Policy Research Working Paper 10734 Overcoming Left-Behindedness Moving beyond the Efficiency versus Equity Debate in Territorial Development Andrés Rodríguez-Pose Federico Bartalucci Nancy Lozano-Gracia María Dávalos Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Practice & Poverty and Equity Global Practice March 2024 Policy Research Working Paper 10734 Abstract Territorial development theory and practice have witnessed territorial development, which has driven the adoption significant change in recent times. This change has increas- of what are increasingly place-based and place-sensitive ingly put the spatial dimension at the center of development approaches to development. The paper also emphasizes the policies. Although agglomeration-focused policies derived need for complementarity between efficiency-driven and from urbanization and agglomeration economics were equity-focused interventions, while highlighting emerging once prominent, their empirical limitations have become topics in regional economics research, including the role increasingly apparent. Greater territorial polarization and of institutions, agency, and external megatrends such as pervasive left-behindedness have underscored the need for the green transition. The paper concludes by advocating a more inclusive territorial development approach, prompt- a place-sensitive approach that tailors policies to regional ing increased interest in understanding and addressing challenges, promoting economic potential, diversification, regional disparities to ensure more equitable economic and inclusivity across all regions. growth. This paper synthesizes the growing interest in This paper is a product of the Urban, Disaster Risk Management, Resilience and Land Global Practice and the Poverty and Equity Global Practice. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://www.worldbank.org/prwp. The authors may be contacted at nlozano@worldbank.org. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. Produced by the Research Support Team Overcoming Le�-Behindedness: Moving beyond the Efficiency versus Equity Debate in Territorial Development Andrés Rodríguez-Pose,*,§ Federico Bartalucci,* Nancy Lozano-Gracia,+ and María Dávalos+ * Department of Geography and Environment and Cañada Blanch Centre, London School of Economics, London, UK. + World Bank, Washington, USA Keywords: economic development, growth, efficiency, equity territories, regions. JEL classifica�on: O18, R10, R58 1. Introduc�on Over the past two decades, research and policy in territorial development have undergone a significant transforma�on. In 2005, Thomas Friedman introduced the concept of a 'flat world,' sugges�ng that globaliza�on had created a level playing field through trade expansion, interna�onalized firms, outsourcing, and global knowledge networks (Friedman, 2005). This no�on echoed previous discussions on the 'death of distance,' the 'end of geography,' and the emergence of a 'weightless economy' (Cairncross, 1997; O’Brien, 1992; Quah, 1999). Subsequently, in 2008, Edward Glaeser advocated for a focus on helping individuals rather than places to maximize efficiency (Glaeser, 2008). As a result, tradi�onal development policy shi�ed towards providing equal opportuni�es irrespec�ve of loca�on (Rodríguez-Pose & Crescenzi, 2008). Territorial development policy put the emphasis on spa�ally-blind approaches, postula�ng policies aimed at improving the condi�ons and opportuni�es of people regardless of where they lived, while recognizing the need for spa�al differen�a�on (World Bank, 2009). However, the significance of place in development policy has resurfaced in economic theory and policy design. In a globalized world, loca�on greatly influences regional outcomes, while assump�ons about knowledge spillovers and the diffusion of economic ac�vity, well-being, and prosperity have not always materialized (McCann, 2008; Rodríguez-Pose & Crescenzi, 2008). Proximity — encompassing not only physical proximity, but also geographical, cogni�ve, organiza�onal, and ins�tu�onal aspects— plays a vital role in facilita�ng knowledge transfer from prosperous regions to lagging ones (Boschma, 2005; Caragliu & Nijkamp, 2016). Agglomera�on maters enormously for the genera�on and diffusion of economic ac�vity not only at regional but also at metropolitan and neighborhood scales (Rosenthal & Strange, 2020). However, the diffusion of the prosperity linked to agglomera�on economies also faces numerous barriers that may prevent the flow of economic benefits from leading and more dynamic areas to lagging and falling behind ones. Issues such as ins�tu�onal shortcomings, weak regional leadership, deficient innova�on systems, and the inability of many regions to adapt to emerging structural transforma�ons obstruct the diffusion of economic ac�vity and prevent a more equitable distribu�on of economic gains (Milanovic, 2005). These barriers can contribute to deepening and perpetua�ng spa�al inequali�es, incurring significant economic and social costs. Spa�al imbalances are not just an equity and social problem, but also lead to missed economic poten�al, social discontent, and, in extreme cases, even unrest (Barca et al., 2012; Rodríguez-Pose, 2018). Both economic literature and policy design increasingly focus on understanding the local determinants of regional development. While mainstream research once emphasized exogenous forces like globaliza�on, trade, and technology (Krugman, 1991), aten�on has increasingly shi�ed to endogenous factors that shape a territory's ability to leverage both internal and external growth drivers. Factors such as ins�tu�ons, produc�vity, employment opportuni�es, agents of change, regional resilience, and a region's adaptability to global megatrends play crucial roles in determining regional economic dynamism (Coenen et al., 2012; Mar�n, 2012; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Boschma, 2015; Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020). This paradigm shi� has given rise to more localized development interven�ons to deal with harnessing economic poten�al and le�-behindedness, star�ng with place-based and, more recently, place-sensi�ve approaches (Iammarino et al., 2019). While a consensus on the effec�veness of place- based policies is s�ll evolving, recent work highlights the importance of evalua�ng pre-exis�ng 2 territorial strengths before implemen�ng such interven�ons (Duranton & Venables, 2018). Under the right condi�ons, they have demonstrated welfare gains within ci�es and peripheral rural regions (Ahlfeldt et al., 2017; Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie, 2017). Place-based policies can be successful when they build upon exis�ng compe��ve advantages but may result in inefficiencies without proper assessment of both their poten�al direct and indirect impacts. However, assessing the welfare gains and conduc�ng cost-benefit analyses of place-based and place-sensi�ve policies s�ll face challenges in incorpora�ng all the poten�al costs of non-interven�on, including lost economic opportuni�es, long-term human capital losses, and social and poli�cal discontent. Recent evidence underscores the poten�al of locally tailored territorial development policies. However, there is s�ll a need to synthesize various strands of literature to navigate the mul�tude of approaches and assist decision-makers in adop�ng comprehensive frameworks for greater regional economic growth. This paper aims to contribute to fill this gap. It reviews recent theore�cal and empirical developments in territorial and regional science. It then explores the role of ins�tu�ons, new theore�cal advancements, and evidence related to the role of ins�tu�ons, resilience, agency, and leadership. It later addresses territorial development in the context of sustainability transi�ons and the socio-economic costs of regional inequali�es. Finally, the paper synthesizes key insights and lessons from the scholarly literature and offers policy implica�ons and future direc�ons for territorial development interven�ons. 2. Seeking efficiency and equity through territorial development policy Early theories on economic geography viewed spa�al inequali�es as a temporary phenomenon that would eventually decrease as markets cleared. As such, the benefits provided by economies of agglomera�on in ci�es were expected to spread in �me from the core to the periphery. Encouraging agglomera�on in the core was seen as a way to generate posi�ve externali�es, such as increased innova�on capacity and lower knowledge-sharing costs, which would drive the dynamism and economic growth of mega-ci�es (Fujita et al., 1999; Duranton & Puga, 2001). Urban economists echoed this sen�ment, viewing urban density as the path from poverty to prosperity (Glaeser, 2011: 1). However, reality has proven far more complex and variegated, considering the many market failures that exist. Empirical evidence points to the many benefits from agglomera�on in ci�es. Making ci�es work can boost produc�vity and inclusion at various stages of development, for instance in the early and medium phases of structural transforma�on (Grover et al, 2022). However, nega�ve externali�es in large ci�es, such as conges�on