European Planning Studies

ISSN: 0965-4313 (Print) 1469-5944 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Industry 4.0: national and regional comparative

advantages in key enabling technologies

Andrea Ciffolilli & Alessandro Muscio

To cite this article: Andrea Ciffolilli & Alessandro Muscio (2018): Industry 4.0: national and
regional comparative advantages in key enabling technologies, European Planning Studies, DOI:
10.1080/09654313.2018.1529145

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1529145

Published online: 04 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceps20
EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1529145

Industry 4.0: national and regional comparative advantages in

key enabling technologies
a b
Andrea Ciffolilli and Alessandro Muscio
a
Ismeri Europa S.r.l., Rome, Italy; bDipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, degli Alimenti e dell’Ambiente, Università
degli Studi di Foggia, Foggia, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Industry 4.0 is a name used to indicate a ‘fourth industrial Received 21 June 2018
revolution’, characterised by the emergence of smart factories in Revised 13 September 2018
which cyber-physical systems monitor physical processes and Accepted 20 September 2018
communicate with each other and human beings in real time.
KEYWORDS
European Member States and regions are committed to adapt European framework
their innovation systems to the trends of Industry 4.0 and Europe programme for research and
as a whole is facing the challenge of finding a balance between innovation; industry 4.0;
promoting research and innovation excellence and putting less smart factories; smart
advanced regions in the position to benefit from the ongoing specialisation; social network
industrial revolution. However, relatively little is known about the analysis; european regions;
magnitude of this economic phenomenon, the comparative revealed comparative
advantages of countries and regions and their technological advantage
specialisation. We use data from European regions’ participation in
collaborative research projects promoted by the 7th Framework
Programme for research and innovation to investigate relative and
absolute advantages in the enabling technologies of Industry 4.0.
Data are regionalised and categorised on the basis of an original
taxonomy of technologies developed with the support of a team
of European experts in each technological domain. The article also
explores regional networks promoted by the Framework
Programme and draws policy indications to support the
competitiveness of European manufacturing.

Introduction
We are living an age of profound changes of the economic system as we know it. While the
growth in the service sector, and the increased pace of innovation experienced by some
advanced service providers, attracted the interest of many economists (Castellacci,
2008), we are now assisting a broader renewal of interest in the role of manufacturing
itself within national economies and new challenges and opportunities associated with
its changing nature (EC, 2013). The process of tertiarisation is still at the centre of the pol-
itical agenda, however, many countries have started to deal with the future of manufactur-
ing and assessing the potential of manufacturing research to enhance industrial
competitiveness and create high value jobs. The key concern here is that while many
profess the interdependence of manufacturing and innovation, a knowledge economy

CONTACT Alessandro Muscio alessandro.muscio@unifg.it Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, degli Alimenti e del-
l’Ambiente, Università degli Studi di Foggia, Via Napoli, 25 – 71100 Foggia, Italy
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

which loses interaction with its production base may lose the ability to innovate and
compete in new science and technology (S&T) based industries. Countless empirical
cases, drawn from the manufacturing industry, have contributed to shape innovation
theory as we know it today. Yet one cannot fail to note that, despite the recent literature
is putting great emphasis on the thriving growth of new technological domains such as
biotechnologies and nanotechnologies that are redesigning whole industries and expand-
ing technological possibilities, limited attention has been paid to the revolutionising
process which is transforming the whole manufacturing sector. Economists have so far
failed to realise the extent to which the business community is in turmoil because of
the challenges set by the advent of the fourth industrial revolution, dubbed ‘Industry 4.0’.
In Europe, Industry 4.0 is a term used to define novel products, processes and technol-
ogies used in organising firms’ value chains. It indicates a fourth industrial revolution
based on smart factories, in which cyber-physical systems monitor physical processes
and communicate with each other and humans in real time. Therefore, Industry 4.0 is
about changing the production process in the way it is systematically connected, informed
and controlled. Strategic discussions among the European stakeholders from manufactur-
ing industries and the research community have concluded that the successful develop-
ment of high added value technology, and therefore the technological change the EU is
looking for in its strategic documents such as the ‘Innovation Union’, should put Industry
4.0 at the centre of innovation policy, focusing on strategic sub-domains such as sustain-
able manufacturing, ICT-enabled intelligent manufacturing, high performance manufac-
turing and exploiting new materials through manufacturing (EC, 2010).1 An effective
exploitation of the opportunities arising from Industry 4.0 is also crucial to compensate
the loss of jobs in manufacturing, suggested by data on Europe as well as on other
Western economies, which is not only caused by competition of countries with lower
wage levels, but especially by the increasingly high rates of replacement of low-skilled
workforce by machines.
Industry 4.0 is already reshaping the economic system as we know it, promoting a
seamless integration between information and manufacturing processes and the dissol-
ution of the distinction between industries. Despite the growing interest in European
research and industrial policy-making for Industry 4.0, little is known, if not on case
study basis, about the extent and the distribution of the expertise in this area across
countries and regions, its dynamics, and about possible competitive advantages. Confi-
rming this, at the time of publication of this article a non-systematic literature search of
the keywords ‘Industry 4.0’, ‘Smart Factory’ and ‘Factory of the Future’ in economic jour-
nals published by Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Wiley and Taylor & Francis produced
no results.
In management and engineering literature, Industry 4.0 is an emerging topic. The man-
agement and organisational challenges faced by enterprises are studied and these are
related to how firms need to adapt their business models and approaches to strategy
and analysis, planning and implementation, cooperation and networks, as well as
human resources (Almada-Lobo, 2015; Schneider, 2018). Industry 4.0 also transforms tra-
ditional production into an ‘Industrial Internet of Things’ system in which interoperability
plays a major role (Liao et al., 2017).
Some studies focus on the changes that the Industry 4.0 paradigm will bring about in
the labour market and in industrial relations (e.g. German Federal Ministry of Labour and
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 3

Social Affairs, 2015; Lorenz, Rüßmann, Strack, Lueth, & Bolle, 2015; Seghezzi, 2016;
Wolter et al., 2015). For instance, Tiraboschi and Seghezzi (2016) discuss the major chal-
lenges posed by Industry 4.0 to workers and employers, rather than focusing on technol-
ogy as most of the literature. They highlight the effects of Industry 4.0 in terms of a crisis of
subordination, new roles of skills, a risk of technological unemployment, new decentra-
lised and participatory forms of collective bargaining and identify actions and legislative
changes which are necessary to manage those challenges. In this context, labour rules
and active policies can be factors enabling new productive processes.
Other contributions to the exploration and understanding of Industry 4.0, which
include not only journal articles but also conference proceedings, reports of industrial
associations and consultancies, etc. focus on topics such as the relation between
digital transition, productivity and growth (e.g. Daugherty, Banerjee, Negm, & Alter,
2014; Davies, 2015; Geissbauer, Vedso, & Schrauf, 2015 MIT, 2014), mapping the par-
ticipation of firms in the fourth industrial revolution within certain territories as well as
in certain sectors or industries (Assolombarda, 2016; Beltrametti & Persico, 2016; Italian
Parliament, 2016). In the attempt to contribute to the economic literature on Industry
4.0 and to the definition of the agendas of policymakers and R&D funders, this paper
presents the results of the analysis of a large sample of European research and inno-
vation projects dealing with the development of enabling technologies linked to Industry
4.0 which were financed by the European Union’s 7th Framework Programme for
Research and Innovation (FP7). The database we use in this paper has been assembled
on the basis of a project-by-project analysis, focusing on the primary objective of each
project and the type of technology developed. Industry 4.0 technologies were classified
on the basis of an original taxonomy of key research areas developed with the contri-
bution of expert peer reviews for each technological domain. The paper pays particular
attention to the investigation of country-specific competitive advantages, to the discovery
of regional hot spots and to the investigation of the research networks that are being
established in Europe.
The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 summarises the background to Industry 4.0
and the EU research and innovation policy; Section 3 presents the data and the method-
ology underlying the taxonomy for grouping FP7 projects in key enabling technologies
and the results of the statistical analysis; Section 4 draws concluding remarks and
policy implications.

