen et al. 1993); no expectations towards the economic utility (Nieminen 2005) Major changes in 1960s and 1970s : policy doctrines created ministerial committee on science in 1963 (from 1987 STPC) new mechanisms for university research, and AoF + new universities At the local level: e.g. active city government behind the transfer of two universities from Helsinki to Tampere; also strong financial aid to these; creation of e.g. chair of computer sciences in 1965 in UTA -> increasing institutional thickness nationally and locally -> top-down, not co-evolution really -> basis for later developments
Technology orientation (1980s) New S&T priorities, from institution building towards technology policy Attention to basic natural science, and to new strategic technological fields From narrowly conceived science policy towards broader STI policies (Nieminen & Kaukonen 2001) Technology policy increasingly target-orientated and systematic; Tekes Intensified co-operation by technology programmes (Lemola 2002) Utilization of research and new technologies At the local level: in Tampere (1986) and Jyväskylä (1987), science parks; Nokia s research laboratory to Tampere. Univ. of Jyväskylä launched programmes in applied sciences (computer, physics, chemistry) -> Local initiatives platforms to study and learn -> Small active community in STI -> Capabilities, operational models and interaction patterns learned
Building knowledge-based society and NIS (1990s) 1/2 Recession a watershed: investment/resource- vs. innovation-driven phases National competitive advantage to be based on world-class innovation, efficiency and value-adding capacity Towards technological innovation (Schienstock & Hämäläinen 2001) Early 1990s NIS and cluster-based policies: Creation and utilization of knowledge and know-how R&D system at the core with education General environment for new technologies Ability to co-operate nationally and internationally (Georghiou et al. 2003) -> Mixture of state, market and academic regulation -> Considerable increase of expenditures for R&D and education -> Increasingly competitive funding; presupposed co-operation
Building knowledge-based society and NIS (1990s) 2/2 In regional policies, a turn from redistribution to competitiveness Centre of Expertise Programme launched in 1994. At the local level earlier investments began to pay off In Tampere: 12,000 new jobs in ICT industries 1994-2000 (O Gorman & Kautonen 2004); due to e.g. local supply of university graduates and future package for unversities regional missions In Jyväskylä: 2,000 new jobs in ICT industries 1995 99; enabled by e.g. same support + ESF2 (Linnamaa 2002) In Seinäjoki: Lack of a local university in focus; not enough competent individuals competing for research funding; Rapid establishment of university affiliates, technology park, innovation intermediary institutions, Epanet (15/45) -> co-evolution between national and local became more organized, systematic and visible.
Intensive networking in Tampere unfortunately no possibility to compare with other regions (but c.f. previous slide) 56% of firms in innovation co-operation with other firms about 30% also with other kind of partners (e.g. university) Type of innovation network No any significant networks Inter-firm along vertical production chains* Both vertical and horizontal inter-firm Also university units or research laboratories as partners/collaborators Other types** N=223 Share of firms (%) 15.2 35.9 19.7 17.5 11.7 100.0 *Firm s customer(s) and/or supplier(s) involved in key stages of its new product or process development **Polytechnic(s)/vocational institute(s) or innovation support organization(s) involved Note: all manufacturing industries and knowledge intensive business services represented, from firms with 5 or more employees upwards Source: Kautonen et al. 2002
In the 2000s, Tampere has specific strengths e.g. in strong clusters (with diversity) specialized intermediary institutions local innovation policies Examples Finnish government nominated 13 most significant clusters (Centres of Expertise) in 2007, Tampere in 7 of these (2nd, Helsinki in 9) Intelligent Machines (national coordination); Ubiquitous Computing (national coordination); Digital Contents; Energy Technology; Nanotechnology; Healthcare technology; Biotechnology Nomination based on competitive bidding with criteria on critical mass, international competitiveness & technological excellence Nomination means e.g. that funding is allocated to cluster management and coordination activities and for strategic initiatives Considered in Europe as a best practice policy measure. tradition of large-scale and inclusive local innovation programmes that have attracted lots of international attention (see e.g. Castells & Himanen 2002); etampere, Creative Tampere, BioNext.
Conclusions 1/2 Central government domination with the ME and MTI (MEE), the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (Tekes), but Without local development efforts and conscious initiatives earlier, national programmes would not have yielded positive results no local soil for implementation. Local aspects became more integrated into national and international aspects, and from 1990s signs of co-evolution: many feasible and successful local initiatives fed back into the national level, too many national policies reinterpreted locally to fit better to the local needs Large local programs as new pilots.
Conclusions 2/2 Uneven development: five leading city-regions with significantly stronger starting-points The cities with extended interests towards science in cases of obvious connections to the locally rooted clusters or agglomerations; Not to strengthen science per se but to foster the educational and research basis for and linkages to business and local economic development In 2000s, a growing tension between actors aiming to promote balanced regional development and those aiming to promote internationally competitive science The new national innovation strategy will stress a balance between STI and DUI modes already operational e.g. in Tampere
Thanks for your attention! http://www.uta.fi/tasti/english.html Mika.Kautonen@uta.fi