共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 24 毫秒
1.
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
2.
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
3.
《Research Policy》2023,52(2):104676
In recent years, a new frame for innovation policy has emerged, namely “transformative innovation policy” (TIP), which aims at addressing transformative change or “Grand Challenges”. Such a shift in policy theory should, ideally, be reflected in policy evaluation, but the literature has so far provided little advice on how to address TIP-related evaluation challenges such as directionality and system-level behavioural additionality. This paper discusses how the evaluation of policy interventions targeting system innovation can be designed to address these challenges. Combining the literature on sustainability transitions with policy evaluation, we propose an integrated evaluation framework composed of three main components: (i) programme theory (programme goals, systems boundaries and desired (or accepted) development paths); (ii) system analysis (transformative outcomes); and (iii) synthesis and overall assessment (including revision of programme theory). By integrating the two sets of literature, we provide a bridge between academic research on transitions and current evaluation practices. We briefly illustrate the applicability of the integrated framework in the BioInnovation Strategic Innovation Programme in Sweden. 相似文献
4.
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
5.
虽然知识对创新合法性的作用受到关注,但相关研究却忽视了知识搜索策略对创新合法性的影响,且尚未揭示这种影响的决策情境。文章整合知识搜索、创新合法性与决策理性理论,分析了适应式搜索与变革式搜索对创新合法性的影响,以及因果推理和效果推理的调节效应,并利用212家制造企业的数据进行实证。结果表明：适应式搜索和变革式搜索对创新合法性分别有倒U形、U形作用;因果推理增强适应式搜索与创新合法性的关系,而削弱变革式搜索对创新合法性的作用,效果推理的调节作用与之相反;因果/效果双元决策理性正向调节适应式搜索和变革式搜索与创新合法性的关系。 相似文献
6.
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
7.
Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation 总被引：5，自引：0，他引：5
This paper contrasts two modes of innovation. One, the Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) mode, is based on the production and use of codified scientific and technical knowledge. The other, the Doing, Using and Interacting (DUI) mode, relies on informal processes of learning and experience-based know-how. Drawing on the results of the 2001 Danish DISKO Survey, latent class analysis is used to identify groups of firms that practice the two modes with different intensities. Logit regression analysis is used to show that firms combining the two modes are more likely to innovate new products or services than those relying primarily on one mode or the other. The paper concludes by considering the implications for benchmarking innovation systems and for innovation policy. 相似文献
8.
当前科技创新政策呈体系化发展,已逐渐成为独立的政策部类。研究提出科技创新政策体系框架并推动形成共识,是支撑政策研究和政策实践的理论基础,也是推动政策制定、交流、评价和实施的保障。本文基于理论分析和对比研究,在公共政策范畴中,围绕研发系统和技术经济系统厘清科技创新政策体系的范畴及与其他经济社会政策的关联;并探讨从政策分析、政策制定、政策执行、政策目标四视角提出了科技创新政策体系框架结构,（1）从政策分析视角,按照政策类型分为强制性政策、宏观战略和落地实施政策;（2）从政策制定视角,按照政策工具类型分为供给面、需求面和环境面政策;（3）从政策执行视角,按照创新主体类型分为政府、企业、公共研发机构等类型政策;（4）从政策目标视角,按照价值导向分为经济目标和社会目标导向政策。 相似文献
9.
《Research Policy》2023,52(7):104796
Social exclusion represents a major challenge to policies advocating sustainable development in the Global South. Although this is a problem not prioritized in the realms of innovation policy focused on economic growth and competitiveness, it is now widely accepted that innovation may contribute significantly to the well-being of the social excluded. However, it is debated whether the innovation system approach is capable of informing transformational innovation policies aiming at overcoming social exclusion and other global challenges. This paper argues that the system innovation approach is adequate for facing this endeavour and identifies key constituent elements of innovation systems which are necessary for inclusion to emerge from the system dynamics. We illustrate the elements of this system configuration drawing upon the case of the appropriation of biorational approaches in pest management and precision agriculture techniques by a group of peasants in a rural village in Colombia. The proposal considers new elements that configure inclusive innovation systems in an agent-based, bottom-up perspective, such as new agents, capabilities, directionalities, and the integration of traditional knowledge with scientific and technology knowledge, elements that enable a new system function. In terms of policy implications, some reflections are made on favouring the sustainability paradigm and promoting inclusive learning processes. 相似文献
10.
