This paper critically examines the European Union’s ‘Smart Specialisation’ framework for promoting competitiveness. To do so, we draw from the ‘East Asian Miracle’ state intervention scholarship, mainly Peter Evans’s concept of ‘embedded autonomy’ and Robert Wade’s ‘followership’/’leadership’ dichotomy. We argue that the ‘Smart Specialisation’ framework is inadequate for the EU to face its competitiveness challenges as it does not comprise the principles of ‘embedded autonomy’ and relies solely on the ‘followership’ mode of state action. While this’ framework establishes ‘embeddedness’ by integrating private entrepreneurs’ perspectives in the policy process, it lacks the ‘autonomy’ to properly assess and translate them into policy. This lack of autonomy renders policymaking vulnerable to capture by incumbent interests, reinforcing existing industrial paths rather than fostering structural change. Governments mainly ‘follow’ and support initiatives proposed by the private sector, as opposed to ‘leading’ the advancement of new initiatives. We further argue that this ‘followership trap’ is particularly nefarious given the EU’s lack of very large companies and its industrial structure mostly comprised of more traditional activities, which contrasts with the United States, dominated by corporate giants in more dynamic and forward-looking sectors. Finally, we call for a deep reflection on key tenets of European competitiveness policies.

--

Smart Specialisation,European competitiveness,Industrial policy,Structural change

• Other Social Sciences - Social Sciences
• History and Archeology - Humanities