Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by VGTU Press. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. The material cannot be used for commercial purposes. Smart Specialization Strategy and itS operationalization in the regional policy: caSe Finland Jari KaiVo-oJa1, Saku VÄhÄSantanen2, ari Karppinen3, teemu haUKioJa4 1Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku 2Regional Council of Satakunta, Pori, Finland 3School of Management, University of Tampere, FI-33014 Tampereen yliopisto, Tampere, Finland 4Pori Unit, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku, P.o. Box 170 (Pohjoisranta 11A), FI-28101 Pori, Finland E-mails: 1jari.kaivo-oja@utu.fi (corresponding author); 2saku.vahasantanen@satakunta.fi; 3ari.karppinen@uta.fi; 4teemu.haukioja@utu.fi Received 6 February 2017; accepted 7 May 2017 abstract. In the European Union, smart specialization is an important concept in regional policy. Its primary aim is to achieve inclusive and sustainable economic growth. There is a lack of convenient region specific measures to operationalize smart specialization startegies (S3). The purpose of the paper is to find “indices of smart specialization” on a regional level. We propose indices that are based on (1) the rate of industrial diversification, (2) revealed comparative advantage and (3) regions’ overall relative specialization. In the empirical part, we analyze smart specialization in Finland using structural data provided by Statistics Finland for seventy sub-regions (LAU1) and 24 sub-industries in manufacturing. These industries are the most important for exports, productivity, and regional economic performance for a small country. The following indices are used in empirical evaluations: Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) for regional diversity, Balassa- Hoover Index (BHI) for revealed comparative advantage, and Region’s Relative Specialization Index (RRSI) for aggregate regional specialization differences. The concept of smart specialization is related to these measures. Index analyses reveal that many growing sub-regions have similar comparative advantages. This means inter-regional synergy, and it enables opportunities for strategic cooperation be- tween regions. To develop smart specialization strategies for Europe’s regions, we need these kinds of empirical knowledge-based management tools and planning approaches. Keywords: smart specialization, Finland, manufacturing, sub-industry, LAU1, Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI), Balassa-Hoover index (BHI), revealed com- parative advantage, Region’s relative specialization index (RRSI). Jel Classification: B41, C18, C43, D20, D78, F14, F43, F63, H70, I23, I25, I52, L60, L78, N80, O12, O32, O33, R10, R11, R12, R58, Z18. B u s i n e s s, Ma n ag e M e n t a n d e d u c at i o n ISSN 2029-7491 / eISSN 2029-6169 2017, 15(1): 28–41 doi:10.3846/bme.2017.362 mailto:jari.kaivo-oja@utu.fi mailto:saku.vahasantanen@satakunta.fi mailto:ari.karppinen@uta.fi mailto:teemu.haukioja@utu.fi https://doi.org/10.3846/bme.2017.362 29 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 1. Introduction The European Union has a cohesion policy which underlines integrated and place- based economic convergence. The general dimensions of National/Regional Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (S3 strategies) are policy support and investments, spatial strengths, competitive advantage and excellence, innovation activi- ties, stakeholders’ participation, and experiments and evidence-based policy (European Commission 2014: 1). We focus here on the evidence-based strategy tools for RIS3. We shall demonstrate the use of some regional planning and management tools, which are suitable for smart specialization (S3) analysis and management. We expect these methods are useful in the regional policy processes of the European Union. The EU regions are facing many challenges of the global economy and global political land- scape. The spatial context of our analysis is Finland and its sub-regions (LAU1). Earlier, Karppinen and Vähäsantanen (2015) have studied the resilience of Finnish sub-regions by focusing on manufacturing industries. This means that our analysis can be applied in all the LAU1-level sub-regions in the European Union. There is large and growing literature on the issue of smart specialization (Capello 2014; McCann, Ortega-Argilés 2015; Foray 2015; Gianelle et al. 2016). In addition to the EU, also the OECD has paid attention to this issue in its report (OECD 2013). In broader international perspective, smart specialization has been seen a policy relevant topic. Our framework is closely linked to the mainstream thinking of economics. We em- phasize the identification