Nanotechnology as a proxy to capture regional economic development? New findings from the European Union Framework Programmes

1 Introduction

Authors interested in regional innovation have debated this very complex topic by adopting various angles and analyzing different interrelated aspects. According to Asheim et al., the concept of regional innovation systems (RIS) emphasizes the “economic and social interactions between agents, spanning the public and private sectors to engender and diffuse innovation within regions embedded in wider national and global systems” [1]. The same authors highlighted that RIS literature provide a systemic and unifying framework for a broad body of approaches related to regional innovation including innovative milieux [2], [3], clusters [4] and the Triple Helix Model of innovation [5], [6], [7].

In a nutshell, the Triple Helix Model [5], [6], [7] is a sociological concept successfully applied in evolutionary economics arguing the need of convergence and integration between university, industry and government. This model has inspired the more recent European innovation policies including the European Union (EU) Sixth (FP6) and Seventh (FP7) Framework Programmes [8].

According to the European Commission (EC), the FPs represent one of the best environments for private companies, public research establishments (PREs) and different types of actors such as governmental institutions and venture capitalists to create innovation networks at various geographical scales, share knowledge and disseminate research results [9].

Nanotechnology plays a key role in the EU innovation policies. Microelectronics, nanoelectronics and nanotechnology were included by the EU in the so-called Key Enabling Technologies (KET) potentially helping countries to tackle current and future societal challenges thanks to their applications in multiple industries [10]. Furthermore, one theme named “Nanosciences, Nanotechnologies, Materials and New Production Technologies” (FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP) was created by the EU and included in the two latest FPs with the purpose to finance organizations specifically involved in nanotechnology activities. Furthermore, the EU strongly supports and extensively uses partnerships between public and private organizations to foster the implementation and deployment of the KET. One of the major objectives of these contractual agreements is to enable industry to actively participate in the definition and implementation of research and innovation priorities [11].

The gross spending on R&D in Italy is significantly lower than the European average (i.e. 1.3% in Italy and more than 1.9% at the EU-28 level) and far from the figures showed by countries such as Germany (2.8%), France (2.3%) and the United Kingdom (1.7%) [12]. Similarly, Italy is ranked as a “moderate innovator” country by the EU Innovation Scoreboard [13].

However, despite these negative figures in terms of innovation, previous studies highlighted that Italy is one of the countries that have profited most from the EU research funds allocated under the two latest FPs [14]. However, the collaborations established by the Italian organizations and the related benefits in terms of knowledge creation, diffusion and exchange were concentrated in the most advanced northern and central regions of the country, with a shortage of innovation activities observed in the marginal southern ones [15], [16].

This paper sprang precisely from the relevant role of the Italian organizations in the innovation networks created and fostered through the EU projects [14] and took into consideration the theoretical premises regarding the importance of an active participation of both public and private actors in regional innovation dynamics [1], [5], [6], [7]. Furthermore, the present case study was built on the methods adopted in previous analyses aiming to reveal different aspects related to the Italian participation in the two more recent FPs [8], [15], [16]. The 20 constitutional regions (NUTS 2 level) represent the regional unit of analysis used to determine some specific characteristics of the Italian organizations involved in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP, even though detailed figures related to the provincial (NUTS 3 level) and national levels are also provided.

Specifically, the objective of this paper is to answer the following research questions: Which types of Italian organizations mostly participated in the FP6 and FP7 (i.e. private or public)? How well-balanced was the participation of the organizations belonging to the private and public sectors in the various Italian regions?

The FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP were chosen as a dataset for the present case study for one main reason: research at the nanoscale level is a potentially irruptive interdisciplinary field [17], [18] enabling researchers to analyze innovation dynamics in a country thanks to its application in a multitude of high-technology or science-based (i.e. biotechnology, information and communication technology, cognitive science, etc.) and traditional (textile, ceramics, food, etc.) industries and sectors [15], [19]. It is precisely this element that enables researchers to reconstruct innovation dynamics in a country from a global viewpoint [16]. In other words, the results deriving from the analysis of the nanotechnology projects funded under the EU-FPs can be confidently considered as a very good proxy to detect innovation mechanisms and knowledge creation, exchange or diffusion in one or more countries from a spatial perspective [15].