Industry 4.0 and manufacturing in Europe

The importance of regional R&D specialisation
Economic studies have gradually acknowledged the territorial dimension of industrial
development and technological innovation (Moulaert & Sekia, 2003) over the last 30 years.
During this period, the literature on innovation and innovation policy has shifted from
the national to the regional dimension. Regions can evolve into regional innovation
systems if applied research is integrated into the regional industry (Muscio, 2006) and
if localised learning processes are fed with information, interaction between agents and
appropriate investments in research and education (Camagni & Capello, 2013). There is
a substantial agreement in national and regional innovation systems literature (Asheim
4 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

& Isaksen, 2002; Camagni, 1991; Cooke, 1998; Lundvall & Johnson, 1994; Morgan, 1997;
Tödtling & Trippl, 2005) on the idea that specialised economic activities sustain competi-
tive behaviours of local actors and reinforce the relationship between dynamic compe-
tition and innovation. Great concentration of scientific and economic activities
represents a favourable incubator of competitive advantage. Therefore, the concentration
of public and private resources on selected technological or market priorities have the
potential to foster the emergence of new activities and the adoption, dissemination and
adaptation of ‘general-purpose technologies’ across a wide range of sectors (Foray &
Goenaga, 2013; Foray, David, & Hall, 2011). This idea is deeply embedded in modern
European regional policy, most notably in the concept of Smart Specialisation Strategy,
and must be taken into account in this paper’s analysis of the competitive advantage of
countries and regions in Industry 4.0.
Industry 4.0 is based on a combination of advanced manufacturing, digital technologies
and related novel service solutions. Manufacturing is a critical component of any advanced
economy. It plays a central role in research and innovation as well as in productivity,
employment and export of OECD countries. Manufacturing in Europe accounts for the
largest share of expenditure in applied research and innovation with spillover effects
into the rest of the economy. It contributes greatly to productivity growth and is a
driver of high value services. According to the European Commission (2013), the manu-
facturing sector demonstrates a huge potential to generate wealth and to create high-
quality and highly skilled jobs, employing some 30 million persons in over 2.1 million
enterprises, generating nearly ||EUR 1800 billion of value added. Italy, France and
Germany alone concentrate nearly 40% of total manufacturing units. The largest share
of value added is generated by German companies, 29.1% of value added at factor cost,
while France and Italy generate some 11% each. The Investment rate (investment/value
added at factors cost) is especially concentrated in Eastern European Countries, despite
a regional innovation paradox (Muscio, Rivera Leon, & Reid, 2015), which consists of a
greater need of European lagging regions to invest in innovation despite their relatively
lower capacity to absorb funding compared to more advanced regions (Oughton, Landa-
baso, & Morgan, 2002).
The importance of manufacturing has long-been acknowledged in Europe and in the
USA, but its relevance has gathered even more consensus in the last decade. As noted
in Roos (2012), the countries that have recovered best from the crisis are all based
around high value-added export-oriented manufacturing (Austria, Denmark, Finland,
Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland). The global economic recession had sig-
nificant impacts on businesses, in terms of credit crunch and drastic reduction in domestic
and foreign demand, generating a sudden stop in productive investments and a dramatic
rise in unemployment.
The EU has reacted not without some hesitation, putting manufacturing at the centre of
the Innovation Union strategy, which aims: ‘ … to create an innovation-friendly environ-
ment that makes it easier for great ideas to be turned into products and services that will
bring our economy growth and jobs’.2 However, there are clear signs that manufacturing is
evolving rapidly: technological developments are changing its very nature to the extent
that existing industry statistics are becoming unreliable (Roos, 2012), because of the
growing intertwining of service solutions and production processes in manufacturing
firms.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 5

‘Surfing’ the Industry 4.0 wave: a priority for governments

The innovation literature uses Joseph Schumpeter’s interpretation of the Kondratieff
waves (Schumpeter, 1939) to capture the technological cycles that characterised industri-
alised economies since the industrial revolution, end of the seventeenth century. Economic
historians approximate these revolutions to four cycles (Figure 1): The First Industrial
Revolution was based on the use of water and, later, steam power to mechanise pro-
duction; The Second Industrial Revolution used electric power to introduce mass pro-
duction; The Third Industrial Revolution was based on the use of electronics and
information technology to automate production. The Fourth Industrial Revolution,
known as ‘Industry 4.0’, is based on ‘Smart Factories’, and integrates manufacturing
with state-of-the-art information and communication technology. It blends together
different technologies developed in different sectors, blurring the lines between the phys-
ical, digital, and biological spheres. Industry 4.0 entails the ‘digitalisation’ of manufactur-
ing and covers the entire life cycle of a product: from concept to development,
manufacturing, use, maintenance and recycling.3
Industry 4.0 marks the beginning of an industrial era that is fundamentally changing
the way we live, work and relate to one another. According to Schwab (2015):

Figure 1. Industrial revolutions. Source: adapted from World Economic Forum.

6 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation [that Industry 4.0 brings] will be unlike
anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but
one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all sta-
keholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil
society.4

Industry 4.0 represents the industrial production of the future and has attracted the
attention of policy makers and industries from the majority of industrialised countries.
For instance, in Europe, the German, French and Italian governments launched industrial
plans aimed at supporting the development of industry 4.0 (see next paragraph for more
details).
According to the New High-Tech Strategy for Germany5:
The key characteristics of the industrial production of the future include production of exten-
sively individualised products, within highly flexible production environments; early-stage
integration of customers and business partners within design and value-creation processes;
and linking of production and high-quality services, to yield ‘hybrid products’.

