共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
《Research Policy》2023,52(7):104818
Transformative innovation policies can provide systemic solutions to socio-environmental challenges because of their “experimental”, “reflexive” and “inclusive” character. We contend that social enterprises can act as catalysts for transformative innovation for the geographically and socially marginalized. Thus, including social enterprises in transformative innovation policies can mitigate the negative effects of innovation-based growth, making policies more socially and geographically inclusive. Following a syncretic approach to the literatures on transformative innovation policies and social entrepreneurship, this paper identifies the key dimensions of social enterprises' transformative innovation potential: directionality (i.e., social goals as the purpose of innovation); social and geographical inclusiveness (i.e., the inclusion of marginalized areas and individuals in the provision of goods or services); reflexivity (in terms of participatory governance and monitoring the achievement of goals); and experimental character (in terms of establishing partnerships with heterogeneous actors). We then assess this capacity through an exploratory cluster analysis of Italian social enterprises. We identify three distinct groups that suggest a range of entrepreneurial approaches from largely transformative to not at all. The transformative innovation readiness of social enterprises has implications for policymakers seeking to undertake pilot schemes and implement actions that support an appropriately transformative innovation ecosystem. 相似文献
2.
The recent policy debates about orientating research, technology and innovation policy towards societal challenges, rather than economic growth objectives only, call for new lines of argumentation to systematically legitimize policy interventions. While the multi-level perspective on long-term transitions has attracted quite some interest over the past years as a framework for dealing with long-term processes of transformative change, but the innovation systems approach is still the dominant perspective for devising innovation policy. Innovation systems approaches stress the importance of improving innovation capabilities of firms and the institutional settings to support them, but they are less suited for dealing with the strategic challenges of transforming systems of innovation, production and consumption, and thus with long-term challenges such as climate change or resource depletion. It is therefore suggested to consider insights from transition studies more prominently in a policy framework that is based on the innovation systems approach and the associated notion of ‘failures’. We propose a comprehensive framework that allows legitimizing and devising policies for transformative change that draws on a combination of market failures, structural system failures and transformational system failures. 相似文献
3.
This paper presents an analytical framework for assessing the emergence of a new policy paradigm labelled “transformative innovation policy”, which can be seen as layered upon, but not fully replacing, earlier policy paradigms of science and technology policy and innovation systems policy. The paper establishes conceptual diversity in this emerging policy paradigm. Despite a common agenda for transformative change, there are notable differences concerning the understanding of the innovation process. Two global initiatives to promote such new innovation policies, Mission Innovation and the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, are used to illustrate how different articulations of transformative innovation policy are expressed in practice. These may be seen as a positive expression of the breadth of the emerging policy paradigm. While there are grounds for such a positive reading, this paper ends with a caution by stressing the political nature of paradigm change and the strong legacy of an economic, firm-centred and technology-oriented tradition in innovation policy. It makes a plea for more emphasis on a broader conceptualization of transformative innovation, and suggests that a socio-technical understanding of innovation provides several appropriate analytical concepts that can help to shape our thinking and understanding of transformative innovation policy. 相似文献
4.
Luc Soete 《Research Policy》2019,48(4):849-857
The setting up of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at Sussex University 50 years ago represented a “transformative change” in the research on science policy and the understanding of the nature and origin of technological change and innovation studies. It influenced policymakers across the world in both the mature Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and the developing world. It made the topic of science, technology and innovation (STI) familiar to business studies scholars. Today though, the analysis of STI appears to be somewhat in crisis. On the one hand, there is growing evidence that the growth and welfare gains of new technologies and innovation are no longer forthcoming in an automatic “trickle-down” fashion. The knowledge and technology diffusion “machine” appears broken. On the other hand, there are growing environmental concerns about the negative externalities of unsustainable fossil-fuel-based growth as industrialization spreads across the globe. STI policy appears somehow stuck in an industrial efficiency and consumerism mode that is unable to address in a satisfactory way the impact of such negative externalities. Can the broader historical approach as popularized within the so-called Science and Technology Studies (STS) tradition provide additional, complementary insights? Yes, if STI and STS scholars are prepared to leave their respective conceptual comfort zones and address in complementary fashion some of the major societal policy challenges confronting science, technology and innovation policy today. 相似文献
5.