The database available on the Community Research and Development Information Service (CORDIS) website [20] contains detailed georeferenced information about all the projects funded under the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP and was used to collect data. Methods such as statistics and cluster analysis were adopted to carry out the study successfully.

This article is organized as follows: In the next section the literature providing the theoretical background of the empirical study is provided; in Section 3 the characteristics of the dataset and the methodology used to conduct the analyses are outlined; in Section 4 some general figures regarding the participation of the Italian organizations are illustrated; in Section 5 the results of the case study regarding the participation of the Italian private, public and public-private organizations in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP are presented; finally, in Section 6 the empirical findings embedded in a broader theoretical background are discussed, the conclusions are presented and the future developments of the study are outlined.

2 Theoretical background and previous empirical findings

Although evaluating the economic impact of the innumerable nanoscale applications remains a challenging issue [21], [22], the results of several studies highlighted that nanotechnology contributes significantly to economic growth and development at the national and regional levels. According to [23], the global value of products in which nanotechnology is a key component was $30 billion in 2000 and about $200 billion in 2008. This value should have reached $1 trillion in 2015 since it tends to double every 3 years thanks to the introduction of new products. Another recent study showed similar results by revealing that the total sales of final products incorporating nanotechnology applications grew from $339 billion in 2010 to $731 billion in 2012 [24]. The potential applications of research at nanoscale level across a very large number of sectors can potentially open new markets for regional firms, even though the impact of nanotechnology is not limited to the economic sphere and include social challenges such as progressively aging population, welfare, optimization in the use of resources (e.g. energy, water, food), climate change and global sustainability, digital technologies and communication, etc. [8]. These findings and concepts seem to be sufficient to illustrate clearly how a multidisciplinary field such as nanotechnology can be confidently seen as a key driver for regional development.

Nowadays innovation is based on a social and relational dimension [25], [26] and innovation dynamics take place in networks created at various geographical scales [16], [27], [28], [29]. In this framework, the interest of scholars in fields such as economic geography, regional science and innovation studies towards long-distance sources of innovation and transnational innovation networks increased drastically in the last two decades [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. These studies aimed primarily to demonstrate how interactions between actors participating in multi-scalar innovation networks foster knowledge exchange and diffusion potentially leading to innovation [15], [16], [36].

The Triple Helix model [5], [6], [7] and RIS [1] literature stressed both the importance of university-industry-government cooperation and the relevance of networking relationships between firms and a variety of non-firm actors such as universities, research centers, public and private agencies, public authorities, etc. These concepts have inspired the rationale behind the EU innovation policies and specifically represent the pillars of the two more recent EU-FPs [8].

Since the first FP launched in 1984 thousands of public and private actors located in different regions and countries created research groups based on their joint participation in the EU-funded research projects. As mentioned above, these connections contributed to make the FPs one of the best environments for entities operating in the industry or involved in research activities to share knowledge and disseminate ideas with potential industrial applications [9].

Various academic papers analyzed in-depth elements such as the motivations pushing organizations to apply for EU funding [8], [37], [38], [39], [40], their spatial and relational behaviors [31], [40], [41] and the economic effects of the partnerships established within the FPs [8]. Some studies detected the partnerships fostered within the FP6 and FP7 to analyze innovation mechanisms at the national and regional levels in Italy [8], [15], [16], i.e. the country to which the present case study refers to. However, those studies neglected to provide insights about the types of organizations actually involved in the EU network and did not consider the role played by the private and public organizations operating in the Italian constitutional regions, as the aforementioned strands of literature would suggest doing [1], [5], [6], [7].

