Ladies and gentlemen,
Thank you for inviting me to this important and highly interesting conference. Having the possibility to take part at this event really makes me feel at home not only because the conference takes place in my home town but also because not long ago I was one of you – a fellow researcher in the field of regional policy and politics. I attended seminars and conferences, presented research papers and discussed academic issues – both theoretical and empirical – just like you.
In 2002 I finished and published my dissertation The power over the region. A critical examination of Swedish regional debate 1963-1996 at the Department of Government at Uppsala University. In my dissertation I analyzed who should exercise power over the Swedish regions – a governor appointed by the central state, a directly elected regional assembly or municipalities in cooperation? What are the advantages and the disadvantages of different institutional alternatives, for example regarding democracy and efficiency?
For a political scientist the regional question touches upon one of the eternal conflicts of democratic theory: What people, demos, should be the base of democracy, the base from which democratic decisions get their legitimacy? It poses several politically sensitive and crucial questions. Will the policy of interregional economic redistribution survive a stronger regional self-rule? Will Sweden turn into a federal state if powerful regional assemblies are introduced?
The governance of the regions has been a highly debated issue in Sweden for many decades although the terminology has changed through the years. But some of the principal questions somewhat seems eternal. That being said I think it is fair to say that the debate in Sweden has grown even stronger as our country from the 1990’s onwards as Sweden has got closer to the intensified process of European integration. So the issues of Europe and the regions are both theoretically but certainly empirically quite closely tied together.
For several reasons – both as a former fellow researcher and as Minister of Higher Education and Research – I would therefore like to say that I am honored to have got the invitation to open this conference. Let me also congratulate the European Regional Science Association for choosing Jönköping and Jönköping University as the location of this conference. Jönköping University is not only a strong force in the local and regional context but has also contributed substantially with its boldness, determination and intellectual creativeness to the renewal of the academic landscape of Sweden. The university is an interesting player and partner not only on the national but also on the European and international scene.
One important issue for me as minister is of course what role universities and the system of higher education and research can play in fostering regional growth and development. What policies are needed? What is the direction of the policies of the Swedish government in this respect?
The correlation between a university and regional growth remains one of the most discussed – and most political in my portfolio. Since I became the minister for higher education and research, this is one of the topics that have kept me busy. I think the debate reflects a confusion on how politicians should react to the new economic landscape emerging as a consequence of globalization.
The old response, that came in the shape of top down centralist regional policies, kept dying industries artificially afloat by massive subsidies. As that neither secured workers nor jobs, other solutions were sought to stimulate economic growth nation wide. Setting up new universities became the most favored solution.
The underlying assumption seems to be that you can put a new institution of higher learning anywhere, and you will achieve all sorts of wonders; business will boom, talent will be attracted, jobs created, welfare financed. This can certainly be the case, and very often is. But it is not irrespective of much focused and intelligent action from a number of stake-holders within the concerned academy, of local entrepreneurs and the regional administration. Nothing happens just because we want it to, politically. Unfortunately, reality is too complex.
Per Ericson, the vice chancellor of Lund university, once wrote an interesting article on new and old universities in Sweden and how they could spur regional development (Newsmill 14/4). Here, he made a number of points that made sense to me.
First of all, he joined the rather large group of informed scholars that concludes that new universities can perform great academic feats, as well as making substantial contributions to local society if they think strategically. A new university can be just as competitive as a more established institution if it drops the ambition to develop exactly the same concept as the older institutions. By specializing and collaborating, a new university can dazzle prospective students with fresh ideas and invigorate existing research areas by thinking outside of the box.
Secondly, the focus on developing collaboration with actors outside of the university also ensured that the local business community got involved. A then bold decision was made to profile the school towards applied IT. A few years later the region was rewarded with a small boom in new jobs, especially in IT and telecom.
It is no small wonder that these three points appeal to me, because they sum up one of the most important policy themes of this administration: increased autonomy for the universities, vis- a- vis the state. None of the steps I just mentioned had been possible if the university did not have considerable room for maneuvering on its own accord. This is especially true for the part that concerned collaboration between business and university - in itself a crucial factor for strengthening the correlation between academia and regional growth.
As a liberal I naturally have ideological reasons for believing that more autonomy is worth working for. I generally tend to think that the state needs to be active in clearly defined areas and pretty much kept in check thereafter. I have never understood the almost taylorist approach by some, who think that you can mass-produce centers of higher learning as if they were cars or soap and still expect grand research and excellent educational programs. You have clearly misunderstood both the nature and the culture of academia if you think that new ideas and break through science will be more likely to develop in a tightly regulated, conformist environment than in the self-ruling republic that I ultimately have in mind.
But there are also more pragmatist arguments for increased academic freedom.
