Innovation in Peripheral Regions from a Multidimensional Perspective: Evidence from the Middle Pomerania Region in Poland

Abstract

Entrepreneurs in peripheral areas need to fully utilize a multidimensional regional environment in order to reduce regional innovation gaps. To gain a deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of the determinants of innovation processes in peripheral areas, this article sheds light not only on hard infrastructure and financial factors, but also on institutional, social, and relational factors. Studies of innovation in peripheral areas were conducted with the classic concept of regional innovation systems. Based on the results of a survey among 300 entrepreneurs in Polish peripheral regions, it was found that peripheral regions suffer from a deficit of human and social capital, particularly local leaders and mentoring and networking assistance. In addition, the analysis shows that peripheral regions do not have an effective innovation development strategy, lack institutional capital, and local authorities are not working to remove local barriers.

1. Introduction

Innovation is now the most important factor determining the development and competitiveness of economies around the world. This applies to both the manufacturing of products and services, as well as a wide area of business processes related to logistics, information, relations with the environment, marketing methods, or financial management. Innovation provides the foundation for new businesses, new jobs, and productivity growth and is a key driver of economic growth and development [1]. It contributes to the creation of better jobs, the development of an ecological society, the improvement of quality of life, as well as maintaining the EU’s competitiveness in the global market. The importance of innovation has resulted in innovation policy taking the leading role in the development policy of the European Union. It is a bridge between research and development and industrial policies. Actions taken in this area are mainly aimed at creating conditions for the development of regional innovation systems in order to foster the discovery and strengthening of regional smart specializations.

The starting point and frame of reference in the discussion on regional innovation and development policy are Regional Innovation Systems (RIS). The concept of regional innovation systems, whose main mechanism is the creation and use of local and regional conditions and potentials as well as entrenched social networks, contributes to the growth of competitiveness and development of regions In order to develop their innovative potential, regions must be aware of their endogenous determinants for the creation of development mechanisms. It should be emphasized that there is no one universal innovation development policy that can be successfully applied in all regions of Poland and the European Union. The complexity of the processes and factors necessary to create innovation means that each region should discover its own development path, which includes the transformation and diversification of various types of knowledge and their flows [2].

These activities are mission-oriented, which is what binds them as part of the activities of the European Union innovation policies [3]. Experiences in implementing the Europe 2020 development strategy, the key elements of which were smart specializations and regional development opportunities based on endogenous (local) potentials [4], have provided the basis for the mapping of a new mission-oriented innovation policy framework. The new approach assumes that the task of innovation is to stimulate growth and economic activity by actively targeting global challenges. Missions are focused on addressing major social challenges related to climate change and environmental quality, demographic change, health and well-being, mobility issues, etc. Governments can define the direction of growth by making strategic investments throughout the innovation chain and creating the potential for greater spillover effects in many sectors, including low-tech sectors [4]. By combining the core goals of smart growth, inclusion, and sustainable development, innovation policy thus gains a clear direction with specific, measurable, and achievable missions that respond to the urgent global challenges of our time. Among these key challenges are climate change and environmental degradation, which are threatening Europe and the rest of the world. To meet these challenges, the European Green Deal action plan has been developed [5,6]. It is supposed to help transform EU into a fair and prosperous society, with a modern, resource-efficient, and competitive economy where there are no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 and where economic growth is decoupled from resource use [5]. The Green Deal can be conceptualized as the key policy roadmap for the EU’s climate agenda upon which the Commission has launched and will continue to develop legislative proposals and strategies from 2020 onwards. Innovation for the transition to sustainable development will play a key role in this process and can be incorporated at any stage in the development of smart specialization strategies.

Several factors may influence the innovation potential, including research and education resources, broadband access, market access, etc. Regarding these factors, there is a strong spatial differentiation and division between rural and urban areas and on the line, the centre, and the periphery [7].

So far, the EU has developed a development strategy called “Europe 2020”: A strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth [8], the key elements of which are smart specialization and regional development opportunities based on endogenous (local) potentials [4,9]. It should be emphasized that the purpose of smart specialization is not to change the economic regional structure into a less diversified or more specialized one. Rather, it seeks to use existing strengths, often locally hidden opportunities, to create new systems and mechanisms for economic growth and the competitive advantages based on them. The need to choose smart specializations is dictated by the specific conditions of EU regions with different development potential, determining the socio-economic and institutional structures [5,10,11,12].