The Italian regional socio-economic fabric is characterized by a lock-in situation determined by long-lasting regional disparities. Most of the economic activities and dynamic firms are located to a various extent in the northern and central areas of the country. Specifically, the northwestern regions Lombardy, Piedmont and Liguria – representing the Italian “industrial triangle” – and the northwestern and central regions making up the so-called “Third Italy” (i.e. Veneto, Emilia Romagna, Tuscany and Marche) are the industrial heartland and most advanced areas of the country [42], [43], [44], [45].

Conversely, the southern regions are characterized by a very weak economic-industrial fabric as well as an alarming level of unemployment rate [46]. Several authors have attributed these divergent development paths to various socio-economic consolidated factors such as the diverse quality of institutions [47], the greater availability of natural resources [48] and the geographical proximity to the European core of the northern regions [49], the lack of human capital and the exacerbation of national trade policies aimed at stimulating the persistence of agricultural specialization in the south [50] and forces such as natural advantages and domestic and foreign market access which have repeatedly fostered the north at different stages of Italy’s economic history [51]. In this respect, the adoption of policy measures such as the implementation of “development poles”, inspired by the Perroux’s growth theory [52], to southern Italy’s fabric since the 1950s did not solve the problem of disparities in the last decades and led to only very limited positive regional effects.

Nanotechnology is considered a growing field in Italy, and the organizations directly involved in nanotechnology activities quadrupled in the period 2004–2010. According to the Third Italian Nanotechnology Census [53], in 2011 there were 189 organizations operating in the nanotechnology field in the country (i.e. respectively 103 PREs and 86 firms). However, the location of these activities is not homogenous and reflects the characteristics of the regional economic-industrial fabrics. Most of the private nanotechnology entities are located in the northern regions [48], whereas the other two macro-areas of the country (center and south) accounts overall for only 15 firms. Similarly, slightly more than 50% of the PREs involved in nanotechnology are located in the north, with the two other macro-regional areas sharing the remaining 49% (respectively 29% in the center and 20% in the south) [15].

The interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology [15], [18], the growing importance of international partnerships [28], [29], [30] and the reconfiguration of innovation spaces [29], [30], [31], [32], [35], [36] are factors potentially enabling countries to recombine their national competencies in transnational networks [54] by creating contextually new potential development opportunities for the organizations located in peripheral and marginally innovative areas [15], [16].

However, one prior study detecting the relational and spatial features of the collaborations established by the Italian organizations in the EU nanotechnology network – with the final purpose to reveal wider aspects of re-industrialization and regional disparities – demonstrated that innovation activities are greatly concentrated in core regions dominating the newly formed international innovation networks [15]. This lack of convergence between the most and less advanced areas of the country implies that “new high-technology industries – such as nanotechnology – are hardly a means for marginal regions to break away from their development paths” [15].

Findings from that and other studies provided a detailed framework regarding regional innovation dynamics related to the two latest FPs [8], [16], even though some critical research questions remained unanswered.

Among other aspects, in a previous study, Calignano [8] analyzed the economic effects at the national and regional levels deriving from the collaborations gathered by the Italian organizations in the EU nanotechnology network throughout the two latest FPs. Various in-depth interviews with Italian researchers working in public universities and research centers led to conflicting results about the role of the Italian firms. Some respondents highlighted that interaction with firms and specifically small and medium-sized enterprises had generally been positive inasmuch as they were really interested both in patents or prototypes with potential industrial applications and in obtaining access to economic resources enabling them to recruit new employees. Conversely, other interviewees emphasized the scarce knowledge of the objective of the FP projects and a general lack of interest showed by the Italian private companies.

