Advertisement

Innovation policy mix: mapping and measurement

  • Dirk MeissnerEmail author
  • Sandrine Kergroach
Article
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

The “policy mix” concept has gained popularity among science, technology and innovation policy communities over the past two decades in a context of growing policy complexity and need for policy evidence. Pressing societal challenges are also prompting governments to rethink policy making in order to better align public intervention across policy domains and leverage the transformative potential of system innovations. Governments faced multiple obstacles in implementing a policy mix approach in policy making and evaluation. Based on a comparative analysis of international STI policy repositories, a conceptual framework is proposed, as well as structuring principles and operational guidelines for mapping the composition of a policy mix, identifying interactions among components and translating the mapping into measurement. In that view, a range of new policy mix metrics is introduced. Finally, the discussion focuses on the need for moving towards a new data management paradigm and enlarging the measurement mix.

Keywords

Innovation policy Technology policy STI policy mix 

JEL Classification

A1 F63 H4 I2 M2 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Ester Basri, Mario Cervantes and Alessandra Colecchia, former Secretaries of the OECD Working Parties of Research Institutions and Human Resources, Innovation and Technology Policy, and National Experts of Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) respectively, for their support in the early developments of this work. Thanks to Dominique Guellec and colleagues of the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation, OECD Directorate for Public Governance and Territorial Development and OECD Environment Directorate as well as colleagues of the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation for enlightening discussions in the course of this research. Last but not least, thanks for their pivotal role in supporting the EC/OECD STI Policy Survey and developing its first generation database: Julien Chicot, Sylvain Fraccola, Nils de Jaeger, Naoya Ono, Inmaculada Perianez-Forte, Chiara Petroli, Samuel Pinto-Ribeiro, Jakob Pruess, Blandine Serve, Charlotte van Ooijen and Tomomi Watanabe. Dirk Meissner’s contribution to this article is based on the study funded by the Basic Research Program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and by the Russian Academic Excellence Project ‘5-100’.

Supplementary material

10961_2019_9767_MOESM1_ESM.docx (430 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 429 kb)