costs, pollu�on, labor crowding, and a high cost of living, can act as significant barriers to economic growth and may dampen economies of agglomera�on, making further investments in large ci�es costly and some�mes inefficient (Dijkstra et al., 2013), giving rise to ‘sterile’ agglomera�on economies (Grover et al., 2022). Large conges�on cost may hamper the economic dynamism of large ci�es. With this in mind, scholarly research has also pointed at cases where mid-size ci�es, intermediate ones, and some rural areas have shown considerable dynamism, despite what can be regarded as less favorable condi�ons for the flourishing of economic ac�vity (Frick and Rodríguez-Pose, 2018). For instance, in Europe, smaller towns and rural regions outpaced megaci�es in growth rates during the late 2000s and early 2010s, ci�ng conges�on costs, pollu�on, labor crowding, and high living expenses as constraints on further agglomera�on (Dijkstra et al., 2013). A similar trend was observed in developing countries like China, where urbaniza�on did not always correlate with higher living standards (Jedwab & Vollrath, 2015). In cases where the growth of mega-ci�es has been atributed to a dependence on resource exports rather than industrializa�on 3 and manufacturing, lower performance in welfare and development measures is also observed when compared to produc�on ci�es (Gollin et al., 2015). Second, there are important barriers that may limit the posi�ve spillovers from large ci�es to surrounding regions. For countries to fully harness the advantages and poten�al of their major ci�es, good governance, a well-developed urban infrastructure, and an economic structure that benefits from agglomera�on economies are needed. While economic theory posits that agglomera�on fosters innova�on, benefi�ng le�-behind regions through knowledge spillovers, research shows that these spillovers are weaker than agglomera�on forces, leading to strong distance decay effects and limi�ng the impact of innova�on and new economic ac�vity generated in core areas on lagging regions (Dunford & Smith, 2000; Iammarino & McCann, 2013). Knowledge struggles to diffuse from cores to peripheries —or, in other words, from more to less developed regions— for lack of adequate and func�oning transmission channels (Boschma, 2005; D’Este et al., 2013; Iammarino, 2018). Moreover, automa�c adjustment mechanisms, like labor migra�on and firm investment responses to price signals, are not always func�oning as expected. Barriers to migra�on and the s�ckiness of firm loca�ons, benefi�ng from agglomera�on effects, hinder the benefits of knowledge spillovers towards lagging areas (Floerkemeier et al., 2021). Le�- and lagging-behind places struggle to establish the necessary connec�ons to absorb new knowledge and innova�on, hampering the replica�on of economic success (Farole et al., 2011). Weak ins�tu�ons and limited local innova�on and skill accumula�on further hinder convergence. The complementary nature of efficiency and equity focused policies for territorial development has become more evident in recent years, as within-country inequali�es have risen in both advanced and emerging economies (Rodríguez-Pose, 1999; Puga, 2002; Ezcurra et al., 2005; Heidenreich & Wunder, 2008) and the need to ensure that efficiency and equity objec�ves are tackled together has become more evident. Consequently, the adop�on of efficiency-driven approaches has failed to bring most le�-behind territories out of their le�-behindedness, meaning that within-country inequali�es have generally con�nued to rise in both advanced and emerging economies The outcome has been rising polariza�on, with many poor regions remaining trapped in a low-income equilibrium and incapable of adap�ng to changes in economic trends and to transi�on towards more integrated and open economies (Ezcurra & Rodríguez-Pose, 2014; Diemer et al., 2022). This situa�on has always had considerable economic costs. However, the hitherto neglected social and poli�cal costs of regional inequality are in recent �mes becoming far more evident and costly. Rising discontent in marginalized regions, fueled, among other factors, by barriers to mobility and limited economic opportuni�es, has led to increasing discontent, the rise of populism and, in some cases, it has also resulted in violent protests (Rodríguez-Pose, 2018). Dispari�es have become poli�cized in various countries (Hewison, 2014; Rodríguez-Pose, 2018; Dijkstra et al., 2020) in ways that are also provoking considerable harm to the overall performance of na�onal economies. To address regional polariza�on and its associated social, poli�cal, and economic risks, governments have tradi�onally employed two approaches. Firstly, they resorted to large-scale projects in lagging and le�-behind regions, o�en resul�ng in expensive ini�a�ves with limited development gains due to weak socio-economic and ins�tu�onal founda�ons (Flyvbjerg, 2009; Crescenzi et al., 2016). Secondly, they relied on redistribu�ve transfers, which some�mes sustained stagnant economies, crea�ng 'sheltered economies' (Fratesi & Rodríguez-Pose, 2016) (Figure 1). However, the effec�veness of these policies has varied depending on the policy adopted and the condi�ons of the target territory, 4 with some sugges�ng that transfers can generate equity gains outweighing efficiency costs (Gaubert et al., 2021). Figure 1: Schema�c representa�on of barriers to spillovers and efficiency gains in lagging regions. Source: Author’s elabora�on based on Coenen et al., 2012; Mar�n, 2012; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Boschma, 2015; Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020. The increasing realiza�on, amid rising territorial inequality and social discontent, of the need to tackle the barriers to spillovers and efficiency gains in lagging areas has prompted a re-evalua�on of exis�ng territorial development policies. This has been conducive to expanding the focus of research into the areas of ins�tu�onal quality, regional development paths, agency and resilience, and sustainable development prac�ces (Rodríguez-Pose & Keterer 2020; Venables, 2023). Research in these areas has become far more prominent and an important source of reflec�on to improve development interven�ons and design far more efficient territorial policies. In the following sec�ons we cover these growing areas in territorial development scholarship. In what follows, we summarize research emerging in these four areas, and point at key lessons for policy design. 3. The role of ins�tu�ons in territorial development Un�l the turn of the century, territorial development primarily relied on two models: neoclassical theory (Solow, 1956) and endogenous growth theory (Romer, 1986; Lucas, 1988). These theories offered policy makers a limited range of development strategies, primarily focusing on inves�ng in physical capital (e.g., infrastructure) and promo�ng innova�on and human capital. Even the more recent New Economic Geography highlighted the value of enhancing connec�vity through investments in transport infrastructure as a key driver of economic growth. However, these 5 approaches have struggled and con�nued to struggle to deliver consistent regional development outcomes (Pike et al., 2007). To address this, researchers have turned their aten�on to ins�tu�ons, a dimension tradi�onally overlooked in past regional development strategies (Acemoglu et al., 2001; Vijayaraghavan & Ward, 2001; Rodrik et al., 2004). Consequently, ins�tu�ons, especially regional ones, have gained prominence in territorial development theory and analysis (Gertler, 2010; Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). Recent advancements in theory and empirical research suggest that the quality and efficiency of local governments may be as, if not more, important for territorial development as the factors tradi�on considered as the main drivers of development, like infrastructure, human capital, and innova�on. Poor ins�tu�ons generally represent the main cause of persistent le�-behindedness. Table 1 summarizes key channels through which ins�tu�ons can have an impact on regional growth. The case for inves�ng in ins�tu�ons is becoming stronger, in par�cular for two reasons. First, ins�tu�ons themselves influence economic performance by shaping networks and processes that drive economic ac�vity. Formal ins�tu�ons that combat corrup�on and informal networks fostering trust among economic actors offer substan�al socio-economic benefits (Annoni & Dijkstra, 2013; Ganau & Rodríguez-Pose, 2019). Ins�tu�ons can affect regional growth directly and indirectly. Directly, they influence economic actors' interac�ons within a region, impac�ng growth, employment, and produc�vity. They reduce transac�on costs, increase labor produc�vity, and drive innova�on (Ganau & Rodríguez-Pose, 2019). Effec�ve ins�tu�ons promote innova�ve performance, while ineffec�ve and corrupt ins�tu�ons hinder innova�on, especially in less developed regions (Rodríguez-Pose & Di Cataldo, 2015). Government quality improvements are vital for low-growth regions (Ma et al., 2023; Rodríguez-Pose & Keterer, 2020). Ins�tu�ons also play a crucial role in establishing regional entrepreneurial ecosystems, alongside tradi�onal factors like infrastructure (Audretsch & Belitski, 2017). Trust-building networks, known as bridging social capital, facilitate knowledge diffusion and economic growth (Murphy et al., 2016). Table 1. Summary of direct and indirect impacts of ins�tu�ons on regional economic performance. Driver of economic Type of impact Contribu�on to regional economic performance performance Quality of regional Direct impacts Reducing transac�on costs, rendering economic ins�tu�ons growth more viable Directly increasing labor produc�vity levels in regions Improving regional innova�ve performance, measured through paten�ng, especially when corrup�on and government effec�veness are taken into account Fostering economic dynamism in lagging-behind, low-growth regions 6 Atrac�ng greenfield FDI from the most produc�ve mul�na�onal companies. Indirect impacts Ac�ng as a mediator of public policy interven�ons Affec�ng the economic returns of policies on infrastructure, human capital development, and the promo�on of innova�on Facilita�ng the diffusion of innova�on and knowledge through the establishment of higher levels of trust. Condi�oning the economic impact of poli�cal processes, such as decentraliza�on and the devolu�on of authority to subna�onal levels. Contribu�ng to render a region atrac�ve as a migra�on des�na�on. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Annoni & Dijkstra (2013); Rodríguez-Pose (2013); Huggins et al. (2014); Sleuwaegen & Boiardi (2014); Rodríguez-Pose & Garcilazo (2015); Ketterer & Rodríguez-Pose (2015); Crescenzi et al. (2016); Audretsch & Belitski (2017); Di Cataldo & Rodríguez-Pose (2017); Fritsch & Wyrwich (2018); Ganau & Rodríguez-Pose (2019). Indirectly, efficient ins�tu�ons enhance the effec�veness of policies targe�ng human capital and regional innova�on (Crescenzi et al., 2016). In this respect, ins�tu�ons mediate all local or regional public interven�ons. They affect policy outcomes, including the alloca�on of European Union Structural and Cohesion Funds (Rodríguez-Pose & Garcilazo, 2015) and influence the economic impact of poli�cal processes like decentraliza�on (Muringani et al., 2019; Jong et al., 2021). Weak ins�tu�ons contribute to perpetuate regional dispari�es during decentraliza�on, as seen in Argen�na (World Bank, 2020a). Moreover, the quality of regional ins�tu�ons shapes a region's atrac�veness for migrants (Keterer & Rodríguez-Pose, 2015). Second, subpar ins�tu�onal quality at the local and regional levels can undermine even the most carefully designed development efforts. This is because ins�tu�ons mediate the economic returns of public interven�ons aimed at revitalizing regional economies. A clear understanding of ins�tu�ons and ins�tu�onal quality, encompassing formal and informal elements, is therefore essen�al for shaping effec�ve policy ac�ons. Formal ins�tu�ons include rules, laws, and organiza�ons, while informal ins�tu�ons involve individual habits, group rou�nes, and social norms (Amin, 1999). Formal ins�tu�ons, o�en referred to as ‘hard’ ins�tu�ons, represent elements like the rule of law, property rights, and compe��on law. Informal ins�tu�ons, or ‘so�’ ins�tu�ons, encompass social interac�ons that generate trust, including norms, tradi�ons, rela�onships, and conven�ons (Rodríguez-Pose & Storper, 2006). This categoriza�on facilitates a beter measurement of ins�tu�onal quality at the subna�onal level, revealing varia�ons within and between countries (Charron et al., 2014). However, despite considerable improvements in our understanding of how ins�tu�ons shape economic development, significant knowledge gaps persist. Most of the exis�ng research on ins�tu�ons and ins�tu�onal quality remains primarily focused on developed countries, limi�ng generalizability to low-income countries. More research is therefore needed to understand 7 ins�tu�ons' role in developing countries (Iddawela et al., 2021; Hussen & Çokgezen, 2022; Aroca & A�enza, 2016). Addi�onally, informal ins�tu�ons and their impact on regional development warrant more aten�on. Finally, transla�ng ins�tu�onal research into ac�onable policies is a considerable challenge. Ins�tu�onal reforms remain underrepresented in development interven�ons, despite their importance (World Bank, 2020b). To bridge this gap, policy ac�ons should focus on improving regional policy design and enhancing subna�onal government capacity to implement policies effec�vely (Figure 2). Figure 2. Summary of main areas of interven�on for ins�tu�onal development policies Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Barca et al. (2012); Rodríguez-Pose (2013); Cejudo & Michel (2017); OECD (2017; 2019; 2020); Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie (2019); Rodríguez-Pose (2020). In summary, while ins�tu�ons are not an all-encompassing solu�on for territorial development, recent research has highlighted how incorpora�ng them into development strategies can yield significant benefits. Neglec�ng ins�tu�ons may result in short-term gains but leave regions worse off in the long run and perpetuate le�-behindedness. A balanced approach that considers ins�tu�ons across various development axes can lead to more sustainable strategies (Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie, 2019). 4. Regional diversifica�on and avoiding development traps But dealing with ins�tu�ons, while important, is not enough to navigate the policy challenges governments are confronted with when trying to design and implement development policies. That is why, in the context of regional development, researchers and policy makers are increasingly delving into the intricate interplay between innova�on, economic dynamism, regional diversifica�on, and the occurrence of development traps. A growing consensus—originally emerging from the literature on evolu�onary economic geography—underscores that regions exhibit varying capaci�es 8 to confront and harness global megatrends, like digitaliza�on or the green transi�on for diversifica�on. However, weak innova�on systems and produc�vity have presented significant obstacles to transferring efficiency gains to le�-behind regions through these market adjustment mechanisms, frequently resul�ng in economic stagna�on and decline and obstruc�ng diversifica�on (Iammarino, 2018; Floerkemeier et al., 2021). The evolu�onary economic geography literature stresses the significance of regional diversifica�on paths in facilita�ng efficiency gains in lagging regions and the role of endogenous factors in explaining the presence or absence of automa�c adjustment mechanisms related to capital and labor mobility from more dynamic core regions to lagging- and le�-behind areas. Hence, territorial development policies should account for the unique opportunity spaces of each region, which can vary significantly based on factors like income level, urbaniza�on, industrial history, and the condi�ons of local ecosystems (Pinheiro et al., 2022). Recognizing these differences among regional development contexts is vital for designing and implemen�ng effec�ve policies tailored to specific diversifica�on trajectories. Research on regional diversifica�on has primarily concentrated on a region's capacity to venture into new technologies, industries, and occupa�ons based on its local capabili�es (Ne�e et al., 2011). Each regional economy possesses dis�nct diversifica�on opportunity spaces shaped by its unique capabili�es (Pinheiro et al., 2022). Understanding the emergence of these opportunity spaces becomes par�cularly relevant as the lack of diversifica�on paths can present significant barriers to dissemina�ng efficiency gains from core areas to lagging regions, thereby perpetua�ng regional divides. Various factors influence diversifica�on and path emergence. Regions typically diversify based on their exis�ng capabili�es, with technological, industrial, and skill capabili�es serving as key determinants (Boschma et al., 2015; Boschma, 2017). Regions that diversify into higher-skill and more complex technologies o�en experience higher GDP growth rates and employment (Rigby et al., 2022). However, regions aspiring to leapfrog into higher value-added ac�vi�es o�en encounter challenges due to deficiencies in local capabili�es, a phenomenon observed in both developed and developing countries (Balland et al., 2019; Frick et al., 2019). Five key aspects have been iden�fied as key for shaping regional specializa�on and diversifica�on trajectories, allowing regions to escape le�-behindedness. First, technological specializa�on determines the local availability of relevant technological capabili�es. This is crucial for regional compe��ve advantage (Montresor and Quatraro, 2019; Van den Berge et al., 2020; Santoalha and Boschma, 2021). The presence of local scien�fic capabili�es —and, par�cularly, of knowledge derived from universi�es— is also a fundamental source of regional innova�on (Balland & Boschma, 2021). Just as important are the ins�tu�onal capabili�es available. Solid ins�tu�ons can encourage and ease the implementa�on of new ini�a�ves, mobilizing resources, and promo�ng reforms, thereby enhancing diversifica�on opportuni�es (Garud et al., 2002; Cor�novis et al., 2017). Moreover, diversifica�on in lagging regions o�en relies on their capacity to set up external linkages, providing complementary capabili�es (Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose, 2013; Balland & Boschma, 2021). Finally, the presence of external agents of change serves as a source of new knowledge and diversifica�on (Ne�e et al., 2018; Cor�novis et al., 2020; Miguélez & Morrison, 2022). The role of mul�na�onal enterprises and migrant inventors is fundamental in this respect. Figure 3 provides an overview of the main factors driving diversifica�on at the regional level. 