of potential domains of specialization that might be beneficial for the country given its productive assets (Foray 2011). We focus on the industries, the most important element of Quartet Helix, when analysing smart specialization strategy in the regional context. Other key elements of the helix are the academia, the govern- ment, and civil society with citizens (see e.g. Foray et al. 2009; Foray 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015; Santonen et al. 2014; Virkkala et al. 2014; S3 Platform 2015; Johnson 2015; Mc- Cann, Ortega-Argilés 2015). The principle of comparative advantage1 and the structure of spatial economic activity have been key topics in the field of regional economics. Our aim is to link these two important approaches to the discussion on smart speciali- zation strategy. This critical aspect of smart specialization has been lacking in many scientific articles, which have analysed and elaborated smart specialization strategy in the European Union (see e.g. Jucevicius, Galbuogiene 2014; Sipilova 2015; Gule 2015; Paliokaite et al. 2015; Paliokaite et al. 2016; Gheorghiu et al. 2016). We shall provide a new empirical tool package for the analysis of smart specialization strategy in the European Union. Measurement of these economic issues is important for the smart specialization strategy in EU-countries and EU-regions (Gianelle et al. 2016). 1 Comparative advantage is a traditional concept in the field of international trade. We apply the hypothesis of re- vealed comparative advantage, which is parallel to competitive advantage in a regional context (see e.g. Thissen et al. 2013: 34–35). 30 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland Political decision-makers in European Union are today very interested in key suc- cess factors like economic growth, jobs, and investments (see European Commission 2017). These economic success factors are always linked to regional economies in the European Union. The idea of smart specialization can be considered a strategic plan- ning policy instrument. Our motivation is to show how regions in the European Union can analyse the actual contents of smart specialization policy in their local activities. In the practice of regional economic policy, we can improve economic productivity and export success through smart specialization. We argue that smart specialization strategy must be based on the knowledge of basic realities of regional economy and place-based industrial activity/structure. 2. theoretical framework In scientific literature, the concepts of innovation, competitive advantage, and spatial development are closely interconnected (Borsekova et al. 2016). These concepts have various common features and are the subject of many debates among practioners and academics. This article focuses on competitive advantage and spatial development, but we understand that all kinds of innovation activities are shaping local economies and industries. Current industrial structures and regional competitive advantages are outputs of innovation activities (Fig. 1). The smart specialization strategy depends on the three key elements described below. If (1) there is not much innovation and R&D activity, if (2) there are not much competi- tive advantages in local economies, and if (3) spatial development is not effective and economy is not delivering economic growth, welfare, and happiness, the development process is not fully based on smart specialization strategy. Our empirical analysis is focused directly on the measurement of competitive advantage and spatial development. Innovation activities are driving forces for spatial economic growth, but in this article we are focusing on realized competitiveness. The elements of (1) creative destruction and entrepreneurial discovery (see e.g. Ma- liranta 2005) and (2) flexible serendipity management can play regenerative roles in spatial development (see e.g. Kakko et al. 2016; Roth et al. 2017; Gheorghiu et al. 2016). These aspects do not eliminate the role of strategic planning in the context of spatial development. Fig. 1. Interconnections among innovation, competitive advantage, and spatial development (Borsekova et al. 2016). 31 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 In next sections, we define our empirical analysis tools for the smart specialization strategy. Smart specialization of the EU regions does not happen in a vacuum. Globali- zation, hypercompetition, and rapid technological changes reshape the conditions of regions and local economies continuously (see Fig. 2 above). Mindsets of local stake- holders play an important role in the formulation of smart specialization strategies (see Lahari, Perez-Nordtvedt 2008; Virkkala et al. 2014). Based on Fig. 2 we can understand that it is important that the mindsets of stake- holders (global mindset, virtual mindset, innovation mindset, and collaboration mindset) correlate with the realities of globalization, hypercompetition, and rapid technological change. Our empirical approach directly supports regional and local reality checks in this respect. 