Regional Studies

ISSN: 0034-3404 (Print) 1360-0591 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

Technological diversity in Europe: empirical

evidence from agri-food research projects

Alessandro Muscio & Andrea Ciffolilli

To cite this article: Alessandro Muscio & Andrea Ciffolilli (2017): Technological diversity
in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects, Regional Studies, DOI:
10.1080/00343404.2017.1301662

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1301662

View supplementary material

Published online: 05 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cres20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 06 May 2017, At: 06:06

REGIONAL STUDIES, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1301662

Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from

agri-food research projects
Alessandro Muscioa and Andrea Ciffolillib

ABSTRACT
Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects. Regional Studies. Regional
technological diversity is the capacity of regions to carry out research in multiple technology fields. Based on the
analysis of 730 competitive research projects funded by the 7th European Framework Programme in agri-food, we
show that the capacity to obtain funding and the regional degree of centrality in collaborative networks promote
technological diversity. European programmes for research tend to encourage specialization in peripheral territories and
technological diversity in central regions. This has challenging implications for a policy that wants to promote research
excellence and, simultaneously, to reduce the wide regional variation in research and innovation performance across the
European Union.
KEYWORDS
Framework Programme; technological diversity; smart specialization; European regions; agri-food industry

摘要
欧洲的技术多样性：农业食品研究项目的实证证据。Regional Studies. 区域技术多样性，是区域在多重技术场域进行
研究的能力。我们根据第七欧盟架构计画所资助的七百三十个竞争的农粮研究计画之分析显示，取得补助的能力与
在合作网络的中心性之区域层级，可促进技术多样性。欧盟的研究计画倾向鼓励边陲地域的专殊化，以及核心区域
的技术多样化。而这对企图促进卓越研究并同时减少欧盟内部研究与创新表现的大幅区域差异的政策而言，带来了
挑战性的意涵。
关键词
架构计画; 技术多样性; 智能专殊化; 欧洲区域; 农粮产业

RÉSUMÉ
Diversité technologique en Europe: données empiriques découlant de projets agroalimentaires. Regional Studies. La
diversité technologique régionale est la capacité des régions d’effectuer une recherche dans de multiples secteurs
technologiques. Sur la base de l’analyse de 730 projets de recherche compétitifs financés par le 7ème programme cadre
dans le secteur agroalimentaire, nous démontrons que la capacité d’obtenir un financement et le degré régional de
centralité dans les réseaux de collaboration encouragent la diversité technologique. Des programmes de recherche
européens ont tendance à encourager la spécialisation dans des territoires périphériques ainsi que la diversité dans des
régions centrales. Les implications sont difficiles pour une politique visant la promotion de l’excellence dans la recherche
conjointement avec le renforcement de l’innovation dans l’Union européenne.
MOTS-CLÉS
Programme cadre; diversité technologique; spécialisation intelligente; régions européennes; secteur agroalimentaire

CONTACT
a
(Corresponding author) alessandro.muscio@unifg.it
Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, degli Alimenti e dell’Ambiente, Università degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
b
ciffolilli@ismerieuropa.com
Ismeri Europa S.r.l., Rome, Italy.

© 2017 Regional Studies Association

2 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Technische Vielfalt in Europa: empirische Belege von Forschungsprojekten für Nahrungsmittelerzeugung. Regional Studies.
Bei der regionalen technischen Vielfalt handelt es sich um die Kapazität von Regionen zur Forschung in verschiedenen
technischen Bereichen. Anhand einer Analyse von 730 miteinander konkurrierenden Forschungsprojekten, die vom
7. Europäischen Rahmenprogramm für Nahrungsmittelerzeugung finanziert wurden, zeigen wir, dass die Kapazität für
den Erhalt einer Finanzierung und das regionale Ausmaß der Zentralität in kooperativen Netzwerken die technische
Vielfalt fördern. Europäische Forschungsprogramme fördern in der Regel eine Spezialisierung in peripheren Gebieten
und technische Vielfalt in zentralen Regionen. Dies ist mit problematischen Auswirkungen für eine Politik verbunden, die
erstklassige Forschung fördern und zugleich die starken regionalen Unterschiede bei der Leistung im Bereich der
Forschung und Innovation innerhalb der Europäischen Union verringern will.
SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER
Rahmenprogramm; technische Vielfalt; intelligente Spezialisierung; europäische Regionen; Nahrungsmittelbranche

RESUMEN
Diversidad tecnológica en Europa: evidencia empírica de proyectos de investigación agroalimentaria. Regional Studies. La
diversidad tecnológica regional es la capacidad de las regiones para llevar a cabo estudios en los campos tecnológicos
múltiples. A partir del análisis de 730 proyectos de investigación competitivos financiados por el VII programa marco
europeo para la industria agroalimentaria, mostramos que la capacidad para obtener financiación y el grado regional de
centralidad en redes de colaboración fomentan la diversidad tecnológica. Los programas europeos para la investigación
suelen estimular la especialización en territorios periféricos y la diversidad tecnológica en regiones centrales. Esto tiene
efectos adversos para una política que quiere fomentar la excelencia en investigación y a la vez reducir las fuertes
diferencias regionales en el campo de la investigación y la innovación en la Unión Europea.
PALABRAS CLAVES
programa marco; diversidad tecnológica; especialización inteligente; regiones europeas; industria agroalimentaria

JEL O18, O31, O38, R58

HISTORY Received 12 January 2016; in revised form 21 February 2017

INTRODUCTION across networks and member states (Breschi & Cusmano,

In the programming period 2007–13, the European Com-
mission (EC) invested a significant amount of resources in
research and innovation. Considering only the main instru-
ments such as the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) and the 7th Framework Programme for Research
and Technological Development (FP7), over €100 billion
were devoted to supporting policies in these fields. While
the ERDF and the Structural Funds in general finance a
wide range of initiatives in support of innovation, from
the creation of an innovation-friendly environment to col-
laboration and technology transfer, the FP7 was entirely
devoted to subsidizing research, both basic as well as
applied and market oriented. This is one of the largest
competitive research and development (R&D) pro-
grammes in the world, funding a significant volume of
research and innovation and accounting for over 5% of
European member states’ expenditure on R&D.
There is a growing literature that analyses the partici-
pation in FPs (European Commission, 2016a, 2016b,
2016c), the outcomes and impacts of this important Euro-
pean policy instrument (Arnold, 2012; Arnold, Clark, &
Muscio, 2005; Muscio, Rivera Leon, & Reid, 2015) and
the geographical patterns of research collaborations (Cecere
& Corrocher, 2015). Particular attention has been paid to
an analysis of the characteristics of regional networks and
the effectiveness of the FPs for knowledge dissemination
2004; Breschi, Cassi, Malerba, & Vonotars, 2009; Paier
& Scherngell, 2011; Pandza, Wilkins, & Alfoldi, 2011;
Scherngell & Barber, 2011).
Despite the growing empirical evidence on the scientific
and economic results of the FPs and on the extent and
characteristics of the promoted partnerships, there is still
little evidence on the technological specialization and the
kind of technologies that are developed with the support
of this important policy instrument. In the attempt to fill
this gap, we focus on the concept of technological diversity,
which refers to the regional capacity to carry out research in
several technological fields. We investigate the determi-
nants of technological diversity, shedding light on the fac-
tors that are associated with greater regional capacity to
‘diversify’ research activities or ‘specialize’ them. In particu-
lar, we focus on two factors: the total amount of research
funding granted to each region, and the degree of centrality
in interregional collaboration promoted by the FP7.
The mass of co-financed research projects provides
unique information on the European, and often inter-
national, research trends as well as on regional assets and
research specializations which have not been investigated
thoroughly. This paper presents the results of the analysis
of a large sample of FP7 projects pertaining to one of the
most important European industries, the agri-food sector.
The FP7 projects considered in this paper are research
cooperation endeavours involving enterprises, universities

