IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v85y2014icp69-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Serial and comparative analysis of innovation policy change

Author

Listed:
  • Niinikoski, Marja-Liisa
  • Moisander, Johanna

Abstract

Much of the existing literature on innovation policy analyzes policy change as an outcome of rational, cognitive processes, where the availability of new information prompts policy-makers to rethink and revise their policies. This paper aims to broaden this perspective by building a new methodological approach, Serial Comparative Analysis (SCA), to the analysis of policy change. SCA is proposed as an analytical perspective that sheds light on the social and political complexities of policy-making, and thus allows for a more nuanced understanding of the dynamics of policy change. SCA builds on the archaeological approach to discourse, and basic methodological principles of ethnographic inquiry. By conceptualizing a policy domain as a discursive formation, SCA provides insights into the socio-historical conditions under which a specific policy emerges, forms and transforms. While other methodological approaches may adopt the presumption that policy change is a causal outcome of new information used in policy-making, SCA views policy change as something that is discursively constructed and negotiated in specific institutional and historical settings. In doing so, SCA brings to light the rules that organize the truth-values of policy discourses in particular contexts, and elucidates how changes in these rules bring about changes in policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Niinikoski, Marja-Liisa & Moisander, Johanna, 2014. "Serial and comparative analysis of innovation policy change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 69-80.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:85:y:2014:i:c:p:69-80
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162513001637
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan E Cozzens, 2007. "Distributive justice in science and technology policy," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 85-94, March.
    2. Elvira Uyarra, 2011. "Regional innovation systems revisited: networks, institutions, policy and complexity," Openloc Working Papers 1113, Public policies and local development.
    3. Elvira Uyarra, 2010. "What is evolutionary about ‘regional systems of innovation’? Implications for regional policy," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 115-137, January.
    4. Mytelka, Lynn K. & Smith, Keith, 2002. "Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1467-1479, December.
    5. Charles Edquist & Terttu Luukkonen & Markku Sotarauta, 2009. "Broad-Based Innovation Policy," Chapters, in: Reinhilde Veugelers (ed.), The Evaluation of the Finnish National Innovation System, pages 11-70, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    6. Morlacchi, Piera & Martin, Ben R., 2009. "Emerging challenges for science, technology and innovation policy research: A reflexive overview," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 571-582, May.
    7. Metcalfe, J S, 1994. "Evolutionary Economics and Technology Policy," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(425), pages 931-944, July.
    8. Barry Bozeman & Catherine Slade & Paul Hirsch, 2011. "Inequity in the distribution of science and technology outcomes: a conceptual model," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 231-248, September.
    9. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reischauer, Georg, 2018. "Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize innovation systems in manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 26-33.
    2. Ba, Zhichao & Ma, Yaxue & Cai, Jinyao & Li, Gang, 2023. "A citation-based research framework for exploring policy diffusion: Evidence from China's new energy policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Yang, Chao & Huang, Cui & Su, Jun, 2020. "A bibliometrics-based research framework for exploring policy evolution: A case study of China's information technology policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    4. Dufva, Mikko & Ahlqvist, Toni, 2015. "Knowledge creation dynamics in foresight: A knowledge typology and exploratory method to analyse foresight workshops," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 251-268.
    5. Diercks, Gijs, 2019. "Lost in translation: How legacy limits the OECD in promoting new policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Landoni, Matteo & ogilvie, dt, 2019. "Convergence of innovation policies in the European aerospace industry (1960–2000)," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 174-184.
    2. Ben R. Martin, 2015. "R&D Policy Instruments: A Critical Review of What We Do & Don't Know," Working Papers wp476, Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge.
    3. Lanahan, Lauren & Feldman, Maryann P., 2015. "Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the federal SBIR program," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1387-1402.
    4. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    5. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    6. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Vas, Zsófia, 2012. "Az innovációs rendszerek 25 éve. Szakirodalmi áttekintés evolúciós közgazdaságtani megközelítésben [25 years of innovation systems. A literature review from the angle of evolutionary economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1233-1256.
    7. Annalisa Caloffi & Marco Mariani, 2018. "Regional policy mixes for enterprise and innovation: A fuzzy-set clustering approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 28-46, February.
    8. Chaminade, Cristina & Intarakumnerd, Patarapong & Sapprasert, Koson, 2012. "Measuring systemic problems in National Innovation Systems. An application to Thailand," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1476-1488.
    9. Bajmócy, Zoltán & Gébert, Judit, 2014. "The outlines of innovation policy in the capability approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 93-102.
    10. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2010. "The ‘policy mix’ for innovation: rethinking innovation policy in a multi-level, multi-actor context," MPRA Paper 23567, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Geels, Frank W., 2014. "Reconceptualising the co-evolution of firms-in-industries and their environments: Developing an inter-disciplinary Triple Embeddedness Framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 261-277.
    12. Riccardo Crescenzi, 2014. "The evolving dialogue between Innovation and Economic Geography. From physical distance to non-spatial proximities and 'integrated' frameworks," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1408, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Mar 2014.
    13. Kincsö Izsak & Paresa Markianidou & Slavo Radošević, 2015. "Convergence of National Innovation Policy Mixes in Europe – Has It Gone Too Far? An Analysis of Research and Innovation Policy Measures in the Period 2004–12," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 786-802, July.
    14. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    15. Cocchi, Andrea, 2011. "Business models as systemic instruments for the evolution of traditional districts?," MPRA Paper 33766, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ainhoa Arrona, 2017. "Can interpretive policy analysis contribute to a critical scholarship on regional innovation policy studies?," Working Papers 2017R01, Orkestra - Basque Institute of Competitiveness.
    17. Kevin Morgan, 2017. "Nurturing novelty: Regional innovation policy in the age of smart specialisation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 569-583, June.
    18. Perren, Lew & Sapsed, Jonathan, 2013. "Innovation as politics: The rise and reshaping of innovation in UK parliamentary discourse 1960–2005," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1815-1828.
    19. Huguenin, Ariane & Jeannerat, Hugues, 2017. "Creating change through pilot and demonstration projects: Towards a valuation policy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 624-635.
    20. Verónica Robert & Gabriel Yoguel, 2022. "Exploration of trending concepts in innovation policy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 259-292, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:85:y:2014:i:c:p:69-80. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.