3. Index framework of the study All the following indices are based on Karppinen and Vähäsantanen (2015). Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) We apply the Herfindahl-Hirchman Index (HHI) to the Finnish sub-region data. Our data includes 71 sub-regions and 24 industrial sectors. The Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) is a commonly accepted measure of market concentration. We are not analyzing market shares but the industry shares of sub-regions. The HHI formula is the following: 2 1=   =   ∑ n i s si x HHI x      (1) where xi is the number of employed people in industrial sector (i) and x is total number of people employed in all industrial sectors in region (s) and n is number of industrial sectors (n). HHI-index is calculated as the sum of squared industry shares for each sub-region. In other words, it measures the diversification of industry structure of a Fig. 2. Framework showing relationships between competitive challenges, mindsets, and smart spe- cialization challenges (modified, see Lahari, Perez-Nordtvedt 2008: 313). 32 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland sub-region. HHI takes values between [0,1]. The smaller the value, the more diversified region, and vice versa. Balassa-Hoover Index (BHI) The key index in this study is the Balassa-Hoover Index (BHI). The formula of BHI is the following: BHIsi = si i s x X x X (2) where xsi is the number of employed people in region s and in industry i, (Xsi/Xi) is corresponding share for all sub-regions. If BHIsi ≥ 1, there is revealed comparative advantage in relation to all regions. We use BHI with industrial labor data of Statistics Finland (2017). Region’s Relative Specialization Index (RRSI) We use RRSI as a measure of comparative specialization of sub-regions. RRSI can be calculated in the following way: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )2 2 21 21 1 1= − + − + … + −i i insRRSI BHI BHI BHI                    (3) The higher the RRS index is the more specialized the structure of manufacturing in- dustry is in the region. If the structure of a region is homogenous, the RRSI obtains value zero. If the RRSI ≠ 0, the industrial structure of a region differs from the country’s aver- age. The higher the RRSI value, the more a region is different from the whole country. 4. Empirical demonstrations: case Finland In this section, we present some empirical results based on smart specialization tools presented above. We focus on key results in the case of Finland. First, we figure out the HHI index for sub-regions in Finland (Fig. 3). This indicator is important for resilience analysis. Small HHI value means stronger resilience potential and higher index numbers mean weaker resilience. The HHI is an indicator of industrial diversity. From the Figure 3, we can observe that in 2014 the seven most diversified sub- regions in Finland were Kuopio, Turku, Lahti, Helsinki, Tampere, Hämeenlinna and Pori. Except in Helsinki and Tampere, they all have been growth-led sub-regions in the recent recession. The GDP rate of growth in Finland was 2.07% in 2011–2014. Corresponding figures for the sub-regions are: 4.94% in Turku, 4.19% in Hämeenlinna, 3.81% in Jyväskylä, 3.80% in Kuopio, 3.63% in Pori, and 2.27% in Lahti. The rates of GDP growth in Helsinki (1.97%) and in Tampere (1.86%) were slightly less than the average (Statistics Finland 2017). Since the late 2000s Oulu region has been one of the growth centers in Finland due to Nokia and the rapid growth of the ICT-sector. During 2011–2014, its rate of growth (0.53%) deviated 70% from the country average. 33 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 The HHI-index tells that the region is the least diversified among the group of large sub-regions. On the the hand, Salo sub-region was hit by the worst negative rate of growth, –9.04% in 2011–2014. Other sub-regions with negative rates of growth were Porvoo (–7.05%), Loviisa (–5.46%), Ålands Skärgård (–5.25%), Etelä-Pirkanmaa (–4.64%), Sy- dösterbotten (–0.86%), Raahe (–0.68%), Kouvola (–0.66%), and Äänekoski (–0.26%). From the Figure 3 we can observe that except in Kouvola and Salo, these sub-regions have relatively large values for the HHI, i.e. their industrial structures are less diversi- fied than in average. 