Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia

Sebastian Schulz
{"title":"Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia","authors":"Sebastian Schulz","doi":"10.1515/bjes-2019-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article explores the implications of the smart specialisation approach on core-periphery relations in Estonia and Slovakia. Despite accounting for one-third of the entire EU budget, Cohesion Policy has produced only modest results in achieving its goal of territorial cohesion between centres and peripheries. This raises the question of the role of Cohesion Policy’s current approach—smart specialisation. By applying the analytical concept of peripheralisation, the article examines how the formulation and implementation of smart specialisation is governed in Estonia and Slovakia, both of which are characterised by large territorial disparities between the capital region and the rest of the country in terms of socio-economic development and participation in decision-making. Specifically, the article explores how the smart specialisation approach is interpreted domestically in terms of strategy formulation, priority-setting and spatial targeting of measures, and whether the particular domestic interpretation of smart specialisation acknowledges the unequal economic and research and innovation potential as well as different institutional capacities of central and peripheral regions. Drawing on extensive document analysis and 20 expert interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders in Estonia and Slovakia, it is argued that while ambitiously promoting an approach of ‘inclusive growth’ for the benefit of all regions, the influence of smart specialisation on core-periphery relations shows to be ambiguous. Fuzzy priority-setting, a lack of strategic and administrative capacities at the regional level and inhibiting policy-making routines discourage and, at times, prevent such a demanding approach. The article concludes that smart specialisation in its current form does not benefit central and peripheral regions equally. Rather, its demands in terms of formulation and implementation are likely to reinforce the disparities between those regions with capacities to handle such an ambitious approach and those regions without such capacities.","PeriodicalId":42700,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of European Studies","volume":"26 2","pages":"49 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of European Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bjes-2019-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Abstract The article explores the implications of the smart specialisation approach on core-periphery relations in Estonia and Slovakia. Despite accounting for one-third of the entire EU budget, Cohesion Policy has produced only modest results in achieving its goal of territorial cohesion between centres and peripheries. This raises the question of the role of Cohesion Policy’s current approach—smart specialisation. By applying the analytical concept of peripheralisation, the article examines how the formulation and implementation of smart specialisation is governed in Estonia and Slovakia, both of which are characterised by large territorial disparities between the capital region and the rest of the country in terms of socio-economic development and participation in decision-making. Specifically, the article explores how the smart specialisation approach is interpreted domestically in terms of strategy formulation, priority-setting and spatial targeting of measures, and whether the particular domestic interpretation of smart specialisation acknowledges the unequal economic and research and innovation potential as well as different institutional capacities of central and peripheral regions. Drawing on extensive document analysis and 20 expert interviews with policy-makers and stakeholders in Estonia and Slovakia, it is argued that while ambitiously promoting an approach of ‘inclusive growth’ for the benefit of all regions, the influence of smart specialisation on core-periphery relations shows to be ambiguous. Fuzzy priority-setting, a lack of strategic and administrative capacities at the regional level and inhibiting policy-making routines discourage and, at times, prevent such a demanding approach. The article concludes that smart specialisation in its current form does not benefit central and peripheral regions equally. Rather, its demands in terms of formulation and implementation are likely to reinforce the disparities between those regions with capacities to handle such an ambitious approach and those regions without such capacities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雄心勃勃还是模棱两可?智能专业化对爱沙尼亚和斯洛伐克核心-外围关系的影响
摘要本文探讨了智能专业化方法对爱沙尼亚和斯洛伐克核心-外围关系的影响。尽管凝聚力政策占整个欧盟预算的三分之一,但在实现中心和周边地区之间领土凝聚力的目标方面,成效甚微。这就提出了凝聚力政策目前的方法——智能专业化的作用问题。通过应用边缘化的分析概念,本文考察了爱沙尼亚和斯洛伐克如何制定和实施智能专业化,这两个国家的特点是首都地区与该国其他地区在社会经济发展和参与决策方面存在巨大的领土差异。具体而言,本文探讨了如何在国内从战略制定、优先事项设定和措施的空间目标方面解释智能专业化方法,以及国内对智能专业化的特殊解释是否承认了中部和周边地区不平等的经济、研究和创新潜力以及不同的制度能力。根据对爱沙尼亚和斯洛伐克政策制定者和利益相关者的广泛文件分析和20次专家访谈,有人认为,尽管雄心勃勃地促进“包容性增长”的方法,造福所有地区,但明智的专业化对核心-外围关系的影响却很模糊。模糊的优先事项设定、区域一级缺乏战略和行政能力以及阻碍决策的惯例,阻碍并有时阻止这种要求很高的做法。文章得出的结论是,目前形式的智能专业化对中部和周边地区的好处并不均等。相反,它在制定和执行方面的要求可能会加剧那些有能力处理这种雄心勃勃的方法的区域与那些没有这种能力的区域之间的差距。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Baltic Journal of European Studies (abbreviation BJES) is a semiannual double blind peer-reviewed international research journal (formerly known as Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies) with an international editorial office and extensive international editorial board, abstracted in EBSCO and other relevant databases.The scope of the journal comprises a wide spectrum of social, political, economic and cultural issues related to recent developments in the European Union and its member states.
期刊最新文献
Euroscepticism in a Pro-European State on the Basis of Media Content Analysis Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia A Critical and Theoretical Re-imagining of ‘Victimhood Nationalism’: The Case of National Victimhood of the Baltic Region The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond Keeping Safe Distance: Chapters from Randomised (Non)Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights before Polish Constitutional Tribunal
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1