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects
and other research-performing organizations. FP7 projects
are classified by call in CORDIS (the Community
Research and Development Information Service) and
there is no official classification of projects by key research
area (KRA) or technology. Each call does not identify a
research area but only a general theme (e.g., NMP – nano-
technologies, materials and new production technologies;
KBBE – knowledge-based bio-economy). The database
we use in this paper has been assembled on the basis of a
project-by-project analysis, focusing on the primary objec-
tive of each project and the type of technology developed.
These technologies have been classified on the basis of an
original taxonomy of KRAs developed by ISMERI
Europa, with the contribution of expert peer reviews for
each technological domain.1 The added value of our classi-
fication is threefold: (1) it takes into account the actual pro-
ject objective, allowing the identification of agri-food
technologies even in calls that were not specifically
addressed to this field (e.g., those financed as part of an
NMP, KBBE, health or energy calls); (2) it makes it poss-
ible to classify research and technological development
(RTD) projects by research area and technology going in
much more detail than the topics of the call and offering
a sectoral perspective; and (3) it allows one to break
down project costs by partner and NUTS-2 regions, con-
sidering the actual location of an organization or of the
specific branch/department participating in a certain pro-
ject.2 Finally, unlike in other classification systems (e.g.,
Frascati, World Intellectual Property Organisation –
WIPO), this paper focuses on a much narrower definition
of technology areas which addresses the input side: the pro-
jects themselves and the KRAs under which the projects
financed by FP7 fall.
The paper is organized as follows. The next section
summarizes the theoretical and policy background with
special reference to the European Union (EU) research
and innovation policy, the role of FP and the recent con-
cept of smart specialization strategies (RIS3). The third
section presents the data and the methodology underlying
the taxonomy for grouping agri-food FP projects in
KRAs and related key technologies. The fourth section
presents the econometric analysis. The fifth section draws
concluding remarks and policy implications.
THEORETICAL AND POLICY BACKGROUND
With the FPs, the EC has invested a significant amount of
resources in research and innovation in both the private and
public sectors. While there is a wide consensus on the posi-
tive impact of FPs on the creation of networks, evidence on
the extent to which these measures have boosted regional
innovation performance, fostered structural change towards
higher value-added activities and ultimately created a basis
for sustained competitiveness across the EU is not conclus-
ive (Clark, Muscio, Simmonds, & Von Tunzelmann,
2004; Muscio et al., 2015). Moreover, little is known
about what technologies have been developed with the sup-
port of FPs, while it would be vitally important to deter-
mine what EU policy has done so far in promoting
3
technology specialization or diversification, also consider-
ing the concerns over an efficient implementation of an
RIS3 strategy.
The debate on specialization and diversification in
regional economies (Boschma & Iammarino, 2009; Van
der Panne, 2004) that has taken place over the past 20
years suggests that knowledge spillovers within a region
or smaller country occur primarily among related sectors,
and only to a limited extent among unrelated sectors
(Boschma, 2005). The concept of ‘related variety’ (Fren-
ken, Van Oort, & Verburg, 2007) suggests that strength
in a particular sector, or part of a value chain, can have posi-
tive spillovers in other related sectors (Muscio et al., 2015).
In this context, the core principle of the RIS3 literature is
that public and private resources should be concentrated
on selected technological or market priorities that have
the potential to foster not only the emergence of new activi-
ties but also the adoption, dissemination and adaption of
‘general-purpose technologies’ across a wide range of sec-
tors (Foray, David, & Hall, 2011; Foray & Goenaga,
2013).
In this paper we do not deal with sectoral specialization
versus diversification, but narrow down the focus on tech-
nological specialization by concentrating on KRAs and
technologies developed within a specific domain, that of
agri-food. We argue that investigating technological
specialization and diversity in a specific domain at the
regional level can provide key indications on the drivers
of specialization and on the coherence of research, techno-
logical development and innovation (RTDI) policy in sup-
porting it or not.
Following Wang and Von Tunzelmann (2000),
regional technological diversity can be defined as a region’s
capacity to carry out research activity across different
knowledge domains. The expansion of technological com-
petence into a broader range of technical areas (Granstrand
& Oskarsson, 1994) is reflected in the breadth of R&D
output (Cecere & Ozman, 2014) and is considered as a
vector of technological change and innovation (Van Rijn-
soever, Van den Berg, Koch, & Hekkert, 2015). Some
works highlight the powerful role of firms’ technological
diversity in driving their innovation performance (Breschi,
Lissoni, & Malerba, 2003; Gemba & Kodama, 2001;
Granstrand, 1998; Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco,
2008). However, there is little evidence about what research
policy can do to support heterogeneity in research activity.
We still have little knowledge about how different policy
tools influence diversity and insights into the underlying
driving mechanisms are currently lacking (Van Rijnsoever
et al., 2015). Government funding is viewed as having a
strong positive effect on knowledge creation and technol-
ogy development to the extent that some authors (Defazio,
Lockett, & Wright, 2009; Lee & Bozeman, 2005) point
out that the beneficial effects of research funding derive
from the access to research resources rather than from col-
laboration and networking. However, the intensity of these
effects varies depending on the amount of funding (Banal-
Estañol, Jofre-Bonet, & Lawson, 2015; Bolli & Somogyi,
2011). For these reasons, we argue that the benefits of
REGIONAL STUDIES
4 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli
research funding and collaboration could be extended to
the breadth of technologies developed with the support
of EU collaborative schemes such as FPs. Therefore:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive relationship between FP fund-
ing and regional technological diversity.
Collaborative research programmes such as FPs are
supposed to ‘add value’ which cannot be obtained through
national programmes (Fahrenkrog, Polt, Rojo, Tubke, &
Zinocker, 2002; Georghiou, 2001). The most obvious
addition is the ability to tackle technological problems
drawing together a much larger pool of resources, both
financial and human (Muscio, 2006). In fact, although
international collaborations undertaken under FPs may
be expected to offer benefit over national programmes for
several reasons, the opportunity to achieve a ‘critical mass’
of research performers – and users – is unlikely to be
achieved nationally, or where a national focus would
exclude ‘key players’ from the joint venture. Therefore,
the FP provides an opportunity to tackle research questions
at a scale that few EU member states would contemplate or
could afford (Clark et al., 2004).
Larèdo (1998) investigated the characteristics of the
networks promoted by previous iterations of the FP. The
history of FPs is characterized by a series of changes in
institutional arrangements that determine the nature and
structure of research collaboration networks funded from
EU sources (Pandza et al., 2011). Scientists get involved
in government-funded collaborative research projects
such as the FP because of the increasingly interdisciplinary,
complex and costly characteristics of modern science (Lee
& Bozeman, 2005). The question of whether collaboration
promotes research productivity has concerned the econ-
omic literature for quite some time. The interaction
between researchers employed in academic institutions or
research centres and in the business sector is expected to
bring together different sets of knowledge and cognitive
approaches that is likely to lead to the creation of new
knowledge. However, as noted by Lee and Bozeman
(2005), both collaboration and productivity may be influ-
enced by access to grants which can dictate team-based
goals.
EU-funded research networks require researchers to
collaborate as a condition for securing research funding,
and there is evidence that collaborative networks positively
affect researchers’ productivity in the longer-term (Defazio
et al., 2009; European Commission, 2016a). Moreover,
there is early evidence that collaborative network position
and the composition of collaborative innovation projects
influence diversity in emerging technologies (Van Rijnso-
ever et al., 2015). A higher network embeddedness of a
region in a network is supposed to increase information
and knowledge access (Wanzenböck, Scherngell, & Lata,
2015), contributing to creating a competitive advantage
in the creation of new collaborations and alliances (Gilsing,
Nooteboom, Vanhaverbekec, Duystersd, & Van den
Oorda, 2008; Maggioni & Uberti, 2007) and the