9 Figure 3 Schema�c representa�on of factors driving the emergence of regional specializa�on and diversifica�on paths. Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Cortinovis et al., 2017; Montresor and Quatraro 2019; Cortinovis et al., 2020; Van den Berge et al. 2020; Balland & Boschma, 2021; Santoalha and Boschma 2021. In addi�on to the emphasis on ins�tu�ons, development paths, and diversifica�on, the 'regional development trap' has emerged as a concept to iden�fy regions struggling to keep pace with development. Development traps manifest themselves when regions fail to sustain economic dynamism in income, produc�vity, and employment, while simultaneously underperforming rela�ve to their na�onal (and European) peers (Diemer et al., 2022: 489). This concept is akin to the middle- income trap in interna�onal economics, where countries experience bursts of growth followed by stagna�on or decline (Kharas & Kohli, 2011). Regional development traps can affect regions at various levels of development, adding complexity to their iden�fica�on and analysis (Diemer et al., 2022). In par�cular, in the case of European regions the highest incidence of regions caught in a development trap happens at high and middle per capita income levels. Empirical applica�ons of the concept reveal common characteris�cs among le�-behind places, such as a lower share of manufacturing industry, higher dependency ra�os, lower educa�onal atainment, and weaker innova�on capacity. These paterns hold across regions at different income levels, underscoring the importance of these factors in understanding le�-behindedness (Diemer et al., 2022). While the theory of regional development traps is rela�vely recent, empirical evidence and the development of indices to iden�fy trapped regions have been applied in developed countries, such as those in the European Union (Diemer et al., 2022). The applica�on of these indices to developing countries remains an area for further explora�on, given the gaping regional dispari�es in these na�ons. But, overall, the consequence of the realiza�on of the existence of development traps is 10 pushing policy makers more towards recognizing the need to address stagna�ng regions alongside lagging-behind and poor regions, thus promo�ng more inclusive territorial development. 5. Agency, leadership, and resilience in territorial development Agency, leadership, and regional resilience also have a role in shaping regional economic growth. These elements influence the spread of efficiency gains from core to lagging- and le�-behind-regions, serving as enablers or barriers to economic development. Although these research areas have tradi�onally operated separately, their integra�on within research in territorial development is contribu�ng to shi� the analy�cal aten�on toward the local context and the specific factors that facilitate or impede endogenous regional economic growth and, thus, overcoming le�-behindedness. This paradigm shi� holds crucial implica�ons for policy makers. The interest in the role of agency in regional structural changes has grown in recent �mes. Research has tended to highlight the significance of micro-level processes in shaping regional growth paths (Grillitsch & Sotarauta, 2020). Agency studies have put the emphasis on how regional growth paths result from inten�onal ac�ons of various actors, influenced by internal and external forces (Sotarauta, 2016). Three types of transforma�ve agency—innova�ve entrepreneurship, ins�tu�onal entrepreneurship, and place-based leadership—drive the micro-level processes responsible for regional path emergence. Innova�ve entrepreneurship is linked to technological advancements and new industrial paths, while ins�tu�onal entrepreneurship shapes the rules of the game, and place- based leadership guides complex mul�-actor processes (Grillitsch and Sotarauta, 2020; Grillitsch et al., 2022). Early empirical studies confirm the relevance of agency for regional development paths (e.g., Grillitsch et al., 2022). This approach calls for policy makers to engage local actors in discussions and consider strategies to promote these elements of change agency. However, challenges remain, including understanding the contextual condi�ons facilita�ng or hindering change agency and poten�al nega�ve consequences. The concept of regional resilience—ini�ated by evolu�onary economic geographers—is another one that has gained increasing aten�on. Regional resilience refers to a region's ability to an�cipate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disturbances or shocks to its economy (Foster, 2007; Hill et al., 2010). Resilience approaches recognize the poten�al for regions to withstand and recover from economic crises, providing an alterna�ve perspec�ve to the tradi�onal focus on efficiency and specializa�on. Resilience is associated with diversifica�on and adaptability, enabling regions to navigate economic transi�ons and shocks (Mar�n and Sunley, 2020). The importance of resilience in regional development strategies is also being increasingly acknowledged. This perspec�ve underscores the value of diversified regional economies, flexible labor markets, social safety nets, and targeted investments in innova�on and educa�on. Resilience- based policies aim to equip regions with the capacity to bounce back from adversity and adapt to changing economic condi�ons. This contrasts with policies that might focus solely on promo�ng specializa�on and efficiency, providing a richer, albeit more complex, framework for policy makers to design and implement strategies that are adapted to the specific condi�ons of every territory. Such shi� in policy focus can contribute to mobilize more local resources and poten�al, while promo�ng a more inclusive and sustainable regional development. 11 Key takeaways from the shi� in focus of research on territorial development include the recogni�on that diversifica�on paths are influenced by a region's unique capabili�es, and policies should be tailored accordingly (e.g. Ne�e et al., 2011 and Pinheiro et al., 2022). Research has also established that development traps can hinder regions' ability to keep pace with na�onal peers and that agency and leadership at the micro-level play crucial roles in shaping regional growth (e.g. Iammarino et al., 2019 and Rodríguez-Pose & Keterer, 2020). Resilience in regional development has also become a crucial area of interest for naviga�ng economic shocks and transi�ons (Crescenzi & Iammarino, 2018). Hence, recent developments in research stress the importance of moving away from one-size- fits-all and top-down types of policies that would increase growth expected to eventually spread out from dynamic centers to extolling the virtues of more and beter territorially-targeted interven�ons (Storper, 2018; Iammarino et al., 2019). These new types of place-based and place-sensi�ve approaches emphasize the merits of engaging local actors in development processes and the advantages of encouraging local ownership and empowerment as a way to mobilize all available resources and make the most of the economic poten�al of every place and, as a consequence, of aggregate development. Consequently, new territorial development policies are increasingly pu�ng far greater weight than previous ones on the need of adop�ng more holis�c approaches through complementary policies that balance market dynamics while removing that development barriers are li�ed and local advantages and strengths leveraged. They focus more on ins�tu�ons, regional development trajectories, and aspects of agency and resilience, as discussed above. This implies recognizing that a one-size-fits-all approach to economic development is o�en insufficient to address the diverse challenges faced by regions around the world. 