0,867 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450 0.500 Kuopio Turku Lah� Helsinki Tampere Hämeelinna Pori Jakobstad Joensuu Lounais-Pirkanmaa Kotka-Hamina Keski-Karjala Mikkeli Kokkola Suupohja Lappeenranta Ylä-Savo Mariehamns stad Luoteis-Pirkanmaa Riihimäki Jyväskylä Pohjois-Satakunta Raasepori Ylivieska Kajaani Kouvola Pielisen Karjala Joutsa Rauma Rovaniemi Pohjois-Lappi Kyrönmaa Pieksämäki Salo Vakka-Suomi Savonlinna Itä-Lappi Seinäjoki Etelä-Pirkanmaa Ylä-Pirkanmaa Porvoo Forssa Saarijärvi-Viitasaari Torniojokilaakso Oulu Äänekoski Kehys-Kainuu Sisä-Savo Haapavesi-Siikalatva Varkaus Järviseutu Kaus�nen Kuusiokunnat Vaasa Tunturi-Lappi Loviisa Nivala-Haapajärvi Sydösterbo�en Keuruu Jämsä Koillis-Savo Kemi-Tornio Loimaa Oulunkaari Ålands landsbygd Imatra Koillismaa Åboland-Turunmaa Raahe Ålands skärgård Fig. 3. Herfindahl-Hirschman Index of sub-regions (LAU1) based on the analysis of 24 industrial sectors in Finland, 2014. 34 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland Next, we present Balassa-Hoover Index for industrial production (24 manufacturing sectors) in eight urban regions (Fig. 4). With the exception of Oulu, these regions have more diversified industrial structure than in average (see Fig. 3). In Figure 4, if the BHI values for industries exceed eight then comparative advantage is revealed. 13 such manufacturing industries can be found. As we can see, the BHI values are not evenly distributed among the regions. We can interpret to mean that when the value of BHI > 8, the industries as aggregate reveal comparative advantage, but not necessarily in a specific region. To get this information, we need to inspect Figure 5, where cases for BHI > 1 are exposed. Few observations can be made. First, no industry exsits as a source of revealed comparative advantage in all eight re- gions. Second, three industrial sectors (“Machinery and equipment repair, maintenance and installation”, “Manufacturing of furniture”, and “Manufacturing of chemicals and chemical products”) give impetus to revealed comparative advantage in five regions. This result can be interpreted in terms of smart specialization. One one hand, these five Fig. 4. Balassa-Hoover Index (BHI) of industrial production (24 manufacturing sectors) in some ur- ban sub-regions in Finland, 2014. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 10 Manufacturing of food products 11 Manufac ring of beverages 12 Manufactoring of of tobacco products 13 Manufacturing of tex les 14 Manufactoring of clothes 15 Leather and leather products manufacturing 16 Manufacturing of wood and cork products (except… 17 Manufacturing of paper and paper products 18 Prin ng and reproduc on of recorded media 19 Manufacturing of coke and refined petroleum… 20 Manufacturing of chemicals and chemical products 21 Manufacturing of basic pharmaceu cal products and… 22 Rubber and plas c products 23 Manufacturing of other non-metallic mineral products 24 Metal processing 25 Fabricated metal products (excl. machinery and… 26 Computer, electronic and op cal products 27 Manufacturing of electrical equipment 28 Manufacturing of other machinery and equipment 29 Manufacturing of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-… 30 Manufacturing of other transport equipment 31 Manufacturing of furniture 32 Other produc on 33 Machinery and equipment repair, maintenance and… Helsinki Tampere Turku Oulu Jyväskylä Kuopio Pori Rovaniemi 35 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 regions have been successful in competition as compared to the whole country. On the other hand, these five regions have an opportunity to exploit inter-regional synergies. That is, Helsinki, Turku, Oulu, Kuopio and Pori could try to seek strategic alliances to cooperate in activities where synergies can be found; in manufacturing of chemicals and chemical products, for example. Figures 7–9 describe corresponding interregional synergy potentials for all 70 LAU1 regions, and some manufacturing industries. Third, as we combine the results of Figure 3 and 5, it can be found that less diversi- fied sub-regions Oulu and Rovaniemi (relatively high HHI values) have less revealed comparative advantage in industries. Further, there are some dominating industries in their regional economy: “Computer, electronic and optical products” in Oulu (BHI = 5.2), “Manufacturing of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers” (BHI = 13.7), and unspecified “Other production” in Rovaniemi (BHI = 10.5). Correspondingly, in Hel- sinki sub-region there are nine manufacturing industries, which belong to revealed comparative advantage sectors, and the range of the BHI value is from 1.1 to 2.5. This kind of information is highly valuable for smart specialization discussions in Finland. Similar smart specialization analysis can be applied to all European subregions and urban centres. Fig. 5. Revealed comparative advantage (BHI > 1) in industrial sectors for some key Finnish urban sub-regions 2014 (BHI values inside columns) 1.1 2.5 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.9 2.4 1.7 1.3 3.4 2.