The quantitative analyses contained in the same study based on a document issued by the EC in 2013 listing a sample of 228 nanotechnology projects funded under FP6 and FP7 [8] seemed to confirm – partially, at least – the impressions of the more skeptical Italian researchers. According to that sample of nanotechnology projects, the presence of the Italian organizations in the EU nanotechnology network was well balanced in terms of private and public participations (both 50%), even though the measures of dispersion applied in the study revealed a clear preponderance of only one public research center dominating the network (i.e. the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR).

The new analyses presented in this paper based on the dataset including all the projects funded under the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP aims precisely to assess the actual participation of the regional public and private Italian organizations in the EU nanotechnology network.

Furthermore, following the theoretical approaches inspiring the EU policies and supporting this study [1], [5], [6], [7], our hypothesis is that a good number of overall participations, a high share of private entities and a well-balanced proportion of private and public entities are beneficial for knowledge circulation potentially leading to innovation in regions. Conversely, a lack of regional organizations involved in the innovation network fostered through nanotechnology projects denotes an inadequate level of innovative organizations. Furthermore, few private participations at the regional level are symptomatic of a weak coordination between the research conducted at the Italian PREs – whose distribution at the regional level is primarily determined by governmental choices – and the related regional industrial fabrics. This assumption is backed by a recent study detecting the geography of economic crisis in Europe, according to which “In the EU, it is possible to identify several cases of “cathedrals in the desert” where large (often publicly funded) research infrastructure remains completely disconnected from the needs of the local economic environment” [55].

3 Dataset and methodology

The dataset available on the CORDIS website [19] surveyed all the projects funded under the FP6-NMP (2002–2006) and FP7-NMP (2007–2013). This database contains several information about each organization participating in the projects including the address of the organizations, their administrative contacts and the related telephone number. The address of the public national research centers (e.g. the CNR) refers to the central headquarters located in Rome (Lazio), even though the administrative contacts and the telephone numbers refer to the person and the separate branch actually involved. The risk to overestimate the participations of the organizations located in Rome was prevented by means of a search on Google based on the names of the administrative contacts and their related telephone numbers [16].

The spatial characteristics of the Italian regional private, public and public-private organizations participating in the two latest FPs-NMP were reconstructed by analyzing the 1241 projects listed in the aforementioned database and devoting specific attention to the ones in which the Italian organizations were involved. Specifically, the term “private organizations” refers to firms and other entities whose ownership is private (i.e. universities, research centers, agencies, associations, consortia, clinics and hospitals, foundations, etc.); the term “public organizations” refers to public authorities (e.g. governments and public administrations) as well as to other organizations owned or controlled by the local, regional and national governments (e.g. universities, research centers, agencies, associations, consortia, clinics and hospitals, foundations, etc.); finally, “public-private organizations” correspond to organizations partly owned by public governments or administrations operating in cooperation with private associates (e.g. firms, banks, universities, research centers, agencies, associations, consortia, etc.).

As explained above and in other previous studies [8], [15], the characteristics of the EU-FPs and the multidisciplinary nature of the nanotechnology network allow researchers to capture innovation dynamics in a country from a global viewpoint by projecting the findings in a long period (more than 10 years).

Statistics and cluster analysis were adopted to conduct the case study presented in this paper. Statistics were mainly used to determine the proportion of private, public and public-private participants in the various Italian provinces (NUTS 3) and in the 20 constitutional regions (NUTS 2). The results deriving from the statistical analysis of these three variables were used to determine a potential correlation between private, public and public-private organizations and to carry out the cluster analysis aiming to group the Italian regions based on the characteristics of their participating organizations. Specifically, following Calignano and Hassink [16], hierarchical clustering and the nearest neighbor method were adopted. The use of hierarchical clustering enabled us to determine the presence of bottom-up clusters based on the proportion of private, public and public-private organizations operating in each region (NUTS 2). Furthermore, the nearest neighbor algorithm emphasized the homogeneity among the elements by highlighting the similarity in the regions making up each cluster.