6. Policy implica�ons for inclusive territorial development In this paper we have outlined the main theore�cal and empirical recent developments emphasizing the significance of place-specific atributes in territorial development. How are these shi�s translated into policies that help transform the future of dynamic and le� behind places alike? The understanding that local condi�ons shape regional socio-economic development has not only permeated academic research but is increasingly influencing policy makers. This is translated into territorial development policies that more than ever recognize the need for complementary botom- up and place-based approaches. While tradi�onal development strategies have been top-down, with na�onal governments se�ng the vision and controlling policy design and implementa�on, contemporary regional policies are increasingly shi�ing towards botom-up or mul�-level interven�ons. In this approach, subna�onal governments and other local actors play a fundamental part in iden�fying local needs, formula�ng strategies, and implemen�ng and monitoring development ini�a�ves (Crescenzi & Guia, 2016; Iammarino et al., 2019). This has represented a fundamental change in the founda�ons for inclusive territorial development, leading to significant changes in the theore�cal design and empirical implementa�on of policies, and, as a consequence, the implementa�on of far more place-based and place-sensi�ve development strategies. We treat these three dimensions in turn in the following subsec�ons. 6.1 Founda�ons for Inclusive Territorial Development 12 One of the main transforma�ons in development policies in recent years is that the focus of place- based policies has clearly evolved. Increased aten�on on recent territorial development policies is paid to harnessing local poten�al and promo�ng economic ac�vity by capitalizing on local strengths while addressing territorial weaknesses and constraints. That is, the main focus is increasingly becoming tapping into untapped local resources and poten�al. The varia�ons in local endowments require localized development approaches tailored to specific communi�es or territories. For example, the European Union undertook a profound reform of its Cohesion Policy in 2014, shi�ing from top-down regional development policies to a place-based approach through the Smart Specializa�on Strategy (S3). S3 aims to support regions in priori�zing innova�ve sectors and technologies through a botom-up entrepreneurial discovery process, uncovering a region's unique strengths (Foray et al., 2009). This shi� has empowered subna�onal public authori�es as central players in social and economic policy making, leading to more inclusive stakeholder engagement exercises (Crescenzi & Guia, 2016). A similar, though less comprehensive, place-based ini�a�ve in the United States is the more recent Empowerment Zone program, which iden�fies economically distressed areas eligible for tax incen�ves, tax credits, and grants to s�mulate economic ac�vity in disadvantaged regions. The place-based approach embodied in Smart Specializa�on strategies and the Empowerment Zones program has inspired policies beyond the European Union and the United States, influencing ini�a�ves in, among others, many La�n American countries like Mexico, Chile, Colombia, and Argen�na. However, while place-based interven�ons hold promise, assessments of their effec�veness remain mixed and incomplete. Early evidence suggests that these policies can build trust and local support, reducing resistance to top-down interven�ons during implementa�on. Nonetheless, challenges such as coordina�on issues and inadequate ins�tu�onal capacity can prevent place-based strategies from reaching their full poten�al (Crescenzi & Guia, 2016; Morisson & Doussineau, 2019; Rodríguez-Pose & Keterer, 2020). Research indicates that spa�ally targeted interven�ons may be ineffec�ve and inefficient if the territory lacks fundamental endowments, like viable firms (Duranton & Venables, 2018; Grover et al., 2022) or adequate ins�tu�ons (Aresu et al., 2023). Addi�onally, the presence of inherent compe��ve advantages in certain regions has been emphasized in scholarly research (Barba Navare� & Markovic, 2021). Place-based approaches are, however, not a replacement for the need to address na�onal-level constraints; instead, they should complement na�onally-driven strategies and help remove development barriers at the local level. Exclusive focus on equity objec�ves without considering efficiency can lead, once again, to a mere redistribu�on of exis�ng economic ac�vity, with limited overall welfare gains (Kline & More�, 2014). Moreover, the success of place-based approaches varies considerably depending on the local condi�ons of the places where it is implemented (e.g., Ahlfeldt et al., 2017; Koster & Van Ommeren, 2019; Bar�k, 2020; Gruber et al., 2023). But early results tend to be encouraging. In the context of the European Union, there is growing evidence that transfers from the EU to less developed regions have contributed to overall welfare improvements (Brachert et al., 2019; Blouri & Ehrlich, 2020). Similar posi�ve net welfare effects seem to be developing as well in the US, as seen with the Empowerment Zone program (Gaubert et al., 2021). These transfers seem to be playing a significant role in improving the well-being of these regions. In response to local challenges, place-based policies o�en intend to enhance the efficiency of local and regional government structures and establish capacity-building ini�a�ves. These efforts frequently include the introduc�on of e-government services, e-vo�ng, and capacity-building interven�ons specifically tailored to local needs. The choice of reforms is o�en influenced by pre- exis�ng local endowments, such as the presence of high-quality educa�on providers, internet 13 penetra�on rates, and levels of social capital before policy implementa�on (e.g., Vassil & Weber, 2011; Orkestra, 2021). Addi�onally, in the US context, place-based policies in the form of fiscal redistribu�on and incen�ves have, under certain circumstances, been found to achieve significant welfare gains, with equity gains surpassing the typically associated efficiency costs (Busso et al., 2013; Gaubert et al., 2021). However, place-based policies can also become too place specific, undermining the poten�al synergies that may arise from addressing widespread challenges and overlooking the interconnec�vity of a more integrated economy. Hence, a pure place-based development approach may not deliver in terms of spreading development as widely as possible and maximizing the economic poten�al of every place. Different places have different endowments and star�ng points and the type of development interven�on to fully tap into untapped poten�al requires considering the commonali�es and challenges affec�ng different groups of economies. Place-sensi�ve approaches—i.e., those that are well embedded in development theory and evidence but adapted to the specific condi�ons and challenges of different groups of regions (Iammarino et al., 2019: 290)— are guided by three principles. First, they acknowledge the need for differen�a�on between different types of regions (and, specifically, core and peripheral ones), allowing governments to iden�fy the unique needs, challenges, and drivers of change in each regional group. This approach avoids oversimplifica�on and promotes tailored strategies based on the characteris�cs of each region. Second, coordina�on is crucial. Effec�ve place-sensi�ve strategies require synthesis between different approaches, combining top-down and botom-up efforts, as well as coordina�on between different levels of ins�tu�ons, including central and subna�onal governments. This integra�on represents the essence of place-sensi�ve strategies (Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie, 2017). Third, integra�on is essen�al. Instead of focusing solely on one development axis, balanced place-sensi�ve approaches require a mix of policies and reforms addressing structural, socio-economic, and ins�tu�onal aspects to foster regional economic dynamism (Barca et al., 2012; Phan & Coxhead, 2014). Further research is needed to explore the effec�veness of place-sensi�ve policies. While early studies indicate their poten�al to reduce regional dispari�es, more inves�ga�on is required to understand their full impact. Evidence suggests that these policies can reduce inequali�es in social service provision and social outcomes across regions, enhance investment atrac�veness for less developed areas, and promote SME innova�on. Moreover, place-sensi�ve policies can become crucial for the growth of intermediate ci�es, which have o�en been overlooked in tradi�onal territorial development strategies (Rodríguez-Pose & Griffiths, 2021). 6.2 From Theore�cal Design to Empirical Implementa�on: Regional Clubs and the Complexity Matrix In prac�ce, implemen�ng place-sensi�ve policies o�en involves club theory, which stems from recent research on regional development traps. Iden�fying regional development clubs allows for differen�ated approaches that support prosperity in leading regions while enhancing it in others (Diemer et al., 2022). Club membership can be determined based on various criteria, such as per capita income levels or comprehensive socio-economic performance measures. In higher-income and overperforming regions, maintaining specializa�on in high-wage ac�vi�es is o�en what makes a difference for development. These regions o�en face dynamics that reduce their value-added contribu�ons over �me, such as the rou�niza�on of ac�vi�es and the diffusion of 14 innova�ve capabili�es. To sustain economic dynamism, these regions must either generate innova�ons within their specialized sectors or transi�on to related economic ac�vi�es. Middle-income regions, which have incomes close to the na�onal average, o�en face development traps fundamentally determined by rising labor costs. These regions must improve workers' produc�vity by enhancing educa�on and labor force par�cipa�on to bridge the gap with the best- performing regions. Low-income and underperforming regions frequently have limited skills and technological resources but may possess advantages like low-cost labor. However, they face considerable risks like the reloca�on of ac�vi�es to emerging countries with even lower produc�on costs. These regions may require investments in basic infrastructure, labor market policies, educa�on, and government quality to promote economic development and reduce talent ou�low (Iammarino et al, 2019). The complexity and breadth of policy interven�ons in each development club may vary (Figure 4). Regions at early development stages may benefit from targeted interven�ons addressing basic deficiencies like infrastructure. As the level of development increases, more complex interven�ons, including ins�tu�onal reforms and cluster policies, become necessary. Choosing the appropriate policy interven�ons based on the local context and endowments of each territory is therefore crucial to ensure that any development interven�on works. Figure 4 Conceptual framework for the adapta�on of regional development strategies to the local context. Source: Author’s adapted from Rodríguez-Pose & Wilkie (2019). 