IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v48y2019i10s0048733318301550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies

Author

Listed:
  • Magro, Edurne
  • Wilson, James R.

Abstract

The policy mix concept has become popular in innovation policy literature. It is particularly relevant for complex challenges such as sustainable industrial transitions that require joined-up interventions from different policy domains. Yet finding the right policy mix for a given challenge is strongly conditioned by the governance context in which individual policies emerge and evolve over time. In particular, the evaluation of policy mixes in a regional context is often neglected.

Suggested Citation

  • Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2019. "Policy-mix evaluation: Governance challenges from new place-based innovation policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:10:s0048733318301550
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.06.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318301550
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Roberta Capello & Henning Kroll, 2016. "From theory to practice in smart specialization strategy: emerging limits and possible future trajectories," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 1393-1406, August.
    2. Edurne Magro & Mikel Navarro & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2014. "Coordination-Mix: The Hidden Face of STI Policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(5), pages 367-389, September.
    3. Mari José Aranguren & Edurne Magro & James R. Wilson, 2017. "Regional competitiveness policy in an era of smart specialization strategies," Chapters, in: Robert Huggins & Piers Thompson (ed.),Handbook of Regions and Competitiveness, chapter 25, pages 546-564, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan & Edurne Magro & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2017. "Anchoring the innovation impacts of public procurement to place: The role of conversations," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(5), pages 828-848, August.
    5. Elisabetta Marinelli & Inmaculada Perianez Forte, 2017. "Smart Specialisation at work: The entrepreneurial discovery as a continuous process," JRC Working Papers JRC108571, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    9. Erik Arnold, 2004. "Evaluating research and innovation policy: a systems world needs systems evaluations," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 3-17, April.
    10. Fetterman, David M., 1994. "Steps of empowerment evaluation: From California to Cape Town," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 305-313.
    11. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "R&D policy instruments -- a critical review of what we do and don’t know," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 157-176, February.
    12. Philip McCann & Raquel Ortega-Argilés, 2016. "The early experience of smart specialization implementation in EU cohesion policy," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(8), pages 1407-1427, August.
    13. Coenen, Lars & Benneworth, Paul & Truffer, Bernhard, 2012. "Toward a spatial perspective on sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 968-979.
    14. Mari Jose Aranguren & Edurne Magro & James R Wilson, 2017. "Regional competitiveness policy evaluation as a transformative process: From theory to practice," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 703-720, June.
    15. Hodson, Mike & Marvin, Simon, 2010. "Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 477-485, May.
    16. Magro, Edurne & Wilson, James R., 2013. "Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1647-1656.
    17. Shove, Elizabeth & Walker, Gordon, 2010. "Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 471-476, May.
    18. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Too Much or Not Enough Heterogeneity in Innovation Policies Among EU Member States? WWWforEurope Policy Brief No. 8," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 58554.
    19. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan, 2010. "From Regional Systems of Innovation to Regions as Innovation Policy Spaces," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(4), pages 681-695, August.
    20. Dominique Foray, 2013. "The economic fundamentals of smart specialisation," EKONOMIAZ. Revista vasca de Economía, Gobierno Vasco / Eusko Jaurlaritza / Basque Government, vol. 83(02), pages 55-82.
    21. Cristian Matti & Davide Consoli & Elvira Uyarra, 2017. "Multi level policy mixes and industry emergence: The case of wind energy in Spain," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 661-683, June.
    22. Michael Howlett & Jeremy Rayner, 2013. "Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 1(2), pages 170-182.
    23. 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.
    24. Kieron Flanagan & Elvira Uyarra, 2016. "Four dangers in innovation policy studies -- and how to avoid them," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 177-188, February.
    25. Carlo Gianelle & Alexander Kleibrink, 2015. "Monitoring Mechanisms for Smart Specialisation Strategies," JRC Working Papers JRC95458, Joint Research Centre (Seville site).
    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. Flanagan, Kieron & Uyarra, Elvira & Laranja, Manuel, 2011. "Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(5), pages 702-713, June.
    28. Todtling, Franz & Trippl, Michaela, 2005. "One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1203-1219, October.
    29. Lars Coenen & Bernhard Truffer, 2012. "Places and Spaces of Sustainability Transitions: Geographical Contributions to an Emerging Research and Policy Field," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 367-374, March.
    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. 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).
    2. Huang, Ping, 2019. "The verticality of policy mixes for sustainability transitions: A case study of solar water heating in China," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    3. Madeline Smith & James R. Wilson & Emily Wise, 2020. "Evaluating clusters: Where theory collides with practice," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 12(3), pages 413-430, June.
    4. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    5. Caiyan Jia & Xiaoyun Tang & Zhehan Kan, 2020. "Does the Nation Innovation System in China Support the Sustainability of Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Innovation?," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regional innovation policy; Policy mix; Policy evaluation; Governance; Smart specialisation strategies; Sustainable transitions;

    JEL classification:

    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    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:eee:respol:v:48:y:2019:i:10:s0048733318301550. 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: (Haili He). 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 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.

    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.