4 Italian participation in the EU nanotechnology network: An overview

Initially, the number of participations in the FP6 and FP7 was calculated to determine the countries which have more profited from the funding allocated under the two latest FPs-NMP. This analysis confirmed only partially the findings of a previous study concerning the role played by the Italian organizations in the EU nanotechnology network [8]. Germany dominated the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP in absolute terms, and Italy was ranked fourth in the FP6 and third in the FP7, with respectively 588 and 1041 participations.

However, a further analysis aimed to “weigh” the absolute number of the Italian participations and compare it with the other participating countries led to different results and substantially reappraised the role of Italy. The figures related to the number of organizations participating in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP per 10,000 inhabitants revealed that the Italian organizations scored slightly lower than the EU-28 average (i.e. 0.10 vs. 0.11 in the FP6 and 0.18 vs. 0.19 in the FP7). However, among the top five countries only Germany (0.12 in the FP6 and 0.23 in the FP7) and Spain (0.22 in the FP7) scored above the EU-28 average. The countries showing the highest number of participations per 10,000 inhabitants were Sweden (0.39), Slovenia (0.27) and Belgium (0.24) in the FP6 and Finland (0.59), Slovenia (0.48) and Belgium (0.59) in the FP7 (see Table 1).

After having revealed the number of Italian organizations participating in the F6-NMP and FP7-NMP, the data at the NUTS 3 level was analyzed with the objective to determine the Italian provinces mainly involved in the nanotechnology projects funded under the two latest FPs.

Although there is a certain degree of variability in terms of positioning in the ranking, the results displayed in Table 2 show how 7 out of 10 provinces confirmed their presence among the top 10 most active provinces in both FPs (i.e. Trieste, Pisa, Turin, Bologna, Prato, Genoa and Milan). The major changes in the transition from the FP6 to the F7 concerned the provinces of Ferrara (ranked first in the FP7), Biella and Treviso which took the place of Florence, Alessandria and Trento. More importantly, all these provinces are located in the northern and central more advanced macro-regional areas of the country, and none of them are located in the marginal south.

The figures at the provincial level were aggregated to determine the Italian regions (NUTS 2) scoring the higher number of participations in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP. The results confirmed the polarization of the innovation activities in the northern regions of the country with only northern regions and Tuscany (center) scoring above the national average. Also, in this case a shortage of participations in nanotechnology projects and a related weak level of knowledge exchange at the EU level were found in the south (Table 3) (on these aspects, and specifically on the connections established between the Italian regions and macro-regional areas, see [15]).

5 Italian private and public organizations in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP

The main objective of the present case study is to determine the balance of private and public organizations and group the Italian regions based on this parameter. To achieve this objective, all the Italian organizations participating in the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP were labeled as “private”, “public” or “public-private” according to the definitions provided in the methodology section (see Section 3). In cases of doubt, the information was collected by visiting the organization’s website.

In absolute terms, most of the 789 organizations participating 1674 times in the nanotechnology projects funded under the two latest FPs were private (60%), even though a very good number of public entities were also observed (38%). Conversely, the participation of the organizations we defined public-private was very limited (2.1%) (Figure 1).

Figure 1:

Proportion of public, private and public-private Italian organizations (national level). Database: Elaboration from [20].

Disaggregated data at the macro-regional level reveals substantial differences in the proportion of private, public and public-private organizations. The northwestern regions of the country (i.e. the ones where the “industrial triangle” Milan-Turin-Genoa is located) are characterized by a significantly higher share of private organizations (almost 77%) compared with the two other types of organizations. The regions making up this macro-area are also those ones dominating the nanotechnology network in terms of overall participations.