In lay-man terms this implies a model of organisation of production processes based on

technologies and devices which are able to communicate autonomously among themselves
along the value chain. It entails setting up smart factories where computer-controlled
systems manage physical processes, creating a virtual world which is parallel to the phys-
ical one.
According to Italy’s industrial association ‘Confindustria’ (2016), this transformation is
based on massive and pervasive use of digital and other enabling technologies, which are
deeply interdependent among each other. With the implementation of Industry 4.0, fac-
tories become cyber-physical spaces in which the real world and the digital world engage
with each other: the production process are characterised by machine-to-machine (M2M)
and man to machine interactions and the new enabling technologies will integrate objects
transforming them in intercommunicating ‘intelligent’ systems. The availability of large
amounts of data enhances the production process, the business models and the creation
or replacement of products.
While no official classification of Industry 4.0 activities is available, a general idea about
this topic and the related economic implications can be drawn from existing data and
analysis. Technopolis Group and Fraunhofer ISI (2015) carried out a patent data analysis
measuring European competitiveness in the area of advanced manufacturing technologies,
an important component of Industry 4.0. Advanced manufacturing processes and systems
are defined as a family of activities involving both new ways to manufacture existing pro-
ducts and the manufacture of new products emerging from advanced technologies. The
report concludes that with regard to advanced manufacturing technologies, Europe is
well positioned with respect to the USA, Japan and Korea. However, hardly any EU
Member State has substantially increased or decreased its technological activities in this
field in recent years while it can represent a robust and resilient basis for economic
growth and renewal in the European Union. Moreover, according to the analysis, much
of Europe’s capabilities are based on the industrial strength of a small group of nations
and there seem to be many regions and even Member States in which such capacities
are outright absent. While, as such, this is not an unusual situation with respect to
other European industries, it indicates that the diversity of Europe’s industrial system
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 7

needs to be taken into account as a key aspect in any considerations regarding the design
of suitable political actions in support of Industry 4.0 and it is crucial that regional differ-
ences will not be forgotten.
Over the last decade several national governments have sponsored country reports (e.g.
O’Sullivan, 2011; Ridgway, Clegg, & Williams, 2013) aimed at understanding better the
Industry 4.0 phenomenon and the transition from traditional to smart manufacturing.
At the same time, some governments have started developing national strategies specifi-
cally dedicated to Industry 4.0 and to the acquisition or consolidation of a national com-
petitive advantage in this growing economic area. Given the long-standing tradition in
manufacturing of several European countries, the EU has shown great interest in the
definition of a common strategy for Industry 4.0. The strategic objective of ‘Manufuture’,
a Horizon 2020 initiative, is to boost reindustrialisation and increase the manufacturing
industry’s current GDP contribution of approximately 16% to as much as 20%.6 This
initiative encourages Member States to optimise the use of key instruments such as the
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds) and Horizon 2020 and widen
the access to finance for new manufacturing ventures as well as established companies
with high growth potential on global level. While there are now few government-spon-
sored initiatives in support of research in the area of Industry 4.0 (e.g. the AFIL technology
cluster in Lombardy or Factory 2050 research facility in Sheffield, UK), the three largest
manufacturing countries in Europe have recently developed national strategies to
support the transition from manufacturing toward Industry 4.0.
The German government passed the High-Tech Strategy Action Plan in March 2012, as
a follow up of the High-Tech Strategy, which was launched in August 2006 and rep-
resented the first national attempt to bring key innovation and technology stakeholders
together in a common pursuit of advancing new technologies. The initiative combines
the resources of all government ministries, setting financial resources aside annually for
the development of cutting-edge technologies. The German Action Plan allocated
funding of up to EUR 200 million to INDUSTRIE 4.0, a strategic initiative aiming to
take up a pioneering role in the industrial information technologies which are revolutio-
nising the manufacturing sector. INDUSTRIE 4.0 is a central focus of the Federal Govern-
ment’s Digital Agenda and involves all the most relevant German stakeholders from the
public and private sector. The government wants to utilise the potential of the digital tran-
sition of commerce and INDUSTRIE 4.0 to strengthen Germany’s manufacturing base,
providing fiscal aid to technological start-ups and sponsoring research projects.
The French Government launched the project ‘Industrie du Futur’ in 2015, a second
step of the national industrial strategy ‘Nouvelle France Industrielle’, which was designed
to interface the French innovation system with the German one. ‘Industrie du Futur’ sup-
ports the modernisation of manufacturing processes and the digital transformation of
business models. The national strategy had broad ambitions and should capitalise on
the achievements of the plan ‘Usine du Futur’. ‘Industrie du Futur’ is based on five
pillars: (1) Support the technological supply, promoting projects in markets where
France can acquire European or World leadership in 3–5 years (e.g. additive manufactur-
ing, 3D printers, augmented reality, etc.); (2) Provide financial support for companies that
invest in modernising their production capacities; (3) Staff training; (4) Strengthen
cooperation and strategic partnerships at European and international level, especially
with Germany; (5) Promote the industry of the future and the relevant French know-how.
8 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

The Italian Government launched a national programme in 2016: ‘Piano Nazionale

Industria 4.0’. This is the latest national initiative, in chronological order, aimed at pro-
moting Industry 4.0 in Europe. This plan supports investments through tax credits,
enhancement of competences, development of ultra-broadband infrastructure, strength-
ening technology clusters as well as through various other aid schemes and initiatives
(Ciffolilli, 2016).
Despite this growing interest in research and industrial policy-making for Industry 4.0,
little is known, if not on case study basis, about what the European industry and research
system is doing in this context. It is unknown whether the expertise in this area is country-
specific, whether there are few key regional hot spots and whether competencies are clus-
tered in few enabling technologies or evenly distributed. In the attempt to fill this gap in
the economic literature, the remainder of this paper analyses European research and
technology investments on Industry 4.0 supported by the FP7 and draws conclusions
on European competitive advantages in this field.

Industry 4.0 in research and technology development projects financed by

the EU
Data description
The core of our analysis is based on data drawn from an original database, RED, of
approximately 10,000 research cooperation projects funded by the FP7 ‘Cooperation’
and ‘Capacities’ programmes. The RED database was developed and is constantly
updated by Ismeri Europa, research and consulting institute.7 It contains regionalised
(NUTS2) information on project budgets, type and name of partner organisations
involved, sector of application, key research area and key technologies developed
through the projects. The information on each project is extracted from CORDIS (Com-
munity Research and Development Information Service) which, however, does not
provide a classification by key technology but only organises information by call. Each
call does not identify a research area but only a general theme and it is frequent that a
project financed within a certain call (e.g. NMP– Nanotechnologies, Materials and New
Production Technologies) may be actually developing technological solutions relevant
for one or more sectors of application, not necessarily directly related to the call’s thematic
focus (e.g. ICT, life sciences, industrial processes, agri-food). Therefore, the identification
of the technological focus of an investment requires a project by project analysis and the
use of a taxonomy of key technologies.
As previously highlighted, no official classification of Industry 4.0 activities and technol-
ogies exists in the literature. There is a broad consensus on the fact that Industry 4.0 includes
Internet of Things (IoT), Industrial Internet, Smart Manufacturing and Cloud based Man-
ufacturing, and that Industry 4.0 concerns the integration between humans and manufactur-
ing processes so as to have continuous improvement and focus on value adding activities
and avoiding wastes (Vaidyaa, Prashant Ambadb, & Bhoslec, 2018). However, the footprints
of the digital evolutions in manufacturing, the technological borders and the application fra-
meworks are not yet specified. Hence the adoption of this paradigm still requires more
research to further develop the knowledge about the drivers and accomplishments of Indus-
try 4.0 (Santos, Mehrsai, Barros, Araújo, & Ares, 2017). The academic literature is paying an
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 9