《Research Policy》2019,48(10):103612
The policy mix concept has become popular in innovation policy literature. It is particularly relevant for complex challenges such as sustainable industrial transitions that require joined-up interventions from different policy domains. Yet finding the right policy mix for a given challenge is strongly conditioned by the governance context in which individual policies emerge and evolve over time. In particular, the evaluation of policy mixes in a regional context is often neglected.This paper aims to deepen understanding of the interaction between governance processes and policy mix evaluation in the specific context of smart specialisation strategies. These newly popular regional innovation strategies are ideal laboratories for analysing policy mixes due to their place-based nature, their directionality, their experimental character and potential orientation towards grand societal challenges, and their complex governance context.The paper builds on the smart specialisation literature, the innovation policy and policy evaluation literature, and the literature on governance in pluralistic contexts to build a conceptual framework for analysing the governance of policy-mix evaluation. The conceptual arguments are illustrated by the Basque Country case in Spain, providing insights on the establishment of a strategic innovation policy mix evaluation process in a complex setting of institutions and actors. 相似文献
6.
Three frames for innovation policy: R&D,systems of innovation and transformative change 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is shaped by persistent framings that arise from historical context. Two established frames are identified as co-existing and dominant in contemporary innovation policy discussions. The first frame is identified as beginning with a Post-World War II institutionalisation of government support for science and R&D with the presumption that this would contribute to growth and address market failure in private provision of new knowledge. The second frame emerged in the 1980s globalising world and its emphasis on competitiveness which is shaped by the national systems of innovation for knowledge creation and commercialisation. STI policy focuses on building links, clusters and networks, and on stimulating learning between elements in the systems, and enabling entrepreneurship. A third frame linked to contemporary social and environmental challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals and calling for transformative change is identified and distinguished from the two earlier frames. Transformation refers to socio-technical system change as conceptualised in the sustainability transitions literature. The nature of this third framing is examined with the aim of identifying its key features and its potential for provoking a re-examination of the earlier two frames. One key feature is its focus on experimentation, and the argument that the Global South does not need to play catch-up to follow the transformation model of the Global North. It is argued that all three frames are relevant for policymaking, but exploring options for transformative innovation policy should be a priority. 相似文献
7.
Jan Fagerberg 《Research Policy》2018,47(9):1568-1576
The topics addressed in this paper concern the (much-needed) transition to sustainability and what role (innovation) policy can play in speeding up such changes. In their Discussion Paper Schot and Steinmueller (2018) argue that the existing theorizing and knowledge bases within the field of innovation studies are “unfit” for this task and that a totally new approach is required. This paper takes issue with this claim. Policy advice, it is argued, needs to be anchored in the accumulated research on the issue at hand, in this case, innovation. The paper therefore starts by distilling some important insights on innovation from the accumulated research on this topic and, with this in mind, considers various policy approaches that have been suggested for influencing innovation and sustainability transitions. Finally, the lessons for the development and implementation of transformative innovation policy are considered. It is concluded that the existing theorizing and knowledge base in innovation studies may be of great relevance when designing policies for dealing with climate change and sustainability transitions. 相似文献
8.
科技创新的负面影响与新兴技术的治理挑战引发研究与政策对“责任式创新”的关注。本文以文献研究为基础,通过责任式创新主题文献的系统回顾,构建“内涵-理论-方法”的整合框架,对责任式创新的概念内涵、共性理论基础、及实践应用方法展开系统评述。研究结论显示：责任式创新的内涵主要围绕内在属性视角、创新过程与管理视角、创新结果评估视角三个方面展开;责任式创新的共性理论基础包括正义论、技术社会控制视角、行动者网络理论、制度理论、创新扩散理论五个分支;责任式创新的典型应用方法涉及扎根研究、伦理分析法、实时技术评估、“谦逊”技术与参与式治理法、上游公众参与技术治理、中游模块化技术治理、技术社会评估等 相似文献
9.
《Research Policy》2019,48(10):103555
Understanding how policymaking processes can influence the rate and direction of socio-technical change towards sustainability is an important, yet underexplored research agenda in the field of sustainability transitions. Some studies have sought to explain how individual policy instruments can influence transitions, and the politics surrounding this process. We argue that such individual policy instruments can cause wider feedback mechanisms that influence not only their own future development, but also other instruments in the same area. Consequently, by extending the scope of analysis to that of a policy mix allows us to account for multiple policy effects on socio-technical change and resultant feedback mechanisms influencing the policy processes that underpin further policy mix change. This paper takes a first step in this regard by combining policy studies and innovation studies literatures to conceptualise the co-evolutionary dynamics of policy mixes and socio-technical systems. We focus on policy processes to help explain how policy mixes influence socio-technical change, and how changes in the socio-technical system also shape the evolution of the policy mix. To do so we draw on insights from the policy feedback literature, and propose a novel conceptual framework. The framework highlights that policy mixes aiming to foster sustainability transitions need to be designed to create incentives for beneficiaries to mobilise further support, while overcoming a number of prevailing challenges which may undermine political support over time. In the paper, we illustrate the framework using the example of the zero carbon homes policy mix in the UK. We conclude with deriving research and policy implications for analysing and designing dynamic policy mixes for sustainability transitions. 相似文献
10.
