work package 4 learning process for reflective policy making 3rd technical and scientific committee...

Work Package 4 Learning Process for

Reflective Policy Making

3rd TECHNICAL AND SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE AND STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

18 Sept – Thessaloniki (Greece)

partner: Austria Wirtschaftsservice GmbH - AWS (PP9)presenter: Christina Windischplace: Thessaloniki (Greece) date: 18 September 2013

WORK PACKAGE 4.1

Learning inputs from past actions analysis

2partner: Austria Wirtschaftsservice GmbH - AWS (PP9)presenter: Christina Windischplace: Thessaloniki (Greece) date: 18 September 2013

Status Quo (WP4.1) - #1


Status Quo (WP4.1) - #2 Objective 3•Overall impact assessment dossier (1)

scientific group-> in process (report written and draft versions sent to

PPs 21 Jun’13 and 11 Jul’13 for feedback; only 1 PP provided feedback to date ; finalisation still needed!)

? final deadline for feedback (4 Oct’13) ?? report finalisation & publication ( -WHEN- ) ?


WP4.1 report - Major conclusions (1)


• The major finding from the analysis performed is the huge difference in the level of cluster policy development and operations of cluster organisations, which affects all 6 cluster development areas.

• Hence the biggest challenge for policy makers will be in the lowering of such differences and in the homogenisation of operating conditions for clusters, with focused actions adapted to their level of development.

• One the biggest opportunities lies in the knowledge transfer and the transfer of good practices from more to less developed regions /countries /cluster organisations.

• A potential solution to lower such disparities could also be also in the development of focused international cluster networks, with the aim of transferring accumulated knowledge, good practices and experiences on different levels (policy makers / cluster organisations / cluster members).



• In most cluster organisations there is a wider problem of financing and obtaining financial resources for further cluster development and operations. (The problem differs depending on the level of development of the cluster policy / country / prior cluster tradition.)

• One potential solution to this problem could be the more intensive involvement of financial institutions in the membership of cluster organisations (in all clusters analysed, there are only 3 financial institutions). (In this way, cluster members could get into closer contact with financing institutions, which would help them the to better present their companies and operations, and potentially receive credits for their operations.)



• Regarding cluster financing, there are very big differences concerning the share of public and private funds. An reccomendation to cluster organisations would be to adequately balance the structure between public and private financing, especially to those where public financing exceeds the threshold of 50%.

• From the responses is evident that countries (cluster organisations) where public financing sources exceed the proposed level, focus their lobbying mostly on “national” policy makers, whilst there are little possibilities. To overcome such financial constraints, certain clusters have also developed innovative solutions (e.g. Romania).

WP4.1 report - Limitations (1)


• The first major limitation of the study is the huge difference in the countries / regions regarding the level of development and operations of cluster policy, thus it is difficult to arrive at general conclusions.

• The second main limitation concerns the comparability of knowledge regarding the way in which the data collection was performed by different interviewers.

(It was almost impossible to verify this element, because certain countries / regions have very few clusters, with a short cluster policy history (e.g. Albania), while in other countries / regionds there is a rich cluster presence and history / “background”.)



• A further major limitation concerns the selection of “representative” clusters, proposed by the partners of a country / region, i.e. sampling. Project partners interviewed the clusters of their choice, but such clusters may not really be representative of the country / region. (They could be, but we do not know.)

• In some countries / regions, clusters have just started to be established and it can be expected that they will have to deal with totally different problems and challenges than clusters in developed countries / regions with longer cluster policy traditions.



• Another limitation could also be the respondent bias: certain partners when performing the interviews (for different reasons) interviewed cluster members instead of official representatives of the cluster organisation.

• This could be a very strong limitation, because in certain aspects the interests may vary between these two target groups.

(Unfortunately we do not know exactly which countries / clusters decided to approach the data collection and respondents selection in such a manner. Potentially, another questionnaire could be developed and targeted to cluster members, to verify the potential differences between official cluster organisation representatives and cluster members.)



Even with the limitations just presented, which we did for the purpose of „scientific truth“,we believe that that the present study represents

a solid analysis for setting further cluster policy strategies and initiatives.

*Thank you all for your contribution.*

WORK PACKAGE 4.2

New contribution from innovative info sources

gathered from workshops


WORK PACKAGE 4.3

Policy learning from current regional policies

framework


WORK PACKAGE 4.4

Learning / understanding from study visits and

benchmarking


Thank you for your attention.

Christina Windisch (Project Manager)

EU Affairs / Public Consulting

Phone: +43 (1) 501 75 – 336Fax: +43 (1) 501 75 – 494 [email protected]


work package 4 learning process for reflective policy making 3rd technical and scientific committee...

Documents