The relationship between the socio-economic typology of regions and innovation is complex and research is needed in this area [13]. The literature provides evidence that innovation processes are now widely regarded not only as complex and dynamic but also, due to a variety of socio-economic, institutional, and political characteristics, as specific to the environments in which they occur [14,15]. This is an important area of research, which seems to be insufficiently described, in particular for peripheral areas, which were generally assessed negatively in innovation policy for many years [16,17].

Theoretical considerations of the periphery in the context of the benefits they can bring to enterprises in terms of innovation development have been supported by numerous empirical studies, which confirm that innovative activities can be successfully found in areas far away from cities. This applies to development on the periphery of innovation in the wind energy industry in Denmark [18], or innovative production activities located in peripheral areas of Finland [19], Norway [20], and Canada [21]. The niche specialization of enterprises, which, according to many authors, is possible only in rural areas, is described in the literature by, among others, Fløysand & Jakobsen [22], Giuliani & Bell [23], Hall [24], and Isaksen [25]. The location of enterprises allows for building a strong potential based on internal, local expert knowledge; thus, the periphery may serve not only to protect enterprises against competition for qualified workforce [25,26], but also against an easy outflow of knowledge and know-how to competitors [27].

The concept of research proposed in this study is based on looking at the determinants of innovation through the prism of a region with specific peripheral features, which is created by combining potentials from neighbouring cities and communes on the border of provinces.

This article aims to obtain a deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of the determinants of innovation processes in peripheral areas by shedding light not only on hard infrastructural and financial factors, but also on institutional, social, and relational factors. These are used by enterprises to reduce regional gaps in innovation potential and to reap the benefits of their regional surroundings.

The analysis and assessment of the conditions for the development of regional innovation systems were carried out for a selected peripheral area through the operationalization of the classic RIS concept for the Middle Pomerania Region in Poland. Based on 300 questionnaire interviews with companies from various industries, located in the peripheral region of Poland, the article answers the following research questions:

• What are the deficits in the area of social conditions, i.e., social and human capital?
• What is the role of institutional conditions, i.e., knowledge institutions and universities, and how are their relations with entrepreneurs?
• How is the activity of local authorities and innovation policy assessed at the regional level?
• Have entrepreneurial and innovative attitudes developed in the region among local communities?

The article presents the genesis of RIS and its theoretical foundations. The empirical part of the study consists of the authors’ own research, which was carried out on a sample of 300 entrepreneurs who conduct business activity in the Middle Pomerania Region. By means of an interview questionnaire, which contained a list of thematically arranged questions, an attempt was made to assess the conditions that exist in the region for the development of innovation. Particular attention was paid to recognizing the innovative potential of enterprises, the model of their cooperation with the nearer and more distant environment, as well as indicating the sources of knowledge that entrepreneurs use in the innovation process. Possible areas and directions of intervention were indicated that should be taken into account when planning the development of the regional innovation system and supporting models of regional cooperation of enterprises and economic self-government with universities, local authorities, and various institutions for the development of innovation and increasing the competitiveness of the region.

2. Innovation Systems in Peripheral Regions—Theoretical Approach

Many authors of scientific publications in recent years have focused their deliberations on innovation policy focused on the periphery, implemented both on a transnational [28,29], national [30], and, more and more often, regional scale (e.g., [31,32,33,34,35,36]). In the opinion of Cooke [37], the regional level of innovation policy is today the most appropriate for its effective implementation.

However, it is worth noting that the conducting of research reveals that innovation policies focused on peripheral areas are viewed negatively. Such an opinion may indicate the lack of theoretical explanations of innovative processes on the periphery [16,17] or the existence of ambiguous empirical evidence in this area [38]. The periphery is often presented as a place with low innovation potential where innovation can only be achieved through an efficient internal organization of innovators [16,26] and their strategic efforts to develop innovation [39,40,41]. Many authors emphasize the importance of linking innovators with entities outside their region [20,42,43,44,45], emphasizing the necessity and significant role of effective innovation policy [46].

When analysing the literature on the subject of innovation, it is worth noting that modern researchers are increasingly going beyond the framework of understanding innovations that can only be implemented in urban areas. It has been observed that many authors have recently devoted considerable attention to explaining how enterprises break innovation barriers that usually occur on the periphery and how to compensate for the resulting location disadvantages [19,27,38,47,48]. Research and analyses focus solely on identifying barriers to innovation and companies’ compensation strategies, but they significantly limit the perception of peripheral locations as places that can provide conditions for innovative activities [38,49,50,51,52].