The northeastern regions (including, among others, Emilia Romagna and Veneto) and the central regions (Tuscany, Lazio, Marche and Umbria) showed fewer participations in absolute terms, but a very good balance between public and private organizations (i.e. respectively 55.8% of private organizations and 40.5% of public organizations in the northeast; nearly 50% for both types in the central regions). Once again, the southern macro-regional area of the country showed a shortage of organizations joining the nanotechnology network as well as a clear predominance of organizations belonging to the public sector (64.8%). The least common denominator of the four macro-regional areas is the very limited number of public-private participations, ranging from 5.7% in the south to 0.9% in the center (Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Proportion of public, private and public-private Italian organizations (macro-regional Italian areas). Database: Elaboration from [20] and [57].

A further regional analysis was carried out to reveal the characteristics of the distribution of the Italian organizations in greater detail. Specifically, the number of private, public and public-private participations per 10,000 inhabitants at the regional level were used as variables to assess if a statistical correlation between them exists. The same variables were also used to group the Italian regions in different clusters based on the proportion of each type of participating organizations. The aim of this latter analysis is to reveal the existence of similar spatial patterns in regions located in the same or different macro-regional areas.

In this case the participations per 10,000 inhabitants established in the FP6 (i.e. 2002–2006) and FP7 (i.e. 2007–2013) were added up with a dual purpose: first, project the findings in a longer period (i.e. more than 10 years, 2002–2013) and, second, provide an overall representation of the spatial distribution of regional organizations classified on macro-sectoral basis (i.e. private, public and private-public).

The coefficients displayed in Table 4 reveal a very strong positive correlation among the three variables considered. This means that when the values of one variable increase (e.g. number of private participations) also the values of the others tend to increase (e.g. number of public and public-private organizations). This tendency implies that most of the Italian regions show similar and highly positively associated proportions of private, public and public-private organizations despite the different number of overall participations and different shares of the three variables observed at the macro-regional level. Few interesting exceptions regarding single or small groups of regions were found and duly highlighted in the results of the following cluster analysis.

Following the method described above (see Section 3), four major clusters based on “weighted” regional private, public and public-private participations were identified. The next diagram illustrates these clusters from a graphical viewpoint. Specifically, the x axis refers to the regional number of private participations per 10,000 inhabitants, and the y axis refers to the regional number of public participations per 10,000 inhabitants. Furthermore, the dimension of the spheres shows the overall participations per 10,000 inhabitants (i.e. bigger spheres correspond to a higher number of participations), and the various colors were used to differentiate each cluster.

The public-private organizations were included in the cluster analysis but not illustrated in the diagram due to graphical purposes and in consideration of the very limited number of firms belonging to this category. For this type of organizations, few participations were found only in Veneto (0.03), Piedmont (0.02), Abruzzo (0.02), Lazio (0.01) and Campania (0.01).

Piedmont and Liguria – i.e. two regions located in the northwestern area of the country – make up the two major clusters. Liguria is characterized by a high number of private participations per 10,000 inhabitants (0.45) and the highest share of public actors in absolute terms at the national level (0.27). On the other hand, the participations of Piedmont are much more unbalanced with a clear predominance of private organizations (0.62, i.e. the highest number at the national level) and fewer public participations (0.14), i.e. more or less on the same level as the regions grouped in the third cluster highlighted in yellow in Figure 3. The more balanced results of Liguria were mainly determined by the 48 participations of a private company named D’Appolonia and a very good number of PREs such as the local branches of the CNR and the University of Genoa (15 for both). On the other hand, Centro Ricerche Fiat (i.e. the research center of the automaker Fiat, whose headquarter is located in Turin) is the organization with the highest number of participations in the FP6 and FP7 at the national level (85 participations). This result contributed to make Piedmont the region with the highest number of private participations in absolute terms and to create a strong unbalanced proportion between the regional private and public participations in the nanotechnology projects funded under the EU-FPs.

Figure 3:

Italian regions clustered on the basis of their private, public and overall participations, FP6-FP7. Methods: Hierarchical clustering; nearest neighbor method; Euclidean distance. Elaboration from [20] and [57].