重大科技基础设施评价机制研究 《科学学研究》2021,39(1):33-41
重大科技基础设施是科技强国和创新型国家建设的先行资本,战略性强、投入强度和关注度高,是国家创新生态系统中的基础,但长期缺少针对性的设施评价方法来引导设施投入效益和效率提升。研究瞄准新时期重大科技基础设施转型发展价值导向,在借鉴国际设施评价的思路方法、明确设施评价基本理念和原则基础上,从“功能—目标—投入—活动—产出—效应”的评估逻辑出发,构建框架层-指标层-准则层-主体层的设施评价框架,并提出了设施评价指标体系,并就评估框架和指标体系的实践应用进行了展望。 相似文献
11.
《Research Policy》2019,48(9):103789
This paper analyses Amsterdam’s Startup-in-Residence (SiR) programme as new type of policy to engage startups in the development of urban innovation through a challenge-based public procurement of innovation (PPI) process. The programme is being mimicked by other cities and government agencies, but so far there has not been a rigorous, theoretically-informed analysis of the approach. In this paper, we specify and focus on the role of city-based, public-affiliated intermediaries as initiators, moderators and influencers of conversations between startups and the local government. The main contribution of SiR as a PPI intermediation programme has been to launch new types of fruitful conversations on several levels, that lead to institutional innovations rather than direct solutions for urban problems or startup development. In this sense, SiR fulfils a role inquiring and ascribing urban challenges with values and notions of “worth” that preceded and shaped innovation directions. We also suggest that engaging startups is effective for only a limited bandwidth urban challenges; different types of intermediation are required to foster collaborative innovation in more complex settings. 相似文献
12.
Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
Sustainable development is prompting a re-assessment of innovation and technological change. This review paper contributes three things towards this re-assessment activity. First, it considers how the history of innovation studies for sustainable development can be explained as a process of linking broader analytical frameworks to successively larger problem framings. Second it introduces an emerging framework whose allure rests in its ability to capture the bigger picture: the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP). Whilst burgeoning researcher networks and literature suggests this policy-relevant theory is attractive, it is not without its challenges. The third purpose of this paper is to elaborate these challenges as areas for further research and development. We do this by drawing upon contributions to this special section and the wider literature. 相似文献
13.
《Research Policy》2023,52(3):104704
In recent years, innovation policy has increasingly embraced “situated” perspectives to better account for both how culture matters for innovation in diverse settings and how to deal with growing socio-economic inequalities and conflicts in the global innovation landscape. In this paper, we develop the framework of “regional innovation cultures” to put these perspectives on more solid theoretical footing. Regional innovation cultures refer to unique ways in which regional innovation initiatives and technology developments (their goals, meanings, material organization, and actor constellations) are being brought into alignment with local identities, socio-economic legacies, and unique political cultures. Our framework foregrounds five analytic dimensions: imagined social orders, representations, political cultures, relationship to national and global initiatives, and local controversies. We apply this framework to one in-depth regional case study of the German state of Bavaria, focusing on innovation policy in three sectors: space, agriculture, and automotive. We show how Bavaria enacts what we call a “conservative innovation culture”, where innovation is framed as a way to preserve socio-economic orders rather than disrupt them, and where political and economic incumbents forcefully shape and absorb emerging niche activities. Innovation in Bavaria is performed through a political culture of small state-like corporatism that emphasizes strong coordination of all major actors, grants state bureaucracies a key role in defining directions for innovation in the form of a quasi-technonationalism, and tends to sideline alternative visions and voices for innovation. Across all three sectors, culture serves as a framing device to legitimize innovation primarily as an extension of existing social orders; conversely, innovation serves as a vehicle to reinforce dominant ideas of the public good. Through the lens of culture, innovation ceases to be primarily a source of social change and disruption, but can be understood as a mode of socio-cultural reproduction subject to tentative, constrained experimentation. Innovation initiatives cannot break too radically with existing social norms and orders without risking public support or legitimacy, thus creating a trade-off between proposing novelty and ensuring continuity. Our analysis lends further support for constructivist approaches to innovation studies, emphasizing plural and socially grounded perspectives on the rationalization, implementation, and evaluation of innovation. 相似文献
14.