Table 1. Industry 4.0 projects financed by the FP7: number of projects, participations and costs by
enabling technology (EUR).
Enabling technology Project cost % No. of projects No. of participations
Additive manufacturing 246,448,171 4.59 53 562
Advanced manufacturing solutions 1,550,457,984 28.85 297 3,245
Augmented reality 1,531,169,613 28.49 337 2,844
Big data and analytics 627,181,239 11.67 149 1,294
Cyber-security 264,466,130 4.92 61 571
Horizontal/vertical integration 43,916,966 0.82 8 99
Industrial Internet & Cloud 969,159,478 18.03 151 1,778
Simulation 141,417,810 2.63 36 466
Total 5,374,217,389 100.00 1,092 10,859

increasing attention to this topic, but the concept remains non-consensual (Pereira &
Romero, 2017).
Here we use the list of enabling technologies defined in the Italian plan for Industry 4.0,
which can be directly linked to the RED taxonomy of FP7 key enabling technologies,
developed on the basis of a peer review process led by experts in each technological
domain. According to this taxonomy, the main enabling technologies of Industry 4.0 are:

. Advanced Manufacturing Solutions – Interconnected, easily programmable collabora-

tive robots;
. Additive Manufacturing – such as 3D printers connected to digital development
software;
. Augmented Reality – Augmented reality supporting production processes;
. Simulation – Simulation between interconnected machines to optimise processes;
. Horizontal/Vertical Integration – Integration of information along the value chain,
from suppliers to consumers;
. Industrial Internet & Cloud – Multidirectional communication between production
processes and products; management of big data on open systems;
. Cyber-security – Security in network operations and on open systems;
. Big Data and Analytics – Big data analysis to optimise products and processes.

Table 1 presents the total number of FP7 projects principally aimed at developing the
Industry 4.0 enabling technologies listed above. Table 1 also presents the total number of
participations in the selected projects and their aggregate cost. The large majority of pro-
jects and participations is concentrated in just two technologies: ‘advanced manufacturing
solutions’ and ‘augmented reality’, which account for over 57% of total costs. These two
areas are followed by ‘big data and analytics’ and ‘industrial internet & cloud’.

National comparative advantages in Industry 4.0

Table 2 presents country statistics on participation in FP7 projects concerning Industry
4.0. According to the data, four groups of countries and corresponding types of national
innovation systems can be distinguished:

. Germany is a solitary leader in Industry 4.0 research and technology development, both
in terms of project coordination and participation. Germany can also count on wide
participation of national firms in collaborative projects;
10 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

Table 2. Industry 4.0 projects financed by the FP7: Country participation and type of participating
organisations.
Universities and Total no. of Total no. of
Country Enterprises RTOs Other participations % projects %
Germany 867 1064 46 1977 18.21 234 21.45
Spain 589 554 71 1214 11.18 172 15.77
Italy 598 556 55 1209 11.13 143 13.11
United 545 788 45 1378 12.69 141 12.92
Kingdom
France 488 427 33 948 8.73 71 6.51
Greece 117 281 21 419 3.86 51 4.67
Netherlands 235 264 20 519 4.78 47 4.31
Austria 175 186 19 380 3.50 44 4.03
Sweden 125 180 9 314 2.89 27 2.47
Norway 73 79 8 160 1.47 25 2.29
Ireland 65 78 8 151 1.39 22 2.02
Finland 108 115 12 235 2.16 21 1.92
Switzerland 187 244 11 442 4.07 21 1.92
Belgium 122 157 41 320 2.95 20 1.83
Denmark 85 82 10 177 1.63 11 1.01
Portugal 86 117 12 215 1.98 9 0.82
Hungary 60 43 9 112 1.03 6 0.55
Slovenia 48 55 4 107 0.99 5 0.46
Luxembourg 15 8 2 25 0.23 4 0.37
Estonia 9 12 4 25 0.23 3 0.27
Croatia 6 17 2 25 0.23 2 0.18
Cyprus 17 14 1 32 0.29 2 0.18
Czech Republic 54 53 6 113 1.04 2 0.18
Iceland 7 3 10 0.09 2 0.18
Poland 55 73 5 133 1.22 2 0.18
Slovakia 18 10 3 31 0.29 2 0.18
Latvia 7 14 1 22 0.20 1 0.09
Lithuania 9 8 3 20 0,18 1 0.09
Bulgaria 28 18 3 49 0,45
Liechtenstein 3 0 3 0,03
Malta 3 2 5 10 0,09
Romania 46 30 8 84 0,77
Total 4850 5532 477 10,859 100.00 1091 100.00

. Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom constitute the upper half of a strong second tier of
Member States with significant capacities in Industry 4.0 and project leadership in over
40% of cases. In these countries participation of research institutions and enterprises is
generally balanced, with the exception of the United Kingdom, where the participation
is skewed towards research institutions, in Industry 4.0 as well as in other areas of the FP7;
. France, Greece, the Netherlands and Austria constitute the lower half of a strong second
tier of Member States with significant capacities in Industry 4.0. In this group we can
also include Switzerland, a non-EU country that has a relatively high rate of partici-
pation in European FPs despite its lower rate of project coordination;
. All other Member States can be considered as laggards, not possessing significant
capacities in any of the fields of Industry 4.0.

As shown in Table 2, Industry 4.0 research activities are strongly concentrated in a

handful of countries. However, several countries are starting to show a relative advantage
with respect to individual enabling technologies of Industry 4.0. Table 3 shows the results
of a country-level Balassa index of: (i) relative advantage or specialisation (RCA– Revealed
Comparative Advantage)8 and (ii) absolute advantage or capacity to obtain resources to
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 11

finance R&D projects (AbA – Absolute Advantage).9 The RCA is commonly used in inter-
national economics to estimate the relative trade advantage of countries in a certain class
of goods or services. In this context, it is used to estimate whether some countries have a
comparative advantage, expressed in terms of FP7 funding they received, in specific tech-
nologies. When RCA is equal to or greater than one, it reveals that countries are specialised
and have a relative advantage in a given technology. The AbA measures countries’ absolute
advantage in given technologies. It indicates whether some countries have a capability to
obtain research funding in given Industry 4.0 technologies weighted according to their
population share in Europe. Therefore, while the RCA measures the level of specialisation
in certain technologies, the AbA indicates whether specific countries perform better than
others in their capability to attract funding.
As shown in Table 3, while Italy and Germany participate in a relatively high number of
Industry 4.0 projects, they seem to have a specialisation (RCA ≥ 1) only in some enabling
technologies, as all estimated indexes approximate the level of 1, with few exceptions. In
general terms, while larger countries tend to score low levels of RCA indexes, and hence to
diversify in several domains, smaller countries tend to be more specialised.
The results for the AbA show that the capacity to obtain resources usually reflects the
country specialisation in a given technology but this is not always the case. For example,
Slovenia is not specialised in ‘industrial internet & cloud’ but has an absolute advantage in
the field. Switzerland is not specialised in ‘simulation’ but has a high absolute advantage in
this technology. These countries, together with the Netherlands, Germany and Estonia
show the highest absolute advantage with an index above 1 in seven cases out of eight.