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.9 1.6 6.1 1.2 1.5 3.9 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.1 2.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.4 5.2 1.3 1.1 3,7 1.8 2.9 1.8 2.0 1.2 1.1 1.5 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.2 2.0 1.0 4.5 1.2 2.4 1.7 1.1 1,1 13.7 1.2 10.5 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 10 Manufacturing of food products 11 Manufac�ring of beverages 13 Manufacturing of tex�les 14 Manufacturing of clothes 15 Leather and leather products manufacturing 16 Manufacturing of wood and cork products (except… 17 Manufacturing of paper and paper products 18 Prin�ng and reproduc�on of recorded media 19 Manufacturing of coke and refined petroleum… 20 Manufacturing of chemicals and chemical products 21 Manufacturing of basic pharmaceu�cal products and… 22 Rubber and plas�c products 23 Manufacturing of other non-metallic mineral products 24 Metal processing 25 Fabricated metal products (excl. machinery and… 26 Computer, electronic and op�cal products 27 Manufacturing of electrical equipment 28 Manufacturing of other machinery and equipment 29 Manufacturing of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-… 30 Manufacturing of other transport equipment 31 Manufacturing of furniture 32 Other produc�on 33 Machinery and equipment repair, maintenance and… Helsinki Tampere Turku Jyväskylä Oulu Kuopio Pori Rovaniemi 36 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland In Figures 6a and 6b, we figure out the key findings of the Region’s Relative Spe- cilization Index (RRSI) for Finnish sub-regions. The higher the RRS index the more specialized the structure of manufacturing industry is in a region as compared to the whole country (see Equation 3). The BHI index can be used to industry specific analyses. Instead, the RRS index can be used to measure the specialization intensity of the whole regional economy. The RSS index can also be used to measure the aggregate deviation of specialization from coun- try’s avarerage. RSS index analyses can reveal useful information for regional smart specialization strategies. The HHI analysis reflects the risk potential that is embedded in region’s economic structure, if it confronts the exogenous economic shocks. Instead, the RRSI analysis reflects regions’ risk for exogenous (national or supranational) industrial or regional policy. Therefore, smart specialization policy should be region specific. All Finnish regions are covered in the RRSI analysis in Figures 6a and 6b. Fig. 6a. RRS Index, 35 sub-regions in Finland, the index number refers to the most specialized sub-region, rankings 1–35, 2014. 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0 Åboland-Turunmaa Koillis-Savon Porvoo Ylivieska Kaus�nen Sydösterbo�en Rovaniemi Raahe Jämsä Vakka-Suomi Kyrönmaa Kajaani Kemi-Tornio Lounais-Pirkanmaa Mikkeli Tunturi-Lappi Imatra Ålands landsbygd Ålands skärgård Koillismaa Torniolaakso Oulunkaari Ylä-Savo Itä-Lappi Loviisa Pohjois-Lappi Suupohja Pohjois-Satakunta Mariehamn Luoteis-Pirkanmaa Kehys-Kainuu Kuusiokunnat Kokkola Turku Ylä-Pirkanmaa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ...225,7 37 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 The Top 10 sub-regions – Jyväskylä, Helsinki. Riihimäki, Tampere, Rauma, Joensuu, Varkaus, Salo, Kuopio and Loimaa – are similar with the whole country’s industrial structure. Turku region is the second in diversification as measured by the HHI, but its RRS index is 34th in the ranking reflecting that its deviation from country’s average is notable. This can be explained by relatively large manufacturing of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical items in Turku region. Figures 7, 8, and 9 demonstrate the power of our tool package in the context of smart specialization potential. Smart specialization potential is calculated for all 24 industrial sectors. Top 10 subregions are reported in three industries as an example: (1) Manufacturing of food products, (2) Manufacturing of paper and paper products, and (3) Metal processing. 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Keuruu Haapavesi-Siikalatva Järviseutu Pielisen Karjala Seinäjoki Nivala-Haapajärvi Vaasa Savonlinna Lah� Jakobstads Keski-Karjala Raasepori Sisä-Savo Joutsa Saarijärvi-Viitasaari Äänekoski Kotka-Hamina Kouvola Oulu Etelä-Pirkanmaa Pieksämäki Forssa Hämeenlinna Pori Lappeenranta Loimaa Kuopio Salo Varkaus Joensuu Rauman Tampere Riihimäki Helsinki Jyväskylä 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Fig. 6b. RRS Index, 35 sub-regions in Finland, the index number refers to the most specialized sub-region, rankings 36–70, 2014. 