This paper draws on two case studies from India and China to discuss how and why rapidly urbanizing contexts are particularly challenging for transformative innovation but are also critical sustainability frontiers and learning environments. We argue that lack of understanding and policy engagement with peri-urbanization in its current form is leading to increasing exclusion and unrealized potential to support multiple sustainable urban development goals. Peri-urbanization is often characterized by the neoliberal reordering of space and a co-option of environmental agendas by powerful urban elites. Changing land-use, resource extraction, pollution and livelihood transitions drive rapid changes in interactions between socio-technical and social-ecological systems, and produce complex feedbacks across the rural–urban continuum. These contexts also present characteristic governance challenges as a result of jurisdictional ambiguity, transitioning formal and informal institutional arrangements, heterogeneous and sometimes transient communities, shifts in decision making to distant authorities and the rapid growth of informal market-based arrangements with little incentive for environmental management. These unique features of peri-urbanization may reinforce a lack of inclusion and hinder experimentation, but they can also present valuable opportunities for transformative innovation. This innovation is unlikely to follow the lines of niche management and upscaling but rather should take advantage of peri-urban dynamics. There are possibilities to build new alliances in order to renegotiate governance structures across the rural–urban continuum, to reframe urban sustainability debates and to reconfigure socio-technical and social-ecological systems interactions. 相似文献
11.
知识创新的创新主体是高校和科研机构,产品创新的创新主体是企业。要想实现协同创新发展,其关键在于促进知识与产品创新的协同发展。运用基于灰色关联理论和距离协同模型的测度方法,本文分别对2006-2015年我国高技术企业知识与产品创新协同发展能力进行了总体、分地区以及分省级的测度分析。结果显示：（1）全国总体高技术企业知识与产品创新协同发展能力不断提升,但其综合发展程度明显低于其综合协同程度;（2）我国东、中、西部地区高技术企业知识与产品创新协同发展能力存在明显的地区差异：东部地区处于领先,中部地区次之,西部地区最低;（3）各省级高技术企业知识与产品创新协同发展能力也存在明显的地区差异,且较不均衡。基于上述结论,得出促进我国高技术企业知识与产品创新的协同发展的相关政策启示：一、加强对高技术企业知识与产品创新进行有效组合和匹配,提升其知识与产品创新的发展速度;二、统筹兼顾,实施差异性地区政策;三、集中地区比较优势,推动协同发展。 相似文献
12.
The analysis of the importance of different types of regional innovation systems must take place within a context of the actual knowledge base of various industries in the economy, as the innovation processes of firms are strongly shaped by their specific knowledge base. In this paper, we shall distinguish between two types of knowledge base: analytical and synthetic. These types indicate different mixes of tacit and codified knowledge, codification possibilities and limits, qualifications and skills, required organisations and institutions involved, as well as specific competitive challenges from a globalising economy, which have different implications for different sectors of industry, and, thus, for the kind of innovation support needed. The traditional constellation of industrial clusters surrounded by innovation supporting organisations, constituting a regional innovation system, is nearly always to be found in contexts of industries with a synthetic knowledge base (e.g. engineering-based industries), while the existence of regional innovation systems as an integral part of a cluster will normally be the case of industries-based on an analytical knowledge base (e.g. science-based industries, such as IT and bio-tech). In the discussion of different types of regional innovation systems five empirical illustrations from a Nordic comparative project on SMEs and regional innovation systems will be used: the furniture industry in Salling, Denmark; the wireless communication industry in North Jutland, Denmark; the functional food industry in Scania, Sweden; the food industry in Rogaland, Norway and the electronics industry in Horten, Norway. We argue that in terms of innovation policy the regional level often provides a grounded approach embedded in networks of actors acknowledging the importance of the knowledge base of an industry. 相似文献
13.
