European Trend Chart onInnovation Thematic Report Cluster Policies Covering period up to March 2003 European Commission Enterprise Directorate-General A publication from the Innovation/SMEs Programme European Trend Chart on Innovation Innovation is a priority of all Member States and of the European Commission. Throughout Europe, hundreds of policy measures and support schemes aimed at innovation have been implemented or are under preparation. The diversity of these measures and schemes reflects the diversity of the framework conditions, cultural preferences and political priorities in the Member States. The ‘First Action Plan for Innovation in Europe’, launched by the European Commission in 1996, provided for the first time a common analytical and political framework for innovation policy in Europe. Building upon the Action Plan, the Trend Chart on Innovation in Europe is a practical tool for innovation organisation and scheme managers in Europe. Run by the Innovation Directorate of DG Enterprise, it pursues the collection, regular updating and analysis of information on innovation policies at national and Community level, with a focus on innovation finance; setting up and developing innovative businesses; the protection of intellectual property rights; and the transfer of technology between research and industry. The Trend Chart serves the “open policy co-ordination approach” laid down by the Lisbon Council in March 2000. It supports organisation and scheme managers in Europe with summarised and concise information and statistics on innovation policies, performances and trends in the European Union. It is also a European forum for benchmarking and the exchange of good practices in the area of innovation policy. The Trend Chart products The Trend Chart on Innovation has been running since January 2000. It tracks innovation policy developments in all EU Member States, plus Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia. The Trend Chart website (www.cordis.lu/trendchart) will provide access to the following services and publications, as they become available: • a database of policy measures across Europe; • a “who is who?” of agencies and government departments involved in innovation; • a series of six-monthly country reports for all countries covered; • a series of six-monthly trend reports covered on each of the four main themes; • a number of benchmarking reports; • the European Innovation Scoreboard and other statistical reports; • a news service and thematic papers; • the annual reports of the Trend Chart. The present report was prepared by Patries Boekholt and Shonie McKibbin of the Technopolis Group. The information contained in this report has not been validated in detail by either the Member States or the European Commission. Contact: Christophe Guichard; Christophe.guichard@cec.eu.int This document originates from the European Commission’s “European Trend Chart on Innovation” (Enterprise Directorate-General). Copyright of the document belongs to the European Commission. Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, may be held responsible for the use to which information contained in this document may be put, or for any errors which, despite careful preparation and checking, may appear. European Trend Chart on Innovation CONTENTS Executive Summary................................................................................................................................ 3 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 7 2. Framework for Analysis....................................................................................................................... 9 3. Types of cluster policies, their role and modes of implementation....................................................10 4. The design and implementation of cluster policies............................................................................19 5. Trans-national policy learning and cross-border clusters..................................................................22 6. Evaluation of cluster policies..............................................................................................................23 7. Policy Issues .....................................................................................................................................27 Appendix 1: Cited Trend Chart Cluster Measures European Trend Chart on Innovation Executive Summary This report sets out to identify general trends within the activities of the EU Member States and accession countries in the field of cluster policy as part of the Trend Chart. The report is based on the March 2003 country reports which pay specific attention to cluster policies. These reports examined what type of cluster policies are used, what role they play in innovation policy and how they are designed. The question of how cluster policy is implemented is another important issue, since national governments are often supported by regional organisations for this task. The country reports also discuss how these cluster policies are evaluated and what lessons can be drawn from these evaluations. We need to keep in mind that this trend report is focused on the description of national cluster policies and should not be taken as a comprehensive overview of cluster policies. What is evident from the country reports is that cluster policy is ‘mature’ in some countries, while in others it is still developing or emerging. Further, the concept of clusters is far from homogenous, though a number of schools of thought and empirical phenomena have adopted the concept. For the purpose of the Trend Chart country reports the definition below was used: “The cluster is a mode of organisation of the productive system, characterised by a geographical concentration of economic actors and other organisations, specialised in a common field of activity, developing inter-relations of a market and non-market nature, and contributing to the innovation and competitiveness of its members and the territory.” The analysis of cluster policies in the Trend Chart countries confirms that varying dimensions are present between and in countries. Specifically, the levels of aggregation of the concept, the focus on the national or regional level, where cluster policy fits in the policy spectrum, and whether it is a bottom-up or top-down process. Reviewing the countries one can see that cluster policies are closely linked to science and technology policy, industrial policy, regional development policy or a combination of these three. When policies aim at strengthening existing‘traditional’ clusters, they would often be positioned in industrial policy or regional regeneration strategies. When policies aim at encouraging the emergence of new clusters in high-growth industries, they are mostly linked to science and technology policies. The role of governments in supporting clusters is closely related to this: it frequently occurs that support for the emergence of new clusters in high-tech areas, is more a top-down strategic decision than one based on bottom-up ‘natural growth’ processes. The type of public support also varies on a scale from hands-on involvement (e.g. cluster management, financial support for clusters) to more hands- off support (e.g. promotion). From the analysis of these different dimensions we have drawn a number of conclusions: European Trend Chart on Innovation • Cluster development is quite generally accepted as an important mechanism to improve competitiveness, and features in government white papers and policy documents as something that needs to be fostered; • Cluster initiatives are mostly launched in the context of regional development policies, where they are often a means to an end rather than policy goals in themselves. The type and contents of cluster policies varies considerably from country to country, including: .. Initiatives where cluster policy is about strengthening the ‘triple helix’ relationships. Some countries also consider Science Park and Incubator Development as cluster policy (for instance the UK Regional Development Agencies include this in their regional cluster strategies, Hungary, Latvia and Israel consider these green-field type of investments as the start of cluster development); .. A second type of cluster policy which focuses more narrowly on R&D cooperation between companies and between companies and research organisations; .. A third type of cluster initiative which focuses on encouraging co-operation between companies, regardless whether this is about R&D, and either horizontally and/or vertically, thus strengthening the value chain in existing clusters. Given the different types of cluster policies applied in the TC countries, we can observe a wide variation in policy design. The main driving forces behind cluster policies in the Trend Chart countries are essentially: .. The notion that clusters stimulate a concentration of expertise and knowledge in a limited geographical area, thus acting as ‘hubs of innovation’; .. They enhance competitiveness of the firms involved as clusters can increase economies of scale, as well as economies of scope, facilitate dissemination of knowledge and learning, address common bottlenecks, and stimulate a culture