References

  1. Amorós, J. E., Poblete, C., & Mandakovic, V. (2019). R&D transfer, policy and innovative ambitious entrepreneurship: Evidence from Latin American countries. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(5), 1396–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnold, E. (2004). Evaluating research and innovation policy: A systems world needs systems evaluations. Research Evaluation,13(1), 3–17.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154404781776509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borras, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Innovation studies 2013/4, Lund University, Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy (CIRCLE).Google Scholar
  4. Centro de Altos Estudios Universitarios (CAEU). (2017). Plataforma en línea de politicas CTI, Observatorio CTS del CAEU. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.politicascti.net/.
  5. Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL). (2007). Ciencia y Tecnología para el Desarrollo, Manual de Políticas Públicas, CEPAL. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.cepal.org/iyd/.
  6. David, P. A., & Foray, D. (1995). Accessing and expanding the science and technology knowledge base. STI review, no. 16, special issue on innovation and standards. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  7. EC. (2009a). ERAWATCH country report 2009: Analysis of policy mixes to foster R&D investment and to contribute to the ERA. Seville: Directorate General Research, Joint Research Centre—Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.Google Scholar
  8. EC. (2009b). INNO-policy TrendChart: Innovation policy progress report, France 2009.Google Scholar
  9. EC/OECD. (2016). International science, technology and innovation policy database (STIP), formerly OECD STI outlook policy database, editions 2012, 2014 and 2016. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from www.innovationpolicyplatform.org/ecoecd-stip-database.
  10. EC/OECD. (2018). STIP compass international database on STI policies. Retrieved January 07, 2019, from https://stip.oecd.org/stip.html.
  11. Edler, J., Berger, M., Dinges, M., & Gök, A. (2012). The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe. Research Evaluation,21(3), 167–182.  https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Flanagan, K., & Laredo, P. (2013). Innovation policy mix and instrument interaction: A review. National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) working paper 13/20, November. Retrieved September 12, 2019, from www.nesta.org.uk/wp13-20.
  13. Edler, J., & Fagerberg, J. (2017). Innovation policy: What, why, and how. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,33(1), 2–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emiliozzi, S., Lemarchand, G. A., & Gordon, A. (2009). Inventario de instrumentos y modelos de políticas de ciencia, tecnología e Innovación en América Latina y el Caribe, IDB-Redes working paper no. 9. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from www.scribd.com/document/356977976/Emiliozzi-Lemarchand-Gordon-pdf.
  15. Flanagan, K., Uyarra E., & Laranja M. (2010). The policy mix for innovation: Rethinking innovation policy in a multi-level, multi-actor context, Munich personal RePEc archive (MPRA) no. 23567, July. www.econstor.eu/obitstream/10419/50675/1/65692165X.pdf.
  16. Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., & Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy,40(5), 702–713.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghazinoory, S., Maghsoud, A., Soroush, G., & Parisa, A. (2019). Designing innovation policy mix: A multi-objective decision-making approach. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,28(4), 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (2002). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy,21(1), 49–76.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guy, K., Boekholt, P., Cunningham, P., Hofer, R., Nauwelaers, C., & Rammer, C. (2009). Designing policy mixes: Enhancing innovation system performance and R&D investments levels. The ‘policy mix’ project: Monitoring and analysis of policies and public financing instruments conducive to higher levels of R&D investments, The “policy mix” project: Thematic report R&D—R&D policy interactions Vienna. Joanneum Research.Google Scholar
  20. Howlett, M. (2005). What is a policy instrument? Policy tools, policy mixes, and policy-implementation styles. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in new governance arrangements. Policy and Society,26(4), 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1449-4035(07)70118-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evidence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kergroach, S. (2009). New metrics on innovation policy mix: Can we exploit and further develop the EU ‘Inno Policy TrendChart’?. In Presentation and brainstorming at OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, 13 August, Paris.Google Scholar
  24. Kergroach, S. (2010). Monitoring innovation and policies: Developing indicators for analysing the innovation policy mix. In OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, room document presented at the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy meeting, 13–15 December, Paris.Google Scholar
  25. Kergroach, S. (2017). Innovation policy mix: Conceptual and operational approach in the OECD STI Outlook 2012–2014–2016. In: Eu-SPRI Forum & AIT Austrian Institute of Technology (Eds.), Book of abstracts. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Eu-SPRI Forum: The future of STI—The future of STI policy, Tech Gate Vienna, 7–9 June (pp. 1–578). Vienna: AIT. Retrieved June 10, 2019, from http://euspri-vienna2017.org/abstracts/.
  26. Kergroach, S. (2018). National innovation policies for technology upgrading through GVCs: A Cross-country comparison. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kergroach, S., Meissner, D., & Vonortas, N. S. (2017). Technology transfer and commercialisation by universities and PRIs: Benchmarking OECD country policy approaches. Economics of Innovation and New Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2017.1376167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy,45(1), 205–217.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kotsemir, M., & Meissner, D. (2013). Conceptualizing the innovation process: Trends and outlook. Higher School of Economics research paper no. WP BPR, 10.Google Scholar
  30. Maghe, V., & Cincera, M. (2016). Implementation of innovation policy in a national innovation system perspective: A typology. OECD Blue Sky Forum on Science and Innovation indicators, 19–21 September 2016, Ghent (Belgium). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.oecd.org/sti/072%20-%20NIS%20Typology_MagheCincera.pdf.
  31. Magro, E., & Wilson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy,42(2013), 1647–1656.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meissner, D., Polt, W., & Vonortas, N. S. (2017). Towards a broad understanding of innovation and its importance for innovation policy. The Journal of Technology Transfer,42(5), 1184–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Metcalfe, S. (1995). The economic foundations of technology policy: Equilibrium and evolutionary perspectives. In P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the economics of innovation and technological change. Oxford: Backwell.Google Scholar
  34. Mundell, R. (1962). The appropriate use of monetary and fiscal policy for internal and external stability. Washington (US): International Monetary Fund Staff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nauwelaers, C., Boekholk, P., Mostert, B., Cunningham, P., Guy, K., Hofer, R., & Rammer, C. (2009). Policy mix for R&D in Europe, report to the EC’s Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Maastricht. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from http://www.eurosfaire.prd.fr/7pc/doc/1249471847_policy_mixes_rd_ue_2009.pdf.