An intriguing area of contemporary research, which is still poorly described in the literature on the subject, is the issue of the potential of the periphery due to its geographical proximity to valuable natural resources. This is especially true of traditional sectors, which are often overlooked in innovation research [53] and located close to raw materials and resources such as wood, ore, and hydropower [54]. Innovations in fisheries [22], the oil and gas industry [20], the wine industry [23,55], and mining [24] are closely related to the presence of specific natural resources or a specific climate in the vicinity. These factors are not everywhere. Innovation in these sectors requires an understanding of the problems and challenges of the periphery, which is usually not available to urban innovators [16,21,56]. Due to the concentration of research on innovations in high-tech sectors [16,51], many scientific studies often overlook the potential of innovation based on the use of natural resources available mainly in the periphery.

In the last ten years, an increase in interest among scientists in the issues of innovative peripheral regions can be observed [57]. Currently, the most common topics of discussion in this area are three issues: First, the prerequisites for the development of innovation. Many authors attempt to describe regional or enterprise-related factors that are relevant for starting or maintaining innovative activities. Second, analysis of innovation processes in peripheral areas. Third, the identification of different types of innovative products and strategies in the outermost regions [50,58,59,60,61].

In the traditional approach to research on innovation, investments in the research and development sphere were perceived as the main source of innovative activity (e.g., [62]). Other factors were also considered significant, such as the quality of human capital [63,64,65,66,67,68]; know-how of the company [69,70,71,72]; concentration of economic activity and related spill-over effects on knowledge transfer [73,74]; the ability to acquire knowledge from outside the region [75]; and local institutions and their quality [76]. In addition, researchers often reveal clear differences between the factors influencing innovation, their relative importance, and most importantly, their mutual interactions in different geographical locations.

Many studies argue that enterprise-related factors are particularly important for the development of innovation in peripheral regions. These can be, for example, the absorption capacity of the enterprise, the size of the company, and effective strategic planning [39,40,41,77,78]. Some authors point to the importance of the internal performance of the enterprise organization in innovative processes [40,49]. As a result, most researchers agree that the regional factors influencing innovation in peripheral regions vary and may be of little importance in achieving it.

In research on innovation, geographical (spatial) approaches, such as Territorial Innovation Models (TIMs), are still widely used [79,80,81]. However, this approach has been criticized recently (for recent review see [51,57,58,59]). According to the latest research, the authors defend the position that although urban areas have favourable preconditions for the development of innovation, focusing only on cities excludes the possibility of scientific demonstration of the innovative nature of peripheral regions [38,57]. There is a growing awareness that companies operating on the periphery are also innovating, although their innovation processes are varied and different from those of their urban counterparts [15,16,25]. Thus, the contemporary researchers should agree with the developing opinion [57] that the term “innovative enterprise in peripheral areas” is more accurate than “innovative peripheral enterprises”, which is the term often used in the literature.

Innovation processes are complex and dynamic due to the diverse socio-economic, institutional, and political characteristics of the environments in which they occur [15,82]. They also differ depending on the context in which they take place. Empirical research undertaken in various countries around the world has revealed that the factors influencing innovation processes, e.g., in the United States, European Union countries, India, and China, differ in terms of the degree and manner of impact [83,84]. This observation is a valuable premise for undertaking research aimed at identifying and assessing the determinants of innovation in peripheral areas in Poland.

3. Social Contexts of Innovation—Assumptions for Empirical Research

The research concept adopted in this article requires a further explanation of what the RIS structure is and how it can be used for research aimed at creating RIS for peripheral areas. The concept of regional innovation systems (RIS) assumes that the innovative performance of the economy depends on the innovative capabilities of enterprises and research institutions as well as on how they interact with each other and with public institutions [85]. The unique nature of the concept comes down to showing the process of overlapping planes represented by the stakeholders and actors of the system, i.e., the broadly understood institutional infrastructure and the production system, and then describing the mechanisms of relations that arise between them based on the established rules and regional policy.

The innovation system consists of institutions that play an active role in the process of knowledge transfer and innovation development. One of the first researchers to list and explain the basic elements and mechanisms of such a system was Lundvall [86]. This author distinguishes the internal organization of enterprises, relations between enterprises, the role of the public sector, the institutional structure of the financial sector, the intensity of research development, and research and development organizations [87]. In general, the main elements encompassing RIS are enterprises, business environment institutions, knowledge infrastructure, and innovation policy. The structure of regional innovation systems can be represented by two subsystems embedded in a common regional socio-economic and cultural environment [88] (p. 134).