of learning from external partners; .. In cases where technology based clusters are encouraged it is a strategic policy decision to build strength in certain domains that are generally regarded as potential growth poles; .. Cluster approaches help the development of common visions to guide the launch of certain actions or to achieve common goals. The implementation of cluster policy is done at national, regional and local level. An upcoming trend seems to be the closer co-operation between national ministries or agencies providing the framework support for cluster policies, while regional agencies implement the cluster initiatives. Trans-national learning plays an important role in the formulation of cluster policies, with all countries showing a willingness for differing levels and methods of policy learning – including, among others, fact-finding missions, the use of international policy models/programmes to define national policy/programmes, and involvement in European Trend Chart on Innovation conferences and workshops. Nevertheless, there are very few examples of cluster initiatives that cross borders. Evaluation and cluster (policy) analysis are important for the development of national policy, and again the approach taken across the countries that have active cluster policy/programmes varied dramatically. In general, evaluations have not been systematically undertaken. When they have indeed been conducted, they have taken many forms, including evaluating clusters in their own right, evaluating cluster programmes, evaluating cluster policy, evaluating associated programmes and, in some cases, taking the form of mapping exercises to highlight potential clusters. Policy issues As we can see from this overview report, not all countries apply cluster policies at national level. Some have made a deliberate choice to leave this to the regional policy level, others have explicitly opted for other policy approaches (e.g. dynamic innovation systems), and some countries, particularly most of the accession countries, are in the very early stages of developing these policies. Particularly for the latter group, policy learning and exchange is vital. Cluster policy with its many aspects has demonstrated success, but also revealed many pitfalls. The European Commission could play a role in highlighting successful cases as well as helping to illustrate the drawbacks and pitfalls of identifying, selecting and supporting clusters. This would require going much deeper into the design and implementation of these policies to benchmark on very practical ‘how to do it’ issues. One particular policy problem for which only a few countries have developed support tools and methods is how to make a solid choice between clusters and for what period this support should last. Knowing how this choice is made in practice involves tacit knowledge of the policymakers and stakeholders concerned. Policy exchange platforms (workshops etc) between policy makers and cluster managers would be a way to exchange this level of information. We can observe an early trend, particularly in larger countries, that national and regional policies are becoming better co-ordinated. On the national level the (financial) frameworks are developed to encourage the regions to adapt these frameworks to their own regional or local situation. As clusters are very much a geographically based group of interconnected companies and associated institutions, it makes good sense to fine tune cluster support for each individual cluster on the regional policy level. This could lead to situations where in one country several similar clusters are supported in more than one area (e.g. the automotive clusters in both Styria and Upper Austria). As cluster are very much about competition, this is as such not a problem, and certainly not when these are clusters with a strong tradition in these regions. Problems could arise with the initiation of top-down strategic clusters (e.g. in biotech, telecommunications etc.) which often start from very little (business) activity in the region and a lot of wishful thinking from policy makers. This could be an area where more inter-regional coordination could be necessary to avoid large numbers of small sub-critical initiatives that on their own have little chance in becoming well embedded and internationally European Trend Chart on Innovation competitive clusters. Policy makers will be able to learn from the relatively early experiences of those countries which have recently developed a national-regional framework for cluster policy. Although the country reports do not explicitly discuss the regional-national co-ordination of cluster policies, the lack of this co-ordination in some countries appears to be a policy issue which needs to be addressed. Despite the fact that the business sector and therefore clusters are not bound by geographic borders, it is surprising how few cross-border cluster policies exist. We must note that by not including regional cluster policies in this TC overview, a potential pool of cross-border cluster initiatives not initiated by the national government have not been addressed in this report. This confirms again that in the area of cluster policy, the national and regional levels are so interwoven both should be included in any policy analysis. Given the limited number of trans-border initiatives, a next step in cluster policies could be to explore how to move regional cluster activities across borders, to benefit from complementary competences and economies of scale. The initiatives for trans-national learning take place through bilateral exchanges of experience, or by comparative studies, or via international fora such as the Trend Chart and the OECD. Evaluation tools appropriate to assess the achievements and results of clusters and the role of cluster policies in their development are still in their infancy – and not many countries have conducted relevant policy evaluation. As we have seen from the overview of cluster policies, the definition, objectives and demarcations of cluster policies are very fuzzy. Trans-national policy learning could benefit from a clearer categorisation of these cluster policies by the policy community. This would allow a more precise comparison and benchmarking of cluster policies which have similar policy aims, target groups and support mechanisms. The Trend Chart could be supportive in this in the follow-up of the cluster policy workshop. European Trend Chart on Innovation ‘Cluster Policies’ 1. Introduction This report sets out to identify general trends within the activities of the EU Member States, associated countries and accession countries in the field of cluster policy. The report is based on an analysis of the Trend Chart country reports of March 2003. These reports give a short overview of cluster policy developments in each country. The aim of this trend report is to describe the existing activities in cluster policies as well as trends in the future use of cluster policies. Cluster policy is a ‘mature’ policy area in some countries, and one that is emerging in others. In Italy, cluster initiatives were launched in the 1970s and 1980s and have become renowned in the industrial district literature.1 Denmark was among the pacesetters in developing cluster policies. Its Industrial Network Co-operation Programme fostered clusters between companies – it was launched in 1989 and terminated in 1992. In that period it provided financial support to over 300 inter-firm networks. This programme has subsequently been ‘copied’ in countries such as Australia and the USA. 2 The background paper for the Trend Chart workshop on ‘Policies to promote trans- border clusters of creative activity’ notes that the concept of clusters is far from being homogenous and a number of schools of thought and empirical phenomena have adopted the concept. Closest to Porter’s original concept are the “mega clusters”, defined at national or regional levels.3 They can be identified by using international trade statistics to highlight those clusters which have the highest comparative advantage in a national economy. However, in most countries and regions the term is used to depict meso-level clusters within a bounded geographical area, and where firms, services, public institutions share a common industrial activity (e.g. wood) or technological domain (e.g. biotechnology). More micro-economic approaches have given the name of clusters to smaller groupings of enterprises, often SMEs, established on a voluntary basis and around common projects. They would also be called inter-firm networks and they could have a horizontal nature (a group of firms with similar economic activities) or a vertical one (e.g. a group of firms cooperating along the value chain). These may be based in the low-tech or traditional sectors (i.e. as industrial districts), but may encompass high-tech activities. 1 Fahrenkrog, G A and P Boekholt (eds), Public measures to support the clustering and networks of innovative SMEs, Background document for the EIMS Policy Workshop, Commission of the European Communities, STB-TNO 1994. 