15 6.3 The Limita�ons of Infrastructure Projects for a Place-Sensi�ve Approach to Development Large-scale infrastructure projects, like growth corridors and special economic zones, have tradi�onally been the preferred form of development interven�on by policy makers to revitalize local economies. These projects have gained aten�on as tools to drive growth across a country. They are believed to generate various outcomes, from reduced transport costs to enhanced economic welfare and equity. However, there are important caveats associated with these projects. Gains may be unevenly distributed across regions, crea�ng winners and losers. The returns on such projects can be highly dependent on local endowments, such as varia�ons in the quality of ins�tu�ons. Weak ins�tu�onal contexts can lead to lower-than-expected returns (Crescenzi et al., 2016). The effec�veness of a transport project is influenced by local ins�tu�ons, especially the local government, and is suscep�ble to poli�cal interven�on. Social and human capital have been found to be beter predictors of economic growth than infrastructure endowments (Rodríguez-Pose & Keterer, 2020). Moreover, greater connec�vity from peripheral regions to urban areas may lead to the realloca�on of firms and labor, nega�vely affec�ng less developed territories. Therefore, complementary interven�ons, including ins�tu�onal strengthening and improvements in local public goods, are needed to transform large infrastructure investments into effec�ve regional development projects. 7. Conclusion This paper has aimed to offer a comprehensive overview of the theore�cal and empirical advancements in territorial development policies to overcome le�-behindedness and improve territorial development prospects over the past decade. Policies have increasingly recognized the importance of considering the local context to expand the spread of efficiency gains, economic opportuni�es, and knowledge spillovers from core to peripheral regions. This increased aten�on has been driven by a growing body of research stressing the existence of mul�ple barriers to regional convergence and poin�ng at the importance of tackling regional inequali�es for economic growth, poverty reduc�on and inclusion, and long term stability (McCann & Rodríguez-Pose, 2011). Today, there is a growing consensus that understanding and harnessing local endowments is fundamental for the socio-economic development of regions. These endowments encompass infrastructure and accessibility, but also human capital, compe��veness and innova�on, and, last but not least, ins�tu�ons. They also take into considera�on other factors such as the presence of regional development traps, the resilience of different places, agency, and sustainability transi�ons. In par�cular, the significance of ins�tu�onal quality and its direct and indirect impact on regional economic growth has gained prominence, as has the recogni�on of the need for suitable prerequisites to benefit from sustainability transi�ons. These theore�cal and empirical developments are leaving their mark on territorial policies worldwide, promp�ng a shi� from spa�ally-blind approaches to more place-based strategies and, more recently, place-sensi�ve approaches. However, these new approaches are s�ll very much works in progress in various geographic contexts, spanning both developed and developing countries, with their effec�veness under ongoing evalua�on. Two pressing themes in territorial policy and theory are the emergence of regional development traps and the new insights into the socio-economic costs of regional inequali�es. Evidence from 16 these domains has led to two significant shi�s in policy-making paradigms. First, there is a move away from conven�onal sta�c measures of regional backwardness toward a dynamic understanding of development traps, impac�ng both lagging and higher-income regions. Customized policy interven�ons are deemed essen�al for rejuvena�ng territories that have experienced stagna�on or decline in recent years. Second, regional inequali�es, once viewed as a temporary byproduct of rapid economic development, are no longer considered acceptable. Neither efficiency-driven nor equity- driven interven�ons in isola�on have effec�vely addressed the profound spa�al dispari�es observed in many countries. Consequently, place-sensi�ve approaches, which aim to reduce regional imbalances while fostering overall growth, are gaining prominence as beter suited for addressing issues of social discontent and disharmony. The academic literature increasingly stresses the complementarity of efficiency-seeking and equity- focused policies. Policy makers are urged to develop frameworks that harness the strengths of both approaches. Mobilizing economic poten�al and overcoming le�-behindedness requires certain minimum standards and endowments applicable to all regions. Simultaneously, we have to acknowledge that place-specific condi�ons profoundly shape the outcomes of development interven�ons in specific areas. This implies that spa�ally-blind policies must be adaptable to the dis�nct ecosystems in which they are implemented, taking into account factors such as ins�tu�onal quality, leadership and agency, and a region's historical development trajectory. This adap�ve framework closely aligns with place-sensi�ve strategies (Iammarino et al., 2019), which aim to unlock the growth poten�al of each territory, regardless of its ini�al posi�on on the development spectrum, while leveraging exis�ng local endowments to chart future development paths. 17 1. References Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S., & Robinson, J.A. (2001). The colonial origins of compara�ve development: An empirical inves�ga�on. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1369–1401. Ahlfeldt, G.M., Maennig, W., & Richter, F.J. (2017). Urban renewal a�er the Berlin Wall: a place- based policy evalua�on. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(1), 129-156. Annoni, P., & Dijkstra, L. (2013). EU regional competitiveness index RCI 2013. Luxembourg: European Union. Aresu, A., Marrocu, E., & Paci, R. (2023). Public capital and ins�tu�ons' quality in the Italian regions. Journal of Regional Science, online first, htps://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12663. Aroca, P., & A�enza, M. (2016). Spa�al concentra�on in La�n America and the role of ins�tu�ons. Investigaciones Regionales Journal of Regional Research, 36, 233–253. Audretsch, D.B., & Belitski, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems in ci�es: Establishing the framework condi�ons. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1030–1051. Balland, P.-A., & Boschma, R. (2021). Complementary interregional linkages and Smart Specialisa�on: An empirical study on European regions. Regional Studies, 55(6), 1059–1070. Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., Crespo, J., & Rigby, D.L. (2019). Smart specializa�on policy in the European Union: Relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversifica�on. Regional Studies, 53(9), 1252–1268. Barba Navare�, G., & Markovic, M. (2021). What Are We Building On? Place-based Policies and the Founda�ons of Produc�vity in the Private Sector. Background paper for the OECD-EC High- Level Expert Workshop Series “Produc�vity Policy for Places”, March 24-25. Barca, F., McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2012). The case for regional development interven�on: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science, 52(1), 134–152. Bar�k, T.J. (2020). Using place-based jobs policies to help distressed communi�es. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(3), 99-127. Blouri, Y., & Ehrlich, M.V. (2020). On the op�mal design of place-based policies: A structural evalua�on of EU regional transfers. Journal of international economics, 125, 103319. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innova�on: A Cri�cal Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61–74. Boschma, R. (2015). Towards an evolu�onary perspec�ve on regional resilience. Regional Studies, 49(5), 733–751. Boschma, R. (2017). Relatedness as driver of regional diversifica�on: A research agenda. Regional Studies, 51(3), 351–364. Boschma, R., Balland, P.