An Analytical Introduction to the Generations of Innovation Policy Studies; Intellectual Origins and Policy Strategies

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Department of Information Technology Management, Faculty of Management and Economics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Associate Professor at Department of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabataba’i University

Abstract

Innovation policy studies contain a broad mix of approaches with different intellectual foundations on why and how to lead innovation in the interests of society. The purpose of this article is to identify and describe the mainstream theories during the historical evolution of Innovation policy studies and to explain the differences between the responses of these theories to the main questions of innovation policy. In this way, a collection of highly cited research publications on science, technology, and innovation policy from 1950 to 2020 has been studied and thematically analyzed. As the result of this study, by extracting key themes from research publications, six generations of innovation policy introduced, each of them emerged and expanded in a different historical period, and are from the first generation (the 1940s) to the sixth (present decade), respectively: Linear; Traditional mission-oriented; Normative; Systematic; Transformative; And New mission-oriented innovation policy. The theoretical evolution of innovation policy generations shows that along with broadening the meaning of innovation and identifying more reasons for its failure, more reasons and justifications for the government's role in compensating the innovation failures have been introduced. This study shows that based on the insights of recent generations of studies, the innovation policy agenda should be formulated with the participation of different social groups, in various industrial and social fields and considering social and environmental costs.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

منابع فارسی
قمشی، م. (5931). درس‌هایی که باید از سرنوشت سد گتوند آموخت. مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، 6(02)، 381-781.
خواجوی، پ. (5931). بررسی مسائل و مشکلات سیاست‌گذاری آب، خاک و امنیت غذایی در ایران. مطالعات راهبردی سیاست‌گذاری عمومی، 6(20)، 561-081.
 
