Models of neo-industrialization in northern territories: Competition or complementarity

Aim: To explore complementarity mechanisms between the spiral interaction model of innovation process actors (Triple/Quadruple Helix) and Smart Specialization Strategy (S3) in organizing the neo-industrialization of northern and Arctic territories, with a focus on foreign and Russian cases. Additionally, determine whether such complementarity may develop under certain conditions.
Methods. Four case studies were selected for a comparative analysis according to three criteria: evidence in academic publications or official sources, representation of both models in the case (a priority selection principle similar to S3 and a spiral interaction of actors), and variability in institutional conditions. Three international cases were analyzed based on published applied research and official reports from relevant organizations, while the Russian case was examined using regulatory legal acts and official sources.
Results. Consideration is given to the Robotdalen initiative (Sweden), the Arctic Smartness program (Lapland, Finland), the waste management project within the framework of the “fundamental economy” (Norway), and the formation of the innovative scientific and technological center Unity Park in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug—Yugra (Russia). In practice, juxtaposing the models as competitors is not supported. Smart specialization serves as a principle for selecting regional development priorities, while the spiral model describes the composition and nature of interactions among participants implementing these priorities. The Russian case study illustrates the development of this architecture during the initial institutional phase of a resource-producing Arctic region.
Conclusion. The models comprise a unified, two-tiered architecture for regional innovation policy. Smart specialization defines the substantive priorities, whereas the spiral model provides the institutional mechanism for their implementation. Complementarity among the models depends on the region’s ability to compensate for structural weaknesses among individual actors within the spiral.

1. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and «Mode 2» to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy. 2000;29(2):109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

2. Foray D. Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. London: Routledge; 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315773063

3. Yström A., Aspenberg H., Kumlin A. Smart specialization in regional innovation systems: a quadruple helix perspective. R&D Management. 2019;49(1):5–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12306

4. McCann P., Ortega-Argilés R. Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy. Regional Studies. 2015;49(8):1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769

5. Carayannis E.G., Grigoroudis E. Quadruple Innovation Helix and Smart Specialization: Knowledge Production and National Competitiveness. Foresight and STI Governance. 2016;10(1):31–42. https://doi.org/10.17323/1995-459x.2016.1.31.42

6. Teräs J., Salenius V., Fagerlund L., Stanionyte L. Smart Specialisation in Sparsely Populated European Arctic Regions. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union (JRC); 2018. https://doi.org/10.2760/960929