Methodology for selecting and implementing priorities for smart regional specialization

Purpose: is to develop the methodology for identifying long-term priorities for smart specialization in the regions and creating "transformational roadmap" for their implementation in the Russian context. This approach is designed to foster sustainable innovation ecosystems and achieve the country’s technological sovereignty.

Methods: the research is based on the comparative analysis of international experience in implementing regional innovation policies and smart specialization strategies in the EU, the USA, and China. The study employs qualitative, systemic, and structural-logical analysis methods. The proposed methodology draws on the experience of regional strategy development and a series of expert interviews with representatives of regional authorities.

Results: the authors propose the methodology for applying the smart specialization concept in the Russian regions, structured into four key stages: selecting smart specialization priorities, assessing regional potential for industry transformation, forming a portfolio of projects, and their implementation. Additionally, the study systematizes approaches to identifying the potential for smart transformation and selecting suitable projects within a region. Special attention is given to the process of "entrepreneurial discovery" and the development of "transformational roadmaps", which integrate both scientific and technological priorities and the unique characteristics of the regions.

Conclusions and Relevance: the proposed methodology enables Russian regions to systematically and structurally organize the process of defining innovation development priorities, aligning both with national strategic goals for technological leadership and local specificities. This contributes to the formation of sustainable innovation ecosystems, the integration of science, business, and government, and the achievement of technological sovereignty. The practical significance of the study lies in the applicability of the methodology for developing regional smart specialization strategies, which can serve as a foundation for long-term economic growth and national competitiveness in emerging markets.

1. Zemtsov S.P., Barinova V.A. The paradigm changing of regional innovation policy in Russia: from equalization to smart specialization. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2016; (10):65–81. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/wqsxdr. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-10-65-81 (In Russ.)

2. Leydesdorff L., Etzkowitz H. The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy. 1998; 25(3):195–203. https://doi.org/10.1093/SPP/25.3.195 (In Eng.)

3. Dezhina I.G., Kiseleva V.V. “Triple helix” in Russia’s innovation system. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2007; (12):123– 135. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/jvizqp. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2007-12-123-135 (In Russ.)

4. Carayannis E.G., Campbell D.F.J. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management. 2009; 46(3/4):201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374 (In Eng.)

5. Cooke Ph., Uranga M.G., Etxebarria G. Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy. 1997; 26(4-5):475–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00025-5 (In Eng.)

6. Cooke Ph. The virtues of variety in regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2016; 2(3):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40852-016-0036-x (In Eng.)

7. Farinha L., Ferreira J., Ratten V. Regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial embeddedness. European Planning Studies. 2018; 26(11):2105–2113. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1530146 (In Eng.)

8. Kitagawa F., Woolgar L. Regionalisation of innovation policies and new university–industry links in Japan: policy review and new trends. Prometheus. 2008; 26(1):55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020701846033 (In Eng.)

9. Asheim B.T., Isaksen A. Regional innovation systems: the integration of local ‘sticky’ and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2002; 27:77–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013100704794 (In Eng.)

10. Porter M.E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review. 1998; 76(6):77–90. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/cwriol (In Eng.)

11. Cai Y., Liu C. The role of university as institutional entrepreneur in regional innovation system: towards an analytical framework. In: Examining the Role of Entrepreneurial Universities in Regional Development. Ed. by A.D. Daniel, A.C. Teixeira, M.T. Preto. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2020. P. 133–155. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0174-0.ch007 (In Eng.)

12. Yao W., Li H., Weng M. The role the university could play in an inclusive regional innovation system. Triple Helix. 2018; 5:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0058-4 (In Eng.)

13. Nevzorova T.A., Kutcherov V.G. The concept of technological innovation system: the basic principles and opportunities. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2022; (5):99–120. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/tiddlj. https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2022-5-99-120 (In Russ.)