  36. Neicu, D., Teirlinck, P., & Kelchtermans, S. (2016). Dipping in the policy mix: Do R&D subsidies foster behavioral additionality effects of R&D tax credits? Economics of Innovation and New Technology,25(3), 218–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National systems of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. OECD. (1996). Building policy coherence: Tools and tensions. Public management occasional papers, no. 12, Paris.Google Scholar
  39. OECD. (1998). Special issue on new rationale and approaches in technology and innovation policy, STI review (Vol. 1998). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  40. OECD. (1999). Managing national innovation systems. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189416-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. OECD. (2001). Innovation and productivity in services. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264189997-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. OECD. (2002). Frascati manual 2002: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, the measurement of scientific and technological activities. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264199040-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD. (2006). Policy mix for innovation in Iceland. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. (2007a). Policy mix for innovation in Poland: Key issues and recommendations. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. (2007b). Instrument mixes for environmental policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264018419-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. OECD. (2010a). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved August 31, 2019, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2010-48-en.
  47. OECD. (2010b). OECD innovation strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264083479-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2010c). Main trends in science, technology and innovation policy. In OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2010-6-en.
  49. OECD. (2010d). Measuring innovation: A new perspective. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264059474-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD. (2012a). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2012-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD. (2012b). OECD science, technology and industry outlook policy database. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (2014). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2014. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. OECD. (2015a). Aligning policies for a low-carbon economy. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233294-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. OECD. (2015b). The innovation imperative: Contributing to productivity, growth and well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239814-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. OECD. (2015c). OECD science, technology and industry scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OECD. (2015d). OECD Frascati manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on research and experimental development. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. OECD. (2015e). OECD country reviews of innovation policy, Retrieved February 17, 2017, from www.oecd.org/sti/inno/oecdreviewsofinnovationpolicy.htm.
  58. OECD. (2016a). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2016. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD. (2016b). System innovation: Synthesis report. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  60. OECD. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation (4th ed.). Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. OECD. (2019). OECD SME and Entrepreneurship Outlook 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/34907e9c-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. OECD, FEYCT. (2007). R&D and innovation in Spain: Improving the policy mix. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264065673-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. OECD/World Bank. (2019). Innovation policy platform. Retrieved June 22, 2019, from https://www.innovationpolicyplatform.org.
  64. Osorio, L., & Sánchez Macchioli, P. (2016). Protocolo de relevamiento de información. Plataforma Políticas CTI. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://goo.gl/f4pPkd.
  65. Ringeling, A. (2005). Instruments in four: The elements of policy design. In P. Eliadis, M. Hill, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rogge, K. S., Kern, F., & Howlett, M. (2017). Conceptual and empirical advances in analysing policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 1–10.Google Scholar
  67. Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2013). Towards a more comprehensive policy mix conceptualization for environmental technological change: A literature synthesis. Fraunhofer ISI, working paper sustainability and innovation no. 3. Retrieved June 30, 2019, from http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-wAssets/docs/e-x/de/working-papers-sustainability-and-innovation/WP03-2013_policy-mix-conceptualization.pdf?WSESSIONID=e6b99c1d811c638df0a2a927904731f8.
  68. Rogge, K. S., & Reichardt, K. (2016). Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy,45, 1620–1635.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rothgang, M., Dehio, J., & Lageman, B. (2017). Analysing the effects of cluster policy: What can we learn from the German leading-edge cluster competition? The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(6), 1673–1697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sheehan, J., Martínez, C., Kergroach, S., & Tamura, S. (2005). Promoting Innovation in Services. In OECD (Ed.), Enhancing the performance of the services sector. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264010307-8-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal Foresight and Innovation Policy,1(1–2), 4–32.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Švarc, J., & Dabić, M. (2019). The Croatian path from socialism to European membership through the lens of technology transfer policies. The Journal of Technology Transfer,44(5), 1476–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. UNESCO. (2011). Global observatory on science, technology and innovation policy instruments (GOSPIN): Concept paper. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/GO-SPIN_Concept.pdf.
  74. UNESCO. (2013). Tutorial para el uso de la plataforma SPIN. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://spin.unesco.org.uy/docs/tutorialSpin.pdf.
  75. UNESCO. (2014). Proposed standard practice for surveys on Science, Engineering, Technology and Innovation (SETI) Policy Instruments, SETI Governing Bodies, SETI Legal Framework and Policies. Retrieved February 18, 2018, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002310/231017e.pdf.
  76. UNESCO. (2017). Science policy information network (Spin), science policy information in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved February 18, 2017, from http://spin.unesco.org.uy/en/index.php.
  77. UNESCO. (2018). Go-spin global observatory of science, technology and innovation policy instruments. Retrieved January 07, 2019, from https://gospin.unesco.org.
  78. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: Typologies and theories. In M. Bemelmans-Videc, R. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, sticks, and sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Veugelers, R. (2015). Mixing and matching research and innovation policies in EU countries. Bruegel working paper 2015/16. Retrieved May 16, 2019, from http://bruegel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/WP-2015_16.pdf.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Organization for Economic Cooperation and DevelopmentParisFrance

Personalised recommendations