IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/2016-20.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space

Author

Listed:
  • Mariana Mazzucato

    (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK)

  • Douglas K Robinson

    (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK)

Abstract

U.S. public activities in space directed via NASA are undergoing change. While NASA has historically been able to drive market creation, through its procurement policy (which is much weaker in Europe), the past decade has seen a visible shift in US space policy, away from NASA-directed developments in low-Earth orbit (LEO) towards an ecosystem with a mix of private, not-for-profit, and public actors in LEO. This has fundamentally changed NASA‘s role from an orchestrating/directing role, to a more ‘facilitating’ one driven by commercialization needs. This shift in mission and approach has ramifications for the LEO ecosystem as well as NASA’s innovation policy, which has previously centred on clearly defined “mission-oriented” objectives, such as putting a man on the moon or creating the shuttle fleet. Such objectives required ‘active’ innovation policy whereby NASA both funded and ‘directed’ the innovation, within its walls and with its partners. The emerging multi-actor ecosystem approach has involved a more open-ended objective that does not have a unified nor clearly defined end-game. In this situation, NASA’s ability to shape activities in a direction in line with its mission will depend on its relationships with other members in the system. The rise of new actors in the space eco-system, and new relationships between them, presents interesting challenges for innovation policy informed by an Innovation System approach. In this paper, we critique the market failure approach of public intervention in markets and describe further work to be done in the innovation systems literature - more focus on the interactions between agents (and the type of agents) as complimentary to the dominant focus on funding programmes in innovation systems. In this paper, we present the evolving processes of NASA’s engagement in building a low-earth orbit economy to draw out case specific insights into a public agency shifting its mission to incorporate approaches to facilitate the market creation policy. The paper focuses on the way that NASA structures its new innovation policy, away from a classical supply side oriented R&D investment through NASA itself, towards a policy of orchestration and combination of instruments rather. We close the paper with a reflection on the ramifications of NASA’s approach to building a sustainable low-Earth orbit economic ecosystem.

Suggested Citation

  • Mariana Mazzucato & Douglas K Robinson, 2016. "Lost in space? NASA and the changing publicprivate eco-system in space," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:2016-20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2016-20-swps-mazzucato-et-al.pdf&site=25
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty : Editorial," Post-Print hal-00794423, HAL.
    2. Sampat, Bhaven N., 2012. "Mission-oriented biomedical research at the NIH," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1729-1741.
    3. Jan Fagerberg & Staffan Laestadius & Ben R. Martin, 2016. "The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 178-204, May.
    4. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    5. Auerswald, Philip E & Branscomb, Lewis M, 2003. "Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(3-4), pages 227-239, August.
    6. Cantner, Uwe & Pyka, Andreas, 2001. "Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 759-775, May.
    7. Clarysse, Bart & Wright, Mike & Bruneel, Johan & Mahajan, Aarti, 2014. "Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1164-1176.
    8. Johan Schot & Laur Kanger, 2016. "Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    9. Saliola, Federica & Zanfei, Antonello, 2009. "Multinational firms, global value chains and the organization of knowledge transfer," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 369-381, March.
    10. Rodrik, Dani, 2004. "Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century," CEPR Discussion Papers 4767, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Green, Ken & Hull, Richard & McMeekin, Andrew & Walsh, Vivien, 1999. "The construction of the techno-economic: networks vs. paradigms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(7), pages 777-792, September.
    12. Autio, Erkko & Kenney, Martin & Mustar, Philippe & Siegel, Don & Wright, Mike, 2014. "Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1097-1108.
    13. Jaffe, Adam B & Lerner, Josh, 2001. "Reinventing Public R&D: Patent Policy and the Commercialization of National Laboratory Technologies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 167-198, Spring.
    14. Steinbock, Dan, 0. "Globalization of wireless value system: from geographic to strategic advantages," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(3-4), pages 207-235, April.
    15. Laur Kanger & Johan Schot, 2016. "User-made immobilities: a transitions perspective," Mobilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 598-613, August.
    16. Ansari, Shahzad & Garud, Raghu, 2009. "Inter-generational transitions in socio-technical systems: The case of mobile communications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 382-392, March.
    17. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    18. Callon, M. & Laredo, P. & Rabeharisoa, V. & Gonard, T. & Leray, T., 1992. "The management and evaluation of technological programs and the dynamics of techno-economic networks: The case of the AFME," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 215-236, June.
    19. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Martin, Ben R., 2010. "Technology policy and global warming: Why new policy models are needed (or why putting new wine in old bottles won't work)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(8), pages 1011-1023, October.
    20. Emily Cox & Phil Johnstone & Andy Stirlng, 2016. "Understanding the Intensity of UK Policy Commitments to Nuclear Power," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-16, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    21. Laur Kanger & Johan Schot, 2016. "User-made Immobilities: A Transitions Perspective," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-13, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    22. Mowery, David C., 2012. "Defense-related R&D as a model for “Grand Challenges” technology policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1703-1715.
    23. Mazzucato, Mariana & Semieniuk, Gregor, 2018. "Financing renewable energy: Who is financing what and why it matters," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 8-22.
    24. Smith, Adrian & Stirling, Andy & Berkhout, Frans, 2005. "The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1491-1510, December.
    25. Mariana Mazzucato & Carlota Perez, 2014. "Innovation as Growth Policy: the challenge for Europe," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-13, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    26. Li, Feng & Whalley, Jason, 0. "Deconstruction of the telecommunications industry: from value chains to value networks," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(9-10), pages 451-472, October.
    27. Wright, Brian D., 2012. "Grand missions of agricultural innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1716-1728.
    28. Franz Huber & Francesco Rentocchini & Thomas Wainwright, 2016. "Open Innovation: Revealing and Engagement in Open Data Organisations," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-19, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    29. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-25, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    30. Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), 2010. "Handbook of the Economics of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    31. Peppard, Joe & Rylander, Anna, 0. "From Value Chain to Value Network:: Insights for Mobile Operators," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 128-141, April.
    32. Funk, Jeffrey L., 0. "The emerging value network in the mobile phone industry: The case of Japan and its implications for the rest of the world," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 4-18, February.
    33. Geels, Frank W., 2004. "From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6-7), pages 897-920, September.
    34. Andy Stirling, 2016. "Precaution in the Governance of Technology," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    35. Mowery, David C., 2010. "Military R&D and Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1219-1256, Elsevier.
    36. Mariana Mazzucato & Mario Cimoli & Giovanni Dosi & Joseph Stiglitz & Michael Landesmann & Mario Pianta & Rainer Walz & Tim Page, 2015. "Which Industrial Policy Does Europe Need?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 50(3), pages 120-155, May.
    37. Freeman, Chris, 1994. "The Economics of Technical Change," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(5), pages 463-514, October.
    38. D.K. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting Games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty," Post-Print hal-00870369, HAL.
    39. Stiglitz, Joseph E & Weiss, Andrew, 1981. "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 393-410, June.
    40. Carlota Perez, 2002. "Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2640.
    41. Douglas K. R. Robinson & Pascal Le Masson & Benoit Weil, 2012. "Waiting games: innovation impasses in situations of high uncertainty," Post-Print hal-00794445, HAL.
    42. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    43. Scott J. Wallsten, 2000. "The Effects of Government-Industry R&D Programs on Private R&D: The Case of the Small Business Innovation Research Program," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(1), pages 82-100, Spring.
    44. Ohid Yaqub, 2016. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    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. Liotard, Isabelle & Revest, Valérie, 2018. "Contests as innovation policy instruments: Lessons from the US federal agencies' experience," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 57-69.
    2. Sara Amoroso & Simone Vannuccini, 2019. "Teaming up with Large R&D Investors: Good or Bad for Knowledge Production and Diffusion?," SPRU Working Paper Series 2019-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.