14. Volchik V.V., Panteeva S.A., Shiriaev I.M. Institution of regional strategies in the Russian innovation system. Journal of Institutional Studies. 2022; 14(3):6–30. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ebrgoa. https://doi.org/10.17835/2076-6297.2022.14.3.006-030 (In Russ.)

15. Byvshev V.I., Panteleeva I.A., Pisarev I.V. Differentiation of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation for the implementation of regional scientific, technological and innovation policy. Economy of regions. 2024; 20(3):702–717. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ejrqgz. https://doi.org/10.17059/ekon.reg.2024-3-7 (In Russ.)

16. Foray D., David P.A., Hall B.H. Smart specialization: from academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation. In: MTEI Working Paper. Switzerland: Lausanne, 2011. 16 p. URL: https://infoscience.epfl.ch/server/api/core/bitstreams/11c6806e-e8bc-4901-a8b0-febd065dc30e/content (accessed: 21.12.2024) (In Eng.)

17. Markkula M., Kune H. Making smart regions smarter: smart specialization and the role of universities in regional innovation ecosystems. Technology Innovation Management Review. 2015; 5(10):7–15. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/932 (In Eng.)

18. Silva P., Pires S.M., Teles F., Polido A., Rodrigues C. Pre-conditions and barriers for territorial innovation through smart specialization strategies: the case of the lagging Centro region of Portugal. Urban Research and Practice. 2024; 17(1):1–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2103447 (In Eng.)

19. Deegan J., Broekel T., Fitjar R.D. Searching through the haystack: the relatedness and complexity of priorities in smart specialization strategies. Economic Geography. 2021; 97(5):497–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2021.1967739 (In Eng.)

20. Kogut-Jaworska M., Ociepa-Kicińska E. Do regional smart specialization strategies affect innovation in enterprises? Sustainability. 2023; 15(23):16405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152316405 (In Eng.)

21. Di Cataldo M., Monastiriotis V., Rodríguez‐Pose A. How ‘smart’ are smart specialization strategies? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. 2022; 60(5):1272–1298. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.13156 (In Eng.)

22. Pylak K., Deegan J., Broekel T. Smart Specialisation or smart following? A study of policy mimicry in priority domain selection. Regional Studies. 2025; 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2024.2429626 (In Eng.)

23. Eferin Ya.Yu., Kutsenko E.S. Adjusting smart specialization concept for Russian regions. Public Administration Issues. 2021; (3):75–110. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/fvnnbq (In Russ.)

24. Orlova L.N., Yan M.J. “Smart specialization” concept for innovative development of Russian regions. E-journal Public Administration. 2024; (102):37–53. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/eeraqj. https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU2070-1381-102-2024-37-53 (In Russ.)

25. Gamidullaeva L.A., Vornovskaia A.A. An approach to determining “smart specialization” of regions using big data technology. π-Economy. 2024; 17(2):67–85. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/pfywft. https://doi.org/10.18721/JE.17204 (In Russ.)

26. Kutsenko E., Islankina E., Kindras A. Smart by oneself? An analysis of Russian regional innovation strategies within the RIS3 framework. Foresight and STI Governance. 2018; 12(1):25–45. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ytpmip. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2018.1.25.45 (In Russ.)

27. Hayek F. The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review. 1945; 35(4):519–530. URL: https:// assets.aeaweb.org/asset-server/journals/aer/top20/35.4.519-530.pdf (accessed: 21.12.2024) (In Eng.)

28. Azoulay P., Fuchs E., Goldstein A.P., Kearneyet M. Funding breakthrough research: promises and challenges of the “ARPA Model”. Innovation policy and the economy. 2019; 19(1):69–96. https://doi.org/10.1086/699933 (In Eng.)

29. Sabel C.F. Beyond principal-agent governance: experimentalist organizations, learning and accountability. In: De staat van de democratie. Democratie voorbij de staat. Amsterdam University Press, 2004. P. 173–195. URL: https://books.google.ru/books?id=4ptXMcOmrkAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=ru#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed: 21.12.2024) (In Eng.)