REGIONAL STUDIES
conditions for knowledge production and successful inno-
vation (Powell & Grodal, 2005). From a regional policy
perspective, it is therefore crucial to create the conditions
that stimulate the participation intensity of organizations
in research projects. In this respect, we argue that the net-
works promoted by the FP7 allow a critical mass of compe-
tencies to be reached that are positively related to the
technological capabilities of regions and hence their tech-
nological diversity.
Hypothesis 2. There is a positive relationship between the degree
of centrality in interregional networks promoted by the FP7 and
technological diversity.
To access new knowledge that is dispersed and not
available within regional boundaries, regional R&D organ-
izations increasingly rely on long-distance, cross-regional
research collaborations (Muscio, 2013; Scherngell & Bar-
ber, 2009, 2011), which are regarded as efficient means
to access spatially distant knowledge in a relatively rapid
and targeted way (Wanzenböck et al., 2015). Therefore,
the knowledge to which agents have access through estab-
lished network links determines its embeddedness within
networks. Given the fundamental role of interaction in
knowledge creation, networking is expected to ease and
facilitate the exploitation of external knowledge also for
the sake of technological diversity.
A high level of network centrality allows regions that
rely on ‘internal’ R&D activities to recognize and select
valuable linkages and to capture the know-how of the pro-
ject partners more efficiently. Thus, network centrality is
expected to influence the relationship between FP7 fund-
ing and technological diversity, negatively moderating the
impact of FP funding. In other words, in this context, net-
work centrality diminishes the relative importance of access
to funding for the purpose of technological diversity.
Hypothesis 3: The higher the network centrality, the less effective
FP funding will be in influencing regional technological
diversity.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
So far, the technology and market orientation of FPs have
been explored mainly by directly interviewing the stake-
holders (e.g., participating firms or academic institutions),
as in Luukkonen (2002) who suggests that both technology
and market orientation are important reasons for compa-
nies in their participation in the EU FP. Aggregate FP pro-
ject databases undoubtedly offer precious evidence about
relevant issues such as the networks promoted by the FPs
(Cecere & Corrocher, 2015), their spatial dimension
(Scherngell & Barber, 2011), the persistence of given actors
in FP participation (Breschi et al., 2009; Breschi & Cus-
mano, 2004), and the dynamics of knowledge diffusion
(Cassi, Corrocher, Malerba, & Vonortas, 2008).
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects
The core of our analysis is based on an original database
of projects in the agri-food sector funded by the FP7 within
the ‘Cooperation’ and ‘Capacities’ programmes. Food and
beverages was the fastest growing manufacturing sector
during the years that followed the recent world financial
crisis. This industry is mostly based on low R&D invest-
ment levels and mature, pervasive technologies, where –
in general, but not always – static capabilities dominate
over dynamic capabilities (Martinez & Briz, 2000; Zahra,
Sapienza, & Davidsson, 2006). Despite having great inno-
vative potential, the food industry is generally based on
‘redundant technologies’. Science and technology offer
wide opportunities to change and improve the taste of pro-
ducts, preparation and nutritional characteristics, but the
industrial structure is generally mainly composed of small
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with low R&D
capacity (Muscio, Nardone, & Dottore, 2010). Conse-
quently, product innovations in the industry are hardly rad-
ical and much more often of an incremental nature. This
feature makes innovation dynamics in the food industry
similar to those in other mature industries such as textiles,
clothing and footwear, and despite its relevant innovation
potential, differentiates the industry from science-based
sectors where the contribution of scientific institutions to
innovation is much more important (Pavitt, 1984).
FP7 project data were regionalized at NUTS-2 level.
The database contains information on project budgets,
type and name of partner organizations involved, geo-
graphical location of partners and, of course, KRAs and
technologies developed through the projects. The identifi-
cation of the KRAs and technologies promoted by the FPs
required a peer-review process led by agri-food experts.
The team of experts identified five main KRAs. The
KRAs represent the main scientific and technical fields of
FP7 projects, each comprising a ‘family’ of key technol-
ogies, as shown in Table 1. The regional-level data con-
tained in the FP7 database were matched to
EUROSTAT and Organisation for Economic Co-oper-
ation and Development (OECD) data on regional econ-
omic and research performance. Our dataset covers 295
regions, including a non-EU category, which includes
regions outside the EU, not considered in the econometric
analysis because of missing data. The continent with the
largest number of organizations participating in FP7 pro-
jects is Asia and the Middle East (263), followed by Africa
(183), Central and South America (101), North America
(60) and Australasia (37). Only 12 out of 295 European
regions did not participate in any FP7 project. Information
on these regions is available in Table A2 in Appendix A in
the supplemental data online.
Table 2 presents the total number of projects in each of
the five different KRAs discussed above. The large majority
of projects and participations is concentrated in KRA 1 –
primary production in agriculture, forestry, aquaculture
and fisheries, which accounts for 43% of the total. This
area is followed by KRA 2 – innovative industrial processes
for food production and conservation, accounting for
22.6% of projects; and KRA 5 – policy studies and knowl-
edge transfer, accounting for 15.89%. KRA 3 – health and
5
functional claims and KRA 4 – food quality, safety and tra-
ceability are emerging areas of research which still account
for a limited number of projects.
In order to provide some insights into regional partner-
ships in each of the knowledge domains identified with the
peer-review process, we analysed the structure of the net-
works promoted by the FP. Table 3 present the results
obtained from some standard indexes of social network
analysis (SNA). The results show that KRAs differ signifi-
cantly in relation to the way regional partners network to
perform research tasks.
The average centrality degree index can be used to allow
unbiased comparisons among several networks since its
magnitude is not affected by the dimension of the network.
This index measures the average number of ties between
each region and its partners in FP7 agri-food projects.
The average number of links at the aggregate level is
96,407, which is very high as our network includes just
295 regions, but, as expected, the estimated averages are
much lower at the disaggregated level, ranging from
60,183 links in KRA 4 – food quality, safety and traceabil-
ity, to just 18,739 links in KRA 1 – primary production in
agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries.
Regions can be embedded in networks of different
complexity. A measure of complexity is provided by the
average path length, a measure of relational distance
between regions in FP7 networks. The diffusion of knowl-
edge in Europe is geographically localized (Bottazzi & Peri,
2003; Cappelli & Montobbio, 2016; Maurseth & Verspa-
gen, 2002) and regional openness is linked to a number of
structural factors (Gambardella, Mariani, & Torrisi, 2009).
Large distances as opposed to proximity may represent an
obstacle to knowledge diffusion. In our case, we find that
the average path length (column 6) is between 1.7 and
2.0, depending on the area, where two directly connected
regions in a FP7 project are at a distance of 1.0. This
shows that in agri-food FP7 is promoting tightly con-
nected, direct networks where each region in connected
in less than two steps. Closely connected networks such
as these can be considered conducive to relatively fast and
effective information diffusion between regions.
We estimated the clustering coefficient which represents
the average of the densities of the neighbourhoods of all the
regions in the network. A high level of clustering increases
the chances that complex knowledge is spread more effec-
tively. The results of the estimated clustering coefficients sup-
port the results of the average path length discussed above,
ranging between 0.755 and 0.662, and confirm that regions
are embedded in relatively highly clustered neighbourhoods.
These results were also confirmed in terms of compact-
ness of networks: with larger values indicating the greater
cohesiveness of a network, 0.62 out of the full scale of
1.0 suggested that the overall is relatively close. However,
the results are weaker at the level of individual KRAs,
where the degree of compactness ranges between 0.20 in
the case of KRA 1 and 0.48 in KRA 4, the most compact
network. Finally, the density indicator measures the pro-
portion of all possible ties that are actually present in the
network. It is calculated as the sum of the existing ties
REGIONAL STUDIES
6 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli

Table 1. Identified key research areas and related key technologies.

Key technologies (techniques, methods,
Key research areas knowledge and procedures)
Primary production in agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries . Highly efficient plants and trees
Research in this area addresses the challenges of sustainability and security of . Plant and tree protection
European production in agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries. It is . Improved livestock
mainly grounded in agricultural, forestry and fishery sciences, which are . Competitive and sustainable aquaculture
broad multidisciplinary fields that apply basic knowledge from exact, natural . Animal health and welfare
(in particular, biology), economic and social sciences to optimize production . Environmentally friendly farming
and processing in agriculture, forestry and fishery

Innovative industrial processes for food production and conservation . Processing technologies for high food quality
Greater efficiency in food processing, packaging and distribution is and safety
warranted in order for the agri-food industry to stay competitive, while . Innovative food packaging
maintaining or improving food quality and safety. At the same time, negative . Smart food-processing machines and
externalities of food processing have to be contained. This often requires equipment
systemic analysis of production processes. Research addressing these . Environmentally friendly processes
challenges is mainly grounded in food sciences, which is usually classified as
a subcategory under agricultural sciences

Health and functional claims . Tailor-made foods, functional foods and

In order to address health concerns, there is a need for research on diet– ingredients
health relations and on developing targeted communication strategies to . Improving diet–health relations
promote the adoption of healthy diets and lifestyles. In addition, there is a
need for research on functional foods (i.e., foods with specific health claims)
and on tailor-made foods for specific vulnerable groups. Research
addressing these challenges is usually based on a mix of food and medical
sciences

Food quality, safety and traceability . Traceability, feed/food supply chain security
Industry has primary responsibility for food safety. However, governments . Tools for food quality/safety assessment and
have an important controlling role to play. Both industry and governments control
require research to provide a robust understanding of safety issues along the
food/feed supply chains and adequate tools to assess quality and trace
contamination. Research addressing these challenges is mainly grounded in
food sciences and chemistry

Policy studies and knowledge transfer . Agriculture, fisheries and food policy
This category comprises: (1) projects that, strictly speaking, do not conduct . Knowledge transfer, RTDI coordination etc.
research, but which address issues that help to advance agri-food research
by disseminating research results or facilitating networking and cooperation;
and (2) projects that conduct research in support of policy decision-making
rather than production (i.e., socio-economic impact analysis and studies)
Source: Adapted from 2015 Ismeri Europa taxonomy of agri-food key research areas and key technologies.

divided by the number of all possible ties. The results indi-
cate that, again, there are large differences across KRAs in
the degree of connectedness between regions. While in
KRA 1 there is only 6% of possible ties, in KRA 4 there
are 21% of possible connections.
Wanzenböck et al. (2015) provide evidence that organ-
izations’ resources dedicated to R&D and regional per-
formance in high-technology patents and expenditure on
R&D are crucial factors for high regional embeddedness
in terms of both betweenness and eigenvector centrality.
Table 4 presents information on the top 10 performing
European regions according to a number of FP7 indicators.
By far, the region that was awarded the largest number of
projects and amount of funding was Gelderland in the
Netherlands. This region hosts the ‘Food Valley’, a region
where international food companies and research institutes

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects 7

Table 2. Agri-food projects sponsored by the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7):
basic project statistics.
European
Average number Commission
% of participations contribution
Key research areas Projects projects Participations per region (€ millions)
1 Primary production in agriculture, forestry, 314 43.01 4275 2.13 423.61
aquaculture and fisheries
2 Innovative industrial processes for food 165 22.60 1844 2.90 151.97
production and conservation
3 Health and functional claims 73 10.00 1082 4.71 132.49
4 Food quality, safety and traceability 62 8.49 784 11.34 71.55
5 Policy studies and knowledge transfer 116 15.89 1606 4.44 105.41
Total 730 100.00 9591 5.06 885.01
Source: Authors’ elaboration on 2015 Ismeri Europa data covering FP7 agri-food projects.

Table 3. Regional network features.

Average Average graph
centrality Average clustering coefficient
Key research areas degree path length (weighted) Compactness Density
1 Primary production in 18,739 1.93 0.76 (0.53) 0.20 0.06
agriculture, forestry,
aquaculture and fisheries
2 Innovative industrial processes 23,702 1.86 0.74 (0.50) 0.24 0.08
for food production and
conservation
3 Health and functional claims 29,424 1.94 0.66 (0.43) 0.37 0.10
4 Food quality, safety and 60,183 1.74 0.67 (0.52) 0.48 0.21
traceability
5 Policy studies and knowledge 28,278 1.80 0.73 (0.51) 0.26 0.10
transfer
Total 96,407 1.65 0.72 (0.60) 0.62 0.33
Source: Authors’ elaboration on 2015 Ismeri Europa data covering FP7 agri-food projects.

such as Wageningen University are concentrated. Gelder- ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS

land is also the region with the highest degrees of centrality.
Other top performers include Cataluña (Spain) and Île-de-
France, two regions with a flourishing food industry and
top research institutions in the food sector. At the country
level, Italy is one of the best performers, with three regions
in the top 10 positions (i.e., Lazio, Lombardy and Emilia-
Romagna). Data disaggregated by KRAs to some extent
confirm the regional performance at the aggregate level.
Gelderland is still the top performer in four areas out of
five, while Cataluña and Île-de-France are still in the 10
positions in each of the five areas considered. Finally, it is
worth noting that regions in new member states secured
10.38% of FP7 projects awarded to European countries,
corresponding to 5.38% of funding.
In conclusion, the analysis of descriptive statistics and
SNA indicators shows that while the FP7 has promoted
relatively dense networks, with high degrees of centrality
and relatively low relational distance between regions,
there is great diversity in how networks are shaped in
different research areas.
Econometric specification
In order to investigate regional technological diversity in
FP7 projects, the following model is estimated:
TECHDIV i = a + b1 REGIONAL CONTROLSi
+ b2 FP7 NETWORKi + b3 FP7 FUNDINGi
+ b4 FP7 NETWORKi ∗ FP7 FUNDINGi + 1i
(1)
where TECHDIVi represents a measure of technological diver-
sity measured with a scalar indicator ranging from one to five
KRAs, taking into account the number of areas in which region
i has participated in one or more FP7 projects.3 REGIONAL
CONTROLS is a set of explanatory variables controlling for
regional socio-economic factors. FP7 FUNDING measures
the natural logarithm of the total EC contribution, expressed
in euros, granted to institutions and organizations located in
region i. FP7 NETWORK represents a set of indicators
accounting for the characteristics of regional networks promoted