任务导向型创新政策:框架理论与实践 《科学学研究》2023,41(1):30-37
任务导向型创新政策是为应对重大社会挑战而兴起的新政策范式，已成为许多国家解决“急、难、险、重”等科学问题的系统性政策干预方案。文章围绕任务导向型创新政策的概念内涵、要素构成、主要特征、理论解释与政策实践等不同维度展开全面分析。研究表明，任务导向型创新政策主要由政策目标、政策主体、政策工具和政策过程等要素构成，并具有方向引导、市场创建、协同参与和动态评估等特征。转型失灵理论为任务导向型创新政策干预创新活动的合法性提供了理论解释。现有任务导向型创新政策实践主要聚焦于保障国防安全、实现产业追赶和应对重大社会挑战三个方面。研究可为中国制定和实施任务导向型创新政策提供理论支撑和经验借鉴。 相似文献
15.
随着中国的崛起,其创新政策越来越受到国际力量的关注,并不可避免地受到国际力量的干预和影响。因此,从国际视野审视创新政策及过程对中国科学地制定创新政策具有重要意义。已有研究主要关注全球化影响下创新政策目标、内容和工具的变化,并把创新政策看作一个主权国家的内部政治活动,从政策过程讨论全球化和国际因素对创新政策的影响还不多见。本文从国际视野出发构建了基于“过程—主体—影响力”的创新政策过程三维分析框架,并对“中国自主创新产品政府采购”政策和“中国制造2025”政策的政策过程进行了比较分析。研究认为,中国的创新政策与贸易乃至对外事务的界限模糊化使得创新政策过程成为国际—国内双重博弈的复杂过程,创新政策制定的各个阶段都受到国际因素的影响,各类利益相关者基于形势变化和利益需求在不同政策中发挥的作用有明显区别,政策出台国和政策干预国的相互依赖程度和国际影响力最终决定了一国创新政策的受干预程度。 相似文献
16.
Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: Framing policy issues under the innovation imperative
As innovation is increasingly becoming an imperative for policymakers around the globe, there is a growing tendency to frame policy problems as problems of innovation. This logic suggests that we are unable to address grand societal challenges and ensure economic competitiveness because our societies, institutions, scientific activities or individual predispositions are not sufficiently geared towards innovation. In this paper, we analyze this “deficit model” of innovation in which a lack of innovation is routinely invoked as the main obstacle to social progress. Drawing parallels to research on the deficit model of public understanding of science (PUS), we develop a theoretical framework that captures the dynamics and normative implications of deficit construction, highlighting five salient dimensions: problem diagnoses, proposed remedies, the role of expertise, implied social orders, and measures of success. We apply this framework to three empirical case studies of recent innovation strategies in Luxembourg, Singapore, and Denmark. Attention to this deficit framing around innovation is important, we argue, because it is an essential part of how innovation transforms societies in the 21st century: not only through new technological possibilities or economic growth, but also by shaping public discourse, narrowing policy options, and legitimizing major institutional interventions. The implied pro-innovation bias tends to marginalize other rationales, values, and social functions that do not explicitly support innovation. It further delegates decisions about sweeping social reconfigurations to innovation experts, which raises questions of accountability and democratic governance. Experiences from the history of PUS suggest that, without a dedicated effort to transform innovation policy into a more democratic, inclusive, and explicitly political field, the present deficit logic and its technocratic overtones risks significant social and political conflict. 相似文献
17.
《Research Policy》2019,48(10):103582
In the light of pressing societal challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity, scholars are increasingly interested in studying policy mixes in the context of sustainability transitions. However, despite numerous conceptual advances and empirical insights, researchers still lack universal criteria or accepted heuristics for delineating policy mixes in these complex policy spaces. We address this gap by conducting an extensive review of the literature, synthesizing best practices, and developing an analytical framework that provides researchers with two archetypical methodological approaches. The top-down approach builds on the idea that the elements of a policy mix originate from an overarching strategic intent. By contrast, the bottom-up approach starts from the definition of a focal impact domain that is affected by a range of policy instruments. For each approach, we outline a systematic analytical procedure, then implement it to scrutinize how policy affects the emerging technological domain of energy storage in California. We find that each approach has particular advantages that render it useful for certain policy mix analyses. Discussing how researchers may choose between the two approaches or leverage their complementarities, we seek to provide the basis for a consistent research program building on the policy mix framework. 相似文献
18.