References
Araei, V., Ghasemi, A., & Alavian, M. (2021). [The policy-making of the forests of northern Iran as a policy wicked problem; Strategic recommendations (Persian)]. Strategic Studies of public policy, 11(39), 326-350. [Link]
Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative research, 1(3), 385-405. [DOI:10.1177/146879410100100307]
Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., & Orsenigo, L. (2010). In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy, 39(1), 1-13. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2009.09.013]
Boekholt, P. (2010) The evolution of innovation policy paradigms and its effects on research, technological development and innovation policy instruments. In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds), The theory and practice of innovation policy (pp. 333-59). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. [Link]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
Cantner, U., & Pyka, A. (2001). Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Research Policy, 30(5), 759-775. [DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00104-9]
Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1998). Regional systems of innovation: An evolutionary perspective. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(9), 1563-1584. [DOI:10.1068/a301563]
Diercks, G., Larsen, H., & Steward, F. (2019). Transformative innovation policy: Addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm. Research Policy, 48(4), 880-894. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.028]
Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(1), 2-23. [DOI:10.1093/oxrep/grx001]
Edler, J., Gök, A., Cunningham, P., & Shapira, P. (2016). Introduction: Making sense of innovation policy. In J. Edler, P. Cunningham, & A. Gök (Eds.), Handbook of innovation policy impact (pp. 1-17). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. [DOI:10.4337/9781784711856.00008]
Edquist, C. (2010). Systems of innovation perspectives and challenges. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2(3), 14-45. [Link]
Ergas, H. (2009). The importance of technology policy. In P. Dasgupta, & P. Stoneman (Eds.), Economic policy and technological performance (pp. 51-96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9780511559938.005]
Fagerberg, J. (2018). Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy. Research Policy, 47(9), 1568-1576. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.012]
Fagerberg, J., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Innovation studies-The emerging structure of a new scientific field. Research Policy, 38(2), 218-233. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2008.12.006]
Fagerberg, J., Fosaas, M., & Sapprasert, K. (2012). Innovation: Exploring the knowledge base. Research Policy, 41(7), 1132-1153. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.008]
Fagerberg, J., Martin, B. R., & Andersen, E. S. (2013). Innovation studies: Towards a new agenda. In J. Fagerberg, B. R. Martin, & E. S. Anderson (Eds.), Innovation studies: Evolution and future challenges (pp. 1-20). Oxford: Oxford University Press University Press [DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199686346.001.0001]
Foray, D., Mowery, D. C., & Nelson, R. R. (2012). Public R&D; and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D; programs? Research Policy, 41(10), 1697-1702. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2012.07.011]
Gassler, H., Polt, W., & Rammer, C. (2007). Priority setting in research & technology policy-historical developments and recent trends. Vienna: Joanneum Research. [Link]
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274. [DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8]
Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., Ameri, F., Montazer, G. A., & Shayan, A. (2020). Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’for solving macro-level societal problems? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, 119749. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119749]
Ghazinoory, S., Narimani, M., & Tatina, S. (2017). Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: Convergence of policy implications. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27(3), 555-583. [DOI:10.1007/s00191-017-0490-z]
Gohari, A., Eslamian, S., Mirchi, A., Abedi-Koupaei, J., Bavani, A. M., & Madani, K. (2013). Water transfer as a solution to water shortage: A fix that can backfire. Journal of Hydrology, 491, 23-39. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.021]
Jänicke, M. (1985). Preventive environmental policy as ecological modernisation and structural policy. Berlin: Internationales Institut für Umwelt und Gesellschaft des Wissentschaftszentrums.
Kashani, E. S., & Roshani, S. (2019). Evolution of innovation system literature: Intellectual bases and emerging trends. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 68-80. [DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.010]
Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175-198. [DOI:10.1080/09537329808524310]
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., & Wieczorek, A. (2019). An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32. [DOI:10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004]
Lundvall, B. Å., & Borrás, S. (2006). Science, technology and innovation policy. In J. Fagerberg, & D. C. Mowery (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 599-631). Oxford: Oxford Academic [DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286805.003.0022]
Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955-967. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013]
Martin, B. R. (2012). The evolution of science policy and innovation studies. Research Policy, 41(7), 1219-1239. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.012]
Mazzucato, M. (2015). Innovation systems: From fixing market failures to creating markets. Revista do Serviço Público, 66(4), 627-640. [DOI:10.21874/rsp.v66i4.1303]
Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815. [DOI:10.1093/icc/dty034]
Miremadi, T. (2019). [The emerging trends of STI Policy (Persian)]. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 619-633.[Link]
Nelson, R. R. (1985). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. [Link]
Pack, H., & Saggi, K. (2006). Is there a case for industrial policy? A critical survey. The World Bank Research Observer, 21(2), 267-297. [DOI:10.1093/wbro/lkl001]
Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive: Ending the stalemate. Harvard Business Review, 73, 5. [Link]
Robinson, D. K., & Mazzucato, M. (2019). The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector. Research Policy, 48(4), 936-948. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.005]
Schot, J., & Steinmueller, W. E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011]
Shokatian, T., & Ghazinoory, S. (2019). [Challenges of policy making in the realm of basic research (Persian)]. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(2), 347-361. [Link]
Smith, A. (2005). The alternative technology movement: An analysis of its framing and negotiation of technology development. Human Ecology Review, 12(2), 106-119. [Link]
Smith, A., Voß, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435-448. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023]
Tindemans, P. ( 2009). Post-war research, education and innovation policy-making Europe. In L. Soete, H. Delanghe, & U. Muldur (Eds.), European science and technology policy: Towards integration or fragmentation? (pp. 3-24). Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.[Link]
Tunzelmann, N. V., Malerba, F., Nightingale, P., & Metcalfe, S. (2008). Technological paradigms: Past, present and future. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(3), 467-484. [DOI:10.1093/icc/dtn012]
Weber, K. M., & Rohracher, H. (2012). Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: Combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive ‘failures’ framework. Research Policy, 41(6), 1037-1047. [DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.015]
Ghomshi, M. (2016). [Lessons that should be learned from the fate of Ghotvand (Persian)]. Strategic Studies of Public Policy , 6(20), 183-187. [Link]
Khajoy, P. (2016). [Investigating issues and problems of water, soil and food security policy in Iran (Persian)]. Strategic Studies of Public Policy , 6(20), 165-180. [Link]  
Strategic Studies of public policy
Volume 12, Issue 43
September 2022
Pages 28-51

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics