(Page 1 of 22) - Learning Networks for Regional Development: High Ambitions for Swedish Regions And a Little Help from Ryan Air authored by Niklasson, Lars.

Learning Networks for Regional Development:

High Ambitions for Swedish Regions, And a Little Help from Ryan Air

Lars Niklasson, Ph D

Statskontoret/The Swedish Agency for Public Management

P.O. Box 2280

S-103 17 Stockholm

Sweden

Lars.## email not listed ##

Prepared for delivery at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Associa-

tion, September 2-5, 2004, Panel 24-2, “Negotiating Inter-Organizational Networks”.

Abstract

“Clusters” and “learning regions” are high on most national agendas for creating economic growth
and helping disadvantaged regions catch up. The role of the public sector is often that of an “anima-
teur”, supporting “innovation systems” by arranging favorable institutions and other background
conditions. In Sweden new regional partnerships were set up to coordinate policies and make the
welfare state more supportive of the needs of businesses, inspired by the European union structural
funds. To some extent these policies go against the Swedish tradition of a unified welfare state op-
erating independently of business interests. Furthermore, the aim is that the partnerships should be
“learning systems”, i.e. that they should guide and control their activities through an elaborate set of
evaluations, creating a system of “self-regulation” for economic growth.

The paper is based on a study of how far the partnerships have implemented the new policy. Its em-
phasis is on describing and explaining differences among the regions. The evaluations that have
been commissioned by the 21 regional partnerships give evidence of how well the partnerships
function and where tensions reside. The most creative and challenging evaluations have been com-
missioned in regions where regional actors have agendas of their own, i.e. where the national policy
of “devolution” fits with regional ambitions. Only one regional partnership has attempted to keep
track of economic indicators and use these to adapt their strategies.

The study is relevant from several perspectives, e.g. the reform of the welfare state, adoption of EU-
policies by member states, implementation of new governance structures, the working of a weak
network structure partly in conflict with strong national policy sectors (such as the national labor
market board, AMS). It also brings out the contradictions in the national policy, simultaneously
wanting “devolution” and still maintaining central control. The regions differ in the level of consen-
sus that has developed and the ways that “policy entrepreneurs” can help such consensus develop.
Yet, it is doubtful whether even the strongly cooperating regions will make an impact on clusters or
innovation systems.

Clusters are supposed to develop as a kind of “learning regions”. The question here is if networks of
public and private actors can be a “learning government” to support learning among businesses.
Since networks are traditionally seen as a weak form of governance, the expectation of a learning
capability seems particularily demanding, especially in a country with few traditions of government
being involved with – or even subordinate to – the needs of business.