IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i9p1554-1567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change

Author

Listed:
  • Schot, Johan
  • Steinmueller, W. Edward

Abstract

Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge. The second frame emerged in the 1980s globalising world and its emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation for knowledge creation and commercialisation. STI policy focuses on building links, clusters and networks, and on stimulating learning between elements in the systems, and enabling entrepreneurship. A third frame linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change is identified and distinguished from the two earlier frames. Transformation refers to socio-technical system change as conceptualised in the sustainability transitions literature. The nature of this third framing is examined with the aim of identifying its key features and its potential for provoking a re-examination of the earlier two frames. One key feature is its focus on experimentation, and the argument that the Global South does not need to play catch-up to follow the transformation model of the Global North. It is argued that all three frames are relevant for policymaking, but exploring options for transformative innovation policy should be a priority.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:9:p:1554-1567
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318301987
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011?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. Schot, Johan & Kanger, Laur, 2018. "Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1045-1059.
    2. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    3. Geels, Frank W. & Penna, Caetano C.R., 2015. "Societal problems and industry reorientation: Elaborating the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model and a case study of car safety in the USA (1900–1995)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 67-82.
    4. Mariana Mazzucato, 2016. "From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 140-156, February.
    5. Kivimaa, Paula, 2014. "Government-affiliated intermediary organisations as actors in system-level transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(8), pages 1370-1380.
    6. Cooke, Philip, 2001. "Regional Innovation Systems, Clusters, and the Knowledge Economy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 945-974, December.
    7. Ornetzeder, Michael & Rohracher, Harald, 2006. "User-led innovations and participation processes: lessons from sustainable energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 138-150, January.
    8. 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.
    9. Partha, Dasgupta & David, Paul A., 1994. "Toward a new economics of science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 487-521, September.
    10. Meric S. Gertler, 2001. "Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 5-26, January.
    11. Kuznets, Simon, 1973. "Modern Economic Growth: Findings and Reflections," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(3), pages 247-258, June.
    12. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Rogge, Karoline S. & Reichardt, Kristin, 2016. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1620-1635.
    14. Ruud E. Smits & Stefan Kuhlmann & Phillip Shapira (ed.), 2010. "The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4181.
    15. 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.
    16. Colistete, Renato P., 2010. "Revisiting Import-Substituting Industrialisation in Post-War Brazil," MPRA Paper 24665, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Etzkowitz, Henry, 1998. "The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(8), pages 823-833, December.
    18. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    20. Turnheim, Bruno & Geels, Frank W., 2012. "Regime destabilisation as the flipside of energy transitions: Lessons from the history of the British coal industry (1913–1997)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-49.
    21. Christian Longhi, 1999. "Networks, Collective Learning and Technology Development in Innovative High Technology Regions: The Case of Sophia-Antipolis," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(4), pages 333-342.
    22. Richard R. Nelson, 1959. "The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67, pages 297-297.
    23. Prebisch, Raúl, 1950. "The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems," Sede de la CEPAL en Santiago (Estudios e Investigaciones) 29973, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    24. Ted London & Stuart L Hart, 2004. "Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: beyond the transnational model," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 35(5), pages 350-370, September.
    25. Soete, Luc, 1985. "International diffusion of technology, industrial development and technological leapfrogging," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 409-422, March.
    26. Joanna Chataway & Rebecca Hanlin & Raphael Kaplinsky, 2014. "Inclusive innovation: an architecture for policy development," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 33-54, April.
    27. Kaplinsky, Raphael, 2011. "Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 193-203, March.
    28. Linsu Kim, 1999. "Learning and Innovation in Economic Development," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1690.
    29. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    30. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    31. Link, Albert N & Scott, John T, 2003. "The Growth of Research Triangle Park," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 167-175, March.
    32. Moses Abramovitz, 1956. "Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number abra56-1, January.
    33. Jorde, Thomas M & Teece, David J, 1990. "Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
    34. Moses Abramovitz, 1956. "Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870," NBER Chapters, in: Resource and Output Trends in the United States since 1870, pages 1-23, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    35. Markard, Jochen & Raven, Rob & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 955-967.
    36. Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2010. "Economics of Technology Policy," 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 1181-1218, Elsevier.
    37. Ron Boschma, 2005. "Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(1), pages 61-74.
    38. Peter Tindemans, 2009. "Post-war Research, Education and Innovation Policy-making in Europe," Chapters, in: Henri Delanghe & Ugur Muldur & Luc Soete (ed.), European Science and Technology Policy, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    39. Elizabeth Garnsey & Paul Heffernan, 2005. "High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: The Cambridge case," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(8), pages 1127-1144.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Diercks, Gijs & Larsen, Henrik & Steward, Fred, 2019. "Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 880-894.
    2. Harabi, Najib, 1994. "Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz: Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht [Technischer Fortschritt in der Schweiz:Empirische Ergebnisse aus industrieökonomischer Sicht]," MPRA Paper 6725, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Archibugi, Daniele & Filippetti, Andrea, 2018. "The retreat of public research and its adverse consequences on innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 97-111.
    4. Laatsit, Mart & Grillitsch, Markus & Fünfschilling, Lea, 2022. "Great expectations: the promises and limits of innovation policy in addressing societal challenges," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/9, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    5. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    6. Iizuka, Michiko & Hane, Gerald, 2021. "Transformation towards sustainable development goals: Role of innovation ecosystems for inclusive, disruptive advances in five Asian case studies," MERIT Working Papers 2021-001, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    7. Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2010. "Economics of Technology Policy," 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 1181-1218, Elsevier.
    8. Dierk Bauknecht & Allan Dahl Andersen & Karoline Dunne, 2020. "Challenges for electricity network governance in Energy transitions: Insights from Norway," Working Papers on Innovation Studies 20200115, Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, University of Oslo.
    9. Quintas, Paul & Guy, Ken, 1995. "Collaborative, pre-competitive R&D and the firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 325-348, May.
    10. Rakas, Marija & Hain, Daniel S., 2019. "The state of innovation system research: What happens beneath the surface?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    11. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    12. Simeth, Markus & Lhuillery, Stephane, 2015. "How do firms develop capabilities for scientific disclosure?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(7), pages 1283-1295.
    13. Markard, Jochen, 2020. "The life cycle of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    14. Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S. & Howlett, Michael, 2019. "Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    15. Stephan, Paula E., 2010. "The Economics of Science," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 217-273, Elsevier.
    16. Tijssen, Robert J. W., 2004. "Is the commercialisation of scientific research affecting the production of public knowledge?: Global trends in the output of corporate research articles," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 709-733, July.
    17. 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).
    18. Oliver Falck & Anita Fichtl & Tobias Lohse & Friederike Welter & Heike Belitz & Cedric von der Hellen & Carsten Dreher & Carsten Schwäbe & Dietmar Harhoff & Monika Schnitzer & Uschi Backes-Gellner & C, 2019. "Steuerliche Forschungsförderung: Wichtiger Impuls für FuE-Aktivitäten oder zu wenig zielgerichtet?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 72(09), pages 03-25, May.
    19. Matthias Firgo & Peter Mayerhofer, 2015. "Wissens-Spillovers und regionale Entwicklung - welche strukturpolitische Ausrichtung optimiert des Wachstum?," Working Paper Reihe der AK Wien - Materialien zu Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 144, Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien, Abteilung Wirtschaftswissenschaft und Statistik.
    20. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:9:p:1554-1567. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    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.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.