-A., & Kogler, D.F. (2015). Relatedness and technological change in ci�es: The rise and fall of technological knowledge in US metropolitan areas from 1981 to 2010. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 223–250. 18 Brachert, M., Detmann, E., & Titze, M. (2019). The regional effects of a place-based policy–Causal evidence from Germany. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 79, 103483. Busso, M., Gregory, J., & Kline, P. (2013). Assessing the incidence and efficiency of a prominent place based policy. American Economic Review, 103(2), 897-947. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives (Issues C20-21). Cambridge, US: Harvard Business School. Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2016). Space and knowledge spillovers in European regions: The impact of different forms of proximity on spa�al knowledge diffusion. Journal of Economic Geography, 16(3), 749–774. Cejudo, G.M., & Michel, C.L. (2017). Addressing fragmented government ac�on: Coordina�on, coherence, and integra�on. Policy Sciences, 50, 745–767. Charron, N., Dijkstra, L., & Lapuente, V. (2014). Regional governance maters: Quality of government within European Union member states. Regional Studies, 48(1), 68–90. Coenen, L., Benneworth, P., & Truffer, B. (2012). Toward a spa�al perspec�ve on sustainability transi�ons. Research Policy, 41(6), 968–979. Cor�novis, N., Crescenzi, R., & Van Oort, F. (2020). Mul�na�onal enterprises, industrial relatedness and employment in European regions. Journal of Economic Geography, 20(5), 1165–1205. Cor�novis, N., Xiao, J., Boschma, R., & van Oort, F.G. (2017). Quality of government and social capital as drivers of regional diversifica�on in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(6), 1179– 1208. Crescenzi, R., Di Cataldo, M., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2016). Government quality and the economic returns of transport infrastructure investment in European regions. Journal of Regional Science, 56(4), 555–582. Crescenzi, R., & Giua, M. (2016). The EU Cohesion Policy in context: Does a botom-up approach work in all regions? Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 48(11), 2340–2357. D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the forma�on of university–industry research collabora�ons: What type of proximity does really mater? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558. Di Cataldo, M., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2017). What drives employment growth and social inclusion in the regions of the European Union? Regional Studies, 51(12), 1840–1859. Diemer, A., Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2022). The regional development trap in Europe. Economic Geography, 98(5), 487–509. Dijkstra, L., Garcilazo, E., & McCann, P. (2013). The economic performance of European ci�es and city regions: Myths and reali�es. European Planning Studies, 21(3), 334–354. Dijkstra, L., Poelman, H., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). The geography of EU discontent. Regional Studies, 54(6), 737–753. 19 Dunford, M., & Smith, A. (2000). Catching up or falling behind? Economic performance and regional trajectories in the “New Europe”. Economic Geography, 76(2), 169–195. Duranton, G., & Puga, D. (2001). Nursery ci�es: Urban diversity, process innova�on, and the life cycle of products. American Economic Review, 91(5), 1454–1477. Duranton, G., & Venables, A. J. (2018). Place-based policies for development (No. w24562). Na�onal Bureau of Economic Research. Ezcurra, R., Gil, C., Pascual, P., & Rapún, M. (2005). Regional inequality in the European Union: Does industry mix mater? Regional Studies, 39(6), 679–697. Ezcurra, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2014). Trade openness and spa�al inequality in emerging countries. Spatial Economic Analysis, 9(2), 162–182. Farole, T., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2011). Cohesion policy in the European Union: Growth, geography, ins�tu�ons. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(5), 1089–1111. Fitjar, R.D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm collabora�on and modes of innova�on in Norway. Research Policy, 42(1), 128–138. Floerkemeier, M.H., Spatafora, M.N., & Venables, A. (2021). Regional disparities, growth, and inclusiveness. Washington DC: Interna�onal Monetary Fund. Flyvbjerg, B. (2009). Survival of the unfitest: Why the worst infrastructure gets built—And what we can do about it. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), 344–367. Foray, D., David, P.A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisa�on–the concept. Knowledge Economists Policy Brief, 9(85), 100. Foster, K.A. (2007). A case study approach to understanding regional resilience. IURD Working Paper Series. Fratesi, U., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2016). The crisis and regional employment in Europe: What role for sheltered economies? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 9(1), 33–57. Frick, S.A., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). Big or small ci�es? On city size and economic growth. Growth and Change, 49(1), 4–32. Frick, S.A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wong, M. D. (2019). Toward economically dynamic special economic zones in emerging countries. Economic Geography, 95(1), 30–64. Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Macmillan. Fritsch, M., & Wyrwich, M. (2018). Regional knowledge, entrepreneurial culture, and innova�ve start-ups over �me and space―an empirical inves�ga�on. Small Business Economics, 51, 337–353. Fujita, M., Krugman, P.R., & Venables, A. J. (1999). The spa�al economy: Ci�es, regions and interna�onal trade (Vol. 213). MA: MIT Press, Cambridge. Ganau, R., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2019). Do high-quality local ins�tu�ons shape labour produc�vity in Western European manufacturing firms? Papers in Regional Science, 98(4), 1633–1666. 20 Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Ins�tu�onal entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196–214. Gaubert, C., Kline, P.M., & Yagan, D. (2021). Place-based redistribution. Na�onal Bureau of Economic Research. Gertler, M.S. (2010). Rules of the game: The place of ins�tu�ons in regional economic change. Regional Studies, 44(1), 1-15. Glaeser, E.L. (2008). Cities, agglomeration, and spatial equilibrium. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Glaeser, E.L. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Gollin, D., Jedwab, R., & Vollrath, D. (2016). Urbaniza�on with and without industrializa�on. Journal of Economic Growth, 21, 35-70. Grillitsch, M., & Sotarauta, M. (2020). Trinity of change agency, regional development paths and opportunity spaces. Progress in Human Geography, 44(4), 704–723. Grillitsch, M., Sotarauta, M., Asheim, B., Fitjar, R.D., Haus-Reve, S., Kolehmainen, J., Kurikka, H., Lundquist, K.-J., Martynovich, M., & Monteilhet, S. (2022). Agency and economic change in regions: Iden�fying routes to new path development using qualita�ve compara�ve analysis. Regional Studies, 1–16. Grover, A., Lall, S., & Maloney, W. (2022). Place, productivity, and prosperity: Revisiting spatially targeted policies for regional development. World Bank Publica�ons. Gruber, J., Johnson, S., & More�, E. (2023). Place-Based Produc�vity and Costs in Science. Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2(1), 167-184. Heidenreich, M., & Wunder, C. (2008). Paterns of regional inequality in the enlarged Europe. European Sociological Review, 24(1), 19–36. Hewison, K. (2014). Considera�ons on inequality and poli�cs in Thailand. Democratization, 21(5), 846–866. Hill, E., Wial, H., & Wolman, H. (2008). Exploring regional economic resilience. Working paper. Huggins, R., Izushi, H., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2014). The global competitiveness of regions. Routledge. Hussen, M.S., & Çokgezen, M. (2022). Rela�onship between innova�on, regional ins�tu�ons and firm performance: Micro-evidence from Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 14(2), 316–332. Iammarino, S. (2018). FDI and regional development policy. Journal of International Business Policy, 1, 157–183. Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. (2013). Multinationals and economic geography: Location, technology and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. 21 Iammarino, S., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2019). Regional inequality in Europe: Evidence, theory and policy implica�ons. Journal of Economic Geography, 19(2), 273–298. Iddawela, Y., Lee, N., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2021). Quality of sub-na�onal government and regional development in Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 57(8), 1282-1302. Jedwab, R., & Vollrath, D. (2015). Urbaniza�on without growth in historical perspec�ve. Explorations in Economic History, 58, 1–21. Jong, D., Tsvetkova, A., Lembcke, A.C., & Ahrend, R. (2021). A comprehensive approach to understanding urban produc�vity effects of local governments: Local autonomy, government quality and fragmenta�on. OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 11. Paris: OECD Publishing. htps://doi.org/10.1787/5ebd25d3-en. Keterer, T.D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2015). Local quality of government and vo�ng with one’s feet. Annals of Regional Science, 55, 501–532. Kharas, H., & Kohli, H. (2011). What is the middle income trap, why do countries fall into it, and how can it be avoided? Global Journal of Emerging Market Economies, 3(3), 281–289. Kline, P., & More�, E. (2014). Local economic development, agglomera�on economies, and the big push: 100 years of evidence from the Tennessee Valley Authority. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 275–331. Koster, H.R., & Van Ommeren, J. (2019). Place-based policies and the housing market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 101(3), 400-414. Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. Journal of Political Economy, 99(3), 483–499. Lucas Jr, R.E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 22(1), 3–42. Ma, J., Ahn, Y. G., & Lee, M.K. (2022). The Interac�ve Influence of Ins�tu�onal Quality and Resource Dependence on Regional Economic Growth: Evidence from China’s Resource-Based Provinces. Sustainability, 14(10), 6173. Mar�n, R. (2012). Regional economic resilience, hysteresis and recessionary shocks. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(1), 1–32. Mar�n, R., & Sunley, P. (2015). On the no�on of regional economic resilience: Conceptualiza�on and explana�on. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(1), 1–42. Mar�n, R., & Sunley, P. (2020). Regional economic resilience: Evolu�on and evalua�on. In G. Bristow & A. Healy, Handbook on Regional Economic Resilience, 10-35. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Mar�n, R., Sunley, P., Gardiner, B., & Tyler, P. (2016). How regions react to recessions: Resilience and the role of economic structure. Regional Studies, 50(4), 561–585. McCann, P. (2008). Globaliza�on and economic geography: the world is curved, not flat. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(3), 351-370. 22 McCann, P., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011). Why and when development policy should be place-based. Paris: OECD. Miguélez, E., & Morrison, A. (2022). Migrant inventors as agents of technological change. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1–24. Milanovic, B. (2005). Half a World: Regional inequality in five great federa�ons. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 10(4), 408–445. Morisson, A., & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innova�on governance and place-based policies: Design, implementa�on and implica�ons. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1), 101–116. Muringani, J., Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2019). Decentralisa�on, quality of government and economic growth in the regions of the EU. Revista de Economía Mundial, 51, 25-50. Ne�e, F., Hartog, M., Boschma, R., & Henning, M. (2018). Agents of structural change: The role of firms and entrepreneurs in regional diversifica�on. Economic Geography, 94(1), 23–48. Ne�e, F., Henning, M., & Boschma, R. (2011). How do regions diversify over �me? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions. Economic Geography, 87(3), 237–265. O’Brien, R. (1992). Global financial integration: The end of geography. New York: Council on Foreign Rela�ons. OECD. (2017). Multi-level Governance Reforms: Overview of OECD Country Experiences. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2019). Effective Public Investment across Levels of Government: Implementing the OECD Principles. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2020). The Future of Regional Development and Public Investment in Wales, United Kingdom. Paris: OECD. Orkestra. (2021). Orkestra—Basque Institute of Competitiveness. Bilbao, Spain: Orkestra. Phan, D., & Coxhead, I. (2014). Educa�on in Southeast Asia: Investments, achievements, and returns. In Routledge handbook of Southeast Asian economics (pp. 267–291). London: Routledge. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2007). What kind of local and regional development and for whom? Regional Studies, 41(9), 1253–1269. Pinheiro, F.L., Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., & Hartmann, D. (2022). The dark side of the geography of innova�on: Relatedness, complexity and regional inequality in Europe. Regional Studies, 1– 16. Puga, D. (2002). European regional policies in light of recent loca�on theories. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(4), 373–406. Quah, D.T. (1999). The weightless economy in growth. Business Economist, 30, 40–53. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (1999). Innova�on prone and innova�on averse socie�es: Economic performance in Europe. Growth and Change, 30(1), 75–105. 23 Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2013). Do ins�tu�ons mater for regional development? Regional Studies, 47(7), 1034–1047. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2018). The revenge of the places that don’t mater (and what to do about it). Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(1), 189–209. Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). Ins�tu�ons and the fortunes of territories. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 12(3), 371–386. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Crescenzi, R. (2008). Mountains in a flat world: Why proximity s�ll maters for the loca�on of economic ac�vity. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1(3), 371–388. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Di Cataldo, M. (2015). Quality of government and innova�ve performance in the regions of Europe. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(4), 673–706. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Garcilazo, E. (2015). Quality of government and the returns of investment: Examining the impact of cohesion expenditure in European regions. Regional Studies, 49(8), 1274–1290. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Griffiths, J. (2021). Developing intermediate ci�es. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 13(3), 441–456. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Keterer, T. (2020). Ins�tu�onal change and the development of lagging regions in Europe. Regional Studies, 54(7), 974–986. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2006). Beter rules or stronger communi�es? On the social founda�ons of ins�tu�onal change and its economic effects. Economic Geography, 82(1), 1– 25. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2017). Revamping local and regional development through place- based strategies. Cityscape, 19(1), 151–170. Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Wilkie, C. (2019). Strategies of gain and strategies of waste: What determines the success of development interven�on? Progress in Planning, 133, 100423. Rodrik, D., Subramanian, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Ins�tu�ons rule: The primacy of ins�tu�ons over geography and integra�on in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth, 9, 131– 165. Romer, P.M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037. Rosenthal, S.S., & Strange, W.C. (2020). How close is close? The spa�al reach of agglomera�on economies. Journal of economic perspectives, 34(3), 27-49. Santoalha, A., & Boschma, R. (2021). Diversifying in green technologies in European regions: Does poli�cal support mater? Regional Studies, 55(2), 182–195. Simmie, J., & Mar�n, R. (2010). The economic resilience of regions: Towards an evolu�onary approach. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1), 27–43. 24 Sleuwaegen, L., & Boiardi, P. (2014). Crea�vity and regional innova�on: Evidence from EU regions. Research Policy, 43(9), 1508–1522. Solow, R.M. (1956). A contribu�on to the theory of economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94. Sotarauta, M. (2016). Shared leadership and dynamic capabili�es in regional development. In Regionalism contested (pp. 63–82). London: Routledge. van den Berge, M., Weterings, A., & Alkemade, F. (2020). Do exis�ng regional specialisa�ons s�mulate or hinder diversifica�on into cleantech? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, 185–201. Vassil, K., & Weber, T. (2011). A botleneck model of e-vo�ng: Why technology fails to boost turnout. New Media & Society, 13(8), 1336–1354. Venables, A.J. (2023). The case for place-based policies. Brussels: European Commission. Vijayaraghavan, M., & Ward, W. A. (2001). Institutions and economic growth: Empirical evidence for a cross-national analysis. Research on Agricultural and Applied Economics, Working Paper. World Bank. (2009). World development report 2009: Reshaping economic geography. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2020a). Territorial Development in Argentina: Using Differentiated Policies to Reduce Disparities and Spur Economic Growth. Washington DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2020b). Convergence: Five Critical Steps toward Integrating Lagging and Leading Areas in the Middle East and North Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank. 25