2 See for a comparison of cluster policies Boekholt, P. and Thuriaux Overview of Cluster Policies in International Perspective, Report to the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Technopolis, Amsterdam 1998 and also Boekholt, P. and B. Thuriaux, Public Policies to Facilitate Clusters, Background, rationales and policy practices in international perspective in: Boosting Innovation, The cluster approach, OECD Proceedings, Paris, 1999. 3 European Commission DG Enterprise, Innovative Hot spots in Europe: Policies to promote trans- border clusters of creative activity, Background paper on cluster policies, written by Claire Nauwelaers, April 2003. European Trend Chart on Innovation For the purpose of the Trend Chart Cluster Policy Workshop, the definition below was used: “The cluster is a mode of organisation of the productive system, characterised by a geographical concentration of economic actors and other organisations, specialised in a common field of activity, developing inter-relations of a market and non-market nature, and contributing to the innovation and competitiveness of its members and the territory.” This trend report will now follow this definition. Chapter two will shortly describe the basis of analysis for this trend report. In Chapter three, the different types of cluster policies and initiatives will be described for each of the countries for which country reports were available. Chapter four discusses how the cluster policies are designed and implemented. As the Trend Chart puts great emphasis on transnational learning, Chapter five discusses the transnational element in cluster initiatives and the degree of transnational learning that has taken place to design policies. In chapter six we discuss the use of evaluating cluster policies and, in the few cases that evaluations have taken place, we examine the results. In Chapter seven we discuss some of the policy issues that emerge from this cross-comparison of national cluster initiatives. European Trend Chart on Innovation 2. Framework for Analysis This trend report on cluster policies is based on the analysis of the country reports of March 2003. We have been able to make a synthesis report on the basis of the country reports available at the time of writing. The country reports paid special attention to the use of cluster policies in the EU Member States, the associated countries and accession countries. Each of these reports discussed what type of cluster policies are used, what role they play in innovation policy and how they are designed. An overview per country shows how different the approach to and definition of cluster policy is. The question how cluster policy is implemented is another important issue because national governments are often supported by regional organisations for this task. The country reports also examine how these cluster policies are evaluated and what lessons can be drawn from these evaluations. One problem when using the Trend Chart country reports as a source of information is that many cluster policy initiatives are taken on the regional and local levels of policy and would therefore not be reported in the reports. We need to keep in mind that this trend report is focused on the description of national cluster policies and should not be taken as a comprehensive overview of cluster policies. In a number of countries (e.g. Sweden, the UK) regional cluster policies are co-ordinated or instigated at the national level. This allows us to describe the broad framework of these policies but not how they are implemented at regional level. In other countries, many of the cluster initiatives are taken at the regional level (e.g. Austria). This could lead to the wrong impression of the use and importance of cluster policies in these countries. European Trend Chart on Innovation 3. Types of cluster policies, their role and modes of implementation As discussed in the introduction to this thematic paper, the definition of ‘cluster policies’ is not homogeneous and varies in a number of ways. These are, particularly: .. The level of aggregation of the cluster concept used, which can range from ‘mega-level clusters’ on a national scale, to ‘meso-level clusters’ with some regional concentration, to ‘micro-level clusters’ which are networks of collaborating firms. Particularly, the distinction is often blurred in policy debates between, on the one hand, cluster policies aiming to make a cluster more competitive by improving various framework conditions and, on the other, network policies aiming to encourage collaboration between companies. .. Directly related to this is the question of whether policies deal with national or regional clusters and the degree to which the international dimension is taken into account. .. A third distinction is where in the policy spectrum the cluster policies fit. Reviewing the countries one can see that cluster policies are closely linked to science and technology policy, industrial policy, regional development policy or a combination of these three. When policies aim to strengthen existing‘traditional’ clusters, they would often be positioned in industrial policy or regional regeneration strategies. When policies aim at encouraging the emergence of new clusters in high growth industries, they are mostly linked to science and technology policies. In Wallonia an explicit distinction is made between supporting technology cluster and economic clusters, illustrating these two types of approaches. .. A fourth distinction concerns the role of governments in supporting clusters: whether the choice of clusters to be supported is a bottom-up process, or whether the government makes top-down decisions about which clusters are to be selected for policy support. This is closely related to the previous dimension: it happens frequently that support for the emergence of new clusters in high-tech areas is more a top-down strategic decision than one based on bottom-up ‘natural growth’ processes. The type of public support also varies on a scale from hands-on involvement (e.g. cluster management, financial support for clusters) to more hands-off support (e.g. promotion). The analysis of cluster policies in the Trend Chart countries confirms that these varying dimensions are present between and in countries. Table 1 gives an overview of the types of cluster policies in a number of the European countries, their importance, their bottom-up or top down definition, and the year when the first cluster initiatives were initiated. We can draw a number of conclusions from this overview: Cluster development is quite generally accepted as an important mechanism to improve the competitiveness of industries, technology domains and regions, and features in government white papers and policy documents as something which needs to be fostered. Nevertheless, there are only a few countries which have a generic and dedicated cluster policy at the national policy level. Development of clusters is either a subordinate objective of other policy objectives – such as European Trend Chart on Innovation promoting RTD cooperation or regional development – or development focuses on a small number of clusters (e.g. bio-tech in the UK, surface treatment and IT in Luxembourg). The following Table 1 positions the countries with regard to whether they have explicit cluster policies at national level. There is a separate category for those countries that have a national framework for cluster policies that is implemented regionally. Table 1 Existence of cluster policies National cluster policies Regional cluster policies National frameworks for regional policies No explicit cluster policies France, Luxembourg Belgium, Spain Austria, Germany, Italy, Sweden, UK Denmark, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia Hungary Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic Cluster initiatives are mostly launched in the context of regional development policies, where they are often a means to an end rather than a policy goal in itself. In a country such as Spain, for instance, there are no cluster policies at national level, but the regions are very active in this area. Belgium is a special case where responsibility for innovation policy lies mainly at the regional policy level (Wallonia, Flanders and Brussels regions), thus cluster policies are also implemented at that level. The type and contents of cluster policies varies considerably from country to country as is discussed above. We can distinguish a number of initiatives where cluster policy is about strengthening the ‘triple helix’ relationships, particularly between industry and research and often also government agencies such as regional development agencies or science and technology agencies. The objective is to stimulate regional growth poles. Examples of such an approach are the German Kompetenzzentren (DE 36), and The Finnish Centre of Expertise Programme (FI 5). Some countries also consider Science Park and Incubator Development as cluster policy (for instance, the UK Regional Development Agencies include this in their regional cluster strategies; Hungary, Latvia and Israel consider these greenfield type of investments as the start of cluster development). A second type of cluster policy focuses more narrowly on R&D co-operation between companies, and between companies and research organisations. A number