The Key Components of a National and a Regional Approach - Term Paper Example

National/ Regional Approach to Innovation Introduction: Before giving a comparison between a national and a regional approach it is important that the difference between the two terms be made clear first while the term National: means of or relating to or belonging to a nation or country; "national hero” national anthem"; "a national landmark” limited to or in the interests of a particular nation; "national interests"; "isolationism is a strictly national policy" owned or maintained for the public by the national government; "national parks" something that is national would mean that where as the term Regional would necessarily mean: Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction, and affecting a broad geographic area. Or simply regional would mean having to do with a certain area. The aim of this paper is to high light the key components of a National approach and a regional approach to the fields of innovation. This paper will high light the main concepts and give a detailed view into what the National and what the regional approach do and are about, in this paper both these approaches will be discussed in a separate manner. It’s a very complex thing innovation it doesn’t just need an innovative firm to singly do all the work but rather a full innovative firm, and a number of organizations and institutions need to be readily interacting with one another and these should also have many interdependencies to make innovations a success and a complete process. A matrix has been long designed which has been called the innovation matrix in the innovation matrix the key inspiration has been from the traditional manner of the input and output tables but the only different thing is that instead of this matrix making a precise measurement of the flows of intermediate products between countries this matrix makes a National/ Regional Approach to Innovation 3 National/ Regional Approach to Innovation Measurement of the express flows of innovation that is a direct measurement of the flow of knowledge between two or more organizations and institutions. NATIONAL INNOVATIONS SYSTEMS (NIS) APPROACH: It has long been a debate between the theory scholars of innovation that there should be made a systems approach so as to get a better understanding of the dynamics of and that would be more realistic and would provide with more positive ways to make and guide policies than does the linear system of innovation that has long been used. Rosenberg and Kline gave the first initiations towards the systematic approach by putting forth their developed “chain-linked” model this model thus was broadened and deepened and is now what is commonly known as the NIS or the National innovations systems approach. A systematic view is what is presented when the national innovations systems approach is put to use. Various agents, actions and relationships along with interactions with each other on a daily and project based basis are what give rise to innovations. It is a belief of those who follow this system approach that the success of any innovation depends a lot on a long term relationship existing between the various components which would namely be the external organizations and institutions as well and the interaction between innovation organizations. It is also a belief that innovation success would depend on a proper flow of the interaction within the innovation organizations departments, between the colleagues and between the management and the workers, that is also very important. The institutional environment is also believed by the systematic National/ Regional Approach to Innovation 4 National/ Regional Approach to Innovation approach to strongly influence innovative activities and interactions between the innovative agents. REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEM (RIS): The RIS or regional innovations system is program administered by the European Commission which is aimed at directly addressing today’s economies new dynamics and demands. Through a regional systems approach a regions consensus building, the policy makers can identify and help their regions adapt and adjust more flexibly towards the macro economy and in the long run this would help a region improve in its innovative areas with more enthusiasm and more learning. This system is designed to provide certain guideline but still leaves the definition and specifying of the regions needs and abilities within the hands of the regions leaders. This system was intended to help lagging regions become more competitive and aids them so they can also experience higher levels of development within their economies that was the intention of the EU officials when they gave this system the green light. The RIS gives the regions an alternative and maybe even a more affective and results showing approach to the traditional economic development strategies that were implemented by the United States and hence the RIS is a very useful study. The fostering of innovations in countries that under perform when it comes to the development of their economies and through the use of the regions system the United States can learn as the successes and failures would become very apparent. Then they would be able to make up National/ Regional Approach to Innovation 5 National/ Regional Approach to Innovation and craft such policies which would help these regions better their long term economic development. The importance and need for the regional system can be made very apparent if one was to focus on the importance for the economical development of different regions. That is important to look upon as some regions are more affected by certain relationships anmd policies as compared to other regions and those effects are sometimes not seen by the policy makers as they are viewed on a very national and overall level. With a regional system the effects of certain relationships can be viewed and therefore it becomes very apparent that different trends and patterns emerge when a country’s economy is viewed from a regional prospective. In conclusion while drawing a comparison it becomes very obvious that both the national as well as the regional approach have their pros and cons. The national approach helps make wider spread decisions regarding the improvement and development of a country’s economy by keeping in mind its overall relationships between organizations and institutions on a wider scale, its cons would be that it misses out on the finer details. The pros of a regional based system is that it gets into the nitty gritty viewing the economic development by innovation piece by little piece and its cons are that it’s often misses out on the bigger picture. EUROPE Vs AMERICA A COMPARISON: If a comparison was to be made between two different countries located on different continents keeping their approaches to innovation at the heart of that National/ Regional Approach to Innovation 6 National/ Regional Approach to Innovation comparison then the results would have the following outcome. For example if you look at America and the European countries. The firms in Europe it is seen receive much support and what could be called in slang a leg up from their respective governments. The countries that are of Scandinavian nature and regions have their governments actively provide the firms and organizations with as much fund and as much educational opportunities which are well within their capacities so as to help them develop and grow more and in an overall result to help these organizations become more innovative. Where as, if you were to look at the American governments approach to Innovation and helping their firms and organizations develop to their fullest potentials and capacities you one would see that the American Government has a very stay away or a sort of Hand off approach towards that aspect. It is true that they may at some point or basically at the starting point of companies and organizations provide the initial start up funding but they don’t provide any support or education to develop or enhance innovation in any way. However it is important to keep in mind that the home market in the European countries is very small, secondly it is also to be kept in mind that the countries in Europe have no real geographical advantages and for that reason most of the economy growth is dependent on export and in order for that to keep taking place they have to keep the innovation areas very up to date. In America it is also to be seen that when it comes to starting up their own companies like entrepreneurs for example all know well before they get their hands dirty that they will have no governmental support and that they know that if they want to innovate they will have to find and generate the funding for that on their National/ Regional Approach to Innovation 7 National/ Regional Approach to Innovation own and hence don’t get into any thing unless they have the guarantee of proper funding. Another aspect to view in the approaches to innovation is America is fairly new to the whole “open innovation” idea in fact it is still in the ‘considering it ‘ process while Europe on the other hand seems more ready to take on and adapt to new tools that would help boost innovation. Firms in the European countries have no choice but to succeed in innovation as their markets are very small and they must export to gain profit and over all develop a stable economy that provides for all citizens. The American hands off approach has to be taken back and now updated to a more hands on approach as it was traditionally known to have a very large market within itself and could gain profits and balance their economy by simply keeping to within their market but now that Globalization has taken place they need to become more hands and attentive towards innovation if the want to remain Big Players in the Market. REFERENCES: Niosi, J., P Saviotti, B.Belon, W.Crow (1993), “Natural systems of innovators: In search of a workable concept”. Read More