Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Rationales, Actors and Multi-Level Governance Relate to Innovation Policy-Mix

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus

  • 819 Accesses

Abstract

Design/Methodology: The chapter adopts a conceptual approach based on literature review.

Findings: On multi-rationales we argue that theories and the policy rationales from which they claim legitimacy are less explanatory of policies than concepts-ideas or evidence-based policy. On Multi-actors: I argue that there is today a wider diversity of actors and stakeholders that want to participate in the policy of “conception–implementation” cycle and that this calls for new forms of governance enabling higher and wider participatory governance. Also calls for a need to differentiate policy instruments according to policy targets. There is a need to consider the set of policies and instruments chosen (or not chosen), together with the interactions and interdependencies between policies (as they may affect such intended outcomes). We also find that there has not been enough research into policy dimensions such as policy-mixes, dynamic targeting or changing policy-mixes over time as this discussion needs to be done in relation to intended policy outcomes in a complex multi-rational, multi-actor, multi-governance setting and in a temporally distributed frame.

Practical Implications: This chapter provides conceptual guidance for regions and regional stakeholders on policy-making issues.

Policy Implications: Policy makers and stakeholders can utilize the proposed approach to understand how innovation policies are constructed, and what rationales, targets and mix of instruments to consider. This can be helpful in the development of the recent regional-based smart-specialization strategies and entrepreneurial discovery processes.

Originality/Value: The development of concepts that instruct policy makers, advisors, stakeholders on how to design and implement policies and respective policy that drive innovation and competitive performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abramovsky, L., Harrison R., Simpson H. (2004). Increasing innovative activity in the UK? Where now for government support for innovation and technology transfer? The Institute for Fiscal Studies. Briefing Note No. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1994). Living in the global. In A. Amin & N. Thrift (Eds.), Globalization, institutions, and regional development in Europe (pp. 1–22). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, E., & Thuriaux, B. (1997). Supporting companie’s technological capabilities. Brighton: Mimeo Technopolis Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asheim, B. T., & Gertler, M. S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bach L. (2006, March). Research and innovation policy: New rationales and new tools? The case of France. Paper presented to the Innovation Pressure International ProACT Conference (pp. 15–17). Tampere.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. J. (1991). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21(2), 215233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrás, S. (2009). The widening and deepening of innovation policy: What conditions provide for effective governance? CIRCLE Electronic Papers Working Paper Series 2009 – circle-lund.net.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridge, S., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Understanding enterprise: Entrepreneurship and small business (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G. & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and. Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959

  • Clarysse, B. & Duchêne, V. (2000, June). Participation of SMEs in government R&D programmes: Towards a segmented approach. Working Paper presented at the OECD-Working Group on Innovation and Technology Policy (pp. 20–21). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 945–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Asheim, B., Boshma, R., Martin, R., Schwartz, D., & Tödtling, F. (2011). Handbook of regional innovation and growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Diederen, P. 1999. Innovation and research policies: An international comparative analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making. Governance An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 13(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. W. (2001). Globalization and policy convergence. The International Studies Review, 3, 53–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university-industry- government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flemming, T. (2008). Chapter 11. Targeting creativity through the intermediary: Regional and local approaches in the UK and beyond. In D. Barrowclough & Z. Kozul-Wright (Eds.), Creative industries and developing countries: Voice, choice and economic growth. Routledge: Studies in Contemporary Political Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foray, D., David, P. A., Hall, B. H. (2009). Chapter 3. Smart specialisation – The concept. In Knowledge for growth: Prospects for science technology and innovation. Report EUR 24047, European Union. Also available as K4G Policy Brief No. 9 EC (DG Research). Available at http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-research/monitoring/knowledge_en.htm

  • Henriques, L., & Laredo, P. (2013, April). Policy-making in science policy: The ‘OECD model’ unveiled. Research Policy, 42(3), 801–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005, October). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2002). Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography. Urban Studies, 39(5–6), 871–884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy sub-systems (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laranja, M. (2009, January). The development of technology infrastructure in Portugal and the need to pull innovation using proactive intermediation policies. Technovation, 29(1), 23–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laranja, M., Uyarra, E., & Flanagan, K. (2008). Policies for science, technology and innovation: Translating rationales into regional policies in a multi-level setting. Research Policy, 37(5), 823–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Legrand, T. (2012). Overseas and over here: Policy transfer and evidence based policy-making. Policy Studies, 33(4), 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llerena, P., & Matt, M. (2006). Innovation policy in a knowledge-based economy: Theory and practice. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magro, E., & Willson, J. R. (2013). Complex innovation policy systems: Towards an evaluation mix. Research Policy, 42, 1647–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Background paper prepared for the workshop organized by the OECD LEED Program and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship. The Hague.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D., Quintas, P., & Wield, D. (1991). High tech fantasies: Science parks in society, science and space. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, J. S. (1995). Technology systems and technology policy in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19, 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mytelka, L. K., & Smith, K. (2002). Policy learning and innovation theory: An interactive and co-evolving process. Research Policy, 31(8), 1467–1479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nauwelaers, C., & Winthes, R. (2003). Towards a new paradigm for innovation policy? In B. T. Asheim, A. Isaksen, C. Nauwelaers, & F. Todtling (Eds.), Regional innovation policy for small- medium enterprises (pp. 193–220). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (1997). Small and medium enterprise outlook (pp. 72–73). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Small and medium enterprise outlook. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2011). Regions and innovation policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, S. (2002, February). Can policy making be evidence based? MCC Building Knowledge for Integrated Care, 10(1), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P., & Shih, W. C. (2012). Producing prosperity – Why America needs a manufacturing renaissance. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R., & Dodgson, E. M. (1989, February). Technology-based small and medium sized firms in Europe: The IRDAC results and their public policy implications. Science and Public Policy, 16(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmenkaita, J., & Salo, A. (2002, June 01). Rationales for government intervention in the commercialization of new technologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 14(2), 183–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smits, R. & Kulhman, S. (2004). The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. 1(1/2), 4–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teubal, M. (2002). What is the systems perspective to Innovation and Technology Policy (ITP) and can we apply it to developing and newly industrialising countries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vernon, R. (1988, June). Key factors in the application of industrial technology in developing countries. EDI working paper. The economic development Institute of the World Bank, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • WEF. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and company growth dynamics. Report summary for the Annual Meeting of the New Champions 2013. Stanford University, Enerst & Young, Endeavor: World Economic Forum, Davos. http://www.weforum.org/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISEG—Lisbon School of Economics and Management, University of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal

    Manuel Laranja

Authors
  1. Manuel Laranja
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. P-BIO Portugal’s Biotechnology Industry Organization, Coimbra, Portugal

    Sara Paulina De Oliveira Monteiro

  2. Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, School of Business George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Laranja, M. (2017). How Rationales, Actors and Multi-Level Governance Relate to Innovation Policy-Mix. In: De Oliveira Monteiro, S., Carayannis, E. (eds) The Quadruple Innovation Helix Nexus. Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55577-9_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation