IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mod/depeco/0586.html

Innovation policy in a complexity perspective: levels and levers for policy intervention

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Rossi

  • Margherita Russo

Abstract

We investigate to what extent and how the adoption of a complexity-based perspective to innovation (Lane and Maxfield, 1996, 1997, 2005; Lane et al., 2008; Read et al, 2008; Russo, 2000) can support policymakers in their quest to implement effective interventions, able to foster innovation processes and to create structures that sustain them over time. We argue that broad attempts at theorizing innovation processes do not lend themselves to a quick translation into simple ‘policy recipes’, because conceptualizing innovation as a complex multi-level process implies that it is not possible to devise context-independent ways to support it: improved theoretical understanding of innovation processes should not aim to provide policymakers with simple encompassing solutions, but it should help them formulate and address questions that are appropriate to the particular context within which they operate. In line with this approach, we present our analysis of a specific policy experiment, the ‘Technological Innovation in Tuscany’ programme (henceforth RPIA-ITT). In this context - drawing upon a dynamic interactionist theory of innovation whose main building blocks are the concepts of generative relationships, competence networks, scaffolding structures and the role of narrative in driving action in situations characterized by ontological uncertainty (Lane, Malerba, Maxfield and Orsenigo, 1996; Lane and Maxfield, 1997, 2005, 2008; Russo, 2000, 2005) – we have been able to identify methodological and analytical tools that can be applied to policy design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation activities. We conclude with some broader implications for innovation policy as well as an agenda for future research.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2008. "Innovation policy in a complexity perspective: levels and levers for policy intervention," Department of Economics 0586, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
  • Handle: RePEc:mod:depeco:0586
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dep.unimore.it/materiali_discussione/0586.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    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. Konduru, Srinivasa & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas G. & Magnier, Alexandre, 2009. "GMO Testing Strategies and Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach," 2009 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, 2009, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 49594, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. König, Philipp J. & Pothier, David, 2018. "Safe but fragile: Information acquisition, sponsor support and shadow bank runs," Discussion Papers 15/2018, Deutsche Bundesbank.
    3. Alessandro Morselli, 2024. "The Conventionalist Approach in the Analysis of Unemployment," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2024(2), pages 149-161.
    4. Ritu Agarwal & Michelle Dugas & Guodong (Gordon) Gao & P. K. Kannan, 2020. "Emerging technologies and analytics for a new era of value-centered marketing in healthcare," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 9-23, January.
    5. Villas-Boas, Sofia B, 2020. "Reduced Form Evidence on Belief Updating Under Asymmetric Information," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt08c456vk, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    6. Yaofeng Fu & Ruokun Huang & Yiran Sheng, 2017. "Labor Contract Law -An Economic View," Papers 1702.03977, arXiv.org.
    7. Eunsoo Kim & Suyon Kim & Jaehong Lee, 2021. "Do Foreign Investors Affect Carbon Emission Disclosure? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-14, September.
    8. Johannes Abeler & Armin Falk & Fabian Kosse, 2025. "Malleability of Preferences for Honesty," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 135(667), pages 982-998.
    9. Andrea Attar & Thomas Mariotti & François Salanié, 2020. "The Social Costs of Side Trading," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1608-1622.
    10. Tahir Andrabi & Jishnu Das & Asim Ijaz Khwaja, 2017. "Report Cards: The Impact of Providing School and Child Test Scores on Educational Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1535-1563, June.
    11. Cowling, Marc & Ughetto, Elisa & Lee, Neil, 2018. "The innovation debt penalty: Cost of debt, loan default, and the effects of a public loan guarantee on high-tech firms," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 166-176.
    12. Björn Vollan & Karla Henning & Deniza Staewa, 2017. "Do campaigns featuring impact evaluations increase donations? Evidence from a survey experiment," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(4), pages 500-518, October.
    13. Jitender Singh, 2016. "Quality of Public Goods, Public Policy and Human Development: A State-wise Analysis," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 10(2), pages 215-235, August.
    14. Alessandro Spiganti, 2022. "Wealth Inequality and the Exploration of Novel Alternatives," Working Papers 2022:02, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    15. Pietro Tebaldi, 2015. "Estimating Equilibrium in Health Insurance Exchanges: Analysis of the Californian Market under the ACA," Discussion Papers 15-012, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    16. John McMillan, 2003. "Market Design: The Policy Uses of Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 139-144, May.
    17. Hyojoung Kim & Doyoung Kim & Subin Im & James W. Hardin, 2009. "Evidence of Asymmetric Information in the Automobile Insurance Market: Dichotomous Versus Multinomial Measurement of Insurance Coverage," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 76(2), pages 343-366, June.
    18. Haisken-DeNew, John & Hasan, Syed & Jha, Nikhil & Sinning, Mathias, 2018. "Unawareness and selective disclosure: The effect of school quality information on property prices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 449-464.
    19. Patrick W. Schmitz, 2006. "Book Review," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 162(3), pages 535-542, September.
    20. Pavel Ciaian & Ján Pokrivčák & Dušan Drabik, 2008. "Prečo sú niektoré sektory v tranzitívnych ekonomikách menej reformované ako ostatné? prípad výskumu a vzdelávania v oblasti ekonómie [Why some sectors of transition economies are less reformed than others? the case of economic research and educati," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(6), pages 819-836.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O25 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Development Planning and Policy - - - Industrial Policy
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • 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:mod:depeco:0586. 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: Sara Colombini (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demodit.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.