IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/revepe/v2y2021i1d10.1007_s43253-021-00033-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy

Author

Listed:
  • Leonard Prochaska

    (University of Greifswald)

  • Daniel Schiller

    (University of Greifswald)

Abstract

The design and implementation of innovation policy funding programmes has been the subject of scientific and political debate for decades. Especially the increasingly popular approach of mission-oriented innovation policies is a much discussed subject. The question of how missions arise, what rhetoric accompanies them and how they are eventually implemented has not yet been sufficiently clarified and specification is lacking. Whether mission-oriented innovation policy actually follows a strict top-down logic, or whether the policymaking process rather resembles a certain evolutionary scheme is questioned in this study. On the basis of the change within many policy strategy papers from biotechnology to a much broader bioeconomy, it is shown that, in reality, the transition does not follow a linear sequence. Neither excessive prioritisation nor neglect of a selected sector can be confirmed in this analysis. Within the bioeconomy, however, a clear change can be identified. Biotechnology funding was visibly reduced as part of the change of leitmotif while R&D increased in the agricultural sector in particular. Furthermore, it becomes clear that the issue of missing markets, which is predicted in theoretical studies, can also be confirmed empirically. So far, in terms of public involvement, little effort has been invested in the practical application of bioeconomical knowledge, which is why the intended transition towards bio-based economic activities is lagging behind expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:revepe:v:2:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s43253-021-00033-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s43253-021-00033-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43253-021-00033-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s43253-021-00033-8?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. Viaggi, Davide, 2018. "Towards an economics of the bioeconomy: four years later," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(2), September.
    2. David Zilberman & Eunice Kim & Sam Kirschner & Scott Kaplan & Jeanne Reeves, 2013. "Technology and the future bioeconomy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 44(s1), pages 95-102, November.
    3. Jakob Edler & Paul Cunningham & Abdullah Gök & Philip Shapira (ed.), 2016. "Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 16121.
    4. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.
    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. Philip Cooke, 2007. "European asymmetries: A comparative analysis of German and UK biotechnology clusters," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(7), pages 454-474, August.
    7. Aghion, Philippe & David, Paul A. & Foray, Dominique, 2009. "Science, technology and innovation for economic growth: Linking policy research and practice in 'STIG Systems'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 681-693, May.
    8. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 2001. "Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 759-775, May.
    9. Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argil�s, 2015. "Smart Specialization, Regional Growth and Applications to European Union Cohesion Policy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(8), pages 1291-1302, August.
    10. Ekkehard Warmuth, 1991. "Biotechnology 2000: a new German R&D programme," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 79-88, August.
    11. Eickelpasch, Alexander & Fritsch, Michael, 2005. "Contests for cooperation--A new approach in German innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1269-1282, October.
    12. Jacobsson, Staffan & Lauber, Volkmar, 2006. "The politics and policy of energy system transformation--explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 256-276, February.
    13. Justus Wesseler & Joachim von Braun, 2017. "Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 275-298, October.
    14. Louise Staffas & Mathias Gustavsson & Kes McCormick, 2013. "Strategies and Policies for the Bioeconomy and Bio-Based Economy: An Analysis of Official National Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-19, June.
    15. Daniel Hausknost & Ernst Schriefl & Christian Lauk & Gerald Kalt, 2017. "A Transition to Which Bioeconomy? An Exploration of Diverging Techno-Political Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-22, April.
    16. Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2013. "Modern regional innovation policy," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 6(2), pages 187-216.
    17. Hermans, Frans, 2018. "The potential contribution of transition theory to the analysis of bioclusters and their role in the transition to a bioeconomy," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 265-276.
    18. Justus Wesseler & Joachim von Braun, 2017. "Measuring the Bioeconomy: Economics and Policies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 275-298, October.
    19. Franz Tödtling & Michaela Trippl, 2018. "Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(9), pages 1779-1795, September.
    20. Mariana Mazzucato & Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Public financing of innovation: new questions," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 24-48.
    21. Kes McCormick & Niina Kautto, 2013. "The Bioeconomy in Europe: An Overview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-20, June.
    22. Lazonick, William & Tulum, Öner, 2011. "US biopharmaceutical finance and the sustainability of the biotech business model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1170-1187.
    23. Schot, Johan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2018. "Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1554-1567.
    24. Dohse, Dirk & Staehler, Tanja, 2008. "BioRegio, BioProfile and the rise of the German biotech industry," Kiel Working Papers 1456, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    25. Philip Cooke, 2008. "Regional innovation systems: origin of the species," International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 393-409.
    26. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    27. Rainer Kattel & Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 787-801.
    28. Dohse, Dirk, 2000. "Technology policy and the regions -- the case of the BioRegio contest," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1111-1133, December.
    29. Markus M. Bugge & Teis Hansen & Antje Klitkou, 2016. "What Is the Bioeconomy? A Review of the Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-22, July.
    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. Lea F. Stöber & Marius Boesino & Andreas Pyka & Franziska Schuenemann, 2023. "Bioeconomy Innovation Networks in Urban Regions: The Case of Stuttgart," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-22, April.
    2. Batbaatar, Maral & Sandström, Christian & P Larsson, Johan & Wennberg, Karl, 2023. "The State of the Entrepreneurial State: Empirical Evidence of Mission-Led Innovation Projects around the Globe," Ratio Working Papers 368, The Ratio Institute.
    3. Bogner, Kristina & Dahlke, Johannes, 2022. "Born to transform? German bioeconomy policy and research projects for transformations towards sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).

