Four dangers in innovation policy studies – and how to avoid them

Abstract The field of innovation policy studies is at a crossroads. It has clearly been influential. However, might it be losing the critical insight necessary to remain so in future? We discuss four dangerous tendencies seen in many innovation policy studies: idealising policy rationales and policy-makers; treating policies as tools from a toolbox; putting too much faith in coordination and intelligent design of ‘policy mixes’; and taking an atemporal approach to innovation policy. Based on these we identify some ways forward that, we argue, would deal better with the complex multi-actor dynamics, fundamental uncertainties and challenges to the implementation, coordination and evaluation of policies and which would make for more relevant and impactful innovation policy studies.

[1]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in Transition Processes , 2003 .

[2]  Raghu Garud,et al.  Path Dependence or Path Creation? , 2010 .

[3]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[4]  Markku Sotarauta,et al.  Institutional Entrepreneurship for Knowledge Regions: In Search of a Fresh Set of Questions for Regional Innovation Studies , 2011 .

[5]  John Metcalfe,et al.  Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy , 1994 .

[6]  T. Parsons,et al.  The Structure of Social Action , 1938 .

[7]  Tilman Slembeck.  The Formation of Economic Policy: A Cognitive-Evolutionary Approach to Policy-Making , 1997 .

[8]  S. Steinmo,et al.  The Evolution of Policy Ideas: Tax Policy in the 20th Century , 2003 .

[9]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Contemporary Innovation Policy and Instruments: Challenges and Implications , 2009 .

[10]  Kieron Flanagan,et al.  The Innovation Policy Mix , 2015 .

[11]  P. D. del Río,et al.  Beyond the 'Tinbergen Rule' in Policy Design: Matching Tools and Goals in Policy Portfolios , 2013 .

[12]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation , 2011 .

[13]  C. Edquist,et al.  From theory to practice: the use of systems of innovation approach in innovation policy , 2005 .

[14]  I. Sanderson,et al.  Intelligent Policy Making for a Complex World: Pragmatism, Evidence and Learning , 2009 .

[15]  Neil Gunningham,et al.  Regulatory Pluralism: Designing Policy Mixes for Environmental Protection * , 2019, Environmental Law.

[16]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy , 1998 .

[17]  L. Henderson.  On the Social System , 1993 .

[18]  Robert Geyer,et al.  Complexity and Public Policy: A New Approach to 21st Century Politics, Policy And Society , 2010 .

[19]  Philippe Aghion,et al.  Science, Technology and Innovation for Economic Growth: Linking Policy Research and Practice in "STIG Systems" , 2009 .

[20]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .

[21]  K. Morgan.  Path dependence and the state: the politics of novelty in old industrial regions , 2013 .

[22]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Reframing regional innovation systems:: Evolution, complexity and public policy , 2012 .

[23]  Markku Sotarauta.  Policy Learning and the ‘Cluster-Flavoured Innovation Policy’ in Finland , 2012 .

[24]  Réjean Landry,et al.  Choice of policy instruments: confronting the deductive and the interactive approaches , 2005 .

[25]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance , 2005 .

[26]  R. Westrum.  The Social Construction of Technological Systems , 1989 .

[27]  F. Geels.  Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework , 2014 .

[28]  Beatriz Ruivo.  ‘Phases’ or ‘paradigms’ of science policy? , 1994 .

[29]  W. Drechsler,et al.  Innovation systems and policy: not only for the rich? , 2012 .

[30]  P. Pierson.  Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics , 2000, American Political Science Review.

[31]  J. Potts.  The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure , 2009 .

[32]  Ulrich Witt,et al.  Economic policy making in evolutionary perspective , 2003 .

[33]  Jörg Balsiger,et al.  Logic of appropriateness , 2014 .

[34]  B. Martin.  R&D policy instruments – a critical review of what we do and don’t know , 2016 .

[35]  E. Uyarra,et al.  Policies for science, technology and innovation:: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting , 2008 .

[36]  Gil Avnimelech,et al.  Venture capital start-up co-evolution and the emergence & development of Israel's new high tech cluster , 2004 .

[37]  A. James,et al.  Understanding the emergence of new science and technology policies: Policy entrepreneurship, agenda setting and the development of the European Framework Programme , 2015 .

[38]  E. Uyarra,et al.  The Effects of Cluster Policy on Innovation , 2012 .

[39]  L. Perlemuter.  [From theory to practice]. , 1997, Soins. Psychiatrie.

[40]  M. Mazzucato.  From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy , 2016, Innovation Systems, Policy and Management.

[41]  Peter John,et al.  Agendas and Instability in American Politics , 2013 .

[42]  Harvey Pinney.  The Structure of Social Action , 1940, Ethics.

[43]  François Moreau,et al.  The role of the state in evolutionary economics , 2004 .

[44]  Laurence J. O'Toole,et al.  Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context , 2005 .

[45]  Philip Shapira,et al.  Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact , 2016 .

[46]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  The moon and the ghetto , 1977 .

[47]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[48]  W. Streeck,et al.  Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies , 2005 .

[49]  Elvira Uyarra,et al.  What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy , 2009 .

[50]  Ben R. Martin,et al.  Science Policy Research: Having an Impact on Policy? , 2010 .

[51]  Edurne Magro,et al.  Path dependence in policies supporting smart specialisation strategies , 2014 .

[52]  C. Edquist,et al.  The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments , 2013, Holistic Innovation Policy.

[53]  F. Geels.  Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective , 2010 .

[54]  Emilian Kavalski.  Complexity and Public Policy: A New Approach to 21st Century Politics, Policy and Society – By Robert Geyer and Samir Rihani , 2012 .

[55]  B. Martin,et al.  Special issue: emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: a reflexive overview , 2009 .

[56]  A. Kay.  The dynamics of public policy , 2006 .

[57]  Andrew Jamison,et al.  Changing Policy Agendas in Science and Technology , 1995 .

[58]  Christopher Pollitt,et al.  Time, Policy, Management: Governing with the Past , 2008 .

[59]  S. Barnes.  Understanding Agency: Social Theory and Responsible Action , 1999 .

[60]  Charles E. Lindblom,et al.  Tinbergen on Policy-Making , 1958, Journal of Political Economy.

[61]  Dominique Foray,et al.  Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy , 2014 .

[62]  J. Howells.  Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[63]  S. Pratten.  Institutionalism : On the Need to Firm up Notions of Social Structure and the Human Subject , 2022 .

[64]  David A. Rochefort,et al.  Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. By Howlett Michael and Ramesh M.. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1995. 239p. $28.00. , 1997, American Political Science Review.