Hotspots or national advantages?

The analysis of the regional distribution of participations in Industry 4.0 collaborative pro-
jects provides some more details on research activity patterns across Europe. Our dataset
covers 294 NUTS2 regions. As shown in Figure 2, Industry 4.0 research and technology
development activity is strongly concentrated, in terms of obtained resources, in the
core of Europe at the sub-national level. Germany’s strengths are located in the South
of the country, most notably in Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria and North Rhine– Westpha-
lia. In Austria, Styria stands out as a particularly active region. In Italy, most activities are
concentrated in Lombardy as well as in western regions including Piedmont, Tuscany,
Lazio and Emilia-Romagna. In France, Rhône-Alpes and Île-de-France play a leading
role. In Spain, Catalonia, Basque Country and Madrid stand out. Also in the other
countries, capital regions are important hubs while, in general, Eastern and Southern
European regions play a very limited role.
In summary, the analysis reveals relevant regional disparities: capacities in Industry 4.0
remain strongly concentrated not only at an international level, but also within Member
States.
In order to provide some insights into regional partnerships in each enabling technol-
ogy, we analysed the structure of the networks promoted by the FP7. Table 4 presents
some standard indexes of social network analysis (SNA) assessing research and technology
development partnerships at the NUT2 level. The results show that there are significant
differences in the approach of regional partners towards research networks.
 12
Table 3. Industry 4.0: National advantages in enabling technologies.

A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

RCA – REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AbA – ABSOLUTE ADVANTAGE
Advanced
Additive manu- Big Data Horizontal/ Industrial Additive Advanced Big Data Horizontal/ Industrial
Industry manu- facturing Augmented and Cyber- Vertical Internet & manu- manufacturing Augmented and Cyber- Vertical Internet &
4.0 facturing solutions reality Analytics security integration Cloud Simulation facturing solutions reality Analytics security integration Cloud Simulation
Austria 2.30 1.08 0.68 1.45 1.29 1.67 0.00 0.42 0.44 2.48 1.56 3.34 2.97 3.83 0.00 0.98 1.00
Belgium 1.31 1.68 0.89 1.05 0.42 1.33 1.46 1.34 0.39 2.20 1.17 1.38 0.55 1.75 1.92 1.76 0.51
Bulgaria 0.18 1.50 0.30 0.73 2.91 0.43 0.00 0.71 4.85 0.27 0.05 0.13 0.52 0.08 0.00 0.13 0.87
Croatia 0.18 0.11 0.70 1.43 1.39 0.00 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.26 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00
Cyprus 1.21 1.06 0.50 0.78 1.80 1.12 5.75 1.56 0.00 1.28 0.60 0.94 2.17 1.35 6.95 1.89 0.00
Czech Republic 0.34 0.82 1.68 1.07 0.54 0.40 0.00 0.31 0.75 0.28 0.57 0.37 0.18 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.26
Denmark 1.55 1.67 1.64 0.90 0.42 0.56 0.00 0.52 0.57 2.58 2.54 1.39 0.65 0.86 0.00 0.80 0.88
Estonia 0.56 0.00 0.48 2.48 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.39 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00
Finland 1.93 0.67 1.26 0.60 1.15 0.72 5.02 1.21 0.31 1.29 2.44 1.16 2.23 1.40 9.69 2.34 0.60
France 0.65 0.69 1.06 0.84 0.62 1.58 0.57 1.43 1.03 0.45 0.69 0.55 0.40 1.03 0.37 0.92 0.67
Germany 1.37 1.06 1.19 0.98 0.96 0.85 0.53 0.75 1.14 1.45 1.62 1.33 1.32 1.16 0.73 1.02 1.56
Greece 1.84 0.22 0.47 0.87 2.10 0.86 2.29 1.61 0.88 0.40 0.86 1.59 3.86 1.58 4.21 2.96 1.61
Hungary 0.27 0.00 0.82 0.82 1.72 1.18 0.00 1.08 2.85 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.46 0.32 0.00 0.29 0.77
Iceland 0.88 1.37 1.20 1.48 1.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 1.05 1.30 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ireland 1.56 0.10 0.57 0.66 1.64 1.99 1.21 1.91 0.89 0.16 0.89 1.04 2.55 3.10 1.88 2.98 1.39
Italy 0.96 0.93 0.96 1.11 0.92 1.16 1.43 0.80 1.31 0.90 0.92 1.06 0.88 1.12 1.38 0.77 1.26
Latvia 0.37 12.17 0.62 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 4.51 0.23 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00
Liechtenstein 2.48 0.00 1.97 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.89 3.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lithuania 0.16 0.00 2.18 1.04 0.00 0.81 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.00
Luxembourg 2.17 0.00 0.44 0.42 2.55 3.31 8.03 1.05 0.96 0.00 0.95 0.92 5.54 7.18 17.41 2.28 2.08
Malta 0.74 0.00 0.00 2.83 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00
Netherlands 1.50 1.46 0.89 1.05 1.14 1.37 0.85 0.87 0.25 2.19 1.34 1.58 1.71 2.06 1.28 1.31 0.38
Norway 1.90 1.16 0.39 0.74 1.34 1.64 0.00 1.70 3.71 2.20 0.75 1.40 2.55 3.11 0.00 3.23 7.05
Poland 0.09 0.72 0.85 0.86 1.36 1.71 0.00 1.27 0.51 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.00 0.12 0.05
Portugal 0.76 0.88 0.76 1.31 0.52 1.65 4.33 0.98 0.24 0.68 0.58 1.00 0.40 1.26 3.30 0.75 0.18
Romania 0.10 0.55 1.09 0.65 0.91 1.22 0.00 1.67 1.38 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.09 0.13 0.00 0.17 0.14
Slovakia 0.20 1.27 0.52 0.06 2.54 0.25 0.68 2.46 2.22 0.25 0.10 0.01 0.50 0.05 0.13 0.49 0.44
Slovenia 1.92 0.53 0.79 1.00 1.70 0.21 1.40 0.94 2.45 1.02 1.52 1.92 3.27 0.41 2.68 1.80 4.69
Spain 1.08 1.01 1.20 0.75 0.84 0.80 1.46 1.23 1.24 1.09 1.30 0.81 0.91 0.86 1.58 1.33 1.34
Sweden 1.84 0.83 1.23 1.03 0.44 0.53 0.55 1.27 0.65 1.53 2.25 1.89 0.81 0.98 1.02 2.33 1.20
Switzerland 2.83 1.18 1.06 1.18 0.56 0.61 0.40 1.04 0.72 3.34 3.01 3.35 1.59 1.73 1.14 2.93 2.05
United Kingdom 1.11 1.08 0.85 1.17 1.28 0.67 0.77 0.85 0.83 1.21 0.94 1.30 1.43 0.75 0.85 0.94 0.92
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 13

Figure 2. Industry 4.0: Regional distribution of FP7 investments. Note: graduated intervals based on
natural breaks (Jenks); classes: low (≤ EUR 7.1 million); medium–low (>7.1 and ≤18.9 million);
medium (>18.9 and ≤38.1 million); medium–high (>38.1 and ≤60.9 million); high (>60.9 and
≤138.2 million). Source: authors’ calculation based on the RED database.

