design and evaluation of innovation policy in latin america argentina, december 2006 challenges for...
DESCRIPTION
The changing framework for innovation 1.Increased awareness of the role of innovation as crucial ingredient for economic development 2.Interactive view of innovation - innovation differs from R&D 3.System-based approach to innovation, emphasis on learning and diffusion / absorption of knowledge 4.Mobility of tacit knowledge embedded in humans becomes a key performance factor 5.Glocalisation : localised nature of (tacit) knowledge spillovers - importance of global connectionsTRANSCRIPT
Design and Evaluation of Innovation Policy in Latin America
Argentina, December 2006
Challenges for the Design of Innovation Policies: Lessons from Europe
Claire Nauwelaers UNU-MERIT
Plan1 Changing framework for innovation and
innovation policy
2. State-of-the-art in innovation policy in EU
3. Examples of innovation policy instruments
4. Lessons from European Structural Funds
5. Policy challenges: the way forward
The changing framework for innovation
1. Increased awareness of the role of innovation as crucial ingredient for economic development
2. Interactive view of innovation - innovation differs from R&D
3. System-based approach to innovation, emphasis on learning and diffusion / absorption of knowledge
4. Mobility of tacit knowledge embedded in humansbecomes a key performance factor
5. Glocalisation : localised nature of (tacit) knowledge spillovers - importance of global connections
Science and Innovation Systems
Public R&DPublic R&D
EducationEducation & Training& Training
Firms Firms systemsystem
Large, small, MNCs, NTBFs, …
VentureVentureCapitalCapital
InnovationInnovationpolicypolicy
IntermediariesIntermediaries
Incubators,Incubators,Mentoring…Mentoring…
BusinessBusinesssupportsupport
MARKETSHuman
Rules &Rules &RegulationsRegulations
Framework conditions
ScienceSciencepolicypolicy
Firms R&D
capital
Policies for innovation systems
From “stocks” to “flows” as main focus of policy attentionFlows in the system need to be addressed in priority
From “raising resources” towards “promoting change”Performance is affected by learning abilities of firms and others
From “best practice” towards “context-specific” solutionsPolicies should be fine-tuned to specific system failures
From “standard” policy-making towards policy “learning process”There is a need for more strategic intelligence in policy-making
Policies for “activating knowledge”
Traditional innovation policy Innovation policy scene : dominated by linear
tools, addressing inputs in the innovation process rather than the functionning of the system, providing support to firms in isolation rather than to networks of actors
Policy instruments that address changes in behaviour for innovation, dealing with strategic, informational, or organisational or needs : rare and immature
Lack of strategic approach to policy system
Traditional innovation policy instruments in EU regionsFORM AND FOCUS OF SUPPORT
Target of support
Input resources
Behavioural additionality
firm-oriented A
B
(regional) system- oriented
C
D
Behavioural additionality in firmsMoving towards a learning organisation implies :• Internal changes : flat hierarchies, devolution of
responsibilities, multi-functional teams, new competencies (flexibility, responsibility…), « second loop » and « on line » learning, quality management, human resource development, …
• External changes : inter-firms relationships, external networks
Empirical analysis of 2000 Danish firms (2001 survey) : firms combining several of the organizational traits
of the learning organization are more innovative (incremental) innovation and learning are two sides
of the same coin
Nielsen and Lundvall, DRUID Working Paper N°03-07
Policy instruments targeting innovation in SMEs
• Focus of policy instrumentsFinance - risk sharingTechnology - technical know-howQualifications - personnelMarket access - informationTime constraints - Organisation - Strategic
capabilities• Lack of "market orientation" of policy tools• Accent primarily on innovation hardware
Policy instruments targeting innovation in SMEs
• Value of “umbrella” instruments • Appropriate policy portfolio : based on
combination of regional and firm’s deficits• There is no one-size-fits-all policy system • Policy designers and implementers need :