Science, technology and innovation (STI) policy is borne by a set of historically contingent concepts, models, and metaphors. From around 1950 to 1980, its language was dominated by the contract metaphor and the linear model of innovation, both of which have catered for beliefs in stability, orderliness, and distinct social roles for scientists and policymakers. While prominent new models of the 1990s (mode 2, post-normal science, triple helix) had challenged the old contract metaphor, they remained experts’ brainchildren. After 2000, in contrast, we observe the emergence and pluralization of several new and powerful concepts. Building on conceptual history and cognitive linguistics, we analyze three of these new concepts: “frontier research,” “grand challenges,” and “responsible research and innovation” (RRI). Whereas the “frontier” and “grand challenges” convey many layered historical meanings, a distinct metaphorical appeal, and have become popularized beyond expert’s communities, the RRI discourse, though the most ambitious one, has not yet shaken off its roots in the bureaucratic structures of the European Commission. Finally, we discuss which conceptual and metaphorical properties enable the career of STI policy discourses in the 21st century. 相似文献
19.
《Research Policy》2019,48(9):103826
Test beds and living labs have emerged as a prominent approach to foster innovation across geographical regions and technical domains. They feed on the popular “grand societal challenges” discourse and the growing insight that adequate policy responses to these challenges will require drastic transformations of technology and society alike. Test beds and living labs represent an experimental, co-creative approach to innovation policy that aims to test, demonstrate, and advance new sociotechnical arrangements and associated modes of governance in a model environment under real-world conditions. In this paper, we develop an analytic framework for this distinctive approach to innovation. Our research draws on theories from Science and Technology Studies (STS) and Innovation Studies, as well as in-depth empirical analysis from two case studies – an urban smart energy campus and a rural renewable energy network. Our analysis reveals three characteristic frictions that test beds face: (1) the limits of controlled experimentation due to messy social responses and co-creation activity; (2) a tension between lab-like open-ended experimentation and pressures to demonstrate success; (3) the opposing needs of local socio-cultural specificity and scalability, i.e. the inherent promise of test bed outcomes being generalizable or transferrable because the tested “model society” is presumed to represent a future society at large. These tensions suggest that thinking of test beds as mere technology tests under real-world conditions is insufficient. Rather, test beds both test and re-configure society around a new set of technologies, envisioned futures, and associated modes of governance – occasionally against considerable resistance. By making social order explicitly available for experimentation, test beds tentatively stabilize new socio-technical orders on a local scale in an “as-if” mode of adoption and diffusion. Symmetric attention to the simultaneous co-production of new technical and social orders points to new opportunities and challenges for innovation governance in test-bed settings: Rather than mere enablers of technology, test beds could serve as true societal tests for the desirability of certain transformations. This will require rethinking notions of success and failure, planning with a view towards reversibility, and greater scrutiny of how power is distributed within such settings. Likewise, rather than envisioning test beds as low-regulation zones to drive innovation, they could be strategically deployed to co-develop socially desirable governance frameworks in tandem with emerging technologies in real-time. 相似文献
20.
Market creation is moving to the centre of mission-oriented innovation policy. This is particularly visible in the space sector. Agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) are developing market-creating innovation policies in response to (a) the increasing emphasis on societal grand challenges, (b) the rise of a new wave of space companies (often referred to as “New Space”) and (c) the global trend towards interconnecting and interlinking of industries (a trend referred to as Industry 4.0). In this paper we explore the changing nature of mission-oriented innovation policies for market creation for two agencies, NASA and ESA. For these agencies, earlier mission-oriented policies focused on clear challenges with identifiable concrete problems and directed by a strong centralized agency. Contrast this with today, with broadly defined grand challenges, decentralized innovation systems with mixed top-down and bottom-up problem definition. We describe the current drivers and pressures that are creating a window for policy change, and we present examples of how NASA and ESA are responding to these pressures and use this exploration to dig deeper into the evolving frames of market-creating innovation policy in the space sector to identify the challenges for such policies and to further articulate a research agenda. 相似文献