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, mil EUR) Trnava Western Slovakia (20, mil EUR) Trenčín Nitra Žilina Central Slovakia (12, mil EUR) Banská Bystrica Prešov Eastern Slovakia (12, mil EUR) Košice Slovakia total

Inter-regional disparities II NUTS 3 level (region) NUTS 2 level (number of applicants for a job) Unemploymen t rate in % Bratislava Bratislava Region (16,462 persons) 4.42 Trnava Western Slovakia (112,367 persons) 8.62 Trenčín10.25 Nitra12.44 Žilina Central Slovakia (111,601 persons) Banská Bystrica19.57 Prešov Eastern Slovakia (153,307 persons) Košice16.85 Slovakia total12.88

Inter-regional disparities III A: GDP per capita B: State of educational attainment C: Employment rate D: Inverted unemployment rate E: Average salary F: Time change of average salary G: Added value per employee H: Time change of added value I: Internet access J: 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 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 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.