Post on 06-Jul-2015
description
ICBSS Workshop „Innovation in the Wider Black Sea Region“
New Mission-orientation in STI Policy
Wolfgang Polt Joanneum Research -
POLICIES – Centre for Economic and Innovation Research wolfgang.polt@joanneum.at
Athens, 16-17 June 2011
Thematic: addressing either
specific fields of S&T,
societal goals and missions
Functional/Generic: addressing generic aspects of the Innovation System, e.g. establishment of new firms, collaboration between industry and science etc. irrespective of field of science/technology or purpose
(see OECD 1991)
General Orientations of STI Policy
Historical Paradigms of STI Policy
Source: Gassler, Polt, Rammer (2008)
Technology Policy Paradigm:
‘Old’ Mission-Oriented Approach
Thematic dimension Emphasis on ‘large-scale’
technologies (i.e.
defence, energy,
transport etc.)
Legitimization/Rationale Production of ‘public’ or
‘meritoric’ goods
Institutional Dimension /
Actors
Top down definition of
thematic priorities
Establishing of
specialised public R&D
organisations (PROs)
Technology Policy Paradigm: Industrial policy approach (key/strategic technologies)
Thematic
dimension
In addition to „old strategic sectors‟:
ICT; Biotechnology; New Materials;
Nanotechnology
Legitimization/
Rationale
Fostering competitiveness
Emphasis on static and dynamic
economies of scale and specific
market failures, esp.spillovers from
„generic‟ technologies
Institutional
Dimension /
Actors
Emphasis on planning
Techn. forecasting/roadmapping
Technology assessment
National Technology Programs
Technology Policy Paradigm: Systemic approach
Thematic
dimension
Emphasis on „functional‟ aspects
of the innovation system
(cooperation; framework
conditions, regulation etc.)
Legitimization/
Rationale
“Systemic failures”: gaps in the
system, parts of the system not
linking together, conflicting
logics of actors,….
Institutional
Dimension /
Actors
Increasing number of actors
involved in STI policy and
priority setting
Agencies emerge as important
players in STI policy
Technology Policy Paradigm:
„New‟ Mission-Oriented Approach
Thematic
dimension
Sustainable Development;
Climate Change,
Information & Knowledge Society;
Demographic Change and Aging;
Health and new deseases
Safety and Security
Food supply
Legitimization/
Rationale
Orientation towards societal needs and
challenges
Institutional
Dimension /
Actors
Involvement of different societal groups
and stakeholders
horizontal coordination of hitherto
separated policy areas
large number of actors
Mission-oriented R&D spending within the OECD
Rough attribution: R&D spending classified by “socioeconomic objective”:
Defense, space, agriculture, health, energy, industrial technology (categories based on funding-agency missions) account for at least 50%, and in most cases, >60%, of public R&D spending in early 2000s for South Korea, USA, UK, France, Canada, Japan, and Germany.
Spending on “advancement of knowledge” arguably the category most closely connected with the “market failure” rationale, accounts for 25 - 30% of public R&D budgets in these economies.
