1. Recommendations for Romania and considerations for regional planning and innovation
This chapter highlights key insights into the Romanian system for regional strategic planning and innovation support. It summarises the main recommendations emanating from this work with concrete examples of actions proposed for the eight Romanian Regional Development Agencies, the Association of Romanian Regional Development Agencies, as well as Romania’s national government. Based on lessons learned from the Romanian experience, the chapter also consolidates elements that policy makers could consider when designing and delivering regional development and innovation policies, particularly in regions seeking to build planning and innovation capacity.
Romania’s Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are non-governmental, non-profit organisations, not linked to a national level ministry but accountable to their region’s Regional Development Council (RDC), on which sit representatives from the relevant county and local councils. Among the RDAs’ responsibilities is the drafting of a regional development plan, the region’s smart specialisation strategy (S3) and other regional strategic documents, all of which are approved by the RDC. Implementation, however, is more complex and the division of responsibilities for meeting the objectives set out in the regional plans are not well-established. Furthermore, the RDAs have no authority to ensure that county or local planning documents align and support regional objectives. The RDAs’ leverage to ensure objectives are met is tied to their role, first as Intermediate Bodies, and now also as Managing Authorities for European Union (EU) Cohesion Policy funds, and to their relationship with local authorities and other stakeholders. This disconnect with respect to responsibility within the system dilutes the authority of the plans themselves and brings into question the likelihood of the objectives being met. Two aspects could be addressed to help narrow this gap: i) mobilising financial resources and optimising the use of funds; and ii) strengthening the implementation power of the RDAs.
The ability of Romanian RDAs to implement regional development and innovation policy could be further reinforced
Romania’s RDAs are well positioned to take on additional regional development responsibilities. They are professional, well-established institutions, respected by leaders and stakeholders, and with excellent knowledge of their respective regions. Yet, the capacities of Romania’s RDAs need to be further developed and expanded. This would include, for example, providing more input on major projects of strategic significance for their regions (e.g. infrastructure and projects that support innovation ecosystems) and playing a stronger co-ordination role among county and local authorities, such as initiating and facilitating cross-jurisdiction co-operation. The RDAs are also well positioned to build the links between priority setting, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Combined, this could help achieve the objectives set in the regional development plans and other regional strategic documents.
The RDAs’ new position as Managing Authorities is likely to provide significant opportunities for improvements in organisational capacity to support regional development and innovation initiatives since the RDAs need to set up a dedicated structure to manage the investment funds as well as acquire new competencies in priority setting, investment management and evaluating the impact of projects. In addition, RDAs are also intermediate bodies for the national health programme 2021-27; and five RDAs (South-East, Centre, South-Muntenia, South-West Oltenia and West) also act as the intermediate bodies for the Just Transition Fund. These EU funds that RDAs manage and implement, and therefore the projects they can support, are likely to boost their profile and strengthen their relationships with major regional stakeholders.
A wide range of resources can be mobilised to implement regional plans
Encouraging the development of strategic plans that prioritise regional needs but also adhere to an agreed-upon cascading of plans, from a higher level or higher orders to lower, as well as an agreed-upon set of complementary objectives, would greatly improve co-ordination and implementation. Planning undertaken at the county and municipal levels should reflect regional plans, which should, in turn, be drafted to support high-level national government development priorities. At the same time, plans must reflect actual needs and support realistic goals identified by each place. Providing financial incentives, for example by prioritising funding for projects that clearly align with strategic planning documents at all levels and support place-based development, could help encourage greater alignment or convergence of development objectives.
The 2021-2027 Regional Programmes designed and managed by the RDAs and funded by EU Cohesion Policy funds are a strong pathway for generating multi-level coherence and providing incentives to advance projects in the regional development plans. Yet, these funds are far from sufficient since a significant portion of the regional plans rely on projects funded through local budgets. Thus, apart from the Regional Programme, exploring additional resources for projects that advance regional development goals in the medium- and long-terms would be beneficial. There are diverse ways to meet the need for additional resources, such as a central fund dedicated to supporting cross-jurisdiction or collaborative projects that advance regional development aims: examples include the National Fund for Regional Development in Costa Rica and the Local Investment Support Grant in France; contracts between the national government and RDAs to support regional projects, a practice seen in Iceland, Poland and the United Kingdom; and pooling resources from county and municipal authorities for regional public investment, which is common in many countries including Bulgaria, France, Italy, Slovenia and Spain, among others.