The third cluster includes two northeastern regions (Emilia Romagna and Friuli-Venezia Giulia) and one central region (i.e. Tuscany) which are characterized by a moderate level of activity for both private and public organizations. However, slight differences were observed within this group with Friuli-Venezia Giulia showing a higher level of private participations (0.34) compared with the public entities of the same regions (0.15). On the other hand, Lombardy (0.24 private firms and 0.13 public firms), Tuscany (0.24 public firms and 0.19 private firms) and especially Emilia Romagna (0.23 for both types of organizations) showed a very good balance of private and public firms.

All the regions grouped in the first three clusters scored above the national average (i.e. 0.28) with regard to the overall number of participations per 10,000 inhabitants. Conversely, the main characteristic of the regions making up the fourth and last cluster is the low level of activity throughout the two latest FPs concerning both private and public entities. Nevertheless, it must be stressed that some of the northern and central regions included in this cluster scored a good number of participations in absolute terms and values close to the national average (respectively 0.26, 0.24 and 0.22 for Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto and Lazio). The number of public participations (0.13) was higher in Lazio compared with the private participations of the same region (0.9), whereas a higher share of private participations was found in Trentino-Alto Adige and Veneto (0.14 for both). However, the proportion between private and public participations was more balanced in Trentino-Alto Adige (respectively 0.14 and 0.11) than in other northeastern region included in the cluster (0.14 and 0.07). The figures related to the remaining regions making up this cluster show a lack of participations and, more importantly, reveal that the eight southern regions occupy the last eight positions for the overall number of participations per 10,000 inhabitants (i.e. ranging between 0.8 in Campania and 0.02 in Basilicata).

6 Discussion of the results, conclusions and further developments

The “weighted” number of participations at the country level in the nanotechnology network created within the FP6 and FP7 revealed conflicting results compared with a previous study based on a sample of 228 EU research projects in the same field [8]. The analysis of the whole database available on the CORDIS website [20] and especially the number of participations calculated per 10,000 inhabitants showed a degree of activity of the Italian organizations lower than expected. In fact, Italy is ranked 15th in this new ranking in both FPs by scoring slightly lower than the EU-28 average and showing figures far from the most dynamic countries (i.e. Finland, Sweden, Slovenia and Belgium).

According to the theoretical premises supporting this study, the so-called knowledge economy has created new challenges and opportunities for regional organizations, especially for those ones located in peripheral and marginally innovative areas [15], [16]. Furthermore, the literature on RIS [1] and the Triple Helix Model [5], [6], [7] fostered our hypothesis according to which a good number of overall participations, a high share of private economic actors and a well-balanced proportion of private and public entities in a highly innovative network – such as the one encouraged by the FPs – are beneficial for knowledge circulation potentially leading to innovation in regions. In this context the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology enables researchers to reconstruct the knowledge dynamics potentially leading to innovation in a country from a global perspective [15].

Starting from these theoretical and methodological premises, the statistical analyses carried out to assess the balance among private, public and public-private organizations participating in the EU nanotechnology network led to very interesting results.

The proportion observed in the various Italian regions reflects the long-lasting disparities in the country [15] as well as a lack of private innovative organizations in the south and – to a lesser extent – in the center. This is confirmed by the cluster analysis conducted with the objective to group regions with similar proportions of each type of organizations. The results of the cluster analysis clearly showed that only one central region (Tuscany) is included in the three clusters scoring above the national average for the overall number of participations. The regions with the highest number of innovative private and public organizations participating in the nanotechnology network were all located in the northwestern macro-regional area making up the historical Italian “industrial triangle” Milan-Turin-Genoa, even though a good presence and balance of private-public initiatives in the northeast must not be underestimated.

In Section 1 of this paper it was stressed that partnerships between private and public organizations are vital in a disruptive interdisciplinary field leading to radical innovations such as nanotechnology [11]. Enterprises interested or actively involved in industrial applications of nanotechnology decide to operate at the forefront of science and technology and are rarely able to bear individually the burden of uncertainty, risks and costs deriving from radical innovations. It is precisely for this reason that the EU strongly supports partnerships between private and public actors, with the clear objective to enhance the innovative potential of the European regions [11].

