The Discursive Construction of Innovation Policy in Peripheralising Estonia

Schulz, Sebastian

dc.contributor.author	Schulz, Sebastian	en
dc.date.accessioned	2018-04-03T08:55:15Z
dc.date.available	2018-04-03T08:55:15Z
dc.date.issued	2018-02-06	en
dc.identifier.issn	1231-1952	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/11089/24307
dc.description.abstract	An innovation-driven agenda in regional development policy has emerged in the European Union against the backdrop of peripheralisation, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Using a discursive analytical framework, the article investigates the ways in which peripheralisation is manifested through language, practices and power-rationalities in Estonian innovation policy discourse. The analysis is footed on key strategic policy documents and semi-structured expert interviews. Findings suggest that Estonian innovation policy’s main narrative of the ‘knowledge-based economy’ accepts growing disparities on sub-national level in order to overcome peripherality at European scale and narrows the range of policy solutions perceived as suitable.	en
dc.publisher	Lodz Univeristy Press	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	European Spatial Research and Policy;2	en
dc.rights	This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.	en
dc.rights.uri	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0	en
dc.subject	discourse	en
dc.subject	innovation policy	en
dc.subject	Estonia	en
dc.subject	peripheralisation	en
dc.title	The Discursive Construction of Innovation Policy in Peripheralising Estonia	en
dc.page.number	77-91	en
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation	Public Economics and Policy, School of Economics and Business Administration, University of Tartu, Juhan Liivi 4–214, 50409 Tartu, Estonia	en
dc.identifier.eissn	1896-1525
dc.references	APPLICA, ISMERI and WIIW (2006), ‘Ex Post Evaluation of Cohesion Policy Programmes 2000–2006’ financed by the European Regional Development Fund in Objective 1 and 2 Regions, Working package 1: Coordination, analysis and synthesis, Task 4: Development and achievements in Member States: Estonia, Applica, Ismeri Europa and wiiw Consortium.	en
dc.references	BACHTLER, J., YUILL, D. and DAVIES, S. (2005), ‘Regional policy and innovation’, EoRPA Paper, 5.	en
dc.references	BACHTLER, J. and McMASTER, I. (2007), ‘EU cohesion policy and the role of the regions: investigating the influence of structural funds in the new member states’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26 (2), pp. 398–427. doi: 10.1068/c0662 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000255731600007&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	BARCA, F. (2009), ‘An Agenda for a Reformed Cohesion Policy: A Place-Based Approach to Meeting European Union Challenges and Expectations’, [in:] HÜBNER D., Independent Report, Prepared at the Request of the European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Brussels, European Commission.	en
dc.references	BEETZ, S. (2008), ‘Peripherisierung als räumliche Organisation sozialer Ungleichheit’, [in:] BAR-LÖSIUS, E. and NEU, C. (eds.), Peripherisierung – eine neue Form sozialer Ungleichheit? Materialien Nr 21, Berlin: Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften.	en
dc.references	BOHLE, D. and GRESKOVITS, B. (2007), ‘Neoliberalism, embedded neoliberalism and neo-corporatism: Towards transnational capitalism in Central-Eastern Europe’, West European Politics, 30 (3), pp. 443–466. doi: 10.1080/01402380701276287	en
dc.references	BRENNER, N. (2009), ‘Open questions on state rescaling’, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2, pp. 123–139.	en
dc.references	BRISTOW, G. (2010), Critical reflections on regional competitiveness. Theory, policy, practice, New York: Routledge.	en
dc.references	CARTER, H. (2015), ‘Peripheralization through planning: The case of a golf resort proposal in Northern Ireland’, [in:] LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.), Understanding New Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave, pp. 98–111.	en
dc.references	DE BRUIJN, P. and LAGENDIJK, A. (2005), ‘Regional innovation systems in the Lisbon strategy’, European Planning Studies, 13 (8), pp. 1153–1172.	en
dc.references	EHRLICH, K., KRISZAN, A. and LANG, T. (2012), ‘Urban Development in Central and Eastern Europe – Between Peripheralization and Centralization?’, disP – The Planning Review, 48 (2), pp. 77–92.	en
dc.references	EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2007), Cohesion Policy – 2007–2013 – Commentaries and official texts. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.	en
dc.references	EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2015), European Structural and Investments Funds 2014–2020: Official texts and commentaries, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.	en
dc.references	EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2016), WP1 Synthesis report – Ex post evaluation of Cohesion Policy programmes 2007–2013, focusing on the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the Cohesion Fund (CF), Task 3 Country Report Estonia, September 2016.	en
dc.references	FISCHER, F. (2003), Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices, Oxford: Oxford University Press.	en
dc.references	FISCHER-TAHIR, A. and NAUMANN, M. (eds.) (2013), Peripheralization – The Making of Spatial Dependencies and Social Injustice, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.	en