high degree of understanding of the innovative firm's behaviour, self-reflexive capacity and openness to evaluation
• Division of labour within government causes policy fragmentation
RITTS Success and failure factors
RTDI Capacity
Institutional Capacity
Economic
conditions
Region Capacity
RITTS driving force
Experience in
strategy
Legitimacy Political backing
Openness Inclusive-
ness
RITTS Manage-
ment
Management of
consultants
Political backing throughout
RITTS
Legitimacy of project
leader
Inclusiveness of
process
RITTS outputs : examples (with a policy learning dimension) Voucher scheme in Uusimaa (Finland)Evolution towards more demand-led scheme Spiegel (= Mirror) project in Limburg (NL)Improving strategic thinking in SMEs Clusters in Overijssel (Netherlands)Interactive policy – making Competence centres in Berlin (Germany)Global approach to innovation
Common features of successful instruments
Background : interactive innovationCoordination and synergy of supportTarget = SMEs needs, bottom-up definedBehavioural additionality Focus networks of actors (system oriented)Learning in policy making
Innovation policy trends in Europe• Similar mix of policy instruments : « copy-paste »
rather than « intelligent benchmarking » ?• Variation in modes of implementation and in relative
effectiveness (… often unknown !)• Major accent on Bridging initiatives between Public
and Private Creators of Knowledge (heritage from linear thinking)
• Crucial need : Reinforcement Policies for Private Knowledge Users (absorption)
• « Systemic policies » in the core : growing new trend
Need for bridging initiatives between ALL actors
• Clusters programmes• Regional growth initiatives• …
Challenge for Innovation policy : organise complementarity and synergy between policy areas
« Systemic » innovation « Systemic » innovation policiespolicies
Implications for Science ParksThe BRIDGE
Technology transfer From source to recipient A specific place Focused support Material support In-house support Technology gap
The CLUSTER of COMPETENCE
Dialogue creation Multilateral exchanges A node in a system Multiple support “Learning support” Clearing house …and managerial gap
S&T intermediary system in WalloniaFirms’ needs
AA
BB
CC
Raise their numberResearch commercialisation, spin-offs…
Move to Atechnology diffusion ,find new opportunities…
Move to BRaise innovation awarenessmentoring…
A: Innovative and R&D-intensive cies
B: Innovative adaptive companies
C: Potentially innovative cies, not well structured for innovation
S&T intermediary system in WalloniaOrganisation of support
AA
BB
CC
University interfaces, IP management,science parks, venture capital, RDT aids, access to EU R&D, …
Collective research centres,Technology centres, technology audits,SMEs aids…
Scattered support, unprofessionalSmall cies networks…
A: Innovative and R&D-intensive cies
B: Innovative adaptive companies
C: Potentially innovative cies, not well structured for innovation
Structural Funds for the knowledge economy2000-2006: 5.5% of total EDRF resources devoted to RDTI
Objective 1 zones: 5% - Objective 2 zones: 10%
PT
GR
ES
FI
IE
HU EELT
SIPL LV
AT IT
DE
LUCZ SKMTNL
CY
DKUK
FR
SEBE
EU25 WEIGHT = SF/GDP
EFFO
RT
= R
TDI S
F/PO
P
Above average weight of SF
Below average RTDI effort (Ū per person)
Above average weight of SF
Above average RTDI effort (Ū per person)
PT
GR
ES
FI
IE
HU EELT
SIPL LV
AT IT
DE
LUCZ SKMTNL
CY
DKUK
FR
SEBE
EU25 WEIGHT = SF/GDP
EFFO
RT
= R
TDI S
F/PO
P
Above average weight of SF
Below average RTDI effort (Ū per person)
Above average weight of SF
Above average RTDI effort (Ū per person)
Source: Technopolis, UNU-MERIT, Lacave, Ismeri, Logotech (2006)
Structural Funds for the knowledge economy
Main bottlenecks to efficient absorption of funds and effective outcomes of RTDI measures:Administrative rather than strategic management of RTDI measuresLack of expertise at national and regional levels in managing RTDI measuresContinuing dominance of supply-side measures with poor linkages to regional innovation systemsLimited interest for many ‘softer’ ‘demand-side’ measures aimed directly at enterprises
There is path dependency: share of SF devoted to RTDI higher where national innovation policy is more intense, and lower where national policy is weaker. Difficulties for the SF to modify national strategies.