of what were labelled cluster initiatives in the Netherlands, the Flemish and Wallonian European Trend Chart on Innovation technology clusters and the French CNRT clusters, for instance, are policy instruments that aim to foster and fund R&D collaboration. A third type of cluster initiative focuses on encouraging co-operation between companies, regardless whether this is about R&D, and either horizontally and/or vertically, thus strengthening the value chain in existing clusters. These clusters are often ‘sector’ specific (e.g. textile or wood production) and policy initiatives are closely related to industry policy. A number of countries that have had cluster policies for some years appear to be reducing the importance of these policies. This is the case in the Netherlands which has shifted the focus from cluster policy to supporting dynamic innovation systems. A 1997 Government White Paper4 stressed the importance of cluster policy and announced a series of initiatives. The 2002 evaluation of these cluster policy initiatives concluded that the term ‘clusters’ was used without clear definition so that all types of policy actions, including existing ‘traditional’ R&D instruments, were relabelled as cluster policy.5 The term cluster policy is now hardly used in Dutch innovation policy. The Greek country report also states that cluster policy has become less fashionable in recent times, after initial interest in the mid-1990s. An essential first step that various countries have taken before launching cluster policies is the mapping of clusters. The original method used by Michael Porter relied on using international trade statistics to determine which clusters in a country were strong on the world markets. In the meantime, many more mapping methods have been developed and applied. The DTI in the UK started their cluster activities by producing a map of existing cluster activity in Business Clusters in the UK: A First Assessment, (see: http://www.dti.gov.uk/clusters/map/), published in February 2001. The research represents the first UK-wide systematic study of existing clusters. In Luxembourg the mapping went to a deeper level: the clusters were not mapped but the needs of the firms were assessed in pre-defined clusters. Various research centres in TC countries have carried out mapping activities to support policy development. Denmark with its history of cluster policy (network programmes, resource areas), currently has no active cluster policy. Nevertheless, the Danish Agency has undertaken extensive studies to identify Denmark’s clusters of competence. The Netherlands has taken the analytical tools to support cluster policy a step further by developing a Cluster Monitor with various tools to analyse the performance of clusters on the basis of a combination of quantitative and qualitative indicators and research methods. The Monitor tools were developed for three pilot clusters, but after its completion, cluster policy was replaced by a dynamic innovation systems approach and the Monitor was not applied for new cluster initiatives. 4 Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Kansen door Synergie, De overheid en op innovatie gerichte clustervorming in de marktsector, Den Haag, 1997 5 Evaluatie van het Clusterbeleid, Rapport aanhet Ministerrie van Economische Zaken, Technopolis BV, 2002. European Trend Chart on Innovation European Trend Chart on Innovation Table 2 Overview of cluster policies in Trend Chart countries COUNTRY Type of Cluster Policy Importance of Cluster Policy Bottom-up or Top-down Year of Intro Austria Regional cluster policy – initiated by federal states and based on existing regional strengths – aimed at industry/research co-operation. Important in respect to regional devt. Makes it possible to connect regional strengths, existing firms, research & training institutes. Nationally it is a political aim to support regions. Regional govt has an important role in initiating & managing clusters. Of all clusters, there is only one that developed bottom-up – i.e. through industry. 1995 Belgium Regionally focused 1) Flanders – Flemish cooperative innovation networks. (Previously cluster & technology valley policies) explicit cluster policy defined as networks of enterprises involved in co-operation and/or collaboration with research organisations. 2) Wallonia – Economic clusters & technological clusters. Economic sectors selected by regional minister - pilots launched/ technology foresight studies identified key technologies - pilots launched. Importance is growing for the support of regional clusters, notably in Flanders where the VIS scheme contributes €20 million – Clusters also important in Wallonia although funding is less – €300 000. Bottom-up character is realised as the basis for successful clusters – although the Flemish & Wallonian technological clusters have more of a project character than the economic clusters in Wallonia. Mid 1990s Denmark No explicit or active policy - Concept has gained prominence – introduced in a number of reports describing Danish resource centres. 2001 – a narrower concept of clusters introduced. Regional Growth Centres programme is focused on developing framework conditions & infrastructure for areas where there is specialisation & competences. No specific policy – Ministry of Economic & Business Affairs has launched a project to map how to strengthen conditions surrounding ‘various clusters’. Aware if the importance of framework conditions in facilitating/stimulating the emergence of clusters – but realise that it is basically a bottom-up process. Began 1990s Finland Cluster programmes created as an S&T policy instrument. Currently there are three types of cluster policies a) industrial (through sector ministries) b) competence (TEKES, Academy) & c) regional. Effective tool for analysis, design & implementation of policies aimed at improved competitiveness at international, national, & regional levels – Used in conjunction with other tools. Identification & development of needs is a bottom-up process – design and co-ordination of policies to support development is mainly top-down. 1996 France Two types: Local Production System – more geographical than innovation based – run by Agency for Spatial Planning; National Centres of Technological Research (CNRT) – 18 clusters developed – run by Ministry of research & new technologies. CNRT is seen as important for innovation & tech transfer – seen as positive for both industry and public research. Push seen as being important in defining thematic clusters according to national priorities for research, and the CNRT clusters are to become poles of excellence at national level. CNRT started in 2000 Germany Began with technology programmes in the 60s – these now focus on competence centres. Specific technology programmes have explicit regional clustering approaches particularly in biotechnology. 1999 N/works of Competence – regional focus; 2001 Innovative Regional Growth Poles – focus on technology-specific n/works. The term cluster policy rarely used, but many policies aimed at establishing networks among economic actors in certain tech fields. Regionally the term is more favoured for regional concentrations. Bottom-up approach. Some preselection does takes place through thematic focus in the different technology programmes, while lead projects have a forum for defining and selecting ‘lead’ themes for 1960s European Trend Chart on Innovation COUNTRY Type of Cluster Policy Importance of Cluster Policy Bottom-up or Top-down Year of Intro funding. Greece No explicit cluster policy. Two calls for tender for clusters were launched under the 2nd CSF by the ministry leading to approximately 30 mini-clusters, but with few technological elements. In R&D policy, the thematic calls for tenders RTD Consortia in sectors if national priority (G55) foresee n/working between research orgs & companies in specific sectors. Seems to be losing popularity. Broad study of clustering potential in the Greek economy which resulted in two calls, no formal policy discussions since. Although seven regions have adopted cluster suggestions in their RIS-RITTS programmes. Greece has very few clusters – which are in fact more like geographically concentrated sectors. Government intervention is seen as not have led to long-lasting innovative clusters. N/A Ireland No explicit policies. Although cluster development is included as an objective under other policies & initiatives (secondary). The importance of drawing from external influences and internalising the benefits for business is recognised. Cluster policy is seen as a complementary part of a broader objective. In the formation stage govt has funded initiatives to promote the establishment of clusters (although this is not their chief aim) and some clusters have formed independently. N/A Italy 1991 saw first legislative recognition for industrial districts. In 1999, criteria were refined to identify them at two levels – local productive systems and industrial districts. Measures are still being introduced for cluster development – most recently tourism clusters. Very important at both the national and regional level. A number of measures are in place. Seen as bottom-up – but government has a role in developing clusters. 