dc.references	HADJIMICHALIS, C. (2011), ‘Uneven geographical development and socio-spatial justice and solidarity: Europeans regions after the 2009 financial crisis’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 254–274. doi: 10.1177/0969776411404873	en
dc.references	HAJER, M. A. (1995), The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process, Oxford: Clarendon Press.	en
dc.references	HANSEN, T. and WINTHER, L. (2011), ‘Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18 (3), pp. 321–339. doi: 10.1177/0969776411403990 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000293444000006&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	INZELT, A. (2006), ‘Country Profile: Estonia’, [in:] Private Sector Interaction in the Decision Making Processes of Public Research Policies. Study for the European Commission Research Directorate General Directorate M – Investment in Research and links with other policies Open coordination of research policies, Bad Camberg: Proneos.	en
dc.references	KATTEL, R. and PRIMI, A. (2010), ‘The periphery paradox in innovation policy: Latin America and Eastern Europe compared. Some reflections on why it is not enough to say that innovation matters for development’, Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics, 29.	en
dc.references	KÜHN, M. (2014), ‘Peripheralization: Theoretical concepts explaining socio-spatial inequalities’, European Planning Studies, 23 (2), pp. 367–378. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2013.862518 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000345838000008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	LANG, T., HENN, S., EHRLICH, K. and SGIBNEV, W. (eds.) (2015), Understanding new Geographies of Central and Eastern Europe. Socio-Spatial Polarization and Peripheralization in a Rapidly Changing Region, London: Palgrave.	en
dc.references	LEFEBVRE, H. (1991), The production of space, Oxford–Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.	en
dc.references	MINISTRY OF FINANCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2014), Partnership Agreement for the Use of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020, Tallinn.	en
dc.references	NIINIKOSKI, M. L. and KUHLMANN, S. (2015), ‘In discursive negotiation: Knowledge and the formation of Finnish innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 42, pp. 86–106.	en
dc.references	OECD (2016), OECD Regional Outlook 2016 – Productive Regions for Inclusive Societies. Country profile Estonia.	en
dc.references	REPUBLIC OF ESTONIA (2007), Estonian National Strategic Reference Framework 2007–2013, Tallinn.	en
dc.references	RICHARDSON, T. and JENSEN, O. B. (2003), ‘Linking discourse and space: towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses’, Urban Studies, 40 (1), pp. 7–22. doi: 10.1080/00420980220080131	en
dc.references	RUTTAS-KÜTTIM, R. and STAMENOV, B. (2016), RIO Country Report 2015: Estonia, Science for Policy Report by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission.	en
dc.references	SECRETARIAT OF THE ESTONIAN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL (2002), Estonian Research and Development Strategy ‘Knowledge-based Estonia 2002–2006’, Riigi Teataja, Part 1, No. 97, December 18, 2001, Tallinn.	en
dc.references	SUURNA, M. and KATTEL, R. (2010), ‘Europeanization of innovation policy in Central and Eastern Europe’, Science and Public Policy, 37 (9), pp. 646–664. doi: 10.3152/030234210X12778118264459 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000284720900001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	SWYNGEDOUW, E., MOULAERT, F. and RODRIGUEZ, A. (2002), ‘Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy’, Antipode, 34 (3), pp. 542–577. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00254	en
dc.references	VANOLO, A. (2010), ‘European Spatial Planning between Competitiveness and Territorial Cohesion: Shadows of Neo-liberalism’, European Planning Studies, 18 (8), pp. 1301–1315. ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000279964500008&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	VARRÓ, K. and FARAGÓ, L. (2016), ‘The Politics of Spatial Policy and Governance in Post-1990 Hungary: The Interplay between European and National Discourses of Space’, European Planning Studies, 24 (1), pp. 39–60. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1066760 ThomsonISI: http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000366192200003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3	en
dc.references	WEICHHART, P. (2008), ‘Neoliberalism meets Political Economy – Politikversagen, Entdemo-kratisierung und die vergebliche Hoffnung auf Governance in der Zweiten Moderne’, [in:] BRUCKMEIER, K. and SERBSER, J. (eds.), Ethik und Umweltpolitik – Humanökologische Positionen und Perspektiven,. München: Pekom, pp. 213–236.	en
dc.references	ŽENKA, J., NOVOTNÝ, J. and CSANK, P (2014), ‘Regional Competitiveness in Central European Countries. Search of a Useful Conceptual Framework’, European Planning Studies, 22 (1), pp. 163–184.	en
dc.contributor.authorEmail	sebastian.schulz@ut.ee	en
dc.identifier.doi	10.1515/esrp-2017-0010	en
dc.relation.volume	24

Files in this item

Name:: esrp-2017-0010.pdf
Size:: 335.7Kb
Format:: PDF

View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

European Spatial Research and Policy Volume 24 (2017) Issue 2 [10]

Show simple item record

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.