REGIONAL STUDIES
REGIONAL STUDIES

8
Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli
Table 4. Top 10 regions involved in agri-food projects.
Total European
Commission
contribution Coordinated Centrality
NUTS-2 Region Projects NUTS-2 (€ thousands) NUTS-2 projects NUTS-2 degree Eigenvector
1 NL22 Gelderland 270 NL22 108,204 ES51 52 NL22 252 0.108
2 FR10 Île-de-France 199 FR10 77,334 NL22 49 FR10 238 0.105
3 ES51 Cataluña 177 ES51 48,358 FR10 34 ES51 238 0.105
4 ITI4 Lazio 143 IE02 44,223 IE02 20 IE02 230 0.103
5 DK01 Hovedstaden 129 DK01 38,753 ES52 19 DK01 229 0.104
6 IE02 Southern and Eastern 126 ITC4 33,719 DE11 17 ITI4 228 0.102
Ireland
7 ES30 Comunidad de Madrid 119 UKM2 31,408 DE50 17 ITH5 227 0.102
8 ITC4 Lombardia 118 ITI4 30,408 ITI4 16 EL30 227 0.102
9 BE10 Région de Bruxelles-Cap. 110 ES30 30,089 ITH5 16 ES30 225 0.103
10 ITH5 Emilia-Romagna 108 ITH5 28,960 DK01 15 ITC4 223 0.102

NUTS-2 KRA 1 NUTS-2 KRA 2 NUTS-2 KRA 3 NUTS-2 KRA 4 NUTS-2 KRA 5
1 NL22 22 NL22 29 ES51 51 NL22 131 NL22 61
2 ES51 22 NL31 21 ES52 33 FR10 99 FR10 47
3 IE02 16 IE02 20 NL22 27 ES51 79 ITI4 39
4 ITI4 16 DK01 19 DE50 25 ES30 64 BE10 26
5 DK01 14 BE10 18 IE02 24 DK01 59 AT13 26
6 UKE2 14 DE21 17 FR10 24 ITI4 58 DEA2 26
7 FR10 13 FR10 16 ITH5 22 UKM2 58 DK01 24
8 ITC4 13 UKH1 16 ITC4 22 ITC4 57 ITH5 24
9 DE30 12 ITH5 15 ES30 20 IE02 50 HU10 24
10 NL31 11 ES51 14 BE10 19 ES61 47 EL30 24
Note: KRA, key research area.
Source: Authors’ elaboration on 2015 Ismeri Europa data covering FP7 agri-food projects.
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects 9

Table 5. Description of variables.

Variable Definition Primary source of data
Dependent variables
TECHDIV Number of key research areas (1–5) in which the region participates Ismeri Europa (based on DG
Research data)
HHID Herfindahl–Hirschman index Ismeri Europa (based on DG
Research data)
SDI Shannon diversity index Ismeri Europa (based on DG
Research data)

Regional indicators
EU-15
English proficiency
Distance from Brussels (ln)
Share students in
education
GDP per capita (ln)
GERD per capita (ln)
Share manufacture of
food
European Union of 15 member states –
EF; English proficiency index (1–5) EF Education First
Distance from Brussels (km) EUROSTAT
Pupils and students in all levels of education (ISCED 0–6), share of EUROSTAT
total population (2006)
Gross domestic product per capita (current market prices, 2006) EUROSTAT
Gross expenditure on research and development per capita (2006) EUROSTAT
Manufacture of food and beverages, share of employment in EUROSTAT
manufacturing (2006)

FP7 indicators
Distance from partners (ln) Average distance from partners (km2) DG Research
Share of intra-regional Share of FP7 links established between organizations located in the DG Research
links same region
Eigenvector Network centrality degree: eigenvector DG Research
Total EC contribution Total European Commission contribution for the analysed FP7 DG Research
projects (euros, instrumented)

Instruments
HRST (ln) Population with tertiary education or employment in science and EUROSTAT
technology (HRST) (thousands, 2006)
Share of projects Share of regional participations in FP7 projects coordinated by local DG Research
coordination organizations
Population (ln) Population (headcount) EUROSTAT
Note: ISCED, International Standard Classification of Education.

by the FP7. This set of indicators includes an indicator that con-
trols for the average geographical distance of region i from other
regions involved in the same projects,4 an indicator of the share
of intra-regional linkages, which measures the intensity of lin-
kages between institutions and organizations within the same
region, and an index of network centrality. This index accounts
for eigenvector centrality, a more sophisticated version of the
centrality degree discussed above. As suggested by Scherngell
and Barber (2011), the eigenvector is particularly useful in the
analysis of regional networks and stems from the idea that
while having many connections ensures that a region can exert
influence and is able to access knowledge, it is also arguable
that not all connections are the same. Typically, connections to
regions which are themselves well connected will provide regions
with more influence and knowledge resources than connections
to poorly connected regions. Eigenvector centrality thus assigns
each region a centrality that depends both on the number and the
quality of its connections by examining all regions in parallel and
assigning centrality weights that correspond to the average cen-
trality of all linked regions (Bonacich, 1987).
As a robustness check, we tested our model with
alternative measures of technological diversity such as the
Herfindahl–Hirschman index of diversification (HHID)
and the Shannon diversity index (SDI). The HHI is con-
ventionally used in industrial organization to measure
industry concentration, but it is becoming popular to
measure technological diversification (Quintana-Garcia &
Benavides-Velasco, 2008). The HHID can be expressed
as follows:


HHIDi = 1 − HHIi = 1 − Pi2 (2)
i

REGIONAL STUDIES
10 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli

Table 6. Descriptive statistics.