Greater consideration should also be given to using the Regional Programmes more strategically to achieve regional development goals. One way to do so is to use the Regional Programmes to demonstrate regional-local synergies and encourage local actors to invest in projects that could complement the regional ones – for example, if the Regional Programme funds the construction of a small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) support centre, the RDA could mobilise a university to develop an entrepreneurship education programme with ties to the centre and counties to invest in developing an SME database for their territories. They could also showcase these projects, especially highlighting regional projects that could directly address local issues (e.g. innovation in enhancing agricultural productivity in rural areas). Encouraging cross-jurisdiction projects is another way to use the funds strategically, as it fosters a regional perspective and encourages investments that benefit beyond individual localities.
Innovation remains undeveloped and widely misunderstood in Romania
Classified as an “emerging innovator”, Romania’s innovation ecosystem is less mature and less widespread than many neighbouring economies and advanced international competitors (European Commission, 2023[1]). As a driving force of productivity and economic growth, improving innovation performance should be a high priority for policy makers at both the national and regional levels.
Misconceptions about innovation are widely held among innovation stakeholders in Romania. For some regional stakeholders, innovation is perceived as being only applicable to high-technology industries and to research and development requirements and is of little practical use for their industry, business size or local development needs. This misunderstanding also influences the types of support offered and the types of projects supported by RDAs. For example, innovation in social services, education, public service delivery and agriculture has the potential to drive quality and efficiency improvements through innovative collaborations and processes, but this broader applicability of innovation is poorly understood throughout Romania.
The innovation ecosystems of each Romanian region are disconnected and imperfectly understood by policy makers. Enhancing the RDAs’ position as brokers and network leaders would reinforce their position to improve connectivity and strengthen existing innovation partnerships and collaborations. A regional survey of the current population of innovation actors and their dynamics is an important first step that all RDAs could undertake to better understand regional innovation needs.
The Association of Regional Development Agencies of Romania (ROREG) could play a greater role in co-ordinating and speaking for Romania’s RDAs
Each RDA’s collective knowledge, experience and expertise could be shared more widely across regions to help overcome common policy challenges and capacity gaps. These include areas such as stakeholder engagement, data management, funding application processes and beneficiary support. ROREG is in a good position to facilitate deeper and more regular exchanges to help RDAs overcome these gaps through mutual learning and sharing good practices. As a result of this facilitation, ROREG would gain valuable knowledge on the key challenges, skills gaps, needs and requirements that span across RDAs.
ROREG is in an ideal position to lead on and champion common RDA needs and issues to initiate greater assistance from the national government. Many of the barriers faced by RDAs, such as a cumbersome strategic planning methodology and poor access to local and regional data, have roots at the national level and are similar across regions. ROREG could leverage its experience more strongly as an advocate for all RDAs to have greater influence in technical matters affecting RDA performance and regional development.
This report has highlighted three areas where Romanian RDAs could concentrate on reinforcing their strategic planning and innovation support capacities for regional development, specifically in: i) strategy, planning, and performance measurement; ii) finance and implementation; and iii) communication and stakeholder engagement. Recommendations are presented following this framework in the tables below, with some followed by examples of concrete actions which substantiate the recommendations. These recommendations and proposed actions were developed based on the information shared by the RDAs, their key stakeholders and relevant case studies from other jurisdictions.
ROREG could further promote alignment between regional and national investments for regional development and innovation. The development of a repository of national funding sources for regional development, the sharing of common concerns with the relevant ministry and the co-ordination of national government input into regional development planning can help better align projects initiated at the regional and national levels. For example, ROREG could:
Work across RDAs to provide the national government with consolidated updates on regional development plans.
Advocate for RDAs where they need additional support from the national government to deliver their regional objectives.