    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. Grashof, Nils, 2020. "Putting the watering can away Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Papers in Innovation Studies 2020/4, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    2. Grashof, Nils, 2021. "Putting the watering can away –Towards a targeted (problem-oriented) cluster policy framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    3. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    4. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    6. Lisa Biber-Freudenberger & Amit Kumar Basukala & Martin Bruckner & Jan Börner, 2018. "Sustainability Performance of National Bio-Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    7. George B. Frisvold & Steven M. Moss & Andrea Hodgson & Mary E. Maxon, 2021. "Understanding the U.S. Bioeconomy: A New Definition and Landscape," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-24, February.
    8. Franz Tödtling & Michaela Trippl & Alexandra Frangenheim, 2019. "Policy options for green regional development: applying a production and application perspective," PEGIS geo-disc-2019_16, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    9. Andrew M. Neill & Cathal O’Donoghue & Jane C. Stout, 2020. "A Natural Capital Lens for a Sustainable Bioeconomy: Determining the Unrealised and Unrecognised Services from Nature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-24, September.
    10. Garrido-Prada, Pablo & Lenihan, Helena & Doran, Justin & Rammer, Christian & Perez-Alaniz, Mauricio, 2021. "Driving the circular economy through public environmental and energy R&D: Evidence from SMEs in the European Union," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Durwin H.J. Lynch & Pim Klaassen & Lan van Wassenaer & Jacqueline E.W. Broerse, 2020. "Constructing the Public in Roadmapping the Transition to a Bioeconomy: A Case Study from the Netherlands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-18, April.
    12. Jan Fagerberg & Håkon Endresen Normann, 2022. "Innovation policy, regulation and the transition to net zero," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20220531, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    13. Wiarda, Martijn & Sobota, Vladimir C.M. & Janssen, Matthijs J. & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2023. "Public participation in mission-oriented innovation projects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Edler, Jakob & Köhler, Jonathan Hugh & Wydra, Sven & Salas-Gironés, Edgar & Schiller, Katharina & Braun, Annette, 2021. "Dimensions of systems and transformations: Towards an integrated framework for system transformations," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S03/2021, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    16. Daniela Pasnicu & Mihaela Ghenta & Aniela Matei, 2019. "Transition to Bioeconomy: Perceptions and Behaviors in Central and Eastern Europe," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 21(50), pages 1-9, February.
    17. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Mauricio Alviar & Andrés García-Suaza & Laura Ramírez-Gómez & Simón Villegas-Velásquez, 2021. "Measuring the Contribution of the Bioeconomy: The Case of Colombia and Antioquia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    19. Graf, Holger & Broekel, Tom, 2020. "A shot in the dark? Policy influence on cluster networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    20. Joanna Stryjek, 2021. "Counteracting the COVID-19 Crisis with Innovation Policy Tools: A Case Study of the EU’s Supranational Innovation Policy," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 450-468.

    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:spr:revepe:v:2:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s43253-021-00033-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.