1991 Luxembourg Background study to identify best fields for clusters – resulting in the creation of two cluster projects – surface treatments & IT. Important for increasing competition, seen to be the most successful form of networking. Understand that it should be a bottom-up process, but believe that the govt has a role in facilitating the emergence of clusters. 2002 Netherlands Cluster policy at the national level which was initiated in the early 1990s. Apart from R&D collaboration as a central theme, no explicit cluster policy instruments. Since 2001 it has transformed into a policy approach focusing on dynamic innovation systems. No explicit cluster policy exists at the moment. The concept of co-operation, which is at the heart of cluster policy, has become a key element of innovation policy. This is cooperation between firms and also between firms and public research organisations. Since the 1990s, cluster policy has been focused on co-operation in R&D and policy instruments were mostly bottom-up. In the cases of traditional clusters, a more top-down approach has been taken. 1990 Norway No instruments that target one particular cluster. Although measures are being developed aimed at developing a new ICT industry. There are existing measures that target one or more branches of industry or one or more technology. No specific cluster focus – development of a new ICT industry is seen as the most important reference to any type of clustering. Clusters of political interest are based on existing industry and competences – so in any case a bottom-up approach to initial motivation. N/A Portugal No active cluster policy. In the early 1990s a project to identify clusters took place – with a competitiveness forum set-up to pursue them. Policy change in 1995 saw clusters losing prominence. In 2001 a second initiative started to develop clusters in key areas Seems to be subject to the changing government and policy. After the introduction of the second initiative there has been another change in govt – which has lead to a standstill on clusters. Both initiatives started as top-down exercises – using clusters as instruments for change. The latest initiative sees clusters as policy tools to foster convergence of perspectives & stimulate cooperation at local & national levels. Early 1990s European Trend Chart on Innovation COUNTRY Type of Cluster Policy Importance of Cluster Policy Bottom-up or Top-down Year of Intro Spain Cluster policy is developed at the regional level. It is seen as a regional instrument for territorial competitiveness – although only a number of regions have developed policy and/or implemented programmes. 1991-95 Basque govt designed the Programme for Competitiveness with help from Porter. 2000-03 policy also has specific measures for cluster development. Seen as a mechanism for developing competitiveness in certain sectors as well as the regional economy as a whole. It follows four steps – identification of clusters/dev of diagnosis studies for identified clusters/definition of joint programmes/support to development & execution of clusters programme. In the Basque country it has taken a combined approach. A number of bottom-up clusters have emerged – but the role of govt is seen as helping them grow. The programme for competitiveness allows regional government to define & create clusters. 1991 – Basque region Sweden National programme for development of innovationsystems & clusters. Aimed at regional level. There is also a regional programme focused on developing competitive & dynamic networks. No explicit policy – although the regional growth agreements are responsible for coordinating & adjusting the policies for the various sectors, and exploring new approaches to promote regional dev. Clusters/networks have gained attention & are increasingly seen in the regions. Bottom-up approach – regions’ growth strategies focus on specific industrial specialisations. Govt may however have a facilitating role once clusters have emerged. 2003 United Kingdom Initially identified in Competitiveness white paper. Following an examination of biotech clusters – setting out critical success factors – applicable to other sectors. In 1999, a high-level cluster policy steering group was established to identify barriers to cluster dev & to recommend appropriate policy initiatives to cabinet. Regional Dev Agencies are encouraged to develop existing & embryonic clusters in the follow-up to the white paper on competitiveness. Since the winding up of the steering group (2003), cluster policy is being taken forward by the RDAs. High priority. RDAs aim to promote the development of clusters, including science park and incubator promotion – for this they receive some €83 million per year – all RDAs have been directed to produce cluster strategies by 2001 – now in various stages of implementation. Belief that clusters should be an endogenous phenomenon, but that government may play a role in providing the conditions to facilitate or stimulate the emergence and growth of clusters. 1998 Iceland No explicit polices – but some formal cluster projects established. Clusters aren’t prominent in policy making – although they are used in evaluating projects & generating project funds – so implicitly there is attention. Ad hoc establishment of a number of cluster projects. 1992 Israel No cluster policies – although biotech incubators have been developed which may be a basis for the development of clusters in the future. The biotech incubators are seen as a step towards application of clusters – but no prominent policy focus has been given. They see it to be bottom-up – their example is a gradual focus in Israel on technological incubators in developed fields. N/A Bulgaria No cluster policy – Although the position paper: Science, Technology & Innovation in Bulgaria: Strategy & Implementation – foresees the creation of Technology Parks as major instruments to stimulate technology- driven entrepreneurship. No policy, technology parks are a central issue – and ICT has been identified as a potential growth area in Bulgaria – of which tech parks should be concentrated. Cluster policy seen as a result of the EU accession process – although bottom-up development is also recognised. Tech transfer is seen as a way in which to enhance innovation in technology following European Trend Chart on Innovation COUNTRY Type of Cluster Policy Importance of Cluster Policy Bottom-up or Top-down Year of Intro SMEs. TT institutes seen as being important in developing product innovation centres – this could have cluster potential in the future. Czech Republic No explicit policies The government continues to consider this an important area for policy. N/A Estonia No policy – but discussion are taking place about whether a cluster policy should be introduced. Competence Centre programme represents a first attempt to foster clustering – and can be seen as a sort of knowledge cluster. No specific policy and/or measures, although promotion of technology areas is developed under the National Strategy for R&D. A number of bottom-up market driven clusters exist. Only recently has been more of a policy-push with suggestions from govt on specific areas. Programmes in key technology areas of the National R&D strategy are seen as types of sector cluster programmes. 2003 Hungary Policy at an early stage. Embedded in Regional Development Programme & its sub-programme RE-1 (establishment of regional clusters). Policy supports science and technology parks and incubators rather than clusters per se. However with green-field investment a number of clusters have been developed. Embedded at the regional level – and is seen as an important aspect of regional economic development. 2001 Latvia Strategic policy level – the documents “Long term economic strategy” & “national innovation programme” recognise the importance of clusters. Project tosupport industrial cluster restructuring was the first initiative – funded by PHARE in 2000-01. Strategic documents recognise the importance of clusters. Work initiated within the PHARE project has been furthered by the Ministry of the Economy and Latvian Development Agency – and focuses on three priority clusters. Combination is used. Process is market driven, but the government role is to help participants coordinate activities during the set-up stage and define crucial areas for collaboration. Top-down approach is used when core members are universities and research institutions. 2000 Lithuania Contribution of clusters is recognised in policy documents that deal with the development of a knowledge-based economy. A number of documents clearly establish the priority of creating favourable conditions for stimulating cluster formation. Foresee measures in the future. Long term development strategy of the state – wants to implement an investment attraction strategy fostering investments for knowledge clusters. National implementation plan for 2003 establishes that the Ministry of Economy objectives are the creation of clusters of development. Positive effect of clusters highlighted in 1998 in Strategy for Export & Dev – formation of clusters to raise national competitiveness. Mid-term policy of Industry Dept (2000) repeated priority. Programme for increasing employment supported regional development programmes which stimulate clusters. 