Especially small, new universities, have great opportunities to contribute and receive inspiration from their local communities, not least from the business community, in how they should construct their curriculums to achieve the best results. An interesting study made by Roland Andersson and Mats Wilhelmsson from the Royal Institute of Technology
concluded that the presence of smaller, regional universities helped produce a greater number of patents than their bigger counterparts, in relation to their size. But also that their importance for the economic growth of the region to a large extent depended on them providing educational programs that were suited to a local demand – otherwise the students just left after graduation, making little difference to the region in the long run.
Within the Swedish business world, the general attitude toward science is very positive, especially in big companies, according to recent studies. A majority of the business leaders asked believed that increased collaboration would make the company more competitive. But when it boils down to practical issues, the attitudes turned frostier. Several business leaders claim that hiring more post-doc staff would be difficult, as this category tend to be too narrowly specialized to fit the diverse needs of the company. Important multinationals that largely depend on developing software, like Ericsson or Volvo, complain that it is difficult to get fresh engineers that are ready to work from day one, as all IT- related education have got increasingly academic and theoretical. As a consequence, some of these companies have chosen to collaborate with American or Indian universities instead of their Swedish counterparts, despite the fact that several of them have their R&D centers located in Sweden.
So, what responsibility do I have, after having gone on about how more autonomy is needed? I have already made clear that I think that more successful collaboration will happen if the initiative comes from the bottom-up, instead of vice versa.
One way to make that happen is through the system for financing research. My government have introduced a reform that base a part of public financing on two criteria; one being citations, the other collaboration between academia and business. The latter criteria means, in short, that a university gets more public money if it is good at attracting external capital, for example from business. This offers strong incentives for the university to lower the threshold between the academic institutions and the businesses it may be relevant to.
Now, as much as I believe that collaboration is helpful, I would not want the universities to focus solely on what is commercially interesting; in that case they would stop being centers of higher learning. We must be able to balance the fact that there are both a very practical, and a very abstract, philosophical side to the university as an institution. On the practical side, we know that there remains a lot of economic values untapped within the walls of academia. But at the same time, the “raison d’être” of a university can not be fitted into the interim reports of the market. Value can come in many shapes and forms.
In terms of financing, however, only one currency matters. It would not be fair to cross my arms and say that it is entirely up to the business sector to ensure that the kind of research- and amount of research! The gigantic economic transformation taking place before our eyes are not solely of commercial interest, but also a national one.
That is why the state is responsible for very large funding commitments within a few research areas important to the business sector- this being part of a historical injection of 5 billion SEK that the government presented in 2008, increasing public spending on research by 20-25 per cent.
Large, multinational companies makes for a very large proportion of Swedish investment in R&D. But the share coming from small and medium sized companies are also substantial, at least in an international comparison. That Swedish business invest heavily in R&D today is no guarantee that they also will in the future, however. Our chance to attract foreign investment in research and development depends on what terms we can offer in comparison to other countries. When other countries build strong knowledge clusters relevant to Swedish companies, we have to fight hard to defend our position. That is why it is so important that the state ensures that public spending on research remain high and that we invest in relevant infrastructure. And that is why a new perspective is needed, that truly involves the universities in trying to find the answers to some of the most pressing issues of our time.
One attempt to put more focus on this topic was made during the Swedish EU -presidency
where a concept called the “knowledge triangle” was coined. In short, this catch-phrase derived from a will to maximize the output we get from investments within research, higher education and innovation through focusing on the interaction between the three legs of the triangle. Each of these three parts are important, but we were sure that a lot of added value can come out of integrating the three approaches rather than looking at them separately.
So, to conclude: I see two great tasks before me, both with relevance to the topics discussed here today. One is to increase the quality of Swedish tertiary education and research through national reforms, both through adequate financing and through continuing to reform the system itself, to promote excellence. The other is to continue increasing the autonomy of the universities, so that they can initiate their own quality reforms. This can be through intensified international collaboration with other universities, through increased cooperation between the academy and local businesses, or through a strengthened profile towards the unique conditions of the region it operates within.
Time is not on our hands. Sweden and Europe face a global challenge. More and more governments are beginning to understand the importance of making research and education the centerpieces of their own reform agendas. The developing world is catching up – and fast. Meanwhile, the expectations and demands on the universities to fulfill the so called third task, to contribute to greater society through disseminating the knowledge produced and assembled inside of its own walls, have never been higher. The universities are not only supposed to produce knowledge and a qualified work force, they are also seen as imperative for fostering innovation and in the long run, more businesses.
In my world, both science and the market function best when they are free. Politicians are no better than anyone else in foreseeing what the future holds in store for us. If we want more cross-sectoral collaboration between different sectors, we must trust the people involved that they can develop their own strategies. Sometimes, however, you need regulations to make collaboration possible. I have tried to outline a few of the policies that I believe will make a difference in the long run.
Thank you all for listening. I wish you a most productive conference and a nice stay in Jönköping!