Between 10 and 18 June 2026, I had the opportunity to undertake a Short-Term Scientific Mission (STSM) at the Universidad de Málaga, hosted by the Department of Applied Economics, within the framework of the SMART-RURAL COST Association – European Cooperation in Science and Technology Action (CA24170). The mission, entitled Innovation and Digital Solutions in Smart Rural Areas: Policy Frameworks for Sustainable and Inclusive Development, was originally conceived to explore how innovation ecosystems, digital transformation and policy frameworks can contribute to smarter, more resilient and more inclusive rural communities.
The initial objective of the STSM was relatively focused: to prepare a joint policy brief examining innovation and digital solutions that could strengthen rural resilience through evidence-based policy recommendations. However, as the discussions progressed with colleagues from the Universidad de Málaga and the University of Jaén, the mission gradually evolved into a much broader scientific exercise. Rather than concentrating solely on digital technologies, we found ourselves revisiting the theoretical foundations of territorial development, innovation ecosystems and regional resilience. This intellectual shift proved to be the most valuable outcome of the mission and ultimately laid the foundation for a long-term research collaboration extending well beyond the original STSM objectives.
The experience demonstrated that technological innovation alone cannot explain why some rural regions successfully adapt to economic and social change while others struggle despite adopting similar technologies. Instead, resilience appears to emerge from the interaction between technological innovation, institutions, entrepreneurship, governance, local knowledge, social capital and territorial cooperation. This broader perspective became the central theme of our discussions and now forms the basis of our future joint research agenda.
Revisiting the theoretical foundations of territorial development
One of the most significant achievements of the STSM was the opportunity to conduct an extensive joint literature review, not simply to identify recent developments in smart rural policies, but to revisit the theoretical traditions that continue to shape contemporary thinking on regional and rural development.
Our discussions began with the pioneering work of Alfred Marshall, whose Principles of Economics introduced the concept of industrial districts, explaining how geographically concentrated firms benefit from localized external economies, specialized labour markets and the diffusion of tacit knowledge through close interaction (Marshall, 1890). Although originally developed to explain industrial competitiveness, Marshall's ideas remain remarkably relevant for understanding rural development, particularly where economic activities are strongly embedded within local communities.
Building upon Marshall's original contribution, we explored the work of Giacomo Becattini, who transformed the industrial district from an economic concept into a socio-territorial one. Rather than viewing districts simply as concentrations of firms, Becattini argued that they represent living socio-economic systems where enterprises, institutions, traditions, culture and local communities evolve together (Becattini, 1979; Becattini, 1990). This perspective proved particularly valuable when discussing rural regions, where economic performance cannot be separated from local identity, institutional capacity and social cohesion.
The discussions naturally extended towards Michael Porter's theory of clusters (Porter, 1990; Porter, 1998). While clusters and industrial districts share important similarities, we discussed how industrial districts provide a richer explanation of endogenous rural development because they place greater emphasis on trust, informal institutions, collective learning and long-term community relationships. Porter explains competitiveness through interconnected firms and supporting institutions, whereas the industrial district tradition highlights the territorial embedding of economic activity and the importance of social capital in fostering innovation.
Particular attention was devoted to the work of Sanjin Memedovic, whose research for UNIDO on localized production systems and industrial clusters demonstrated how knowledge spillovers, institutional cooperation and interactions between firms, universities and supporting organisations generate innovation capacity and regional competitiveness (Memedovic, 2002; Memedovic, 2005). His work provided an important bridge between industrial economics, regional development and innovation policy, reinforcing the idea that competitiveness depends not only on technological capabilities but also on institutional learning and collaborative governance.
Learning from the Andalusian experience
An equally important component of the literature review focused on the extensive body of research developed by Professor Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Cohard and his colleagues at the University of Jaén. Their studies provided a unique opportunity to understand how these theoretical perspectives have been applied to one of Europe's most successful examples of territorial specialization: the olive-growing regions of Andalusia.
Our discussions began with the concept of the olive-growing agri-industrial district of Jaén, where Rodríguez-Cohard and Parras (2011) distinguish between industrial districts and clusters, arguing that olive production should not be understood simply as an agricultural activity but as a territorially embedded socio-economic system shaped by centuries of institutional development, cooperative structures and localized knowledge. This work illustrates how territorial identity, institutional arrangements and historical specialization generate competitive advantages that extend beyond conventional production factors.
