The current shift in focus is undoubtedly a multi-faceted affair though at root it is driven by economic forces. Economic globalisation and the current financial crisis will create new competitive patterns which will, ultimately, make the individual region an ever more important politico-economic entity. But what then are the necessary preconditions for a region to develop into a politically, administratively and economically successful entity?
This question has been raised in a recent Statistics and Research Åland/Nordregio study presented in the report Mot den tredje generationens regionpolitik – Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner ("Towards the third generation of regional policy – experiences from the Nordic autonomous and peripheral regions." English Summary included). The study was conducted on the basis of a comparative analysis of the three autonomous Nordic islands – Åland, The Faroes and Greenland – with the addition of one of the "regular" Nordic island regions – Bornholm. The results of these case studies were presented in four separate reports (Karlsson, 2007 a, b; 2008; van Well, 2008).
The aim was to explore the various emergent expressions of sub-national jurisdictional power and economic and innovative capacity in respect of these four island jurisdictions. The study is related to the so-called SNIJ (Sub-National Insular Jurisdiction) research by Baldacchino (2006); Baldacchino & Milne, (2000, 2008); Bertram & Poirine (2007). It is also relevant to the ongoing Nordic and European regional policy discourse - well known to the readers of Journal of Nordregio.
The project has resulted in a number of conclusions being made in respect of the effects of various degrees of political autonomy on economic and innovative capacity. One major lesson here is that regional responsibility requires not only formal room for manoeuvre, but also a distinct and competent regional leadership. Too many actors with shared (overlapping) regional policy responsibilities tend to reduce the inherent economic possibilities reflected in this political space which we term "room for manoeuvre".
This does not necessary mean that the regional institutions should be given sole responsibility for regional policy. What is important, though, is that policy responsibility - shared or sole – should be clearly distinguishable.
Another important finding is that the contextual economic characteristics and preconditions of the regions should have a profound bearing on the distribution of political responsibility and regional leadership. The policy instruments must be adapted to the economic capacity of the individual region. Regions with strong economic and innovative capacity need more sophisticated policy tools and a wider political room for manoeuvre than economically weaker regions.
Thus, one size does not fit all. This is not to say that the significant actors of stronger economic regions are per se more competent than those of weaker regions, but that a good match between economic capacity and political responsibility tends to foster further development.
A third lesson concerns the very characteristics of economically successful regions. The existence of a strong economic "core competency" that grants the individual region comparative and competitive advantages in international markets, is a critical component of economic and innovative capacity. Such a core competency is a driver of innovation and a resourceful element of successful economic diversification.
It is based on an accumulated, regionally-diffused but to a certain extent 'tacit' knowledge. It is identity-related, socioeconomically prestigious and can only be fully understood in its specific regional setting. Without a strong core competency it is difficult, if not impossible, to fully utilise the inherent economic possibilities of increased political autonomy at the regional level.
By Agneta Karlsson, Director of AICIS (Åland International Institute of Comparative Island Studies)
and Bjarne Lindström, Director (Statistics and Research Åland)
References
Baldacchino, G (2006): Innovative Development Strategies from Non-Sovereign Island Jurisdictions? A Global Review of Economic Policy and Governance Practices. World Development Vol.34., No 5: 852-867.
Baldacchino, G & Milne, D (eds) (2000): Lessons from the Political Economy of Small Islands. London: Macmillan.
Baldacchino, G & Milne, D (eds) (2008): The Case for Non-Sovereignty. Lessons from Sub-National Island Jurisdictions. London and New York: Routledge.
Bertram, G & Poirine, B (2007): Political Economy. In Baldacchino, G (ed): A World of Islands. Prince Edward Island: Prince Edward Island University.
Karlsson, A (2007 a): Det åländska sjöklustret. En studie i den ekonomiska tillväxtens entreprenöriella och institutionella förutsättningar. Mariehamn: ÅSUB R 2007:2.
Karlsson, A (2007 b): Färöarna: En studie av institutionellt handlingsutrymme, ekonomisk utveckling och ekonomiskt-politiskt lärande. Mariehamn: ÅSUB R 2007:9.
Karlsson, A (2008): Grönland – en studie i dynamisk självstyrelse. Mariehamn: ÅSUB R 2008:9.
Karlsson, A & Lindström, B & van Well, L (2009): Mot den tredje generationens regionpolitik - Lärdomar från Nordens autonomier och perifera ö-regioner. Mariehamn/Stockholm: ÅSUB R 2009:2. Nordregio Report 2009: 1.
van Well, L (2008): Bornholm. Economic and Innovative Capacity: Dealing with Dichotomies. Mariehamn: ÅSUB R 2008:5.