This concept embraces a multi-disciplinary approach, enabling us to understand not only the role of technology and infrastructure but also the social and policy conditions that are necessary to boost the processes of its implementation, especially the knowledge diffusion based on social networks and relations [89].

The role of knowledge, human factors, and innovation was clearly emphasized in the theory of regional innovation systems by Cooke [90]. The concept emphasizes the importance of a network and cooperation between various stakeholders. It also indicates the importance of the state in stimulating and financing scientific research, knowledge transfers, and stimulating innovation. Storper [91] introduces the concept of “learning regions”, which proposes that an important factor in fostering innovation and competitiveness in a region is the climate and interpersonal capabilities of its inhabitants, such as knowledge, creativity, communication, and a strong ability to learn.

The importance of human and social capital in RIS is also indicated by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorf [92,93]. Their concept of the helix model implies that the innovation system should strongly consider the media and civil society, placing them at its centre. The relations that are built within the framework of the helix model allow for the building of a knowledge-based society and knowledge-based democracy [94,95].

In conclusion, it is worth highlighting the role of human and social capital in RIS. The specificity of RIS should presuppose a broad and multi-stakeholder process involving social interaction and civil society. Innovativeness is not only a combination of material forms of capital (e.g., physical, financial) but also a combination of non-material forms of capital, especially social and human capital [96]. The functioning of regional innovation systems depends not only on knowledge resources created by enterprises and institutions but also on the strength and structure of relations, and the creation of networks, which are the grounds for cooperation with their environment. Innovations do not arise in isolation from internal resources in the enterprise alone, but rather are the result of the synergy of many factors and processes. Therefore, the aforementioned environment can be understood as a network of entities and institutions that cooperate as part of innovative activities and conduct interactive learning among themselves. Thus, it should be assumed that the RIS is primarily a social system that includes systematic interactions between various groups of private and public sector institutions to increase the learning opportunities in the region [85].

The concept of RIS understood in this way was a reference for undertaking empirical research in a selected peripheral area. The following sections of the article are devoted to the research assumptions and research results.

4. Materials, Methods and Scopes

Based on literature studies and the authors’ research experience, the Middle Pomerania region in Poland was selected as an example of a peripheral area for analysis. This study analyses and assesses regional innovation systems in peripheral regions by operationalizing the classic RIS concept for the Middle Pomerania Region in Poland. An empirical analysis of the peripheral RIS conditions was conducted using a CATI diagnostic survey of 300 enterprises from the peripheral area. Interviews were conducted in July and August 2020.

Table 1. Sample information of surveyed enterprises from Middle Pomerania in Poland.

Item	%
Size of the company
Micro	62.0
Small	22.7
Medium	12.7
Big	2.7
Entities with foreign capital participation
Domestic capital	93.3
Foreign capital	2.3
Mixed capital	4.3
Number of employees
<10	57.7
10–49	27.3
50–250	11.0
>250	4.0
Annual turnover in EUR million
<2	79.7
2–9	13.3
10–50	6.0
>50	1.0
Can your enterprise be regarded as innovative?
Definitely not	5.7
Rather not	11.7
Neither no nor yes	29.7
Rather yes	35.7
Definitely yes	17.3
Number of observations	300

Source: survey, N = 300.

presents the structure of enterprises participating in the survey.

The research objective required a reference to the RIS concept and an operationalization of its elements. As a result of RIS operationalization, specific diagnostic variables were assigned to individual RIS elements (Figure 1,

Table 2. List of research questions.

Questions (Statements)
Respondents Were Asked to Express Their Opinion on Each of the Following Statements, 1—I Strongly Disagree, 5—I Strongly Agree
Q1	An effective innovation development strategy is being implemented in the region
Q2	There are strong social leaders in the region who support the development of entrepreneurship
Q3	The region has an open-door policy for entrepreneurs and people promoting entrepreneurship
Q4	Local authorities support the activities of business-related institutions
Q5	Local authorities act to reduce barriers to the development of entrepreneurship, e.g., reduce taxes
Q6	The local community understands and accepts risk-taking in business and is tolerant of entrepreneurial failure
Q7	There is a spirit of entrepreneurship, a willingness to take economic initiative and start new businesses in the local community
Q8	The region promotes good entrepreneurial examples that can inspire young people and future entrepreneurs
Q9	Entrepreneurs starting a business can count on financial support from regional institutions
Q10	Entrepreneurs in the region receive support in the form of mentoring and networking
Q11	Non-profit organizations and industry associations support the creation of cooperation networks of entrepreneurs to exchange knowledge and learn from each other
Q12	Educational institutions teach financial skills and entrepreneurship to high school and university students
Q13	Research workers do internships in enterprises located in the region
Q14	The region has a well-developed transport infrastructure (roads, airports, railways, shipping containers)
Q15	The region has a well-developed communication infrastructure (digital, broadband, mobile)

Source: Own study.