Building on this foundation, we reviewed research examining the challenges faced by traditional olive-growing regions under globalization. Rodríguez-Cohard, Sánchez-Martínez and Gallego-Simón (2019) argue that rural development depends on balancing accumulated local knowledge, cultural traditions and innovation with increasing global competition. Rather than perceiving traditional production systems as obstacles to modernization, they demonstrate that local knowledge and institutional adaptation can themselves become important drivers of innovation and competitiveness.
Further discussions centred on the strategic responses adopted by European olive-growing territories to globalization. Comparing Andalusia, Alentejo, Provence and Puglia, Rodríguez-Cohard, Sánchez-Martínez and Garrido-Almonacid (2020) show that regions respond differently depending on their institutional environments, governance models and territorial capabilities. Their work reinforces the argument that technological innovation alone is insufficient without complementary institutional adaptation and strong territorial governance.
Finally, we explored their most recent work on the territorial impacts of monoculture-based agri-food industries, which adopts an evolutionary perspective of endogenous development. This research highlights how technological innovation interacts with institutions, organizational change and territorial dynamics to reshape rural economies over time. Importantly, it demonstrates that technological change becomes sustainable only when embedded within strong local innovation ecosystems and adaptive governance structures (Rodríguez-Cohard et al., 2025).
Together, these studies fundamentally reshaped our understanding of smart rural development. Rather than considering digital transformation as an isolated objective, we concluded that technological innovation should be analysed within broader territorial innovation ecosystems where institutions, entrepreneurship, governance, local knowledge and community participation jointly determine the resilience and long-term sustainability of rural regions.
This broader perspective also closely aligns with the recent Joint Research Centre report on Smart Specialisation and Rural Development in the Western Balkans (European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 2024), which argues that innovation in rural areas extends far beyond technology and requires integrated place-based approaches combining governance, entrepreneurship, research, education and local capacities. These findings strongly resonated with our own discussions during the STSM and reinforced the need to analyse rural resilience through interdisciplinary and territorial lenses rather than purely technological ones.
From Concept Development to Long-Term Scientific Collaboration
Beyond the literature review, the STSM provided an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas with researchers from the Universidad de Málaga and the University of Jaén on how different theoretical traditions could be translated into practical policy approaches for smart rural development. Throughout the mission, discussions focused on comparing the experiences of Andalusia and Montenegro, identifying common development challenges while also recognising the importance of place-specific institutional and socio-economic conditions.
Despite their different historical and economic trajectories, both regions share a number of structural challenges characteristic of many European rural territories. These include demographic decline, uneven regional development, limited diversification of rural economies, fragmented innovation ecosystems, difficulties in knowledge transfer, and the need to strengthen cooperation among universities, businesses, public institutions and local communities. At the same time, both territories possess significant endogenous assets that remain underutilised, including accumulated local knowledge, strong territorial identity, natural resources, entrepreneurial traditions and specialised production systems.
One of the most valuable aspects of the mission was the opportunity to discuss these issues directly with Professor Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Cohard and colleagues, whose long-standing research on endogenous development, industrial districts and territorial innovation has demonstrated how regional competitiveness emerges from the interaction between local actors rather than from isolated technological interventions. These discussions confirmed that innovation ecosystems should not be understood merely as collections of innovative firms but as dynamic territorial systems that integrate businesses, research organisations, public authorities, civil society and local communities into collaborative learning processes.
As a result, the original objective of preparing a policy brief gradually evolved into the development of a broader scientific research agenda. Instead of producing only a policy-oriented document, we agreed to jointly prepare a scientific paper examining the relationships between industrial districts, innovation ecosystems, knowledge spillovers and rural resilience. During the STSM, we defined the conceptual framework, identified the theoretical foundations, discussed the research hypotheses and outlined the methodological approach that will guide the preparation of the manuscript for submission to an international peer-reviewed journal.
This transition from a policy-oriented output towards a scientific publication reflects one of the greatest strengths of COST Actions: they create opportunities for interdisciplinary dialogue that often generate entirely new research directions. Rather than simply completing the activities initially foreseen in the STSM application, the mission generated a long-term collaboration that will continue through joint publications, future research proposals and participation in subsequent SMART-RURAL activities.
Contribution to the SMART-RURAL COST Action (CA24170)
The outcomes of the STSM contribute directly to several objectives of the SMART-RURAL COST Action, particularly its Research Coordination Objectives, Capacity Building Objectives, and the work carried out within Working Groups 2 and 3.
At the level of Research Coordination, the Action seeks to develop an integrated understanding of rural resilience by bringing together technological, environmental, economic and social dimensions through interdisciplinary collaboration. The STSM directly supports this objective by expanding the conceptual framework used to understand smart rural development. Rather than analysing digital technologies in isolation, the mission integrated perspectives from regional economics, institutional economics, innovation studies and territorial development, providing a broader theoretical basis for understanding how innovation contributes to resilient rural communities.
