IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v14y2023i4d10.1007_s13132-023-01487-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Schumpeter’s Innovations Responsible? A Reflection on the Concept of Responsible (Research and) Innovation from a Neo-Schumpeterian Perspective

Author

Listed:
  • K. Śledzik

    (University of Gdansk)

  • A. Szmelter-Jarosz

    (University of Gdansk)

  • E. Kalpazidou Schmidt

    (Aarhus University)

  • K. Bielawski

    (University of Gdansk & Medical University of Gdansk)

  • A. Declich

    (University of Rome TorVergata)

Abstract

Responsible research and innovation (RRI) has gained significant traction in recent decades. However, the previous discussions on RRI have overlooked the economic dimension of innovation, which is encompassed by the perspective of Neo-Schumpeterian economics (N-SE). This paper aims to bridge the gap between the theories of responsible innovation (RI) and RRI and the underlying assumptions of N-SE. We seek to clarify the concept of responsible (research and) innovation — R(R)I. N-SE inherently recognizes the involvement of diverse stakeholders, including society and the public sector, as entrepreneurs driving and implementing innovation while assuming responsibility for its effects and consequences. In this respect, N-SE aligns with the responsible innovation concept discussed within the R(R)I framework. The paper addresses the fundamental question: What are the shared areas of interest between R(R)I and N-SE? This exploration enhances our understanding and facilitates the practical implementation of R(R)I in the context of N-SE, thereby promoting ethical, socially beneficial, and sustainable technological advancements.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Śledzik & A. Szmelter-Jarosz & E. Kalpazidou Schmidt & K. Bielawski & A. Declich, 2023. "Are Schumpeter’s Innovations Responsible? A Reflection on the Concept of Responsible (Research and) Innovation from a Neo-Schumpeterian Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 14(4), pages 5065-5085, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:14:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s13132-023-01487-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-023-01487-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-023-01487-3
    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/s13132-023-01487-3?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. Theo Papaioannou & Smita Srinivas, 2019. "Innovation as a political process of development: are neo-Schumpeterians value neutral?," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 141-158, January.
    2. Joanna Morawska-Jancelewicz, 2022. "The Role of Universities in Social Innovation Within Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Model: Practical Implications from Polish Experience," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(3), pages 2230-2271, September.
    3. Christopher Foster & Richard Heeks, 2013. "Conceptualising Inclusive Innovation: Modifying Systems of Innovation Frameworks to Understand Diffusion of New Technology to Low-Income Consumers," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 25(3), pages 333-355, July.
    4. Snyder, Hannah, 2019. "Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 333-339.
    5. Witt, Ulrich, 2014. "The future of evolutionary economics: why the modalities of explanation matter," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 645-664, December.
    6. Elias G. Carayannis & David F. J. Campbell, 2021. "Democracy of Climate and Climate for Democracy: the Evolution of Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 12(4), pages 2050-2082, December.
    7. Ulrich Witt, 2008. "What is specific about evolutionary economics?," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 547-575, October.
    8. Les Levidow & Theo Papaioannou, 2018. "Which inclusive innovation? Competing normative assumptions around social justice," Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 209-226, July.
    9. Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1947. "The Creative Response in Economic History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 149-159, November.
    10. Raj Kumar Thapa & Tatiana Iakovleva & Lene Foss, 2019. "Responsible research and innovation: a systematic review of the literature and its applications to regional studies," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(12), pages 2470-2490, December.
    11. Andreas Pyka & Esben Andersen, 2012. "Introduction: long term economic development – demand, finance, organization, policy and innovation in a Schumpeterian perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 621-625, September.
    12. Dopfer,Kurt (ed.), 2005. "The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521621991, Enero-Abr.
    13. Loet Leydesdorff, 2012. "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 3(1), pages 25-35, March.
    14. Joseph A. Schumpeter, 1949. "English Economists and the State-Managed Economy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(5), pages 371-371.
    15. 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.