2002, new initiative for creating cluster infrastructure by state capital municipality. Mainly a top-down approach where the govt takes the role in creating policy to facilitate clusters. Scientists also have a certain push aspect in identifying global examples of best practice. N/A Poland No specific policy or measures, although a programme The increasing the innovativeness of They believe it needs to be pushed N/A European Trend Chart on Innovation COUNTRY Type of Cluster Policy Importance of Cluster Policy Bottom-up or Top-down Year of Intro is in the pipeline. Although a number of clusters do exist & The Polish Research Institute of Market Economy is mapping all clusters in Poland. Poland’s economy until 2006 envisages a support for the so-called innovative local segments – but until now nothing has been done. – due to the lack of funds at the regional level Romania No specific cluster policy. There is, however, an Industrial Parks Programme – which is viewed by the correspondent as being in the area of cluster policy – the definition requiring close collaboration between various research/education/private/public bodies. Science & technology parks are important policy tools – with the establishment of regional level parks in the pipeline. Participation in the 6FP has highlighted the need for clusters/networks/industrial platforms – the conclusion was to strengthen TT activities within science and tech parks Belief is that it requires a set of reinforcing activities at the level of the firm and the industry cluster, enhanced by policy and institutional action at the national and local government level. N/A Slovak Republic No Explicit policy. There is an act that supports the establishment of industrial parks. No policy – but it is seen as an important future policy focus. N/A Slovenia Ministry of Economics has a cluster policy. An analysis of potential clusters carried out, and in 2000 a pilot cluster programme was started. In 2002, a programme for developing local clusters was initiated. After an analysis of potential clusters for micro companies the cluster development policy has been upgraded with clear objectives, programme guidelines and targets. High priority – pilot programmes were/are aimed at developing a systematic approach to cluster development, the promotion of the concept, and acquisition of experience. Significant investment in the development of clusters. Comprehensive policy push coordinated by the Ministry of Economy in conjunction with industry. The central principle should be bottom-up but due to financing – particularly in the initial stages – help from government is required to see growth, management, organisation and direction of clusters remain the responsibility of the companies and institutions involved. 1999 Source: Trend Chart Country Reports – Covering Period October 2002 - March 2003 European Trend Chart on Innovation 4. The design and implementation of cluster policies Given the different types of cluster policies applied in the TC countries, we can observe a wide variation in policy design. The rationale behind the launch of cluster policies is one determinant of its design and mode of implementation. For instance, cluster policies which are embedded in technology policy are often designed to encourage R&D co-operation, providing financial incentives for collaborative R&D investment, whereas regional cluster policies which aim to address SMEs in more traditional sectors are more likely to be designed to offer cluster management activities or activities to foster cluster platforms (joint websites etc). The main driving forces behind cluster policies in the Trend Chart countries are essentially: .. The notion that clusters stimulate a concentration of expertise and knowledge in a limited geographical area, thus acting as ‘hubs of innovation’; .. They enhance the competitiveness of the firms involved as clusters could increase economies of scale, as well as economies of scope, facilitate dissemination of knowledge and learning, address common bottlenecks, and stimulate a culture of learning from external partners; .. In cases where technology based clusters are encouraged it is a strategic policy decision to build strength in certain domains that are generally regarded as potential growth poles; .. Cluster approaches help the development of common visions to guide the launch of certain actions or to achieve common goals. The implementation of cluster policy is carried out at national, regional and local level. The following table gives an overview of the key actors involved in those countries with explicit national cluster policies (Table 2). Again, this does not reflect the numerous cluster activities initiated at regional level. Table 3 Organisations involved in implementation of national cluster policies Organisation Country Industry and Innovation Ministry/Technology Agency Flanders, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, Wallonia Ministry of Science & Technology/Research Agency Germany, France Ministry/ Agency for (regional) development Greece, Norway Combination of Industry Ministry/Agency and regional agencies Sweden, UK Combination of Science and Technology Ministry and regional agencies - Other ministries and agencies Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy European Trend Chart on Innovation Finland has a large number of ministries and agencies involved in cluster policies, ranging from the technology and research agencies (TEKES and Academy of Finland) to a number of domain-specific ministries such as transport and communication (telecom cluster, transport cluster), agriculture and forestry (food cluster, forest Cluster), social affairs and health (well-being cluster), environment (environmental cluster) and labour (workplace development). This would suggest that cluster policy is a well-accepted policy approach in Finland, encompassing many policy domains. Cluster approaches are not only encouraged from a perspective on technology development or SME competitiveness but also to address societal issues. An upcoming trend seems to be the closer co-operation between national ministries or agencies providing the framework support for cluster policies, while regional agencies implement the cluster initiatives. This can be observed in, for example, Austria, Italy, Sweden and the UK, and to a lesser degree in Germany. In Austria, cluster policies are developed in parallel at national level and at the regional level. The Austrian federal states have been very active as an independent actor in cluster policy, and the first regional cluster (the Styrian automotive cluster) was established in 1995. The second one – also an automotive cluster – started in Upper Austria in 1998. In addition to these state activities, the federal government has initiated programmes to stimulate regionally based ‘competence centres’ (the K plus (AT 23) / Kind + Knet (AT 27) programmes) which have a stronger focus on science and technology. Italy has a very distinct form of implementation. District Committees are created within each cluster or within a group of homogenous clusters by decree of the President of the Regional Government Council. Each committee is made up of representatives of entrepreneurial associations, trade unions, the largest local administrations and of other public institutions active in local industrial policies. The committee is usually located within the largest municipality belonging to the district or within the premises of another public institution that can guarantee proper secretarial and administrative support. The district committee, usually made up of no more than 15 members, constitutes a local forum where the interested parties discuss local industrial policies. These Committees have varies tasks such as promotion and defining the need for action. These regional actions operate in a national framework based on a Law from 1991, which was the first legislative recognition of clusters. In Sweden, national policies to stimulate innovation systems are implemented in the regions through the regional growth agreements. Most of the cluster development is implemented by regional organisations with financial and management support from the national agencies. In the UK the Department of Trade and Industry creates the conditions to encourage the formation and growth of clusters, but leaves the identification of and support to clusters to the regional development agencies (RDA). The German initiatives of the Ministry of Education and Technology initiates many of the regional cluster competitions and initiatives, but leaves much of the cluster management and development to local and regional actors. European Trend Chart on Innovation Although the country reports do not explicitly discuss the regional-national coordination of cluster policies, the lack of this co-ordination in some countries appears to be a policy issue which should be addressed. This could lead to situations where numerous small local initiatives exist, each without the necessary critical mass to be recognised as a promising cluster by the international markets. It could also lead to competition between regions