38 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland Figure 7 reports the smart specialization potential (measured by Balassa-Hoover Index; revealed comparative advantage) of top 10 sub-regions in the sector “Manufac- turing of food products”. These sub-regions may have potential opportunities to exploit horizontal inter-region synergies. Fig. 7. Manufacturing of food products, smart specialization potential (measured by Balassa-Hoover index) of top 10 subregions in Finland, 2014. Fig. 8. Manufacturing of paper and paper products, smart specialization potential (measured by Balassa-Hoover index) of top 10 sub-regions in Finland, 2014 Fig. 9. Metal processing, smart specialization potential (measured by Balassa-Hoover index) of top 10 sub-regions in Finland, 2014 To sum up, for Ålands skärgård, Ålands landsbygd and Sisä-Savo it might be worth- while to seek possible strategic alliances to exploit the probable benefits of inter-region- al horizontal co-operation in Food Production industry (Fig. 7). For Imatra, Jämsä and Kouvola the same holds in Manufacturing of Paper and paper products, and for Raahe, Kemi and Tunturi-Lappi in Metal processing. 39 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 5. Conclusions In this study we have discussed the smart specialization strategy and its numerical assis- tance. Empirical analyses are focused on 70 LAU1 regions and 24 manufacturing sector industries (2-digit level) in Finland. Our aim is to demonstrate the power of well-known economic analysis tools in the context of smart specialization strategy (S3). Smart spe- cialization strategy is a regional policy agenda aimed at increasing a country’s com- petitiveness via exploiting intra-region efficiencies and inter-regional synergies. Many of these concepts are well-known for regional practioners, but numerical evaluations of smart specialization are almost absent. We suggest that in the EU it is beneficial to ana- lyze comparative advantages of regions and sub-regions in the context and formulation of smart specialization strategies. Further, empirical index based analyses could help regional and national decision-makers to identify key economic structures and potentials of smart specialization by multifaceted indicator analyses. We illustrated the power of three key indicators, HHI, BHI, and RRS indices. Al- ready these demonstrations show us that they provide useful information for strategic analyses of smart specialization. Revealed comparative advantage index is a useful tool. Attention needs to be paid also to resilience and diversification of industrial activity in the EU regions and sub-regions. Our analyses reveal the potential benefits of these economic index analyses. There is need to integrate science, technology, and innovation (STI) indicators to regional competitiveness and other economic analyses. Revealed comparative advantages of sub-regions can be interpreted as outcomes of long-run innovation activities. In future research, this critical link between STI activities with comparative advantages and resilience levels requires further scientific analyses. Acknowledgements We want to thank the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment (Finland) for financial support of previous project “The competitiveness and resilience of regions”. We are responsible for all the opinions and all the analyses. References Borsekova, K.; Vanova, A.; Vitalisova, K. 2016. Smart specialization for smart spatial development: innovative strategies for building comparative advantages in tourism in Slovakia. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences (in press), 1–12. Capello, R. 2014. Smart specialisation strategy and the new EU Cohesion policy reform: introductory remarks, Scienze Regionali 13(1): 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3280/SCRE2014–001001 European Commission. 2014. National/regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). Cohesion policy 2014–2020 [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Available from Internet: http://ec.europa. eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf European Commission. 