Maio 2021 vol. 8 num. 2 - V Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação

Artigo completo - Open Access.

Idioma principal | Segundo idioma

Exploração de novos conceitos em política de inovação

Exploration of new concepts in innovation policy

Robert, Verónica ; Yoguel, Gabriel ;

Artigo completo:

Neste artigo identificamos seis conceitos de política de inovação que, embora não sejam novos, têm surgido recentemente na literatura especializada como principais organizadores de intervenções nos campos da ciência, tecnologia e inovação. São eles: (i) falhas de mercado, (ii) políticas de especialização inteligente, (iii) combinação de políticas, (iv) política de inovação transformativa, (v) política orientada para a missão, (vi) política de inovação holística e complexa. Esses conceitos estabelecem critérios e modalidades de intervenção sob um conjunto de pressupostos sobre a lógica da política, a forma e o processo da política. Na maioria dos casos, sua base conceitual e teórica é implícita, vaga ou eclética; No entanto, há um traço comum: eles são fortemente baseados na experiência prática. Analisadas através da lente da tríade design-implementação-avaliação, as experiências políticas bem-sucedidas tornam-se a principal razão para futuras implementações. Argumentaremos que fazer isso lhes permite evitar conflitos iminentes nas intervenções políticas. Neste artigo, analisamos os seis conceitos, especialmente em relação a: i) o processo de política, ii) a forma de intervenção e iii) a lógica da política. Esta análise permite elucidar a posição de cada conceito em um mapa mental, a fim de desvelar seus pressupostos políticos e ideológicos.

Artigo completo:

In this paper we identify six concepts of innovation policy which, although not new, have recently emerged in specialized literature as main organizers of interventions in the science, technology and innovation fields. They are: (i) market failures, (ii) smart specialization policies, (iii) policy mix, (iv) transformative innovation policy, (v) mission-oriented policy, (vi) holistic and complex innovation policy. These concepts establish criteria and intervention modalities under a set of assumptions about policy rationale, policy form and policy process. In most cases, their conceptual and theoretical basis is implicit, vague or eclectic; however, there is a common thread: they are strongly based on practical experience. Analyzed through the lens of the design-implementation-evaluation triad, successful policy experiences become the main reason for further implementations. We will argue that doing that allows them to avoid imminent conflict on policy interventions. In this paper we analyze the six concepts especially regarding: i) the policy process, ii) the intervention form, and iii) the policy rationale. This analysis allows us to elucidate the position of each concept in a mind map in order to unveil their political and ideological assumptions.

Download (PDF)

Palavras-chave: Até ciência; tecnologia e política de inovação; lógica política; processo político; convenções.,

Palavras-chave: Science technology and innovation policy; policy rationale; policy process; conventions.,