Source: Technopolis, UNU-MERIT,Lacave, Ismeri, Logotech (2006)
-5,00 -4,00 -3,00 -2,00 -1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00
Manufacturing Platforms
Tertiairy oriented Cohesion
Science&Service
Central Techno
Employability
Experienced and Qualif ied
Accession
Peripheral & Rural
Government Services
German High-tech
Hubbing Dynamics
Public know ledge Urban services Private Technology Employability
The diversity of European regions
Source: Wintjes (2006)
Key challenges for ERDF
Need for differentiated policiesmove towards supporting more demand than
supply side of innovation (ex ante analysis !)balance technology focus with other forms of
innovationconsider ‘downstream’ research developed for
the needs of marketsgive preference for competitiveness when
developing strategiesfocus on social capitalInnovative and more complex projects should be
favoured over focus on funds absorption
Source: Technopolis, UNU-MERIT,Lacave, Ismeri, Logotech (2006)
Inside the black box of policy-Inside the black box of policy-making making
Innovation policy design
Policy evaluation
Policy implementation
NIS analysis
International benchmarking
Other policy considerations
Stakeholders pressure
Strategy making
How to reinforce this loop ?
Tensions in policy-making
• Competing rationalities across policy fields and different schools of thoughts
• Short-termism in resources allocations
• Innovation as a “homeless” policy
• New Public Management and need for coherence
• Individual ambitions versus grand visions
Source: OECD MONIT study
(2004)
National Reform Programmes:towards improved policy governance ?
“The Open Method of Coordination is a powerful instrument to assist Member States in their efforts to adopt a more strategic and integrated approach and to deliver more efficient polices” (European Commission 2005).
• Aim of NRPs: to identify coherent and integrated mix of policies which together would bring the leverage effects towards the Lisbon objectives
• Gaps in the strategic loop: diagnosis – broad routes - instruments
• Prioritisation and effectiveness of policy mix ??• Continuum science – technology – innovation
(despite Commission guidelines !)
Source: Lisbon expert group
(2006)
National Reform Programmes:towards improved policy governance ?
• Positive correlation between RDTI performance and priority on knowledge policies
• Administrative versus strategic policy implementation• New coordination structures but few “policy mix”
considerations • Ex post appropriation process of NRPs • A current limited role of indicators to monitor policy
success • Policy evaluation does not appear prominently • Weak visible impacts of OMC so far• Marginal internationalisation trends
Source: Lisbon expert group
(2006)
Innovation Policy :The way forward (1)
• Effectiveness of innovation systems depends on balanced combination of 3 capacities :– creation of knowledge– diffusion of knowledge– absorption of knowledge
• Growing importance of framework conditions– entrepreneurship– competition rules– labour market conditions– financial market– social capital, ...
• Government’s role shifts from investor to facilitator - promotion of public/private partnerships and interface management
• Improving knowledge governance in firms and clusters of firms becomes a key issue
• Policies need to "open borders" : between : traditional fields of policy intervention industries traditionally defined various forms of knowledge production and
diffusion
Innovation Policy :The way forward (2)
• More efficiency through “Policy packages” rather than isolated instruments – Consider Policy Mix
• Demand oriented innovation policies: a “set of public measures to induce innovations and / or speed up diffusion of innovations through increasing the demand for innovations, defining new functional requirement for products and services or better articulating demand.” (Edler 2007)– Public procurement. – “Soft steering" concepts geared to the willingness and
ability to accept, demand and apply innovations– Measures stimulating the articulation of needs,
preferences, ideas and fears of potential users – Shaping of regulations and norms
Innovation Policy :The way forward (3)
• Need for more strategic policy intelligence
– monitoring and evaluation of policies– sound analyses of innovation systems– « intelligent » benchmarking practices– long term views– inclusive policy design processes
Innovation Policy :The way forward (4)