(Source: Mowery 2005)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Sh
are
s o
f to
tal g
ov
't R
&D
sp
en
din
g
United
States
Japan France Germany United
Kingdom
Canada South
Korea
Country
Figure 1: Gov't R&D spending by "socioeconomic objective," 2003 - 2004
Industrial production and technology
Energy
Protection and improvement of human health
Agriculture production and technology
Exploration and exploitation of space
Defense
Current Strands of (new) Mission-oriented STI-policies
OECD: Mission-orientation is a mayor part of the OECD Innovation Strategy: e.g. ‚Green Growth„ Strategy„
EU: Mission-orientation is a central angle of the ‚Innovation Union„ approach and the current ‚Joint Programming Initiatives„ to address ‚Grand Challenges„
‚Green Growth Strategies„ in OECD
‚Green Growth Strategies„ as part of the stimulus packages in OECD
(Source: OECD 2009)
Joint Programming Initiatives in the EU
Objective: to tackle grand societal challenges
Rationale: leverage and coordinate national activities and combine diverse resources
Status: 10 themes identified in bottom-up and
consensual manner
Strategic Research Agendas: in the making
Governance models: established
Resource Commitment by Member States on the basis of variable geometry – exact modes yet to be decided
Status of Joint Programming Initiatives (March 2011)
JPI Countries Pilot calls
Neurodegenerative Diseases 23 May 2011
Agriculture 19 June 2011
Cultural Heritage 15 -
Healthy Diet 21 2012
Urban Europe 13 Sept 2011
Climate Knowledge 16 -
Water 20 (2012)
More years, better lives 16 -
Microbial challenge 15 -
Oceans 17 -
1st W
ave
2
. W
ave
(Preliminary) Conclusions on Mission-oriented STI Policy
Mission-oriented STI Policy always occupied a substantial share of public R&D expenditures. Currently, it seems to stage a come-back to the centre stage of policy attention against the background of increasing global/grand societal challenges
On top of appropriately identifying „market failure‟ as a rationale for policy intervention, „innovation systems‟ and „policy mix / portfolio‟ thinking is needed !
Caution is needed in applying “lessons” from one field of mission R&D to others (e.g. defence environment)
„New‟ Mission-orientation more difficult to implement Coordination across fields, mission agencies, complementary
policies within a mission-agency area is essential but difficult
Increasingly addressing „global challenges‟ asks forinternational co-ordination of „mission-oriented‟ STI policy (e.g. takling climate change, energy, deseases, …)
Thank you for your attention !
Appendices
(Ideal)Types of R&D Activities (‚Stokes-Ruttan Space„)
(Co)Existing STI Policy Rationales
General R&D support for private industry
( e.g. tax credit for R&D, bottom-up direct funding)
Support for ‘functional’ priorities (collaboration, technology transfer, spin-offs etc)
Support for selected areas (societal
challenges, specific technologies)
(missions, public goods)
Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009
Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009
Mission-oriented R&D expenditure JAPAN
From: Stenberg & Nagano 2009
Mission-oriented R&D expenditure USA
Share of Public R&D support in BERD (2004)
Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW
0 3 6 9 12 15
Finland
Japan
Germany
USA
UK
France
Technology programmes Other technology specif ic support
non technology specif ic project support R&D tax deductions
Defense R&D contracts
* inkl. steuerlicher FuE-Förderung durch Bundesstaaten (Annahme für 2000: ca. 400 Mio. US-$) und
geschätzter zusätzlicher Kosten der Änderungen beim Alternative Incremental Credit ab 2002/03 sow ie
der Projektförderung durch Bundesstaaten (Annahme 2000: ca. 450 Mio. US-$)
** inkl. geschätzter Effekt der 2000 und 2002 eingeführten FuE-Steuerförderung
*** inkl. geschätzter zusätzlicher Effekt der Ausw eitung des Crédit d'Impôt Recherche im Jahr 2004
**** steuerliche FuE-Förderung auf Basis der 2003 eingeführten steuerlichen FuE-Volumenförderung
Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2008): Priority setting in
technology policy – historical developments and recent trends. In:
Nauwelaeres, C., Wintjens, R. (Eds.): Innovation Policy in Europe.
Measurement and Strategy. Edward Elgar Publishers, pp 203-224
Gassler, H., Polt, W., Rammer, C. (2006): Priority setting in research
and technology policy – an analysis of paradigm changes in the
post-war period [in German], in: Austrian Journal for Political
Sciences [ÖZPW] 1/2006, pp 7-23
Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schindler, J., Weber, M. Mahroum, S. Kubeczko,
K., Keenan, M. (2004): Priorities in Science and Technology Policy –
An International Comparison. Project Report
Soete & Arundel (1995)?
Ergas (1987)
Mowery (2005)
Stenberg & Nagano (2009)
References