Inter-sectoral partnerships at the regional level in Slovakia:

Regional innovation policies and potentials for clustering

Tallinn, 8 November 2012

Dr. Daniel Klimovský

Slovak regions in the EU

• The Slovak regions are except for the Bratislava region among the least developed EU regions

• In this case we refer to regions at NUTS II regions, namely Bratislava, Western Slovakia, Central Slovakia and Eastern Slovakia

Inter-regional disparities I

NUTS 3 level (region)

NUTS 2 level(GDP in mil EUR)

Regional GDP

mil EUR %

Bratislava Bratislava Region (16,444.249 mil EUR) 16 444.249 26.72

TrnavaWestern Slovakia (20,761.297 mil EUR)

7 678.522 12.48Trenčín 6 333.203 10.29Nitra 6 749.572 10.97Žilina Central Slovakia

(12,135.745 mil EUR)6 642.644 10.79

Banská Bystrica 5 493.101 8.93Prešov Eastern Slovakia

(12,205.778 mil EUR)4 987.000 8.10

Košice 7 218.778 11.72Slovakia total 61 547.069 100.00

Inter-regional disparities II

NUTS 3 level (region)

NUTS 2 level (number of

applicants for a job)

Unemployment rate in %

Bratislava Bratislava Region (16,462 persons) 4.42

TrnavaWestern Slovakia (112,367 persons)

8.62Trenčín 10.25Nitra 12.44Žilina Central Slovakia

(111,601 persons)11.36

Banská Bystrica 19.57Prešov Eastern Slovakia

(153,307 persons)18.24

Košice 16.85Slovakia total 12.88

Inter-regional disparities IIIA: GDP per capitaB: State of

educational attainment

C: Employment rateD: Inverted

unemployment rate

E: Average salaryF: Time change of

average salaryG: Added value per

employeeH: Time change of

added valueI: Internet accessJ: Transport

infrastructure

Bratislava region

• Bratislava region belongs to the significantly more developed regions

• It is the administrative and political, economic and socio-cultural center of the country

• It has a relatively good location, which creates a kind of imaginary synergistic effect

„Cluster policy“ in Slovakia

• Slovakia lacks an official cluster policy• The first cluster was officially established in 2004• The 2007-2010 period can be considered as a

boom of clusters in Slovakia (13 new clusters)• According to the Innovation Strategy of Slovak

Republic for the years 2007-2013 clusters are considered to be a tool that aims at sustainable development, increasing competitiveness and innovation potential of the involved entities

Clusters in Slovakia I

• Young interms of duration of existence• In some cases the performances are excellent• Much successful are those that were

established by bottom-up approach• Some of them were established like an

outcome of „fashion“• They are capable to help the companies to

overcome period of crisis

Clusters in Slovakia II

Method

• Method: interviews with representatives of:– Clusters– Regional governments/local governments– Universities/other R&D institutions

• Focus on mutual cooperation, understanding of outcomes from clustering (networking)

Conclusion 1

• No qualitative differences in terms of institutional and normative settings

• There is no qualitative difference among the selected regions in terms of institutional and normative settings of their regional innovation systems

Conclusion 2

• Differences in terms of participation governance• Participation governance is defined like integrative,

multi-dimensional, reflective approach which requires/comprises joint working of various stakeholders – following this definition we can state that there are significant differences between the Slovak regions

• However, in the Trnava region the stakeholders/policy actors are involved into the regional innovation policy in a better way

Conclusion 3

• Lack of regional research and development capacities

• It is an incapability of private actors to take part in such processes – this incapability is connected to weak cooperation networks between the private enterprises and research and development institutions

• In fact, there are only few strong innovateurs in the regions which spend most of regional research and development capacity

Conclusion 4

• Undeveloped culture of innovation• Many small – i.e. focused on local market –

private enterprises or entrepreneurs are not interested in innovations at all because neither their competitors nor suppliers and not even their customers are oriented towards innovations and there is not any pressure for innovative approaches

Conclusion 5

• Lack of regional accountability and willingness to be engaged

• Involvement and cooperation of regional governments with other stakeholders in less developed regions is in many cases higher or average at least

• Universities which are situated in peripheral regions cooperate with other stakeholders more willingly than the universities from the capital

Conclusion 6

• Different understanding of mutual importance• For local/regional governments, private

companies are among the first three most important partners

• For private companies, local/regional governments are 7th – 8th most important partner

• Concerning universities/R&D institutions, their importance depends on their specialization

Potential for further clustering

• Limited but still one can find some areas

• It is expected that a few new clusters will be established in the next 2-3 years (bioenergy, bioagricultural production, wood-processing industries)

Thank you for your attention.

daniel.klimovsky@tuke.sk