    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. Mazzucato, Mariana & Robinson, Douglas K.R., 2018. "Co-creating and directing Innovation Ecosystems? NASA's changing approach to public-private partnerships in low-earth orbit," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 166-177.
    2. Robinson, Douglas K.R. & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2019. "The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 936-948.
    3. Mariana Mazzucato, 2015. "From Market Fixing to Market-Creating: A New Framework for Economic Policy," SPRU Working Paper Series 2015-25, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Mariana Mazzucato & Caetano C.R. Penna, 2016. "Beyond market failures: the market creating and shaping roles of state investment banks," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 305-326, October.
    5. Johan Schot & Laur Kanger, 2016. "Deep Transitions: Emergence, Acceleration, Stabilization and Directionality," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    6. Ohid Yaqub, 2016. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    7. Jan Fagerberg & Staffan Laestadius & Ben R. Martin, 2016. "The Triple Challenge for Europe: The Economy, Climate Change, and Governance," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(3), pages 178-204, May.
    8. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    9. Schot, Johan & Kanger, Laur, 2018. "Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1045-1059.
    10. Mariana Mazzucato, 2018. "Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 803-815.
    11. Gianluca Pallante & Emanuele Russo & Andrea Roventini, 2020. "Does public R&D funding crowd-in private R&D investment? Evidence from military R&D expenditures for US states," LEM Papers Series 2020/32, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    12. Deleidi, Matteo & Mazzucato, Mariana, 2021. "Directed innovation policies and the supermultiplier: An empirical assessment of mission-oriented policies in the US economy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    13. Falcone, Pasquale Marcello & Morone, Piergiuseppe & Sica, Edgardo, 2018. "Greening of the financial system and fuelling a sustainability transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 23-37.
    14. Markard, Jochen & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Analysis of complementarities: Framework and examples from the energy transition," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 63-75.
    15. Erlinghagen, Sabine & Markard, Jochen, 2012. "Smart grids and the transformation of the electricity sector: ICT firms as potential catalysts for sectoral change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 895-906.
    16. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    17. 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.
    18. María Elena López Reyes & Willem A. Zwagers & Ingrid J. Mulder, 2020. "Considering the Human-Dimension to Make Sustainable Transitions Actionable," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.
    19. Dominique Foray, 2019. "On sector-non-neutral innovation policy: towards new design principles," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 1379-1397, November.
    20. Weber, K. Matthias & Rohracher, Harald, 2012. "Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 1037-1047.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Space economy; market creation; innovation ecosystem; mission-oriented innovation policy; NASA;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sru:ssewps:2016-20. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.html .

    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.