Help RDAs position themselves as strategic bodies steering regional development by setting up a cross-RDA working group that includes managers and technical staff to agree upon a consistent message on the role of RDAs as regional development actors and their value-added relative to national and local actors.
ROREG could play a larger role in producing centralised guidance and facilitating peer learning among RDAs to support regional development capacities. Periodically updated case studies, examples of good practice and manuals for common processes, such as funding applications or the operation of a project tender, can promote the adoption of more sophisticated programme management techniques and practices. This guidance could be applied to planning, funding and financing, implementation and communication and engagement. For example, ROREG could:
Actively work with the Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration and the Ministry of European Investment and Projects of Romania to update the strategic planning methodology for regional development plans, aiming to ensure that it is tailored to RDA planning needs and capacities.
Collate case studies from Romanian RDAs, as well as internationally, of how to actively engage local stakeholders in regional planning processes.
Actively work with the Ministry of European Investment and Projects to develop and maintain a repository of funding sources for different types of projects.
Develop a digital matchmaking platform to help stakeholders find potential partners for joint projects.
Offer RDAs guidance on the pros and cons of different call designs and tendering mechanisms.
Collect and share examples of high-quality applicant guides.
Set up a cross-RDA working group where RDAs can share the challenges they face and discuss common solutions. Although there are existing exchanges across RDAs for various topics, these exchanges could be formalised and the outcomes could be further disseminated so as to build institutional memory of all RDAs. For example, these working groups could build training modules, develop guidance and manuals that all RDAs could use.
Support the building of digital communication capacity within RDAs through training to improve the effectiveness of RDA communications and stakeholder engagement.
In particular, ROREG can also play a greater role in supporting monitoring and evaluation of regional strategies. Many RDAs have little or no dedicated resources to evaluate their region’s strategic documents, other than the Regional Programmes. In addition, many RDAs identified the limited availability or accessibility of regional data, as well as information on investments in their regions that are not funded by Regional Programmes, as barriers to effective monitoring and evaluation of their regional plans. Establishing a set of agreed-upon performance measurement principles, delivering training on common evaluation methodologies and addressing information gaps across regions can significantly boost monitoring and evaluation capacity within RDAs. ROREG could explore the following actions:
Consolidate and communicate the regional data requirements of RDAs to national statistics organisations and government ministries. ROREG could also initiate meetings with relevant national actors to develop a concrete plan to address regional data gaps.
Work with the Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration and Ministry of European Investment and Projects to develop the regional planning methodology and make sure that methodology covers monitoring and evaluation.
Develop cross-RDA guidance and training on monitoring and evaluation for overall regional development and innovation policy outcomes, but also for specific projects and initiatives.
Set up a cross-RDA working group on monitoring and evaluation to identify shared challenges and good practices.
Align innovation data collection across regions to provide a greater depth of evidence about needs and performance.
Together with all RDAs, explore capacity and interest across respective regional innovation ecosystems for the establishment of an inter-regional, online monitoring and evaluation committee.
To improve the quality of RDA regional development plans, the Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration and Ministry of European Investment and Projects could collaborate with ROREG to develop an updated strategic planning methodology. Updates could seek to ensure that plans:
Clearly link financial resources and budgets to regional priorities and initiatives.
Set out robust evaluation strategies with clearly defined output, outcome and impact indicators.
Data gaps, publication delays and poor accessibility can limit the effectiveness of strategic planning for regional development policy and innovation support initiatives. In addition to the release of more frequent and more granular data, consideration should also be given to the actual data needs for regional and innovation planning and for monitoring and evaluation. Data collection methodologies should be adapted to these needs. This could help improve the quality and depth of the regional data collected by national statistical authorities. This is critical if policy makers in Romania wish to understand how the decentralised Regional Programmes support the development of each region. The Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration, Ministry of European Investment and Projects, and the National Institute of Statistics and other relevant actors can also collect and publish a wide range of regional and local data, as well as partner with ROREG and the RDAs to support improved access to data, establishing an open data platform that enables easy access to regional-level statistics.