Despite the EC’s indications regarding the importance of a well-balanced diffusion of innovation [10], the findings of a previous study detecting regional disparities in Italy through the lens of the EU nanotechnology network backed the existence of “two speeds” in the Italian economic growth, even emphasizing the disparities related to the location of nanotechnology and, more in general, innovation activities in the country [15]. The situation in the southern region is so severe that the insignificant number of participations does not make possible a credible assessment of the distribution of the organizations labeled as private, public and public-private. Overall, the southern organizations participated 122 times in the EU nanotechnology research projects funded under the FP6-NMP and FP7-NMP (i.e. 34.6% of the only Lombardy), and in more than two-thirds of these cases the participating organizations were classified as public. Consequently, the results presented in this paper imply a “mismatch” between the firms and PREs located in the southern Italian regions. Conversely, a very high number of overall participations and a well-balanced proportion of private and public entities let us argue that the northern Italian regions are characterized by a very good innovative potential despite the national innovation indicators below the EU average [12].

From a more speculative perspective, both a lack of innovative enterprises and a socioeconomic fabric which is not completely able to exploit nanotechnology applications seem to be the reasons behind the disappointing proportion of southern private and public organizations participating in the EU projects. Moreover, different objectives and targets between private companies and PREs located in southern regions are also related elements potentially inhibiting a satisfactory level of participation (on this latter assertion, see also [8]). As highlighted above, RIS [1] and Triple Helix Model [5], [6], [7] are successful theoretical paradigms stressing both the relevance of a collaborative dimension of innovation and the contribution of private and public entities in regional economic development. However, regions are very diverse, and similar policies lead to different results in different regions. Diffusion of nanotechnology and, more in general, innovation in southern Italy is hindered, among others, by the diverse quality of institutions [47], the lack of human capital [50], a difficult access to domestic and foreign markets [51] and the geographical distance to the European core regions [49].

With regard to policy implications, the empirical analysis presented in this paper strongly supports both the theoretical premises illustrated in the previous sections [1], [5], [6], [7] and the suggestions of a recent study according to which in the lagging southern regions there is an absolute need of more direct (i.e. R&D financial support) and especially indirect policy measures based on coordination and networking activities aiming to enhance collaborations and partnerships potentially leading to innovation at various geographical scales. In this respect, as several studies highlighted, both strengthening regional networks and fostering long-distance collaborations can be seen as a potential solution to overcome the weak level of innovation at the regional level [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. However, these policy measures carried out in peripheral and marginally innovative areas must be implemented within a wider development plan in which private companies, public authorities, investors, universities, research centers and technology transfer offices are all equally critical agents in shaping new potential development paths.

Following Calignano and Quarta [15], from the academic perspective this study aims to strengthen the concept that collaboration dynamics in the nanotechnology field are a very good proxy to capture innovation and re-industrialization dynamics in a country from a global viewpoint. This is possible thanks to the innumerable applications of research at nanoscale level in high-tech, science-based or more traditional sectors and industries [10], [17], [18], [19].

In closing, the empirical part of this paper revealed the proportion of private, public and public-private participations at the regional level in the two latest FPs-NMP. The case study regarding the Italian regions was embedded in a broader theoretical framework, including the results of previous studies carried out in a similar vein [8], [15], [16], and achieved several results.

However, critical aspects such as the nature and geography of ties, the content of the projects and the industrial applications of the research outputs were neglected in this study. Further necessary analyses should consider carefully these aspects and broaden the geographical dimension of the analysis by including other countries with the objective to compare the Italian framework, provide more detailed findings and offer a wider perspective on the innovation dynamics determined by the interdisciplinary and irruptive field of nanotechnology.