). The diagnostic variables were described on the basis of the questions (statements) included in the interview questionnaire. A 5-point Likert scale was used (from strongly disagree to strongly agree—see Table 2). Based on the responses, the determinants of innovation in the peripheral region of Middle Pomerania were described.

Previous research in Poland confirms the peripherality of the studied area. The role of metropolitan locations in explaining the innovation of companies was examined by Brodzicki and Golejewska [13]. They classified the regions by using the ESPON classification of European metropolitan regions, taking into account the MEGA 3 and MEGA 4 regions in Poland. In total, they indicated 8 regions in Poland of a metropolitan nature, including West Pomeranian (Szczecin), Wielkopolska (Poznań), and Pomeranian (Tri-City) (Figure 1).

The region of Central Pomerania that comprises these three metropolises may be considered peripheral. In this context, the Central Pomerania region has already been studied due to its internal features of peripherality, including social potential and structure, and dominant economic functions [97]. Compared to other regions in Poland, it is an underdeveloped area with a low level of socio-economic development [98,99]. It has weak and very poor transport connections with larger urban centres [100,101,102]; limited access to urban labour markets, education, and public services [103,104]; limited transport and road accessibility [104,105,106]; low population density and a tendency towards permanent outflow of people, especially young people [107,108]; low levels of human capital [109,110] and social capital [111].

Like other peripheral areas subject to exploratory analyses, the studied region is far from homogeneous (cf. [38,69,97]). Moreover, in this region, and especially in the municipalities furthest from urban centres, there is usually a lower availability of well-qualified employees and a lower density of economic actors. Enterprises invest less in research and development and focus more on product modification than product innovation [112,113].

A sample of 300 entrepreneurs was included in this study, taking into account the industry structure, size of enterprises, and location. After defining the study population, the next step was to choose the representative sampling technique. The structure of such a sample, due to the control features, was similar to the structure of the population it comes from. In this study, quota sampling was used, the aim of which was to obtain a predetermined sample structure due to the distinguished features. The quota sampling criteria include:

• structure of business entities according to the PKD 2007 classification (Polish Classification of Business Activities),
• structure of business entities by size (

  Table 3. Structure of business entities in Middle Pomerania by size—data for 2018.

  Features	Company Classification
  	Big	Medium	Small	Micro
  Number of employees	250 and more	50–249	10–49	0–9
  Number of companies	81	702	3196	109,201
  Share in general population	0.10%	0.60%	2.80%	96.50%

  Source: own elaboration based on the Local Data Bank of Statistics Poland, 2020.

  ),
• location of business entities (Figure 2).

The next section of the article is devoted to discussing the research results.

5. Results

The main aim of this study was to obtain a deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of the determinants of innovative processes in peripheral areas. Innovation systems in peripheral regions is a broad concept that covers the set of factors and processes that, as a result of synergy, determine the development of innovation.

To examine the regional conditions and climate for the development of innovation, entrepreneurs were asked to say “whether they agree or not” with positive sentences describing the region in which they operate. Questions related to the role of the actors in the innovation system are presented in the first part of the study (Figure 1, Table 2). First of all, the heart of the knowledge application and exploitation subsystem are entrepreneurs who create cooperation networks (Q3, Q13) and support organizations in the context of identifying development needs (Q9).

In this case, the role of state and local administration is to equip and support the system with the necessary resources (Q14, Q15), including the resources to provide the necessary services for the people of the state (Q1, Q2, Q5, Q9). This is the role of the state and local administration. However, this requires a focus on identifying the obstacles faced by entrepreneurs and system actors. Obstacles may be related, for example, to the low absorption capacity of knowledge and innovation and the lack of access to local resources. Their unique role in the system has been attributed to an entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurship, and new ideas (Q6, Q7, Q8). Important actors in the system are mentors and advisors, as well as a system of internships organized around programs at universities and businesses that are not directly linked to the system (Q10, Q11). The role of universities and higher education institutions, in addition to knowledge creation, is to train qualified entrepreneurs and employees according to the needs of the local labour market (Q4, Q12) (See Figure 1, Table 2).