The average 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 Indus-
try 4.0 projects financed by the FP7. The average aggregate number of links is 101, which is
very high as our network includes just 255 regions participating in Industry 4.0 projects
but, as expected, the estimated average values are lower at the level of individual enabling
technologies, ranging from just 14 links in the area of ‘horizontal/vertical integration’, to
60 in ‘advanced manufacturing solutions’. Therefore, the density of the networks varies
widely.
The eigenvector centrality index provides a measure of centrality that depends both on
the number and the quality of connections. As suggested in 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. Typi-
cally, 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 centrality of all linked
 14
A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO
Table 4. Regional network characteristics.
Industry Additive Advanced Augmented Big Data and Cyber- Horizontal/Vertical Industrial
4.0 manufacturing manufacturing solutions reality Analytics security integration Internet & Cloud Simulation
n 255 150 226 214 171 121 56 177 121
Average Degree 101.141 25.893 60.133 53.636 35.737 23.033 14.714 50.266 31.926
Eigenvector 69.950 78.250 88.990 54.700 51.030 93.720 87.600 67.890 56.630
Density 0.398 0.174 0.267 0.252 0.210 0.192 0.268 0.286 0.266
Compactness 0.696 0.566 0.628 0.617 0.593 0.581 0.604 0.638 0.619
Weighted ov. graph 5.548 0.992 2.287 2.526 1.502 1.260 1.238 2.908 3.029
clustering coeff.
Average path length 1.611 1.938 1.759 1.795 1.851 1.881 1.875 1.733 1.804
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 15

regions (see Bonacich, 1987). The results for the eigenvector show that ‘cyber-security’,
‘advanced manufacturing solutions’ and ‘horizontal/vertical integration’ are the areas
where regions are most likely to be tightly clustered around central actors (i.e. there are
no ‘clubs’ at the periphery of the network).
The density indicator measures the proportion of all possible ties that are actually
present in the network. It is calculated as the sum of the existing ties divided by the
number of all possible ties. The results indicate that, the majority of networks are relatively
compact but, again, there are some differences across enabling technologies in the degree
of connectedness between regions. While in the area of ‘additive manufacturing’ there is
17.4% of possible ties, in ‘industrial internet & cloud’ there is 28.6% of possible connec-
tions. The results, at the level of individual technologies, show that the degree of compact-
ness remains relatively high in all areas, but ‘additive manufacturing’ remains the loosest
network, and ‘industrial internet & cloud’ the most compact. We also estimated the
weighted clustering coefficient which represents the average of the densities of the neigh-
bourhoods of all of the regions in the network. A high level of clustering increases the
chances that complex knowledge is spread more effectively. The results of the estimated
clustering coefficients show, again great variability, ranging between 0.992 and 3.029,
and confirm that regions are embedded in some cases in highly clustered neighbourhoods.
Finally, 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. Large distances as opposed to proximity may represent
an obstacle to knowledge diffusion. In our case, we find that the average path length is rela-
tively short, ranging between 1.73 and 1.94, depending on the technology, where two
directly connected regions in a FP7 project are at a distance of 1.
This shows that FP7 is promoting relatively tight networks where each region is con-
nected, on average, in less than two steps in any technology. Networks such as these
can be considered conducive to effective information diffusion between regions. The exist-
ing differences between different technologies show that European regions are connected
in relatively few steps, but the density and the structure of the networks varies greatly.
While in few instances there are ‘elite clubs’ of regions involved in intensive knowledge
exchange processes, in other cases networks tend to be more ‘democratic’.
A closer analysis of the cooperation network in Industry 4.0 at the NUTS2 level reveals
that German regions’ central role remains an unmistakable feature of all networks, with all
German NUTS2 regions participating in at least one project. Interestingly, however, other
regions seem to be more central in some networks, at least with respect to specific enabling
technologies. Figure 3 presents a scatter diagram of the regional degree of centrality and
the degree of concentration in one or more of the given technologies measured with the
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI index is conventionally used in industrial
organisation to measure industry concentration, but it is becoming popular to measure
technological diversification (Quintana-Garcia & Benavides-Velasco, 2008). The Figure
also presents the median values, which helps segmenting different groups of regions.
Overall, four types of regions can be distinguished:

. Generalist hubs: Many regions located in central Europe (e.g. in Germany, Northern
Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, etc.) enjoy multiple and strong links to many other
regions in a relatively wide range of enabling technologies. They represent polycentric
16 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

Figure 3. Regional centrality and specialisation on Industry 4.0 enabling technologies.

systems, with competitive companies and research institutions. They can be considered
as hubs of genuinely wide inter-regional systems of technological cooperation.
. Peripheral generalist systems: those regions represent a group of first tiers in respect to
their capacity to develop Industry 4.0 technologies. They are peripheral with respect to
the first group and have not specialised in any technology in particular. For them, it
remains a constant challenge to defend their role in European competition and their
regional innovation systems may be less competitive than those of the ‘generalist
hubs’. This applies to the industrial heartlands of several central European countries
as well as part of Spain and the UK.
. Peripheral specialised systems: those regions represent a group of second tiers in Indus-
try 4.0 technologies. They are relevant players in leading nations or central players in
less developed regions. Their technological activities are more limited and less
diverse, but still reach a certain critical mass, suggesting that they can connect to Euro-
pean hubs. For example, this applies to the periphery of Poland, Hungary and part of
the UK. They are peripheral with respect to the first group and specialise in few tech-
nologies. Their regional innovation systems are less competitive than those of the ‘gen-
eralist hubs’ and they are likely to strive to remain connected to central research
networks in Europe.
. Isolated systems: a relatively significant number of regions (39 units corresponding to
13.3% of the total NUTS2) is not involved in any project in the field of Industry 4.0.
Therefore, a range of opportunities for collaboration in technology development
exist at the national level, but regional integration needs to be leveraged.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 17

This result of high concentration and significant disparities is not limited to Industry 4.0
but it is rather a feature of EU research and technology development policy. A straightfor-
ward consequence of these findings on patterns of collaboration is that interregional
cooperation in Industry 4.0 falls short of what might be desirable for the purpose of Euro-
pean integration and cohesion. At the same time this opens room for a stronger role of
national policy in reducing within-country regional disparities and hence fostering Euro-
pean integration and cohesion. This can be done not only by fostering research and tech-
nology development capacities of countries and regions but also by fostering knowledge
transfer and absorption.