Variable Observations Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Dependent variables
TECHDIV 259 3.745 1.325 1.000 5.000
HHID 259 0.562 0.208 0.000 0.786
SDI 259 1.036 0.423 0.000 1.574

Regional indicators
EU-15 259 0.722 0.449 0.000 1.000
English proficiency 259 3.220 1.050 2.000 5.000
Distance from Brussels 259 887.038 588.755 0.000 3012.064
Share students in education 259 0.218 0.032 0.147 0.356
GDP per capita 259 24,177.610 12,074.370 2600.000 91,800.000
GERD per capita 259 417.282 453.871 4.000 2631.000
Share manufacture of food 245 16.469 8.620 1.975 55.215

FP7 indicators
Distance from partners 259 1157.137 391.123 574.056 3139.752
Share of intra-regional links 259 0.084 0.023 0.026 0.174
SNA eigenvector 259 0.053 0.028 0.003 0.108
Total European Commission contribution 259 6,636,419 11,000,000 0 108,000,000

Instruments
HRST 259 367.687 354.342 18.000 3492.000
Share projects coordination 259 0.067 0.092 0.000 0.600
Population 259 1,860,597 1,503,827 202,604 1.15e+07
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

where Pi denotes the proportion in a region of FP projects
in KRA i. The index equals 0 when a region carries out
research activity only in a single area, and it is close to 1
when the region spreads its research activity over a broad
technological knowledge base.
The SDI belongs to the group of entropy indices that
has been applied in the context of industrial diversification
(Aiginger & Davies, 2004; Attaran & Zwick, 1987). This
is defined as the negative sum of project shares, multiplied
by the natural logarithm of project shares of each single
KRA i. Because of the log-form, the relative weights of
areas with a large number of projects are reduced compared
with the HHID. The SDI is a measure of diversity,
increasing with decreasing specialization so that the lower
bound (zero) gives absolute specialization and the upper
bound complete diversification. The SDI can be expressed
as follows:


N the top value (five) of the ordered scale. Column 2 presents
SDIi = − Pi lnPi (3)
i=1
Table 5 presents the definition of the variables used in the
regressions, and Table 6 presents some descriptive
statistics. A correlation matrix is presented in Table A1
in Appendix A in the supplemental data online. We
used variance inflation factors (VIF) to help detect
multicollinearity. The VIF test was passed for all variables
with ample margins. The set of control variables includes
an indicator of English proficiency proxying the ability of
applicants to write research proposals for the FP7 in
English language.
Factors related to technological diversity
We test our hypotheses regarding technological diversity
developed under the FP7 using the econometric strategy
proposed above. Since the dependent variable TECHDIV
is based on scalar values ordered progressively from 1 to 5,
we chose an ordered logit model for the analysis. The
ordered logit was chosen in the attempt to evaluate the
impact of the selected covariates on the cumulative prob-
ability of regions to engage in different research fields.
Table 7 reports in column 1 the ordered logit estimates
and the corresponding marginal/impact effects only for
the marginal effects. The marginal effects of changes in the
independent variables in an ordered logit model are not
easy to interpret. As Greene (2002) indicates, in an ordered
logit model, the sign of any parameter can only clearly
determine the marginal effect of each variable on the
extreme probabilities (the probability of technological
diversity being broadest). We also run an ordinary least
squares (OLS) model as a robustness check (column 3).

REGIONAL STUDIES
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects 11

Table 7. Determinants of technological diversity.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7)
o.logit M.E. OLS OLS OLS
Variables tech.div. pr.out. ¼ 5 tech.div. HHID OLS SDI tech.div.
EU-15 0.169 0.029 0.074 –0.016 –0.016 0.084
[0.523] [0.134] [0.022] [0.044] [0.133]
English proficiency 0.132 0.023 0.077+ 0.013 0.025 0.085+
[0.158] [0.045] [0.011] [0.019] [0.045]
Distance from Brussels (ln) 0.185 0.032 0.029 –0.005 –0.005 0.141*
[0.153] [0.027] [0.007] [0.012] [0.064]
Share students in education 6.655 1.139 1.354 0.202 0.477 1.706
[4.767] [1.462] [0.360] [0.638] [1.439]
GDP per capita (ln) –1.221+ –0.209+ –0.492** –0.090* –0.177* –0.492**
[0.641] [0.176] [0.040] [0.070] [0.176]
GERD per capita (ln) 0.738* 0.126* 0.272** 0.056** 0.108** 0.277**
[0.289] [0.084] [0.020] [0.035] [0.083]
Distance from partners (ln) –0.760 –0.130 –0.122 –0.053 –0.080 –0.392
[0.843] [0.225] [0.053] [0.092] [0.272]
Share intra-regional links 27.471** 4.700** 5.989** 0.685 1.504+ 6.344**
[6.842] [2.008] [0.509] [0.866] [1.986]
Eigenvector 128.292** 21.950** 38.213** 4.166** 10.027** 37.856**
[11.305] [2.415] [0.600] [1.051] [2.409]
(IV) Total EC contribution 0.578* 0.099* 0.102* 0.033** 0.053** 0.198**
[0.288] [0.043] [0.010] [0.017] [0.053]
(IV) Total EC contribution*eigenvector –16.941** –2.898** –4.082** –1.096** –1.955** –5.382**
[5.899] [1.200] [0.269] [0.509] [1.198]
Manufacture of food and beverages (% –0.007
employment) [0.005]
Constant 4.806* 1.229** 2.016** 5.843**
[2.102] [0.407] [0.746] [2.198]

Observations 259 259 259 259 259 259

R2 0.748 0.482 0.585 0.752
Pseudo-R 2 0.471
Notes: Robust standard errors are given in brackets.
**p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; +p < 0.1.

Columns 4 and 5 present, respectively, the results obtained
adopting the HHID and the SDI.
We acknowledge the fact that, given the cross-sectional
nature of the data, our model could suffer from reverse
causality problems. In particular, if it is true that FP7 fund-
ing can drive technology diversity, it is also true that regions
that are technologically diversified could have better
chances of securing better funding. In order to address
endogenous FP7 funding we introduced instrumental vari-
ables (IV), instrumenting the natural logarithm of regional
FP7 funding with three variables: the natural logarithm of
regional endowment of population with tertiary education
or employment in science and technology (HRST) in the
year before the beginning of the programme (2006); the
share of regional participations in FP7 projects coordinated
by local organizations; the natural logarithm of the regional
population (2006). As for the first explanatory variable, as
suggested in the economic literature, access to research
funding is typically driven by the amount of available
human resources. A large endowment in qualified human
capital facilitates the participation in research projects,
granting access to larger FP7 funding. Similarly, as con-
firmed in DG Research statistics, projects coordinators in
FP7 projects acquire, on average, larger resources than
ordinary participants. Therefore, a region with organiz-
ations coordinating research projects is likely to acquire lar-
ger funding from the EC. Finally, regional population is
included in the regression to control for regions’ size.
The Durbin–Wu–Hausman test confirmed the necessity
to instrument the variable measuring total EC contri-
bution.5 The results of the estimation are presented in
Appendix A in the supplemental data online.
First of all, the results of the regressions show that in all
model specifications the only control factors that matter for