The outermost regions are mainly characterised by deficits of important initial factors that are responsible for the development of RIS, as there is a lack of dynamic clusters and supporting organisations (“organisational thinness”) [114]. In these areas, innovation activity is often at a lower level compared to more central and agglomerated regions [13,115,116,117]. Below, in light of the conducted research, we will present the barriers that are most frequently indicated by entrepreneurs related to the policy pursued by local authorities, the functioning of the system of generating and distributing knowledge, and the social and economic conditions prevailing in the region.

According to the concept of the Warnke et al. [118], we analyse social and institutional aspects and seven functions of the innovation system in relation to the answers given by entrepreneurs: knowledge generation, knowledge diffusion, influencing the direction of search, entrepreneurial experimentation, market formation, legitimation, and resource mobilisation.

By analyzing the data from

Table 4. Regional conditions for the development of innovation in the Middle Pomerania Region.

Questions/Statements		% (n = 300)
		Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
		1	2	3	4	5
Q1	An effective innovation development strategy is being implemented in the region	10.67	17.67	45.67	24.33	1.67
Q2	There are strong social leaders in the region who support the development of entrepreneurship	8.00	16.67	55.67	17.67	2.00
Q3	The region has an open-door policy for entrepreneurs and people promoting entrepreneurship	4.67	20.33	57.67	15.67	1.67
Q4	Local authorities support the activities of business-related institutions	7.00	16.67	56.33	19.00	1.00
Q5	Local authorities act to reduce barriers to the development of entrepreneurship, e.g., reduce taxes	19.33	22.67	45.00	12.33	0.67
Q6	The local community understands and accepts risk-taking in business and is tolerant of entrepreneurial failure	6.00	17.00	57.67	19.33	0.00
Q7	There is a spirit of entrepreneurship, a willingness to take economic initiative and start new businesses in the local community	6.33	14.00	50.00	25.67	4.00
Q8	The region promotes good entrepreneurial examples that can inspire young people and future entrepreneurs	3.67	15.00	59.33	19.67	2.33
Q9	Entrepreneurs starting a business can count on financial support from regional institutions	4.00	14.00	59.67	19.67	2.67
Q10	Entrepreneurs in the region receive support in the form of mentoring and networking	9.00	14.00	64.67	11.67	0.67
Q11	Non-profit organizations and industry associations support the creation of cooperation networks of entrepreneurs to exchange knowledge and learn from each other	7.33	15.67	56.00	20.00	1.00
Q12	Educational institutions teach financial skills and entrepreneurship to high school and university students	8.00	15.33	60.67	15.67	0.33
Q13	Research workers do internships in enterprises located in the region	12.67	10.00	58.33	18.00	1.00
Q14	The region has a well-developed transport infrastructure (roads, airports, railways, shipping containers)	9.00	15.00	35.33	38.67	2.00
Q15	The region has a well-developed communication infrastructure (digital, broadband, mobile)	3.00	13.33	34.67	44.67	4.33

Source: survey, N = 300.

, as many as 42% of entrepreneurs indicated that, in their opinion, local authorities do not act to reduce barriers to the development of entrepreneurship. Additionally, 28% of respondents stated that an effective innovation development strategy was not being implemented in the region. This remark is particularly important in the case of regional innovation systems, whose basic regulator of activities should be strategic planning and creating an innovation policy.

The link between an effective innovation policy in the region and entrepreneurs should be local authorities who understand the need to support innovative ventures and the implementation of the function of creating the right conditions for the development of innovation, support for research, legitimization, and mobilization of resources [118]. It is also an important aspect that refers to the local relationships and trust between the actors of the system. Local authorities bring to the innovation system an important aspect of uniting local communities around the idea of co-responsibility for the development of the region.

Quite often (25% of respondents), entrepreneurs indicated that they felt that there was no open-door policy for entrepreneurs and people promoting entrepreneurship in the region and that the authorities did not support business environment institutions (23% of respondents) (Table 4). RIS is made up of public enterprises, institutions, and other organizations cooperating in accordance with organizational and institutional rules. The lack of good relations between local authorities and the environment, the lack of dialogue in the system, and the will to support research institutions and innovation incubators interfere with the functions generated by diffusion and use of knowledge.

