frank waeltring - how can regional development policy and regional development agencies best support...
TRANSCRIPT
Working Group 3: How can regional development policy and RDAs best support the economic dimension of growth and job creation?
Implementing Regional Development Policies:What are the key factors for success?
Moderator: Frank WaeltringPanellists: Zdravko Miovčić, Dr Saša Drezgić
1. How can intervention priorities be selected with the highest impact and sustainability with regard to economic development in the location/region?
2. What are the most successful approaches for analysing the local and regional economic reality, integrating a strong understanding of the competitiveness of local businesses and their market strategies?
3. What is the role of regional institutions within a place-based approach in coordinating economic development activities with national and municipal entities?
4. How do we ensure the integration of the business sector and coordination and cooperation with other important SME support organisations in the territory?
Introduction (1)
Guiding Questions:
Reflection on each question:
• What did you experience in your own practice?
• What are the key success factors?
Workshop objectives: Identification of main success considerations
Introduction (2)
Introduction (3)
Source of information through? RDA interviews
Cases from Poland, Croatia, BiH and Serbia
Introduction (4) Ideal role of RDAs in regional policy
Context matters:Role of RDAs depends on policy & ways of evolution
Source: Mesopartner/EDA (2014)
Development contexts differ very much from country to country
System logic of RDA evolution
Source: Mesopartner/EDA (2014)
Introduction (4)
There is not one best way: Different starting points and opportunities
Evolution of RDAs in 4 countries
Source: Mesopartner/EDA (2014)
Introduction (5)
Change of priorities over time
Competitiveness orientation becomes more important over time
Introduction (6)
Guiding Question 1
How can intervention priorities be selected with the highest impact and sustainability with regard to economic development in the location/region?
Q-1: Selecting intervention priorities (1)
“Often we can’t see the forest for the trees”
• Identification of systemic intervention priorities that tackle key competitiveness challenges of businesses & organisational development aspects at municipal and regional level (e.g. bureaucratic procedures)
• Need to compromise between intervention priorities defined in local/regional strategies vs. funding opportunities offered by the EU, IPA or other donors
• Serbia and in BiH: the selection of the intervention priorities is sensitive to political influence and changes
Key challenges
• Serbia: implementation of the Vojvodina standard, a flexible package of interventions defined at the regional level
• BiH: some donor projects integrate managers from sectors who have a key role in selecting intervention priorities using specific kinds of private-public dialogue
• Poland: Promoting smaller change interventions with a strong impact instead of a few large interventions. It means shifting away from large infrastructure programmes towards the objective of changing mind-sets and promoting network relations
• Croatia: assure close contact with municipalities and business associations
Lessons learned
Q-1: Selecting intervention priorities (2)
• Which stakeholders need to be included in the identification of intervention priorities?
• How do we assure the identification of the most relevant intervention priorities?
• What tools can be used to identify more specific catalytic initiatives for economic transformation and growth in specific regions?
Some questions to discuss…
Q-1: Selecting intervention priorities (3)
Guiding Question 2
What are the most successful approaches for analysing the local and regional economic reality, integrating a strong understanding of the competitiveness of local businesses and their market strategies?
BiH and Serbia: • Move from data- and expert-based analysis towards the analysis of competitiveness of
local businesses, their market strategies, market and government failures• Stronger reflection with businesses and sectors on key business gaps and requirements • Strengthening bottom-up analysis vs. top-down analysis Poland: • Increasing awareness about organisational development challenges of business
associations and municipalities in defining real business- and sector needsCroatia: • Awareness in RDAs of own weaknesses with regard to business and market insights.
Self understanding is still focused on service provision vs. change promotion
Key challenges
Q-2:Ways to analyse economic realities (1)
BiH: • Donors follow up a more qualitative, business-oriented approach combining
private-public dialogue mechanisms, workshops and interviews to identify targeted interventions
• Inputs are gathered from real market players. Experts facilitate communication focused on real key competitiveness issues
Poland:• Promotion of clusters and value chain approaches to get into closer contact with
businesses and research institutions and to identify key business- as well as technology challenges
Croatia: • Promotion of innovation and technology development platforms to understand
better key business sector innovation challenges
Lessons learned
Q-2:Ways to analyse economic realities (2)
• How is it possible to promote a stronger business-oriented and systemic approach in certain sectors at the regional level and to also challenge the existing local supporting institutions in their roles of service provision?
• How can RDAs increase their competitiveness understanding including insights into value chain, cluster challenges and opportunities to understand better and tackle market and government failures?
Some questions to discuss…
Q-2:Ways to analyse economic realities (3)
Guiding Question 3
What is the role of regional institutions within a place-based approach in coordinating economic development activities with national and municipal entities?
Poland and Croatia (bottom-up approach): • Main coordination efforts emerged from a bottom-up approach in close cooperation
with the regional policy level • Proactive integration of RDAs in the coordination process at the national level is missingSerbia (top-down approach): • The set-up of RDAs was very much a decision at the national level (top-down) • Cooperation with regional bodies is just emergingBiH (“empty institutional space”): • Complete lack of national support and politisation • Change of RDA focus from a strategic perspective to a project and donor-oriented
perspective
Key challenges
Q-3:Key coordination role of RDAs (1)
Croatia and Poland: • Decentralisation increased role and cooperation between RDAs and regional
governments• Regional cooperation is decisive to coordinate priorities. Municipal cooperation and
trust is decisive for information collection and implementationSerbia: • Hope on EU as key promoter and driving force in fostering regional (economic)
development • Making use of IPA transnational and cross-border funds to increase regional
coordinationBiH: • Strategic coordination is non-existent but valuable projects start to promote
coordination and integration of more business-driven approaches
Lessons learned
Q-3:Key coordination role of RDAs (2)
• How can we coordinate regional economic development activities with national and municipal entities without appropriate regional structures? Are such structures really necessary?
• How can coordination be increased between regional and national institutions? Is this form of coordination really an important success factor?
Q-3:Key coordination role of RDAs (3)
Some questions to discuss…
Guiding Question 4
How do we ensure the integration of the business sector and coordination and cooperation with other important SME support organisations in the territory?
BiH and Serbia: • Integrating business knowledge stronger into the analysis • Move from a planning to a competitiveness-orientated approach • Getting the buy-in of businesses through the initiation of concrete initiatives addressing
responsibilities of local businesses and supporting institutions
Poland and Croatia: • Overcoming the approach of providing mainly services for business instead of
initiatives with businesses• Improving capabilities of business- and municipal organisations in the analysis of real
competitiveness challenges • Promoting concrete change- and matching initiatives between supporting institutions
and businesses vs. additional services
Key challenges
Q-4: Business & institutional integration (1)
BiH and Serbia: • First experiences with sectoral boards and moderated dialogue between the
private sector and supporting institutions (NERDA in Bosnia) and a cluster approach (REDAH in Herzegovina)
• Some RDAs continue to keep close relationships with the businesses from their past role as SME agencies
Croatia and Poland: • Promotion of cluster approaches has also forced the RDAs to become more
business-integrative• Learning from good practices from development agencies in EU countries that
promote rather change-oriented smaller interventions than infrastructure projects
Lessons learned
Q-4: Business & institutional integration (2)
• Do SME-supporting institutions, as well as RDAs, really understand their mission and the necessity of working much closer with the business sector?
• Do RDAs monitor and evaluate their own performance towards improving the competitiveness of SMEs and the growth of the local/regional economy?
Q-4: Business & institutional integration (3)
Some questions to discuss…
Working group reflection
For each question:
• What did you experience in your own practice?
• What are the key success factors?
What is your opinion on the 4 questions ?