2017. Priority. Jobs, growth and investment. Stimulating investment for the purpose of job creation [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/ priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment_en https://doi.org/10.3280/SCRE2014-001001 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/smart_specialisation_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment_en https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment_en 40 J. Kaivo-oja et al. Smart specialization strategy and its operationalization in the regional policy: case Finland Foray, D.; David P.; Hall, B. 2009. Smart specialisation – the concept, in Knowledge Economists Policy Brief Nr. 9 [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Available from Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/invest- in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf?11111 Foray, D. 2011. Smart specialisation: from academic idea to political instrument, the surprising destiny of a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation, in Paper presented at the European Integration Process in the New Regional and Global Settings Conference, 19–20 October 2011, War- saw, Poland. Foray, D. 2012. Economic fundamentals of smart specialisation, Economies 83(2): 55–78. Foray, D. 2014. From smart specialisation to smart specialisation policy, European Journal of Innova- tion Management 17(4): 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09–2014–0096 Foray, D. 2015. Smart specialization. Opportunities and challenges for regional innovation policy. London: Routledge. Gheorghiu, R.; Andreescu, L.; Curaj, A. 2016. A foresight toolkit for smart specialization and entre- preneurial discovery, Futures 80: 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.04.001 Gianelle, C.; Kiriakou, D.; Cohen, C; Przeor, M. 2016. Implementing smart specialisation strategies: a handbook. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate B. Growth & Innovation Smart Specialisation Platform. Joint Research Centre. Seville, Spain. Gule, A. 2015. Analysis of methodological approach to identify smart specialization on the example of Po- land, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 213: 817–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.483 Johnson, J. 2015. Smart specialisation in Ostrobotnia. What, why, how and so what? [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Österbottens Förbund. Available from Internet: www.obotnia.fi/assets/1/Regionalut- vecklingsenheten/smart-spec/Tema-discussion-smartspecialization-25–5-2015.pdf Jucevicius, R.; Galbuogiene, A. 2014. Smart specialization: towards the potential application of the concept for the local development, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 156: 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.136 Kakko, I.; Kaivo-oja, J.; Mikkelä, K. 2016. How to support and develop the innovation-oriented entrepreneurship in turbulent VUCA-conditions?, in “Innovation for Development” 2016 Tangerang Salatan Global Innovation Forum, 20th–23th September 2016, PUSPITEK, Tangerang Selaton City, Banten Province, Indonesia [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. GIF Tangeran Salantan, 119–134. Available from Internet: http://www.slideshare.net/ilkkakakko/how-to-support-and-develop-the-innovationorient- ed-entrepreneurship-in-turbulent-vuca-conditions Karppinen, A.; Vähäsantanen, S. 2015. Suomen seutukuntien taloudellinen kilpailukyky ja resilienssi (in Finnish only: Economic Competitiveness and Resilience of Finnish sub-regions). University of Turku, Turku School of Economics. Pori Unit, Series A49/2015. Pori. Lahari, S.; Perez-Nordtvedt, R. R. W. 2008. Will the new competitive landscape cause your firm’s decline? It depends on your mindset, Business Horizons 51: 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.004 Maliranta, M. 2005. R&D, international trade and creative destruction – empirical findings from finn- ish manufacturing industries, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 5(1): 27–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842–005–0989–0 McCann, P.; Ortega-Argilés, R. 2015. Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union cohesion policy, Regional Studies 49(8): 1291–1302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769 OECD. 2013. Innovation-driven growth: the role of smart specialisation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Paliokaite, A.; Martinaitis, Z.; Reimeris, R. 2015. Foresight methods for smart specialization strategy development in Lithuania, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 101: 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008 http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf?11111 http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf?11111 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-09-2014-0096 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.04.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.483 http://www.obotnia.fi/assets/1/Regionalutvecklingsenheten/smart-spec/Tema-discussion-smartspecialization-25-5-2015.pdf http://www.obotnia.fi/assets/1/Regionalutvecklingsenheten/smart-spec/Tema-discussion-smartspecialization-25-5-2015.