In the survey, entrepreneurs (24%) also indicated the lack of strong social leaders operating in the region who support the development of entrepreneurship as well as the lack of support in the form of mentoring and networking (23%) (Table 4). Social networks are a promising tool for empirically studying the structure and evolution of interactions between organizations and knowledge flows within and between regions [119]. This is because innovation in peripheral areas results from the replacement of metropolitan buzz and geographical proximity by various types of social proximity and proximity to networks. They can rely on local knowledge that is difficult to communicate and related to local resources [16]. Therefore, social rootedness is one of the most important criteria for the functioning of innovation systems. Social conditions were another aspect that was assessed by entrepreneurs. In this context, entrepreneurs positively assessed the spirit of entrepreneurship among local communities and the willingness to undertake economic initiatives and start new enterprises (30% of positive opinions). According to entrepreneurs, good examples of entrepreneurship were also promoted in the region, which could inspire young people and future entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs assessed the social approach to running a business a bit lower. Only 19% think that local society understands and accepts the risk taken in business activity and is tolerant of entrepreneurial failures.

On the other hand, the region’s communication, digital, broadband, and mobile infrastructure was assessed very well (almost 50% of positive ratings). The transport infrastructure in the form of roads, airports, and railways was rated equally highly (41% of positive opinions). Regional equipment may have an impact on the innovation potential of regions where development is lagging, but, as the researchers point out, it is unclear to what extent [57]. There is already evidence in the literature that the isolation of the peripheral area, which could be an obstacle to the dissemination of innovation, does not have to be an obstacle due to the popularization of the Internet [120,121]. The development of information technology and communication will foster the overcoming of geographical barriers to cooperation and strengthen the process of knowledge transfer and innovation.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper supports the stance that there is no “ideal model” for innovation policy and shows empirically that the preconditions for the development, implementation and transfer of innovation differ significantly between centre and peripheral regions. The specificity of the region and its endogenous potentials should be a key determinant in planning and implementing the directions of the innovation policy tailored to the region’s needs.

Previous research on the assessment of the potential of the peripheral regions conducted within the ESPON (European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) [122] has focused on delineating the inner peripheral areas by assessing three areas: (a) enclaves of low economic potential, (b) areas with poor access to services of general interest, or (c) areas experiencing a lack of relational proximity. Additionally, the European Innovation Ranking [123] designed by the European Commission and the University of Maastricht in order to implement the Lisbon Strategy (The European Innovation Scoreboard), which measures and compares the level of innovation in the Member States of the European Union at the regional level, provides knowledge on the effects of innovation processes. While the results of these studies are valuable for the purpose of identifying spatial regimes of innovation processes, they do not explain the mechanisms responsible for them. They do not offer complete insight into the soft factors related to social rooting that determine the development and innovation processes, which we described in the theoretical section, and which are considered key in the light of RIS.

In this article, we describe the conditions that enterprises in peripheral regions face when it comes to innovation. Scientific work on the assessment of regional innovation systems on the periphery did not take up a wider set of conditions of the local institutional and organizational environment from the perspective of entrepreneurs. The article provides evidence on the conditions in the outermost regions, providing a basis for the formulation of policy orientations and actions aimed at developing innovation in the outermost regions.

Delimitation of the outermost regions does not have a clear methodology. Its meaning is changing and its peripherality is no longer only perceived by the context of distance and accessibility to agglomerations. Thanks to the dynamics of transport and information and communication technologies (ICT), peripherality has begun to be determined by equipping a given location with factors such as communication accessibility, high-quality ICT infrastructure, human and social capital, and cooperation networks for knowledge transfer and innovation. Peripherality is the result of a combination of many regionally rooted factors, which are a manifestation of cultural, social, and institutional conditions. Research on regional dysfunction in innovation processes should take greater account of elements of local ecosystems, analyse the role of local communities, their entrepreneurial and innovative behaviour, and the role of local leaders. Therefore, the social roots of regional innovation systems may prove crucial in explaining development mechanisms.

This research identifies several key barriers that may hinder the functioning of innovation systems on the periphery. One of the main problems faced by peripheral regions is the poor quality of the institutional environment—especially the activity of local authorities—in supporting entrepreneurship and creating conditions for their development. This translates into ineffective strategic management aimed at developing the region’s innovativeness. What local authorities in peripheral regions lack is the ability to create open-door policies and establish relationships with entrepreneurs. This also applies to the support of business environment institutions.