More specifically, the mission contributes to the activities of Working Group 2 (WG2): Technological Innovation for Rural Development, whose overall objective is to assess the role of technological innovation in strengthening rural resilience.
The literature review and comparative policy analysis undertaken during the STSM contribute directly to Task 2.1, which focuses on reviewing state-of-the-art technological innovations relevant for rural communities. However, our work also broadens this discussion by demonstrating that technology adoption depends heavily on institutional quality, governance arrangements and local innovation ecosystems.
The discussions also support Task 2.2, dedicated to assessing the impact of digital technologies on rural economies and social structures. By integrating industrial district theory and innovation ecosystem approaches, the STSM provides an analytical framework capable of explaining why similar technological interventions often produce different outcomes depending on territorial characteristics.
Furthermore, the mission contributes to Task 2.3, which seeks to identify barriers to technology adoption. Our discussions consistently highlighted that these barriers are frequently institutional rather than technological. Limited collaboration among stakeholders, insufficient knowledge transfer mechanisms, weak governance structures and fragmented innovation systems often constrain rural transformation more than technological limitations themselves.
Consequently, the STSM provides valuable scientific input to several SMART-RURAL deliverables. The literature review and conceptual synthesis contribute directly to Deliverable D2.1 – State-of-the-Art Report on Technological Innovations for Rural Development, particularly by incorporating theories of industrial districts, innovation ecosystems and territorial innovation into the discussion of technological change.
Similarly, the findings support the development of Deliverable D2.2 – Guidelines for Human-Centred Design of Rural Technologies, by emphasising that successful technological solutions must respond to local institutional capacities, user needs and community participation rather than focusing exclusively on technical performance.
The mission also generates relevant conceptual inputs for Deliverable D2.4 – Roadmap for Sustainable Technology Adoption, highlighting that sustainable adoption requires strong local governance, trust among stakeholders, effective knowledge exchange and long-term institutional learning.
Beyond technological innovation, the STSM also contributes substantially to Working Group 3 (WG3): Integrated Resilience Assessment and Monitoring.
One of the central conclusions emerging from our discussions was that rural resilience should be analysed through a multidimensional framework that combines technological readiness with institutional quality, territorial innovation systems, entrepreneurial capacity, governance arrangements and social capital. This broader understanding directly supports the development of Deliverable D3.2 – Draft Integrated Framework for Assessing Rural Community Resilience, where these additional dimensions may enrich existing resilience assessment approaches.
Looking further ahead, the conceptual framework developed during the mission may also contribute to Deliverable D3.3 – Final Integrated Rural Resilience Assessment Framework and User Guide, particularly by strengthening the integration of territorial innovation and endogenous development perspectives within resilience assessment methodologies.
Capacity Building and International Collaboration
The STSM also strongly contributes to the Capacity Building Objectives of SMART-RURAL.
One of the Action's principal ambitions is to strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers from different COST countries while fostering long-term scientific cooperation. In this respect, the mission established a durable partnership between the Center for Finance (Montenegro), the Universidad de Málaga, and the University of Jaén, creating a platform for future joint research, scientific publications and collaborative participation in European research initiatives.
Equally important was the exchange of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries. Throughout the mission, perspectives from regional economics, innovation studies, territorial development, institutional economics and rural policy were continuously integrated into our discussions. This interdisciplinary dialogue significantly enriched the research while strengthening the international scientific network promoted by SMART-RURAL.
The mission therefore achieved outcomes that extend well beyond researcher mobility. It generated new scientific ideas, established sustainable institutional cooperation and created the foundations for future collaborative research capable of contributing to both SMART-RURAL and broader European research agendas on rural resilience and territorial innovation.
Looking Ahead: From Scientific Exchange to Joint Research
One of the most important outcomes of the STSM is that the collaboration established during the mission will continue well beyond the mobility period. The intensive scientific discussions demonstrated that there is significant potential for combining expertise in regional economics, innovation studies, territorial development and public policy to address one of Europe's most pressing challenges: building resilient and competitive rural communities.
As an immediate follow-up activity, we agreed to prepare a joint scientific paper that will examine the relationship between industrial districts, innovation ecosystems, knowledge spillovers and rural resilience. The paper will build on the conceptual framework developed during the STSM and investigate how endogenous territorial development can strengthen rural resilience by fostering collaboration among firms, research organisations, public institutions and local communities.
The collaboration will continue through regular online meetings, joint literature review, comparative analysis of rural development experiences in Montenegro and Southern Spain, and the preparation of the manuscript for submission to an international peer-reviewed journal. Beyond this publication, discussions also explored opportunities for future cooperation within Horizon Europe, COST Actions and other European research initiatives focusing on smart specialisation, regional innovation ecosystems and rural transformation.
The STSM therefore represents the beginning of a long-term scientific partnership rather than a stand-alone mobility activity. Establishing such durable collaborations is one of the core objectives of the COST Programme, and this mission has successfully created a foundation for continued interdisciplinary research between Montenegro and Spain.
Reflections
Looking back, the most valuable outcome of the STSM was not simply the preparation of research outputs, but the opportunity to challenge and refine our understanding of what makes rural communities resilient.
The mission began with a relatively straightforward question: How can digital technologies contribute to smart rural development?
It concluded with a much broader realization: technology alone cannot transform rural territories.
Successful rural development depends on creating environments where innovation can emerge naturally through collaboration among businesses, universities, local governments and civil society. It requires institutions capable of supporting entrepreneurship, mechanisms for sharing knowledge, governance structures that encourage cooperation, and communities willing to learn, adapt and innovate together.
This perspective reflects the long tradition of regional development research, from Marshall's concept of localized external economies (Marshall, 1890), through Becattini's socio-territorial interpretation of industrial districts (Becattini, 1979; 1990), Porter's work on clusters and competitiveness (Porter, 1990; 1998), Memedovic's analysis of localized production systems and knowledge spillovers (Memedovic, 2002; 2005), to the contemporary work of Rodríguez-Cohard and colleagues on endogenous development, agri-food districts and territorial innovation (Rodríguez-Cohard & Parras, 2011; Rodríguez-Cohard et al., 2019; 2020; 2025).
The discussions held during the STSM reinforced that these theoretical perspectives remain highly relevant for understanding today's rural challenges. Rather than viewing digitalisation as an end in itself, smart rural development should be understood as the outcome of dynamic interactions between technological innovation, institutions, governance, entrepreneurship, local knowledge and territorial identity.
This understanding also strongly reflects the vision of the SMART-RURAL COST Action. The Action recognises that rural resilience cannot be explained through technological factors alone but requires integrated approaches that combine innovation, environmental sustainability, social inclusion, governance and place-based development. By bringing together insights from regional economics, institutional economics, innovation studies and rural policy, the STSM has contributed to strengthening this interdisciplinary perspective while opening new avenues for collaborative research.
For me personally, the mission demonstrated the real value of scientific mobility. It was not only an opportunity to exchange knowledge, but also to develop new research questions, establish long-term partnerships and rethink existing concepts through interdisciplinary dialogue. The experience confirmed that international collaboration remains one of the most powerful drivers of scientific innovation.
I look forward to continuing this collaboration within SMART-RURAL and contributing to future activities that strengthen the scientific evidence base for resilient, innovative and sustainable rural communities across Europe.
Selected References
Becattini, G. (1979). Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale: Alcune considerazioni sull'unità di indagine dell'economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale, 5(1), 7–21.
Becattini, G. (1990). The Marshallian Industrial District as a Socio-Economic Notion. In F. Pyke, G. Becattini & W. Sengenberger (Eds.), Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies.
European Commission, Joint Research Centre. (2024). Smart Specialisation and Rural Development in the Western Balkans. Publications Office of the European Union.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
Memedovic, O. (2002). From Local Production Systems to Industrial Districts. Vienna: United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO).
Memedovic, O. (2005). Knowledge-Based Local Economic Development. Vienna: UNIDO.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 77–90.
Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Parras, M. (2011). The Olive-Growing Agri-Industrial District of Jaén and the International Olive Oils Cluster. The Open Geography Journal, 4, 55–72.
Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., Sánchez-Martínez, J. D., & Gallego-Simón, V. J. (2019). Olive Crops and Rural Development: Capital, Knowledge and Tradition. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 11(5), 935–949.
Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., Sánchez-Martínez, J. D., & Garrido-Almonacid, A. (2020). Strategic Responses of European Olive-Growing Territories to the Challenge of Globalisation. European Planning Studies, 28(11), 2261–2283.
Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., Lombardo, P. B., Sánchez-Martínez, J. D., & Garrido-Almonacid, A. (2025). Territorial Impacts of the Monoculture-Based Agri-Food Industry: Comparative Analyses on Two Continents. Applied Geography, 175, 103489.