Regional Development Programs: A Reason for Them Failing

Authors: Åmo, B.W.

Abstract:

This paper contributes to the analysis of the design of regional development programs. This is a case study the birth, life, death and afterlife of a stately development program in Norway, supporting diffusion of innovations by promoting e-business in SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises).

The study shows that joint projects like regional development programs have to be designed such that the present value of the future benefits always exceeds the present value of the future effort for all stakeholders vital for the survival of the project. The study also indicate that a development program not always have one common goal which all the stakeholders agree upon. There are several stakeholders who may have different goals by playing a part in the realization of the program.

Even if some parties evaluate the results of a development program as a failure, other may have attained their goals. The lessons learned from this study may advise the designers of development programs involving many independent stakeholders. There is a lack of research examining failing development programs, investigating the reasons for it to be considered a failure. This paper shows why a development program was terminated and gives hint to how joint programs could be designed in order for the program to deliver the wanted results to all the key stakeholders.

Keywords: Regional development initiatives, development program, stakeholders, diffusion of innovations, goal fulfillment, design of development programs.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1088482

References:

[1] A. Isaksen, Innovasjoner, næringsutvikling og regionalpolitikk, Kristiansand: Høgskoleforlaget, 1999.
[2] 02 J.C. Hansen, and T. Selstad, Regional omstilling – strukturbestemt eller styrbar? Universitetsforlaget, Oslo, 1999.
[3] P.W. Roberts, “Regional development agencies in England: New strategic regional planning issues?,” Regional Studies, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 75-79, 2000.
[4] J.T. Hughes, “The role of development agencies in regional policy: An academic and practitioner approach,” Urban Studies, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 615-626, 1998.
[5] G. Ledgerwood, and A.I. Broadhurst, “Creating technology-based enterprise televillages,” Cities, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 43-50, 1999.
[6] 06 H. Halkier, and M. Danson, Regional development agencies in Western Europe: A survey of key characteristics and trends, Occasional Paper 15, European Research Unit, Aalborg, 1996.
[7] A.M. Cox, Alwang, J. and G. Johnson, ”Local preferences for economical development outcomes: Analytical Hierarchy Procedure,” Growth and Change, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 341-366, 2000.
[8] M. Fink, and S. Kraus, “Mutual trust as a key to internationalization of SMEs,” Management Research, News, vol. 30, no. 9, pp. 674-688. 2007,
[9] R.E. Freeman, Strategic management: A stakeholder approach, Marchfield, MA: Pitman Publishing, 1984.
[10] J. Näsi, “What is stakeholder thinking? A snapshot of a social theory of the firm,” in J. Näsi, (ed.) Understanding stakeholder thinking. Helsinki: LSR-Publications, 1994, pp. 19-31.
[11] A.B. Carroll, “Essay by Archie B. Carroll, The Toronto Conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory, Special Section,” Business & Society, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 128-131, 1994.
[12] I.I. Mitroff, Stakeholders of the organizational mind, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1983.
[13] E. Vaara, “Linking social construction of success and stakeholder thinking: An analysis of a merger case,” in J. Näsi, (ed.) Understanding stakeholder thinking. Helsinki: LSR-Publications, 1994, pp. 215-235.
[14] C. Hardy, N. Phillips, and T.B. Lawrence, “Resources, Knowledge and Influence: The Organizational Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration.” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 321– 347, 2003.
[15] C. Huxham, and S. Vangen, “Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a not quite) joined-up world”, Academy of Management, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1159-1175, 2000.
[16] S. Vangen, and C. Huxham, ”Enacting leadership for collaborative advantage Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatism in the activities of partnership managers,” British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 1, pp-S61-S76, 2003.
[17] C.K. Pralahad, and G. Hamel, “The core competence of the corporation,” Harvard Business Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 79-91, 1990.
[18] C. Van Winkelen, “Deriving value from inter-organizational learning collaborations,” The Learning Organization, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 8-23, 2010.
[19] C. Eden, and C. Huxham, “The negotiation of purpose in multiorganizational collaborative groups,” Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 373-391, 2001.
[20] C. Dhanaraj, and A. Pharkhe, “Orchestrating innovation networks,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 659-669, 2006.
[21] T. Haga, “Orchestration of network instruments: a way to de-emphasize the partition between incremental change and innovation?,” AI & Society, vol. 23, no. 1, 17-31, 2009.
[22] N.K. Denzin, “The significant others of a college population.” The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 298-310, 1966.
[23] Stortingsmelding nr 41, White paper: E-commerce and electronic trade (in Norwegian), Om elektronisk handel og forretningsdrift, Det Oslo: Kongelige Nærings- og Handelsdepartement, 1998/1999.
[24] B. Eriksson, and T.R. Eikebrokk, Evaluering av VeRDI-programmet, In Norwegian: An evaluation of the VeRDI programme, Ekebacka Konsult AB, Stockholm, 2002.
[25] M.E. Porter, Competitive Advantage, New York: Free Press, 1985.
[26] A. Coulon, Ethnomethodology, Qualitative Research Methods Series, Vol. 36., London: Sage Publications, 1995.
[27] E-business policy group, 2002, Benchmarking national and regional ebusiness policies for SMEs, 28.06.2002, Brussels: European Commission, 2006, http://europa.eu.int/comm /enterprise/ict/policy/ benchmarking/final-report.pdf