    16. Khan, Shumaisa S. & Timotijevic, Lada & Newton, Rachel & Coutinho, Daniela & Llerena, José Luis & Ortega, Santiago & Benighaus, Ludger & Hofmaier, Christian & Xhaferri, Zamira & de Boer, Alie & Urban,, 2016. "The framing of innovation among European research funding actors: Assessing the potential for ‘responsible research and innovation’ in the food and health domain," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 78-87.
    17. 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.
    18. Genus, Audley & Stirling, Andy, 2018. "Collingridge and the dilemma of control: Towards responsible and accountable innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 61-69.
    19. Joanna Chataway & David Wield, 2000. "Industrialization, innovation and development: what does knowledge management change?," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(6), pages 803-824.
    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. Helka Kalliomäki & Johanna Kalliokoski & Thomas Woodson & Leena Kunttu & Jari Kuusisto, 2024. "Inclusion as a science, technology, and innovation policy objective in high-income countries: the decoupling dilemma," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(5), pages 795-807.
    2. Rothgang, Michael & Lageman, Bernhard, 2021. "Kairos in Innovation Policy: Theoretical Background and Practical Implications for the Triple Helix," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 231-281.
    3. Rahmeyer Fritz, 2013. "Schumpeter, Marshall, and Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Economics: A Critical Stocktaking," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 233(1), pages 39-64, February.
    4. Mortazavi, Sina & Eslami, Mohammad H. & Hajikhani, Arash & Väätänen, Juha, 2021. "Mapping inclusive innovation: A bibliometric study and literature review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 736-750.
    5. Fritz Rahmeyer, 2010. "A Neo-Darwinian Foundation of Evolutionary Economics. With an Application to the Theory of the Firm," Discussion Paper Series 309, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    6. Ndege, Nora & Marshall, Fiona & Byrne, Rob, 2024. "Exploring inclusive innovation: A case study in operationalizing inclusivity in digital agricultural innovations in Kenya," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    7. Bokolo Anthony, 2024. "The Role of Community Engagement in Urban Innovation Towards the Co-Creation of Smart Sustainable Cities," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 1592-1624, March.
    8. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    9. Rafael A. Araque-Padilla & Maria Jose Montero-Simo, 2022. "The Dynamics behind the Likelihood of Adopting Inclusive Agrarian Innovations in Disadvantaged Central American Communities," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Joana Costa & Inês Amorim & João Reis & Nuno Melão, 2023. "User communities: from nice-to-have to must-have," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-35, December.
    11. Kok, Kristiaan P.W. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2023. "Addressing the politics of mission-oriented agricultural innovation systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    12. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2013. "The Economic Complexity of Innovation as a Creative Response," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201326, University of Turin.
    13. Tatiana Iakovleva & Elin Oftedal & John Bessant, 2021. "Changing Role of Users—Innovating Responsibly in Digital Health," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    14. Yunhui Zhao & Zhimin Wang & Taiwen Feng & Ting Kong & Qiansong Zhang, 2022. "Organizational unlearning and inclusive innovation: The moderating role of green control ambidexterity," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(4), pages 539-555, August.
    15. Francesco Feri & Miguel Meléndez-Jiménez, 2013. "Coordination in evolving networks with endogenous decay," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 955-1000, November.
    16. Pilag Kakeu, Charles Bertin & Miamo Wendji, Clovis & Kouhomou, Clémence Zite & Mapa Kamdoum, Généviève Christel, 2024. "Can technological innovations contribute to more overcome the issue of poverty reduction in africa?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    17. Cristiano Antonelli, 2017. "Endogenous innovation: the creative response," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(8), pages 689-718, November.
    18. Kurt Dopfer, 2011. "Mesoeconomics: A Unified Approach to Systems Complexity and Evolution," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Calderini, Mario & Fia, Magali & Gerli, Francesco, 2023. "Organizing for transformative innovation policies: The role of social enterprises. Theoretical insights and evidence from Italy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(7).
    20. Michael Peneder, 2017. "Competitiveness and industrial policy: from rationalities of failure towards the ability to evolve," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 41(3), pages 829-858.

    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:jknowl:v:14:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s13132-023-01487-3. 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.