ANTI–COMPETITIVENESS AND SMART SPECIALIZATION: LEADERSHIP UNDER END–GAME–BEHAVIOR AND POLICY COSTS
Keywords:
anti–competitiveness, public policy cost, smart specialization (SS).Abstract
The interaction of public policies with good–service markets represents a necessity for smart specialization. While theories and research explain functionality within theoretical postulates, little attention is paid to the adaptation of smart strategies and innovation in anti–competitive conditions. Often within exclusive territories and homogeneous groups, anti–competitiveness prevents the use of resources in new ways and goals, by limiting the potential for innovation in processes, technologies, markets and institutions, and highlighting leadership as cause and effect. The paper provides an analysis of the impact of leadership on innovation adoption, smart specialization policy and strategies, examining the potential policy gains or costs. The literature review, comparative analysis, public goods game theory and expertise were used to build the theoretical framework of the case study. The findings suggest that, while leadership dominates, unclear processes or un–public goals reduce trust, and under the end–game–effect of participant behavior, public policy costs may increase, making successful innovation non–winner.
References
1.Philostratus, L.F. (231–237 AD). Lives of the Sophists. Lazy Raven Publishing, June 28, 2017.
2.Krammer, S.M. (2017). Science, technology, and innovation for economic competitiveness: The role of smart specialization in less–developed countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 95–107.
3.North, D. C., & North, D. C. (1992). Transaction costs, institutions, and economic performance (pp. 13-15). San Francisco, CA: Ics Press.
4.Peter, A. (2006). Competition and Competitiveness: Issues and Challenges and Role of Competition Law. Symposium on Competition and Competitiveness (February), New Delhi.
5.Porter, M.E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations/M. Porter. Harvard Business Review, 68, 73–93.
6.Samuelson, P.A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. The review of economics and statistics, 36(4), 387–389.
7.Smith, A. (1937). The wealth of nations [1776] (Vol. 11937).
8.Schumpeter, J. (1954). History of economic analysis. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
9.Schumpeter, J (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper.
10.Shleifer, A. (2004). Does competition destroy ethical behavior? American Economic Review, 94(2), 414–418.
11.Tidd, J. & Bessant J. (2020), Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organizational Change.
12.Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124 1131.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 New knowledge Journal of science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