to attract investors or to invest in competence building at a too low a level of critical mass. European Trend Chart on Innovation 5. Trans-national policy learning and cross-border clusters Internationally competitive clusters by definition have linkages with foreign partners, or at least with foreign customers. Nevertheless, most policy initiatives focus on regional clusters and address the actors within their administrative boundaries. The Trend Chart country reports are not sufficiently detailed to report on the international element within the design of cluster programmes. Examples of cluster-type activities that cross borders are the R&D collaborationprojects in the Öresund region connecting Malmö and Copenhagen. These are not dedicated cluster activities but dedicated actions in, for instance the life sciences, that have the effect of creating a trans-national innovation hub with a specialisation in that domain. The formulation of cluster policies, notwithstanding, shows more readiness to transnational policy learning. This takes the form of: .. Studies – European Commission/OECD; .. Fact-finding missions to explore existing cluster policies; .. Employment of (international) external consultants for management of clusters; .. Use of international policy models/programmes to define national policy/programmes; .. Partaking in cluster-based conferences and workshops; .. Membership of international cluster discussion groups, i.e. OECD; .. Commissioning external studies/benchmarking. In Poland, a trans-national learning exercise was set up under the name of LEED (An OECE programme for Central European Countries) where British and other European consultants organised a number of seminars for Polish decision makers in order to disseminate the concept of clusters and promote cluster policy. Slovenia capitalised on the Dutch experience in cluster policy. After several trips by members of the Slovenian Ministry of Economy to the Netherlands, and on the recommendation of Dutch policy makers, the Ministry of Economy commissioned a project by a Dutch private consulting firm to provide guidance on strategic cluster development in Slovenia. This was one of the inputs in the design of the Slovenian cluster policy-making. With a number of regionally based cluster policies, it is interesting to note that Belgium was the only country where organised intra-national learning takes place. In Belgium an inter-regional working group has been set up to exchange experiences between the Belgium regions (Flanders and Wallonia) that operate cluster programmes. European Trend Chart on Innovation 6. Evaluation of cluster policies Evaluation is important for policy learning, and again the approach taken across the countries that have active cluster policy/programmes varied dramatically. The countries that have pursued evaluation of their policy/programmes are: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, UK, Latvia, Poland, Hungary, and Slovenia, reflecting those which in fact have an active cluster policy/programme, with the exception of Sweden, France and Portugal whose innovation systems and clusters programme are in their infancy – therefore it is too early for evaluation. The evaluation that has taken place is by no means standard. It takes different forms – from evaluating clusters in their own right to evaluating cluster programmes, cluster policy and associated programmes – and in some cases mapping exercises are used to highlight potential clusters. Methodologically evaluating cluster policies is far more complicated than evaluating, for instance, more narrowly defined R&D subsidy programmes. Attributing the achievements of a complete cluster, with its many inter- linkages between actors and external influences, to a cluster support programme faces severe methodological problems. It would at least require a good base-line study of the composition and performance of the cluster at its start. Evaluating clusters themselves has only been pursued in the Member States, namely Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Germany (where no other approach has been taken), and Finland – which has supported this with policy evaluation. In these instances the clusters themselves are evaluated for the achievement of goals, performance and identifying possibilities for the future. Policy evaluation in the Member States was limited. The UK reported that in its case this is due to the fact that cluster development is the result of endogenous and exogenous factors which have until recently never been targeted for cluster development as an entity. However, there have been various reports identifying factors and cross-cutting issues that have fed into the development of policy, and the setting-up of a steering group to lead research into cluster development and in turn recommend policy. In Finland, cluster policy was evaluated as part of a wider international evaluation of R&D appropriations. The ‘cluster mechanism’ was seen as an innovative experiment in innovation policy, and that for a relatively small investment large-scale resources were mobilised. Public funds were seen to be catalytic, although some clarification was seen to be required to define the true goals of this instrument. Similarly in Spain, the evaluation of the Basque government included attention to cluster policy, and highlighted that clusters have had an important influence on the stimulation of new industrial activities within the region and in the development of a co-operation culture among firms. The participation of public institutions is very important in the Spanish example, not only in the creation, but in the support to, and functioning of clusters. In Austria, a study was completed on cluster policy in Upper Austria. The main findings were that cluster policy should continue as the central strategy of Upper European Trend Chart on Innovation Austria. The study recommended that the “Technologie- und Marketing Gesellschaft” (TMG) should manage newly emerging clusters to use synergies from former projects and to ensure knowledge transfer in the management of clusters. In the Netherlands an external evaluation of cluster policy came to the conclusion that the term cluster policy was used for a far too wide a set of policy instruments and activities, in order for it to become embedded as a recognised policy domain. The cluster activities were a mix that tried to stimulate existing clusters to become more innovative and that also initiated the launch of new (technology based) clusters. Nevertheless, the introduction of the concept of cluster policy changed the mind sets of policy makers and stakeholders towards a more collaborative approach for innovation which requires the development of networking. The experience of the accession countries included in the study of cluster policy/programmes varied. They are, in general, still in the initial phases of developing policies to promote cluster activity. This has been reflected in their focus of evaluation, which until now has been solely focused on the more general policy levels. In Hungary for example a study has been undertaken looking at young clusters in general – conclusions point to the importance of having the Hungarian cluster-policy based at the regional level, supporting developments that have taken place in policy since 2001. It seems that the identification of possible clusters (mapping) is a well-used activity to define the sectors in which the various countries have existing strengths on which to build clusters in the future. It was even an obligatory first step in the original Italian cluster Law of 1991. It is not exactly an evaluation of cluster policies or programmes, but is shows that there is activity in evaluating the various national landscapes for possible cluster opportunities. This approach has been taken up in the accession countries, for instance in Poland where they are busy mapping clusters (concentration of enterprises in the same sector) for future development. European Trend Chart on Innovation Table 4 Cited Cluster Evaluations COUNTRY EVALUATION Austria • Evaluierung der oberösterreichischen Clusterinitiativen im Auftrag des Amtes der OÖ. Landesregierung / Abteilung Gewerbe, Wien, 2001 – the study can be downloaded in German only at www.clusterland.at Denmark • In the report: A New Economy and its New Clusters, (http://www.efs.dk/publikationer/rapporter /gb klynge/efspup0202/index.htm) a first step is taken in an attempt to map out clusters prevailing in the Danish economy. Finland • Industrial Cluster Policy – evaluated as part of the International evaluation of the additional appropriation of research 97-99 (http://wwwsitra.fi/Julkaisut/raporti2.pdf) • Specific cluster evaluations can be found at the following links: http://www.etla.fi/english/research/publications/searchengine/pdf/abstr act/b176eng.pdf (ICT) http://www.etla.fi/english/research/publications/searchengine/pdf/dp/d p845.pdf (Forrest) http://www.etla.fi/english/research/publications/searchengine/pdf/dp/d p733.pdf (ICT) Germany • Results of the monitoring of the Regional Growth Poles Programme (DE57) www.wachstumskerne.de • Monitoring of the InnoRegio Programme (DE16): http://www.innoregio.de/ Italy • Many evaluations have