Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
-
Upload
wolfgangpolt -
Category
Technology
-
view
902 -
download
5
Transcript of Polt Presentation Priority Setting Vienna 18 02 2010
Priority Setting in STI Policy in Historical
Perspective
Wolfgang PoltJoanneum Research
OECD-TIP Policy Roundtable on STI Governance
Vienna 18.02.2010
Studies on Priority Setting in STI Policy 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.
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
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
Background
Priority setting (in STI policy): conscious and deliberate selection of certain activities, actors, policies or policy instruments at the expense of others with an impact on resource allocation.
Thematic (addressing specific fields of S&T, societal goals and missions, etc.)
Functional/Generic (addressing generic aspects of the Innovation System, e.g. establishment of new firms, collaboration between industry and science etc.)
Concepts & Definitions
Historical Paradigms in Priority Setting
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
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”
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 ApproachThematic 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
Types of priorities (i) thematic (ii) functional/generic
Actors and actor relations in priority setting role and position of different priority setting actors
Nature of the priority setting process, e.g.: - top-down/expert-based
vs. bottom-up/participatory- degree of formalization - mechanisms for implementation and
evaluation)
Dimensions of the PS process
Multitude of actors (as a function of size, development and complexity of the innovation and policy systems):
Federal and regional governments International bodies S&T policy councils & advisory bodies Research councils and funding agencies Research performers (enterprises, PROs,
universities, ...)
Actors in Priority Setting
Government White Papers /Strategies Budget plans & allocations Thematic STI Programmes Government Procurement Institutional Profiling & Specialisation Performance Based Contracting Clusters/Technology Platforms Strategic Research Agendas
Means of Priority Setting
Technology planning and forecasting, as well as ‚Constructive TA‘ (60s, 70s)
Technology Foresight and Roadmapping (80s, 90s)
Priority setting as an outcome of broader ‚Strategic Policy Intelligence‘ (Foresight, Monitoring, Evaluation, Assessment ...)
Trend towards „expertise-supported consultation mechanisms“
Trend towards programmes (instead of institutions) as means of priority setting
Mechanisms to Support Priority Setting
Thanks for listening Growing complexity with increasing
number of actors: science/research councils, funding agencies, research actors (universities, public research labs)
Priority setting processes have become more decentralised – a larger number of actors have built up related capacities and been given related responsibilities
Main Trends in Priority Setting
Thanks for listening Explicit strategy formulation: more
widespread in the 90s, tendency to make regular strategy formulation complusory (‚New Public Management‘)
Path-dependency in innovations systems limits the degrees of freedom for choices between priorities (dedicated / sector / technology specific institutions, departmental split of R&D) ‚implicit thematic priorities‘
Main Trends in Priority Setting
Thanks for listening Establish a sound policy rationale Avoid institutional lock-in (e.g. in too
narrowly specialised institutions) Avoid too narrow top-down definition of
thematic priorities (explicit or implicit)
Focus on broad societal missions instead
Focus rather on ‚functional‘ priorities of the innovation system
Challenges for Priority Setting
Thanks for listening Use primarily instruments with fixed life-
length as means to establish priorities
Ensure coherence of PS in an increasingly complex landscape of actors
Embed priority setting in a larger concept of STI policy strategy formulation, using all approaches of ‚strategic policy intelligence‘ (foresight, monitoring, evaluation, assessment, benchmarking..)
Challenges for Priority Setting
If too broard: almost non-discriminatory (e.g. ICT, Biotech, Nanotech, …)
If too narrow: risk of ‚capture‘ and information asymmetry (‚embedded systems in household appliances‘…)
Most of the concepts brought forward to guide thematic priority setting lack rigor and rationale
(Most) suitable rationales for priority setting: production of public goods ‚public missions‘
Challenges for Priority Setting for Specfic Technologies
A Model for Co-Existence of Policy Rationales for Priority Setting
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 technologies / fields
(missions, public goods)
Thank you for your attention !
Share of Public R&D support in BERD (2004)
Source: OECD-MSTI; National source; Estimates by ZEW
Conceptual underpinning of technology-centered PS
Critical
Key
Emerging
Pathbreaking
Infrastructural
Generic
General Purpose
Disruptive
„ ..most of these lists of technologies remain at a level which makes them only a poor guide for policy...“ Richard Branscomb (1994)
Lists of Technologies