REGIONAL STUDIES
12 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli
the purpose of technological diversity are regional gross
domestic product (GDP) and gross expenditure on
research and development (GERD). Regional GDP is
negatively correlated with technological diversity, with
scale effects allowing ‘richer’ regions, being more likely to
specialize in specific KRAs in food sciences. On the con-
trary, as expected, we find that regions with larger efforts
in R&D as expressed by the GERD are more likely to
carry out research in more KRAs.
As far as FP7 indicators are concerned, it is especially
important to note that participation in FP7, as expressed
by the amount of funding that regions are granted from
the EC (TOT EC Contribution), always has a positive
effect on the probability of having high levels of technologi-
cal diversity. Moreover, the coefficient size remains largely
unaffected in the estimated models.
The coefficient for network centrality (SNA Eigenvec-
tor) is positive and highly significant in all model specifica-
tions, confirming that more centrally networked regions
have better chances of being involved in R&D activities
in different areas of technology. While distance from part-
ners is not a significant aspect for the purpose of techno-
logical diversity, the higher the share of participants from
the same region involved in FP7 projects (Share intra-
regional links), the higher the probability of being involved
in the development of diverse technologies. Therefore,
regions with greater intra-regional networks have better
chances of being technologically diversified than regions
relying more extensively on external partnerships. This
reflects, in a way, regional size. In other words, while tech-
nological specialization seem to need geographically close
partnerships, technological diversity is characterized by
research activities that are carried out to a higher extent
between partners of the same region.
These results are supported by the findings on the inter-
action term (TOT EC Contribution*Eigenvector). All
specifications include an interaction term between regional
networking as expressed with the eigenvector and FP7
funding. This variable accounts for the moderating role
of regional networking on FP7 funding. The interaction
term is negative and highly significant, showing that
being highly central negatively moderates the positive effect
of FP7 funding on technological diversity. According to
our results, while FP7 funding is positively related to the
level of technological diversity, its effect is dependent
upon the level of regional centrality. There is a funding
threshold above which the propensity to diversify technol-
ogy diminishes. This result shows that centrality does not
only influence technological diversity directly, but also
through its relationship with FP7 funding. Since Eigenvec-
tor centrality provides a measure of centrality that depends
both on the number and the quality of its connections, we
conclude that the relation of FP7 funding and technology is
stronger when regions are characterized by moderate inter-
regional linkages. However, regions embedded in dense
collaboration networks see a decline in the probability of
being involved in the development of diverse technologies.
In conclusion, FP7 can support research and techno-
logical development by promoting the acquisition or
REGIONAL STUDIES
development of physical and human resources and via
knowledge sharing across a multitude of regional actors.
According to our evidence, the amount of FP7 funding
and network centrality is significantly associated with
regional technological diversity in agri-food science in
Europe. However, excessive reliance of participants on
external partners diminishes the beneficial effects of
research funding on technological diversity.
CONCLUSIONS
European Framework programmes are primarily aimed at
promoting research excellence and, to do so, they support
high-risk basic and applied research, transnational net-
working between organizations and regions, mobility of
people etc. Over time growing attention has been paid to
reducing the wide regional variation in research and inno-
vation performance across the EU (European Commission,
2013).
The literature pays little attention to the regional tech-
nological effects of FPs and other policies. The analysis
presented in this paper partly aims to fill this gap and
shows that in an important domain such as agri-food
FP7 funding and centrality in the promoted collaborative
networks are strongly associated with greater technological
diversity. This implies that the most engaged and (relation-
ally) central regions are more likely to follow a path of tech-
nological diversity rather than specializing in one or few
KRAs and in a limited number of related technologies.
On the contrary, ‘peripheral’ and less engaged regions are
more likely to specialize in a limited set of KRAs and
related technological fields.
Even though these results are limited to one domain,
agri-food, they suggest that the FPs implicitly tend to fos-
ter a core–periphery pattern where technological diversity is
promoted in central territories that attract lots of funding
while, as can be expected, technological diversity does not
prosper in more isolated territories. The extent to which
this kind of narrowed down diversity of periphery or, to
put it differently, greater specialization, means higher
capacity to compete and is in line with the philosophy
underlying other European policies (e.g., smart specializ-
ation strategies) remains to be studied further. The current
exercise is a first attempt to incorporate the technological
dimension in an exploration of the effect of RTD policy,
a point often disregarded by the literature, in the authors’
opinion.
This study has relevant policy implications, yet it faces
some important limitations. First, the information con-
tained in FP projects is useful only at the aggregate level
at the end of the programming period, in our case 2014.
Data from single calls are affected by cyclical trends and
factors that limit the information obtained from any econo-
metric exercise. The need to use stock data requires the use
of cross-sectional analyses, which in turn expose to risks of
reverse causality, with regions with higher technological
diversity applying more intensely for FP support. Secondly,
given the focus of the paper on one specific scientific field,
the agri-food sector, we can explore European engagement
 Technological diversity in Europe: empirical evidence from agri-food research projects
in this area thoroughly, but we cannot tell whether greater
technological diversity or specialization is obtained at the
expense of greater diversity or specialization in other
science and technology fields. This brings us to future
developments of this study which could be extended to
all scientific sectors supported by the FPs and hence pro-
vide a more complete picture of technological diversity in
Europe.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work benefited from valuable input given by Elisa
Giuliani, Andrea Morrison, Nicoletta Corrocher, Luca
Rossi, Marco Pompili and three anonymous referees. The
authors are particularly grateful to Antonio Lopolito for
his help with the social network analysis.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://
doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1301662.
NOTES
1. The database was compiled by extracting project infor-
mation from the CORDIS online repository. All FP7 pro-
jects financed under Cooperation and Ideas programmes
have been categorized and included in the database. Vari-
ables such as the real geographical location of participants
(NUTS-2) and the distribution of resources among part-
ners have been added.
2. This is relevant for large research-performing organiz-
ations such as Fraunhofer, Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS) etc.
3. The index aims at determining whether region i is
involved, at least to some extent, in the highest possible
number of research areas. The degree of specialization in
each of the five KRAs is instead measured by the HHID
and SDI indexes. Therefore, if Île-de-France has one pro-
ject in KRA 1 and two in KRA 5, it will have a value of 2
(out of five).
4. The distance was calculated using data on latitude and
longitude of the central city of each region involved in the
FP7 projects.
5. Durbin–Wu–Hausman chi-squared test: 0.198, Chi-
sq(1), p-value ¼ 0.656, where H0: Regressor is exogenous.
ORCiD
Alessandro Muscio http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5186-
2522
13
REFERENCES
Aiginger, K., & Davies, S. (2004). Industrial specialization and geo-
graphic concentration: Two sides of the same coin? Not for the
European Union. Journal of Applied Economics, 12, 231–248.
Arnold, E. (2012). Understanding long-term impacts of R&D fund-
ing: The EU Framework Programme. Research Evaluation, 21(5),
332–343. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs025
Arnold, E., Clark, J., & Muscio, A. (2005). What the evaluation
record tells us about European Union Framework Programme
performance. Science and Public Policy, 32(5), 385–397. doi:10.
3152/147154305781779335
Attaran, M., & Zwick, M. (1987). Entropy and other measures of
industrial diversification. Quarterly Journal of Business and
Economics, 26, 17–35.
Banal-Estañol, A., Jofre-Bonet, M., & Lawson, C. (2015). The
double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from
engineering academics in the UK. Research Policy, 44, 1160–
1175. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2015.02.006
Bolli, T., & Somogyi, F. (2011). Do competitively acquired funds
induce universities to increase productivity? Research Policy,
40(1), 136–147. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.10.001
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures.
American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1170–1182. doi:10.1086/228631
Boschma, R., & Iammarino, S. (2009). Related variety, trade lin-
kages, and regional growth in Italy. Economic Geography, 85,
289–311. doi:10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01034.x
Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assess-
ment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. doi:10.1080/
0034340052000320887
Bottazzi, L., & Peri, G. (2003). Innovation and spillovers in regions:
Evidence from European patent data. European Economic Review,
47, 687–710. doi:10.1016/S0014-2921(02)00307-0
Breschi, S., Cassi, L., Malerba, F., & Vonotars, N. (2009).
Networked research: European policy intervention in ICTs.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 21(7), 833–857.
doi:10.1080/09537320903182314
Breschi, S., & Cusmano, L. (2004). Unveiling the texture of a
European research area: Emergence of oligarchic networks
under EU Framework Programmes. International Journal of
Technology Management, 27(8), 747–772. doi:10.1504/IJTM.
2004.004992
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-related-
ness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32,
69–87. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00004-5
Cappelli, R., & Montobbio, F. (2016). European integration and
knowledge flows across European regions. Regional Studies,
50(4), 709–727. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.931572
Cassi, L., Corrocher, N., Malerba, F., & Vonortas, N. (2008). The
impact of EU-funded research networks on knowledge diffusion
at the regional level. Research Evaluation, 17(4), 283–293. doi:10.
3152/095820208X364535
Cecere, G., & Corrocher, N. (2015). The intensity of interregional
cooperation in information and communication technology pro-
jects: An empirical analysis of the Framework Programme.
Regional Studies, 49(2), 204–218. doi:10.1080/00343404.2012.
759651
Cecere, G., & Ozman, M. (2014). Technological diversity and inven-
tor networks. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23,
161–178. doi:10.1080/10438599.2013.815473
Clark, J., Muscio, A., Simmonds, P., & Von Tunzelmann, N.
(2004, May). Targeted review of added value provided by inter-
national R&D programmes. London: Office of Science and
Technology (OST) International, Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI).
Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives,
collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from
REGIONAL STUDIES
14 Alessandro Muscio and Andrea Ciffolilli
the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38, 293–305. doi:10.
1016/j.respol.2008.11.008
European Commission. (2013, August 7). Sixth FP7 monitoring report
(Monitoring Report 2012). Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2016a). An analysis of the role and engagement
of universities with regard to participation in the Framework
Programmes, DG Research and Innovation (Study carried out by
Ismeri Europa, Politecnico di Torino and IRCRES-CNR).
Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2016b). An analysis of the role and impact of
research performing organisations’ participation in the Framework
Programmes, DG Research and Innovation. Brussels: European
Commission.
European Commission. (2016c). An analysis of the role and impact of
industry participation in the Framework Programmes, DG
Research and Innovation. Brussels: European Commission.
Fahrenkrog, G., Polt, W., Rojo, J., Tubke, A., & Zinocker, K.
(2002). RTD evaluation toolbox: Assessing the socio-economic impact
of RTD policies (STRATA Project HPV 1 CT 1999-00005,
IPTS Technical Report Series No. EUR 20382 EN). Seville:
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS).
Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. H. (2011). Smart specialization:
From academic idea to political instrument, the surprising career of
a concept and the difficulties involved in its implementation
(MTEI Working Paper 2011-001). Lausanne: École polytechni-
que fédérale de Lausanne.
Foray, D., & Goenaga, X. (2013). The goals of smart specialisation (S3
Policy Brief Series No. 01/2013 – May, S3 Platform). Seville:
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies-Joint Research
Centre (IPTS-JRC).
Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety,
unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional
Studies, 41, 685–697. doi:10.1080/00343400601120296
Gambardella, A., Mariani, M., & Torrisi, S. (2009). How ‘provincial’
is your region? Openness and regional performance in Europe.
Regional Studies, 43(7), 935–947. doi:10.1080/
00343400801932268
Gemba, K., & Kodama, F. (2001). Diversification dynamics of the
Japanese industry. Research Policy, 30, 1165–1184. doi:10.1016/
S0048-7333(00)00140-2
Georghiou, L. (2001). Evolving frameworks for European collabor-
ation in research and technology. Research Policy, 30, 891–903.
doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00163-3
Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbekec, W., Duystersd, G., &
Van den Oorda, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the
exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance,
betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–
1731. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010
Granstrand, O. (1998). Towards a theory of the technology-based
firm. Research Policy, 27, 465–489. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333
(98)00067-5
Granstrand, O., & Oskarsson, C. (1994). Technology diversification
in ‘MUL-TECH’ corporations. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 41, 355–364. doi:10.1109/17.364559
Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall.
Larèdo, P. (1998). The networks promoted by the Framework
Programme and the questions they raise about its formulation
and implementation. Research Policy, 27, 589–598.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The Impact of research collaboration
on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.
doi:10.1177/0306312705052359
Luukkonen, T. (2002). Technology and market orientation in com-
pany participation in the EU Framework Programme. Research
Policy, 31(3), 437–455. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00118-4
Maggioni, M. A. & Uberti, T. E. (2007). Inter-regional knowledge
flows in Europe: An econometric analysis. In Frenken K. (Ed.),
REGIONAL STUDIES
Applied evolutionary economics and economic geography (pp. 230–
255). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Martinez, M. G., & Briz, J. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food &
drink industry. International Food and Agribusiness Management
Review, 3, 155–176. doi:10.1016/S1096-7508(00)00033-1
Maurseth, P. B., & Verspagen, B. (2002). Knowledge spillovers in
Europe: A patent citations analysis. Scandinavian Journal of
Economics, 104, 531–545. doi:10.1111/1467-9442.00300
Muscio, A. (2006). The European added value of Framework
Programmes: Evidence from the UK. Economia, Società e
Istituzioni, 3, 381–412.
Muscio, A. (2013). University–industry linkages: What are the deter-
minants of distance in collaborations? Papers in Regional Science,
92(4), 715–739. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00442.x
Muscio, A., Nardone, G., & Dottore, A. (2010). Understanding
demand for innovation in the food industry. Measuring Business
Excellence, 14(4), 35–48. doi:10.1108/13683041011093749
Muscio, A., Rivera Leon, L., & Reid, A. (2015). An empirical test of
the regional innovation paradox: Can smart specialisation over-
come the paradox in Central and Eastern Europe? Journal of
Economic Policy Reform, 18(2), 153–171. doi:10.1080/
17487870.2015.1013545
Paier, M., & Scherngell, T. (2011). Determinants of collaboration in
European R&D networks: Empirical evidence from a discrete
choice model. Industry and Innovation, 18(1), 89–104. doi:10.
1080/13662716.2010.528935
Pandza, K., Wilkins, T. A., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2011). Collaborative
diversity in a nanotechnology innovation system: Evidence from
the EU Framework Programme. Technovation, 31, 476–489.
doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.05.003
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a
taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373. doi:10.
1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0
Powell, W. W., & Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J.
Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford hand-
book of innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative
competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of tech-
nological diversification. Research Policy, 37, 492–507. doi:10.
1016/j.respol.2007.12.002
Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. (2009). Spatial interaction modelling of
cross-region R&D collaborations: Empirical evidence from the
5th EU Framework Programme. Papers in Regional Science, 88,
531–546. doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2008.00215.x
Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of
industrial and public research collaborations: Evidence from the
fifth EU Framework Programme. Annals of Regional Science,
46(2), 247–266. doi:10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3
Van der Panne, G. (2004). Agglomeration externalities: Marshall ver-
sus Jacobs. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 14, 593–604.
doi:10.1007/s00191-004-0232-x
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Van den Berg, J., Koch, J., & Hekkert, M. P.
(2015). Smart innovation policy: How network position and pro-
ject composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology.
Research Policy, 44, 1094–1107. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.004
Wang, Q., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2000). Complexity and the
functions of the firm: Breadth and depth. Research Policy, 29,
805–818. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00106-2
Wanzenböck, I., Scherngell, T., & Lata, R. (2015). Embeddedness of
European regions in European Union-funded research and devel-
opment (R&D) networks: A spatial econometric perspective.
Regional Studies, 49(10), 1685–1705. doi:10.1080/00343404.
2013.873119
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006).
Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model
and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4),
917–55. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00616.x