been undertaken. An interesting summary has been produced by IPI and can be found (Italian only) at http://www.ipi.it/inside.asp?t=1&id=306&id modu=63&id serv=25&id mode=26 Luxembour g • Mid-term evaluation of the Surmat Cluster. Netherlands • External Evaluation of Cluster Policy, for the Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2002. Spain • No evaluations as such – but an illustrative study showing the main characteristics of the Basque cluster policy, entitled, Clusters are a source of competitiveness: The case of the autonomous community of the Basque country. UK • Report – Business Clusters in the UK: A First assessment (DTI 2001). A general identification of the factors or cross-cutting issues which affect cluster development. • Report – Clusters: Higher education & business collaborating for success DTI 2002 (www.dti.gov.uk/clusters/2002.pdf) – types of collaboration that can take place between the two in a wide range of industrial sectors. • Report – Planning for clusters DETR 2000 (www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/clusters) - looks at the impact of planning on clusters. European Trend Chart on Innovation Estonia • Various material undertaken on the ICT sector (inclusive cluster evaluation) can be found at http://www.esis.ee/eVikings/evaluation/index.en.html Hungary • Report - National Clusters in Transition Economies – Hungarian young clusters: http://www.gkm.hu/gk/index .alold eng?k=http://www.gkm.hu/site/kulfold/english/economy/index.htm Slovenia • Ministry of Economy – Evaluation of Cluster Policy. Source: – Trend Chart: Country reports covering the period October 2002 – March 2003. European Trend Chart on Innovation 7. Policy Issues Although this synthesis based on the Trend Chart country reports can only give a horizontal overview of cluster policy initiatives, some policy issues emerge from the overview. As we have seen, not all countries apply cluster policies at national level. Some have made a deliberate choice to leave this to the regions, others have explicitly opted for other policy approaches (e.g. dynamic innovation systems), and some countries, particularly most of the accession countries, are in the very early stages of developing these policies. Particularly for the latter group, policy learning and exchange is vital. Cluster policy with its many aspects has shown successes, but also revealed many pitfalls. The European Commission could play a role in demonstrating successful cases as well as helping identify the drawbacks and pitfalls of identifying, selecting and supporting clusters. This would require going much deeper into the design and implementation of these policies to benchmark on very practical ‘how to do it’ issues. One particular policy problem for which only a few countries have developed support tools and methods is how to make a solid choice between clusters and for what period this support should last. Knowing how this choice is made in practice involves tacit knowledge of the policymakers and stakeholders concerned. Policy exchange platforms (workshops etc.) between policy makers and cluster managers would be a way to exchange this level of information. We can observe an early trend, particularly in larger countries, that national and regional policies are becoming better co-ordinated. On the national level the (financial) frameworks are being developed to encourage the regions to adapt these frameworks to their own situation. As clusters are very much a geographically proximate group of interconnected companies and associated institutions, it makes good sense to fine tune cluster support for each individual cluster on the regional policy level. This could lead to situations where in one country several similar clusters are supported in more than one area (e.g. the automotive clusters in both Styria and Upper Austria). As cluster are very much about competition, this is as such not a problem, and certainly not when these are clusters with a strong regional basis. It could become more problematic regarding the initiation of top-down strategic clusters (e.g. in biotech, telecommunications etc.) which often start from very little (business) activity in the region and a lot of wishful thinking from policy makers. This could be an area where more inter-regional co-ordination could be necessary to avoid large numbers of small sub-critical initiatives that on their own have little chance of becoming well embedded and internationally competitive clusters. Learning from the early experiences of those countries which have developed an national-regional framework for cluster policy, and how they tackle these issues, will be helpful for policy makers from all countries. Although the country reports do not explicitly discuss the regional-national co-ordination of cluster policies, the lack of this co-ordination in some countries appears to be a policy issue that needs to be addressed. European Trend Chart on Innovation Despite the fact that the business sector, and therefore clusters, are not bound by geographic borders, it is surprising how few cross-border cluster policies exist. We must note that by not including regional cluster policies in this TC overview, a potential pool of cross-border cluster initiatives not initiated by the national government have not been addressed in this report. This confirms again that in the area of cluster policy, the national and regional levels are so interwoven both should be included in any policy analysis. Given the limited number of trans-border initiatives, the next step in cluster policies could be to explore how to move regional cluster activities across borders, to benefit from complementary competences and economies of scale. The initiatives for trans-national learning and take place either through bilateral exchanges of experience, by comparative studies or through international fora such as the Trend Chart and the OECD. Evaluation tools appropriate to assess the achievements and results of clusters and the role of cluster policies in their development are still in their infancy, and not many countries have conducted these policy evaluations. As we have seen from the overview of cluster policies, the definition, objectives and demarcations of cluster policies are very fuzzy. Transnational policy learning could benefit from a clearer categorisation of these cluster policies by the policy community to allow a more precise comparison and benchmarking between cluster policies which have similar policy aims, target groups and support mechanisms. The Trend Chart could be supportive in this in the follow- up of the cluster policy workshop. European Trend Chart on Innovation Appendix 1: Cited Trend Chart Cluster Measures COUNTRY TREND CHART MEASURE REF Austria • K-Plus (competence centres) • K Industry / K Networks (competence centre programmes) • REGplus (regional impulse programme) AT 23 AT 27 AT 48 Belgium • Flanders - Flemish co-operative networks (VIS) • Wallonia – Economic and technological clusters BE 56 BE 60 Denmark • Regional Growth Centres (framework & infrastructure conditions for sectors with specialisation & competence) DK 13 Finland • Centre of Expertise Programme (regional clusters) • Cluster Programmes (Sector ministries – industrial clusters) • Tekes Technology Programmes (Competence clusters) FI I5 FI I8 FI 12 France • National Centres for Technological Research (CNRT) • Thematic Research & Innovation Networks FR 29 FR 17 Germany • InnoRegio - Innovative networks in Eastern Germany • Biotechnology Initiatives (BioChance, BioProfile/BioRegio and BioFuture) • Lead projects • Learning Regions - Promotion of Networks • Innovative Regional Growth Poles • Direct Research Promotion: Natural Sciences, Climate, Environment, Energy – New Technologies – ICT - Biotechnology, Health, Design of Working Conditions – Transport, Space, Construction • NEMO - Management of Innovation Networks for East German SMEs DE 16 DE 23 DE 25 DE 53 DE 57 DE 67 – 71 DE 75 Greece • Research and Technological Consortia in Sectors of National Priority GR 55 Italy • Innovation and SMEs (Law 317/91) IT 17 Luxembourg • Cluster Surfmat – Surface Engineering Cluster Dev LU 10 Netherlands Norway • Industrial Research and Development Contracts • Value-creation 2010 • Mobilisation for R&D related innovation • FORNY • SME Competence • TEFT NO 01 NO 28 NO 30 NO 11 NO 14 NO 12 NO 32 European Trend Chart on Innovation • ARENA Portugal • Proinov Spain • All based in regional development plans Sweden • Regional Growth Agreements • National programme for support and development of innovation systems and clusters SE 19 SE 26 UK • Regional Innovation Fund UK 44 Hungary • SZÉCHENYI-PLAN – in particular the RE1 programme (sub-programme of the establishment of regional clusters) HU 24 Lithuania • Programme for Development of Co-operation in Agriculture • Strategic guidelines and Measures for Development of SMEs until 2004 – specifically the creation of business conditions for clusters LT 04 LT 15 Slovenia • Subsidies for establishing pilot industrial clusters SL 06 Source: Measures identified in Trend Chart Country Reports Covering the period October 2002 - March 2003 – Theme Two, Cluster policies – Measures and references sourced from Trend Chart Database.