In the last decade, there has been an increasing recognition among Central American policy makers of the central importance of science, technology and innovation (STI) for inclusive and sustainable economic growth, based on higher productivity. This paper aims to study current STI policies in those countries and explore whether this increasing acknowledgement has come along with new and more active policies. Empirical evidence collected through questionnaire-based interviews with high-level government officials in each country shows that Central American governments have built public organisations and institutions to support STI, such as laws, national plans and a wide variety of policy instruments. Yet available science and technology indicators illustrate that the results are still meagre. This paper identifies eight barriers faced by these governments when designing and implementing STI policies. 相似文献
14.
This opening article in the special issue provides a reflexive overview of the nature and purpose of science, technology and innovation (STI) policy research at present, and makes a case for a collective and critical reflection on the means and ends of our research. The complex interaction between the past, present and future in the STI policy research field is one of the key themes of this article and of the special issue more generally. We first attempt to problematise what current STI policy research is, and then expand on the goals of the special issue. Besides summarising each article, we also discuss how these articles, individually and collectively, provide an overview of a number of epistemic, normative and practical challenges that confront us, articulating the main features of each of these. We end with a call for a sustained, critical and extensive ‘conversation’ among researchers in our field about the nature and purpose of STI policy research and the challenges we face. 相似文献
15.
中国区域创新模式测度及其创新政策再设计 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
基于欧盟的知识差异化模型和智慧型创新政策概念，结合对中国区域创新情境的探索性应用，力图对我国区域创新政策体系再设计提供有益的经验。首先，本文回顾了欧洲学者率先提出的知识差异化模型，并对智慧型创新政策在欧盟创新区域的应用进行了翔实阐释；其次，借鉴欧洲区域创新模式分类的测量指标体系，采集客观数据，对我国31个省市（自治区）的区域创新模式进行了量化测度，运用聚类分析法划分了5种“知识差异化”区域创新模式，分别是基于科学的区域、应用型科学区域、创造性应用区域、模仿创新区域以及创新启蒙区域。最后，针对不同区域的创新知识情境及差异化知识特征，对我国区域创新政策体系再设计提出了对策性建议。 相似文献
16.
《Research Policy》2022,51(1):104390
Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The “frame” construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved. 相似文献
17.
18.
文章评估了浙江省各县域科技创新活动的发展水平,分析了其空间聚集效应。在建立科技创新活动多指标综合评价体系的基础上,通过主成分分析法评价了浙江省90个县域2009~2012年的科技创新活动发展水平,并通过Moran’s I指数进一步分析了浙江全省以及各区县间的科技创新活动的空间聚集效应。结果表明:浙江省科技创新活动发展存在较明显的"东北崛起,西南塌陷"的空间格局,浙东北地区为科技创新活动发达聚集区,而浙西南为滞后聚集区。在时序上,区域创新活动水平总体呈稳定状态。创新活动发达区与滞后区的主要差距在于创新组织上。结论对于促进县域空间尺度的科技创新研究和实践具有一定的指导意义。 相似文献
19.
Developing science, technology and innovation indicators: What we can learn from the past 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
Christopher Freeman 《Research Policy》2009,38(4):583-589
The science-technology-innovation system is one that is continuously and rapidly evolving. The dramatic growth over the last 20 years in the use of science, technology and innovation (STI) indicators appears first and foremost to be the result of a combination of, on the one hand, the ease of computerized access to an increasing number of measures of STI and, on the other hand, the interest in a growing number of public policy and private business circles in such indicators. Such growing interest might be expected in societies that increasingly use organised science and technology to achieve a wide variety of social and economic objectives and in which business competition is increasingly based on innovation. On the basis of 40 years of indicators work, we argue that frontiers and characteristics of STI indicators that were important last century may no longer be so relevant today and indeed may even be positively misleading. 相似文献
20.
产业集群内知识创新能力影响因素的实证分析 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
知识经济时代,知识已成为企业核心竞争力的主要来源,知识创新成为企业获取竞争优势的主要途径,而产业集群有利于提高集群内企业的知识创新能力。本文首先分析知识创新的概念和特征,然后利用GEM的知识创新系统模型进行了实证研究,最后对政府需要采取的政策和措施提出了具体建议。 相似文献