Conclusions and policy implications

The fourth industrial revolution, known as Industry 4.0, is characterised by a growth of
advanced manufacturing, a diffused digital transition, an emergence of new service sol-
utions and smart factories. This industrial revolution fosters ‘man to machine’,
‘machine to man’, and ‘machine to machine’ communication and integration.
In the globalised world, recovering from the economic recession, Industry 4.0 has
attracted the attention of enterprises and governments alike, gaining a central position
in the policy agenda of the European Union as well as of many of its Member States.
Indeed, several national governments in Europe and elsewhere have shown renewed inter-
est in industrial policy and manufacturing and are determined to support firms and
research organisations in order to boost growth and employment. The industrial pro-
grammes launched by the German, French and Italian governments, aimed at supporting
the development of Industry 4.0, are examples of this revived attention. A similar commit-
ment was taken by the USA, with the ‘Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation
Act’ of 2013, a bill that requires to establish a network of centres for manufacturing inno-
vation, and awards financial assistance to assist in planning, establishing or supporting
such centres.
The existing literature on Industry 4.0 highlights that the fourth industrial revolution
generates numerous challenges, from those concerning manufacturing design and intero-
perability, to those affecting industrial organisation and the labour market, with both posi-
tive and negative effects on the economy and society. These may explain the various policy
initiatives that are being taken to reinforce positive outcomes and impacts of Industry 4.0
and to mitigate negative effects. Nonetheless, relatively little is known about the magnitude
of this economic phenomenon, about the comparative advantages of countries and
regions, and their technological specialisation.
In order to contribute to the economic literature on the fourth industrial revolution,
this article provides a classification of Industry 4.0 enabling technologies. Then, based
on original data on EU financed research and technology development projects, it sheds
light on how the capacities to develop such enabling technologies are distributed in
Europe and where the advantages in terms of knowledge creation lie.
Our findings show that the comparative advantages in Industry 4.0 research and tech-
nology development, which require cooperation among enterprises and research organis-
ations, are very much concentrated between and within countries. In other words much of
Europe’s capabilities are based on the industrial strength of a small group of nations while
there are many regions and Member States in which such capacities are absent. This is not
18 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

an unusual situation with respect to other European industries, but it indicates that the
diversity of Europe’s industrial systems is a key aspect to take into account in designing
suitable policy actions in support of Industry 4.0, and it is crucial that regional differences
are not overlooked.
The results of the analysis clash with the goal of EU policy to facilitate cohesion and
reduce disparities in research and technological development. This makes it important
to identify strategies and implement initiatives aimed at effectively channelling the new
industrial revolution also towards the reduction of regional gaps.
In this context, it would be desirable that EU policy makers try to find a balance
between promoting research and innovation excellence and reducing gaps, for instance
by means of initiatives which can further encourage participation and cooperation of
different types of territories (e.g. not only Industry 4.0 hubs, but also peripheral and iso-
lated regions) in Horizon Europe, the next Framework Programme for research and inno-
vation. It is equally important to encourage synergies between the available funding
instruments (e.g. FP resources, ESI Funds which finance RIS3– Smart Specialisation Strat-
egies, and national programmes) in order to ensure economies of scale and scope in
research and innovation as well as in infrastructural development.
The policy implications drawn from our article and focused on national and regional
advantages are complementary to those emerging from the management literature
which stresses how enterprises are not evenly equipped to deal with the fourth industrial
revolution. They face challenges related to the need to adapt their strategies, business
models, cooperation approach and networks, human resources etc. (Schneider, 2018).
Of course, this concerns especially small sized, family owned business rather than large
enterprises which have developed strategies to approach Industry 4.0 and are investing.
Such disparities, at enterprise level, in the capacities to benefit from Industry 4.0 may
also call for targeted EU, national and regional measures aimed at facilitating the
inclusion/involvement of SMEs.
In conclusion, the ongoing industrial revolution poses challenges which may concern
various levels, from individual stakeholders such as firms, to regions and countries.
This opens up plenty of potential opportunities for policy makers that are keen on facil-
itating the transition towards Industry 4.0. However, policies need to be adapted to the
economic conditions in specific regions or Member States, while a copy and paste
approach will not work. Moreover, existing policies need to be evaluated and refined
before new approaches are designed and launched (Smit, Kreutzer, Moeller, & Carlberg,
2016). In this context it becomes increasingly important that policy choices are guided
by evidence and key performance indicators which incorporate information on compara-
tive advantages of organisations and regions in key enabling technologies.

Notes
1. In preparation for the launch of the ‘Factories of the Future’ public-private partnership under
FP7, EFFRA, the European Factories of the Future Research Association, prepared a roadmap
identifying four research priorities:

- Sustainable Manufacturing: Energy-efficient manufacturing with minimal environmental

impact.
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 19

- ICT-Enabled Intelligent Manufacturing: Improved efficiency, adaptability and sustainabil-

ity incorporated into flexible business models and agile manufacturing processes.
- High-Performance Manufacturing: Additive production equipment, high-precision manu-
facturing with near-to-zero defects.
- Exploiting New Materials Through Manufacturing: Safe, cost-effective and affordable tech-
nology and production equipment for processing new materials.

2. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/index_en.cfm
3. http://www.bmwi.de/EN/Topics/Economy/Industrial-policy/industrie-4-0,
did=708234.html?view=renderPrint
4. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-
and-how-to-respond/
5. https://www.bmbf.de/pub/HTS_Broschuere_eng.pdf
6. http://www.manufuture2015.eu
7. https://ismerieuropa.com/en/
8. Expressed as follows:
RFij /RFit
RCA = (1)
RFnj /RFnt
where RFij is FP7 research funding in Country i and for enabling technology j while RFit is the
FP7 research funding in Country i for all Industry 4.0 enabling technologies (8); RFnj is the
total FP7 research funding in all European Countries (32), considered in the analysis, in tech-
nology j, while RFnt is the total FP7 research funding in all European countries and for all
Industry 4.0 enabling technologies. The numerator measures the share of funding that
Country i received out all the funding it received for projects developing Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies. The denominator measures instead the share of funding that all European countries
received out all the funding they received for developing Industry 4.0 technologies.
9. Expressed as follows:
RFij /RFnj
AbA = (2)
POPi /POPn
where POP is the population headcount while RFij and RFit are defined as in the calculation
of RCA.