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.136 http://www.slideshare.net/ilkkakakko/how-to-support-and-develop-the-innovationoriented-entrepreneurship-in-turbulent-vuca-conditions http://www.slideshare.net/ilkkakakko/how-to-support-and-develop-the-innovationoriented-entrepreneurship-in-turbulent-vuca-conditions https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2008.02.004 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10842-005-0989-0 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.799769 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.04.008 41 Business, Management and Education, 2017, 15(1): 28–41 Paliokaite, A.; Martinaitis, Z.; Sarpong, D. 2016. Implementing smart specialization roadmaps in Lithuania: lost in translation?, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 110: 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.005 Roth, S.; Melkonyan, A.; Kaivo-oja, J.; Manke, B.; Dana, L-P. 2017. Interfunctional business models. Map grid for an uncharted quadrant of the Blue Ocean, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, forthcoming [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Available from Internet: https://ssrn.com/ab- stract=2896832 Santonen, T.; Kaivo-oja, J.; Suomala, J. 2014. The next steps in developing the triple helix model: a brief introduction to national open innovation system (NOIS) paradigm, Journal of Systemics, Cyber- netics, and Informatics (JSCI) 12(7): 74–82. S3 Platform. 2015. What is smart specialisation? [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Available from Inter- net: http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home Sipilova, V. 2015. When regional growth does not benefit from high-tech specialization? Explaining the experience of Latvian regions?, Procedia Economics and Finance 30: 863–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212–5671(15)01336–2 Statistics Finland. 2017. Regional account statistics 2000–2015 [online], [cited 21 March 2017]. Avail- able from Internet: http://pxnet2.stat.fi/PXWeb/pxweb/en/StatFin/StatFin__kan__altp/?tablelist=true#_ ga=1.169395877.502038858.1487697945 Thissen, M.; van Oort, F.; Diodata, D.; Ruijs, A. 2013. Regional competitiveness and specialization in Europe: place-based development in international networks (new horizons in regional science). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782545163 Virkkala, S.; Mäenpää, A.; Mariussen, Å. (Eds.). 2014. The Ostrobothnian model of smart specialisa- tion [online], [cited 07 June 2017]. Proceedings of the University of Vaasa, Reports 196. Available from Internet: http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978–952–476–577–0.pdf Jari KaiVo-oJa, PhD, Research director, Adjunct professor, Finland Futures Research Centre, Turku School of Economics, University of Turku. His scientific interests are regional and national foresight systems, corporate and technology foresight, futures studies, innovation management, global foresight and international futures research. He has worked for the European Commission in the FP6, in the FP7 and in the Horizon 2020. He has worked in projects with the European Foundation, the Eurostat, the Nordic Innovation Centre and the European Parliament. Research director Jari Kaivo-oja has published more than 150 articles in academic journals and books. teemu haUKioJa, PhD, Assistant Professor in University of Turku, Turku School of Economics, Pori Unit. His scientific interests are economic growth, and sustainable development. He is the author and co-author of several scientific papers and book chapters that have been published in refereed journals and books. He holds a PhD in Economics from Turku School of Economics. ari Karppinen, M.Sc. Econ., University instructor, University of Tampere, Faculty of Manage- ment. His scientific interests are in the fields of regional economics and development and multinational enterprises. He is the author and co-author of several scientific papers. Saku VÄhÄSantanen, M. Sc. Econ., Regional Advisor at Regional Council of Satakunta. His scientific interests are focused on regional economy, regional competitiveness and resilience. He is the author and co-author in numerous studies about regional economy and business cycles. He has been a project researcher at the University of Turku, Pori Unit, but his current work at regional council concentrates on regional development and studies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.01.005 http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01336-2 https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782545163 http://www.uva.fi/materiaali/pdf/isbn_978-952-476-577-0.pdf