Similar observations from the research were obtained by Rodrıguez-Pose and Di Cataldo [76], who found that there is a relationship between the quality of government and the ability of regions to innovate. In particular, ineffective governments are a fundamental barrier to the innovation capacity of the EU periphery, strongly undermining the potential impact of any other measures to increase innovation.

The peripheral regions also suffer from a lack of local leadership and social leaders who bring communities together and activate wider social groups. Such leaders also play an important role in building local and regional cooperation networks, becoming knowledge brokers and mentors by creating lasting alliances for the development of innovation and the region. In the outermost regions, there is also a lack of support from non-governmental organizations, organizations and business associations for building knowledge pipelines and transferring innovation, exchanging experiences, and cooperating between academia and the economic environment. A serious problem is also the lack of acceptance of local communities to take the risks associated with absorbing or creating innovations.

The study of Rodríguez-Pose and Wilkie [15] provides evidence that generating innovative products in less developed regions is directly related to regional investment in research and development in higher education and the quality of local human capital. Our research develops this theme and shows that in the case of peripheral regions, not only does human capital play a significant role, but also social and relational capital and entrepreneurial attitudes. For the development of innovation and cooperation, local leaders and knowledge institutions are needed as integrators of cooperation and building knowledge bridges.

Based on the analysis of the literature and the research carried out, several important policy areas for the development of innovation systems in peripheral regions can be identified. However, as Tödtling and Trippl [114] rightly point out, specific innovation policies have been shaped by “best practice” models “from high-tech areas and regions with good innovative and economic performance” [114]. In their opinion, it is a mistake in many cases to apply the aforementioned policies in a similar way to regions with different innovation potentials. Therefore, it should be assumed that “there is no ideal model” of innovation policy because the regions, due to their conditions, may differ from one another on the centre–periphery line.

In the case of peripheral regions, the main direction of activities should be reducing the barriers related to the often poorly equipped region with organizations supporting innovation. In this case, an indispensable element of an appropriate innovation policy should be the strengthening of the institutional environment. This is connected with supporting the development of the regional knowledge infrastructure and fostering cooperation with domestic and foreign research institutions, whose work fits the needs of the regional economy. Another important aspect is building a system of education and training, which will provide skills at the secondary and higher vocational level in the region. Such activities should be aimed at creation of technical schools, engineering schools, management schools and training programmes, internships, and knowledge exchange, an example of which is the “innovation assistant” for SMEs.

In innovation policy, it is also important to pay attention to the need to improve the dimension of relations and the creation of social and institutional networks. This is related to the concept of rooting economic and innovative processes in local social structures. Thus, the processes that take place in the region are often conditioned by social capital, which should be developed and engaged for the needs of regional innovation systems. Moreover, entrepreneurs must be actively supported in the process of knowledge transfer and building relations with their environment, including regional institutions and knowledge suppliers. The condition is that the knowledge transfer complies with the needs of the regional economy. In the case of peripheral regions, connecting enterprises and local institutions with sources of knowledge from outside the region seems more important than supporting local ties, thus contributing to the flow of ideas and knowledge not available in the region. However, the condition for building a knowledge transfer system is not only activities consisting in integrating knowledge sources, but of equal importance are activities in the area of strengthening the “knowledge absorption capacity” in the region—i.e., strengthening their internal activities in the field of research and development. In the process of production and absorption of knowledge and its subsequent diffusion in the region, a strategic role should be played by universities, which, due to their tasks and functions in the region, create networks of cooperation and exchange of knowledge of a scientific and practical nature on a supra-regional and international scale.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This research has several limitations. First of all, due to the nature of the survey, we focused only on a selected peripheral region, which limits access from a wider group of cases. Preference would be given to studies that will take into account other peripheral regions not only in Poland, but also in other countries. Second, we are not exploring networking in the region that would require other data collection techniques from all actors in the innovation system. Finally, as with other studies [118], a functional approach can be used to study innovation systems by involving a larger group of actors responsible for innovation processes in the region.

Since the outermost regions may differ from each other due to a number of institutional and organizational conditions, future comparative studies of the outermost regions may further deepen the understanding of the determinants for the development of innovation. In other words, future work may focus on the specifics of innovation systems in different types of outermost regions. Moreover, since we mainly studied small and medium-sized enterprises, future research may differentiate individual economic activities to a greater extent, including those carried out in a given location.

Another important direction for the development of research may be to examine how innovative companies influence the development of periphery regions in the long run. For example, large firms can greatly influence the institutional environment of the institution, thereby shaping innovation systems in the region. Will these actions equally benefit other smaller companies in the region or only a select few?