Acknowledgements
This work benefited from valuable input from Antonio Lopolito, Luca Rossi, Marco Pompili and
the anonymous referees.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Andrea Ciffolilli http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6738-4967
Alessandro Muscio http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5186-2522
20 A. CIFFOLILLI AND A. MUSCIO

References
Almada-Lobo, F. (2015). The industry 4.0 revolution and the future of manufacturing execution
systems (MES). Journal of Innovation Management, 3(4), 16–21.
Asheim, B. T., & Isaksen, A. (2002). Regional innovation systems: The integration of local ‘sticky’
and global ‘ubiquitous’ knowledge. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 77–86. doi:10.
1023/A:1013100704794
Beltrametti, L., & Persico, L. (Eds). (2016). I risultati dell’indagine Industria 4.0 condotta da
Federmeccanica. Rome: Federmeccanica.
Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92,
1170–1182. doi:10.1086/228631
Camagni, R. (1991). Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives. London: Belhaven Press.
Camagni, R., & Capello, R. (2013). Regional innovation patterns and the EU regional policy reform:
Toward smart innovation policies. Growth and Change, 44, 355–389. doi:10.1111/grow.12012
Castellacci, F. (2008). Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and
service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation. Research Policy, 37(6–
7), 978–994. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.03.011
Centro Studi Assolombarda (ed). (2016). Industria 4.0, Confindustria Milano Monza e Brianza
Position Paper, 2.
Ciffolilli, A. (2016). Dove l’Italia ha un vantaggio nella tecnologia. Retrieved from http://www.
lavoce.info/archives/43334/italia-in-vantaggio-nelle-tecnologie-abilitanti/
Confindustria. (2016). Indagine conoscitiva su “Industria 4.0": quale modello applicare al tessuto
industriale italiano. Strumenti per favorire la digitalizzazione delle filiere industriali nazionali,
Audizione Parlamentare, Commissione Attività Produttive, Camera dei Deputati.
Cooke, P. (1998) Introduction. Origins of the concept of regional innovation system. In H.-J.
Braczyk et al. (eds), Regional innovation systems (pp. 2–25). London: UCL Press.
Daugherty, P., Banerjee, P., Negm, W., & Alter, A. E. (2014). Driving unconventional growth
through the industrial Internet of Things, Accenture.
Davies, R. (2015). Industry 4.0. Digitalisation for productivity and growth, EPRS Briefing, PE
568.337.
European Commission. (2010). Factories of the Future: Multi-annual Roadmap for the Contractual
PPP under Horizon 2020, prepared by the Ad-hoc Industrial Advisory Group, Brussels.
European Commission. (2013). Factories of the Future: Multi-annual Roadmap for the Contractual
PPP under Horizon 2020, prepared by EFFRA, Brussels.
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 polytechnique 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).
Geissbauer, R., Vedso, J., & Schrauf, S. (2015). Industry 4.0: Building the digital enterprise. PwC.
German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs. (2015). Green Paper Work 4.0, Re-
Imagining Work.
Italian Parliament. (2016). Indagine conoscitiva su «Industria 4.0»: quale modello applicare al
tessuto industriale italiano. Strumenti per favorire la digitalizzazione delle filiere industriali
nazionali, Camera dei Deputati, Commissione X, 30 giugno.
Liao, Y., Ramos, L. F. P., Saturno, M., Deschamps, F., de Freitas Rocha Loures, E., & Szejka, A. L.
(2017). The role of interoperability in the fourth industrial revolution Era. IFAC-PapersOnLine,
50(1), 12434–12439. doi:10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1248
Lorenz, M., Rüßmann, M., Strack, R., Lueth, K. L., & Bolle, M. (2015). Man and machine in industry
4.0. How will technology transform the industrial workforce through 2025? Boston Consulting
Group.
Lundvall, B-Å, & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1, 23–42.
doi:10.1080/13662719400000002
 EUROPEAN PLANNING STUDIES 21

MIT. (2014). The Internet of Things, MIT Technology Review Business Report, various authors.
Morgan, K. (1997). The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional
Studies, 31(5), 491–503. doi:10.1080/00343409750132289
Moulaert, F., & Sekia, F. (2003). Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. Regional Studies,
37(3), 289–302. doi:10.1080/0034340032000065442
Muscio, A. (2006). From regional innovation systems to local innovation systems: Evidence from
Italian idustrial districts. European Planning Studies, 14(6), 773–789.
Muscio, A., Rivera Leon, L., & Reid, A. (2015). An empirical test of the regional innovation paradox:
Can smart specialisation overcome the paradox in the central and eastern European countries?
Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 18(2), 153–171. doi:10.1080/17487870.2015.1013545
O’Sullivan, E. (2011). A review of international approaches to manufacturing research. Cambridge:
University of Cambridge.
Oughton, C., Landabaso, M., & Morgan, K. (2002). The regional innovation paradox: Innovation
policy and industrial policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27, 97–110. doi:10.1023/
A:1013104805703
Pereira, A. C., & Romero, F. (2017). A review of the meanings and the implications of the Industry
4.0 concept. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 1206–1214. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.032
Quintana-Garcia, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and
exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37, 492–507. doi:10.
1016/j.respol.2007.12.002
Ridgway, K., Clegg, C. W., & Williams, D. J. (2013). The factory of the future. Sheffield: The National
Metals Technology Centre, University of Sheffield, AMRC.
Roos, G. (2012). Manufacturing into the future. Adelaide: Government of South Australia.
Santos, C., Mehrsai, A., Barros, A. C., Araújo, M., & Ares, E. (2017). Towards Industry 4.0: An over-
view of European strategic roadmaps. Procedia Manufacturing, 13, 972–979. doi:10.1016/j.
promfg.2017.09.093
Scherngell, T., & Barber, M. (2011). Distinct spatial characteristics of industrial and public research
collaborations: Evidence from the fifth EU framework programme. The Annals of Regional
Science, 46(2), 247–266. doi:10.1007/s00168-009-0334-3
Schneider, P. (2018). Managerial challenges of Industry 4.0: An empirically backed research agenda
for a nascent field. Review of Managerial Science, 12(3), 803–848. doi:10.1007/s11846-018-0283-2
Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles - a theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capi-
talist process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schwab, K. (2015). The fourth industrial revolution: What it means and how to respond. Retrieved
from https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-12-12/fourth-industrial-revolution.
Seghezzi, F. (2016). L’impatto della Manifattura 4.0 sulle relazioni industriali, in Aa.Vv., La strada
verso la Manifattura 4.0 – Progetto di ricerca “Focus Group Manifattura 4.0”, Centro Studi e
Area Industria e Innovazione di Assolombarda Confindustria Milano Monza e Brianza.
Smit, J., Kreutzer, S., Moeller, C., & Carlberg, M. (2016). Industry 4.0, Study for the ITRE
Committee, European Parliament.
Technopolis Group and Fraunhofer ISI. (2015). Regional Innovation Monitor Plus 2015, Thematic
Paper 1: Mapping advanced manufacturing networks and exploring new business opportunities,
European Communities.
Tiraboschi, M., & Seghezzi, F. (2016). Il Piano nazionale Industria 4.0: una lettura lavoristica 2(2),
2016.
Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation
policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.018
Vaidyaa, S., Prashant Ambadb, P., & Bhoslec, S. (2018). Industry 4.0 – a glimpse, 2nd international
conference on materials manufacturing and design engineering. Procedia Manufacturing, 20,
233–238. doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.034
Wolter, M. I., Mönnig, A., Hummel, M., Schneemann, C., Weber, E., Zika, G., … Neuber-Pohl, C.
(2015). Industry 4.0 and the consequences for labour market and economy. Scenario calculations
in line with the BIBB-IAB qualifications and occupational field projections, IAB-
Forschungsbericht, Institute for Employment Research of the Federal Employment Agency.