The government could more actively and regularly engage with ROREG and RDAs on major new policies and investments in given regions. Many national initiatives have specific regional implications. A better understanding of upcoming projects can help in drafting long-term strategies and plans – at the national and subnational levels – and provide better services and information to their stakeholders. Ultimately, RDAs can help support national government projects and programmes but they require information about the likely impacts and opportunities. Meanwhile, engagement should be two-way: to promote alignment between regional and national investments, the national government could also and provide guidance on strategic planning for regional development and innovation, especially on how greater alignment with national priorities might be achieved.
In the medium and long terms, the national government could develop a central government fund for regional development that provides dedicated funding for projects that contribute to the objectives of regional development plans that are not covered by existing funding sources.
Ensuring lines of responsibility for reaching regional development goals are clearly established and sufficient resources are in place to do so is of utmost importance. This does not mean developing a monitoring and evaluation report but clearly identifying who is responsible for what and ensuring they have the necessary resources to do so. Clear lines of responsibilities should not only be established among levels of government but also across all related bodies, associations and other organisations involved in regional development policy (such as the Regional Development Councils and RDAs in the case of Romania). Once the foundation is set with clear lines of responsibility and sufficient resources, other mechanisms to advance regional development goals would be more effective, such as engaging stakeholders in the process of designing and implementing regional plans, financial and non-financial incentives for involved actors to deliver projects in the strategies and accountability frameworks, including to citizens.
Tackling regional data gaps for planning requires effort from all levels of government. Regional data are essential for the formulation of development indicators that can be used to measure disparities, identify priorities and evaluate impact. A repository of the most important economic, social and policy outcome data, covering the regional and, ideally, sub-regional levels, should be proactively collected and made available. Addressing the regional data gap, however, often requires systematic changes in the data gathering and reporting system at all levels of government. For example, national statistical agencies may need to adjust their methods and increase their data collection capacity. Adjustments to the reporting obligations of counties and local governments may also need to be made in consultation with these bodies to ensure feasibility. Equally important is to build the regional capacity in analysing the data and using the insights to support policy making.
More advanced innovation capacity requires the building of knowledge through continuous engagement and communication, as well as investment in digital infrastructure and education. This is particularly true for less developed innovation ecosystems, such as those in Romania. Before offering innovation support services, opening applications for project proposals, or undertaking consultations, it is important to recognise the limited experience of regional businesses and other stakeholders, and to the additional time required to understand and apply innovation concepts, especially the more advanced and newer ones (e.g. social innovation). Common terminology and processes associated with innovation, including the term “innovation” itself, may be complicated and overwhelming for some organisations. When engaging with innovation actors, it is important to first take stock of the general understanding of the term and its applications throughout the region. Some localities, industries or social groups with less advanced knowledge may require more contextual information on the topic to take advantage of its application. Innovation support services will only be effective if appropriately matched with the experience, expertise and knowledge of innovation among potential beneficiaries. Therefore, it is critical to identify business needs and capacities within the specific locality before designing new services. If the uptake of service is lower than projected, then a review and adjustment of engagement methods may be necessary. Investment in digital infrastructure and education to support innovation uptake may also be required before local actors are able to take advantage of more sophisticated support.
Stakeholder engagement for regional development and innovation does not always need to be creative but it needs to be effective. Many Romanian RDAs have extensive experience engaging with stakeholders but find it challenging to design new, creative methods to increase engagement. Engaging in new ways also requires building engagement skills and allocating sufficient resources. Thus, in addition to aiming for “new” in a first step, it could be equally important and effective to review the impact of existing engagement tools and make small adjustments that could yield large benefits. For example, one can adjust communication emails or guidance to be jargon-free, online and more user-friendly and collect evidence on the number of additional audiences reached. Clear guidance can also minimise misunderstandings: thus, one can also observe whether enhanced guidance leads to fewer questions or complaints. By the same token, one can test how often and on which topics providing bespoke support is the most necessary and effective. Creativity can be changed in the “last mile” rather than creating new measures from scratch. Small adjustments could yield significant improvement and optimise the use of resources and time.
Reference
[1] European Commission (2023), European Innovation Scoreboard, European Commission, https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/statistics/performance-indicators/european-innovation-scoreboard_en.