DOI: 10.5151/v-enei-785

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Bleda, Mercedes, and Pablo del Río. 2013. «The Market Failure and the Systemic Failure Rationales in Technological Innovation Systems». Research Policy 42 (5): 1039-52.
  • [2] Bloom, Nicholas, John Van Reenen, and Heidi Williams. 2019. «A Toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation». Journal of Economic Perspectives 33 (3): 163-84. Borrás, Susana, and Charles Edquist. 2013. «The Choice of Innovation Policy Instruments». Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80 (8): 1513-2
  • [3] ———. 2019. Holistic Innovation Policy: Theoretical Foundations, Policy Problems, and Instrument Choices. Oxford University Press.
  • [4] Borras Susana (2009) Borras, S. (2009). The politics of the Lisbon Strategy: the changing role of the Commission. West European Politics, 32(1), 97-118
  • [5] Borrás, S., Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. (2009). The challenges of globalization: strategic choices for innovation policy. The Innovation Imperative: National Innovation Strategies in the Global Economy, 7-23.
  • [6] Boschma, Ron, and Gianluca Capone. 2015. «Institutions and Diversification: Related versus Unrelated Diversification in a Varieties of Capitalism Framework». Research Policy 44 (10): 1902-14.
  • [7] Carson, Marcus, Tom R Burns, and Dolores Calvo. 2009. «Paradigms in Public Policy: Theory and Practice of Paradigm Shifts in the UE». Climate Change, 8.
  • [8] Chen, Jin, Ximing Yin, and Liang Mei. 201 «Holistic Innovation: An Emerging Innovation Paradigm». International Journal of Innovation Studies 2 (1): 1-13.
  • [9] Chiang, Jong-Tsong. 1991. «From ‘mission-oriented’ to ‘diffusion-oriented’ paradigm: the new trend of U.S. industrial technology policy». Technovation 11 (6): 339-56.
  • [10] Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Martin, H. (2015). Path renewal in old industrial regions: Possibilities and limitations for regional innovation policy. Regional studies, 49(5), 850-86
  • [11] Cunningham, P., Edler, J., Flanagan, K., & Laredo, P. (2013). Innovation policy mix and instrument interaction: a review. Manchester: University of Manchester.
  • [12] Diercks, Gijs, Henrik Larsen, and Fred Steward. 2019. «Transformative Innovation Policy: Addressing Variety in an Emerging Policy Paradigm». Research Policy, New Frontiers in Science, Technology and Innovation Research from SPRU’s 50th Anniversary Conference, 48 (4): 880-94..
  • [13] Dosi, G., and M. E. Virgillito. 2017. «In Order to Stand up You Must Keep Cycling: Change and Coordination in Complex Evolving Economies». Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, junio.
  • [14] Edler, Jakob, and Jan Fagerberg. 2017. «Innovation Policy: What, Why, and How». Oxford Review of Economic Policy 33 (1): 2-23.
  • [15] Edler, Jakob, and Jillian Yeow. 2016. «Connecting Demand and Supply: The Role of Intermediation in Public Procurement of Innovation». Research Policy 45 (2): 414-26. Edquist, Charles. 2014. «Striving Towards a Holistic Innovation Policy in European Countries - But Linearity Still Prevails!» STI Policy Review 5 (2): 2-19.
  • [16] Ergas, H. (1987). Does technology policy matter?. Technology and global industry: Companies and nations in the world economy, 191-245.
  • [17] European Commision 2015. «Lund Declaration». EuroScience. 2015. http://www.euroscience.org/tag/lund-declaration/.
  • [18] Fagerberg, Jan. 20 «Mobilizing Innovation for Sustainability Transitions: A Comment on Transformative Innovation Policy». Research Policy 47 (9): 1568-76.
  • [19] Flanagan, Kieron, Elvira Uyarra, and Manuel Laranja. 2011. «Reconceptualising the ‘Policy Mix’ for Innovation». Research Policy 40 (5): 702-13.
  • [20] Foray, Dominique. 2016. «On the policy space of smart specialization strategies». European Planning Studies 24 (8): 1428-37.
  • [21] Foray, Dominique, Paul A. David, and Bronwyn H. Hall. 2011. «Smart Specialisation From Academic Idea to Political Instrument, the Surprising Career of a Concept and the Difficulties Involved in Its Implementation». Infoscience. 2011. https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/170252.
  • [22] Foray, D., David, P. A., & Hall, B. (2009). Smart specialisation–the concept. Knowledge economists policy brief, 9(85), 100.
  • [23] Foray, Dominique, Philip McCann, and Raquel Ortega-Argilés. 2015. «Smart specialization and European regional development policy». Oxford handbook of local competitiveness, 458–480.
  • [24] Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public administration review, 23-31.
  • [25] Frenken, K. 2017. «A Complexity-Theoretic Perspective on Innovation Policy». Article. Complexity, Innovation and Policy. 2017.
  • [26] Guy, K., P. Boekholt, P. Cunningham, R. Hofer, C. Nauwelaers, and C. Rammer. (2009) "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.
  • [27] Hall, Peter A. 1993. «Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain». Comparative Politics 25 (3): 275-96.
  • [28] Hirschman, Albert. 1958. The strategy of development. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
  • [29] Karo, E., & Lember, V. (2016). Emergence of societal challenges-based innovation policies in market-based innovation systems: lessons from Estonia. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 11(1-3), 126-147.
  • [30] Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. «The Science of “Muddling Through”». Public Administration Review 19 (2): 79-88. «Lund_Declaration_2009.pdf». 2009.
  • [31] Lundvall, Bengt-Åke. 1985. Product Innovation and User-Producer Interaction. Aalborg University Press.
  • [32] ———. 1992. National Systems of Innovation. Anthem Press.
  • [33] Magro, Edurne, and James R. Wilson. 2013. «Complex Innovation Policy Systems: Towards an Evaluation Mix». Research Policy 42 (9): 1647-56.
  • [34] Mazzucato, Mariana. 2015. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press.
  • [35] ———. 2016. «From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy». Industry and Innovation 23 (2): 140-56.
  • [36] Metcalfe, J.S. 1995. «Technology Systems and Technology Policy in an Evolutionary Framework». Cambridge Journal of Economics 19 (1): 25-46.
  • [37] Mowery, D. C. (2013). Public Procurement and Innovation in the post-1945 US Economy. Report prepared for the Expert Group on Innovation and Growth, European Commission.
  • [38] Nauwelaers, C., Boekholt, P., Mostert, B., Cunningham, P., Guy, K., Hofer, R., & Rammer, C. (2009). Policy mixes for R&D in Europe. European Commission–Directorate-General for Research, Maastricht.
  • [39] OECD. 2015. «OECD Innovation Strategy 2015. An Agenda for Policy Action». Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministerial Level Paris, 3-4 June 2015. https://www.oecd.org/innovation/OECD-Innovation-Strategy-2015-CMIN2015-7.pdf.
  • [40] Robert, Verónica, Gabriel Yoguel, and Octavio Lerena. 2017. «The Ontology of Complexity and the Neo-Schumpeterian Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change». Journal of Evolutionary Economics 27 (4): 761-93.
  • [41] Saviotti, Pier Paolo. 2001. «Variety, growth and demand». Journal of Evolutionary Economics 11 (enero): 119-42.
  • [42] Schot, Johan, and W. Edward Steinmueller. 2018. «Three Frames for Innovation Policy: R&D, Systems of Innovation and Transformative Change». Research Policy 47 (9): 1554-67.
  • [43] Schwanen, Daniel. 2017. «Innovation Policy in Canada: A Holistic Approach». SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3088156. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  • [44] Sharp, E. B. (1997). A comparative anatomy of urban social conflict. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 261-280.
  • [45] Seong, Ji-Eun, and Wi-Chin Song. 2007. «The theory and application of holistic innovation policy: Cases of Finland and Korea». Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society 10 (3): 555-79.
  • [46] Soete, L, and D Corpakis. 2003. «La I+ D y su impacto sube la competitividad y el empleo. El papel de los estudios comparativo” s». IPTS Report 71.
  • [47] Stokes, Donald E. 2011. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
  • [48] UNCTAD (2017) Handbook on statistics 2017 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United Nation.
Como citar:

Robert, Verónica; Yoguel, Gabriel; "Exploração de novos conceitos em política de inovação", p. 2277-2294 . In: Anais do V Encontro Nacional de Economia Industrial e Inovação (ENEI): “Inovação, Sustentabilidade e Pandemia”. São Paulo: Blucher, 2021.
ISSN 2357-7592, DOI 10.5151/v-enei-785

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações