Transcript Innovation models and their relationship with policies

Multi-layered policy interventions and
the future of national policies
P. Larédo
ENPC & University of Manchester
Madrid March 26, 2007
Contents
PART 1: A CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
•
The rise of a European actor in Science, technology
and innovation
•
Devolution and decentralisation in European countries:
the rise of Regional research & innovation policies
PART 2: BEHIND THE LISBON AGENDA
•
Knowledge dynamics…
•
… drive to a de facto differentiation…
•
And a strong “centring” of national intervention
A broad ranging European intervention
• Large instruments: CERN, ESO, ESRF, JET… and now
ITER
• The space policy: Ariane launchers, research satellites &
programmes, GPS (via Galileo), Meteorology
• Large industrial “objects”: Airbus but also semi
conductors (through the Eureka initiative), large wind
mills … without forgetting the Europeanisation of Defence
firms
• Framework conditions with norms, IPR (but the failure of
the European patent) & directives (telecoms, energy…)
• And the Framework programme with its focus on new
technologies (NBIC)
The strength of inter-governmental
arrangements
• Each scientific instrument has its own structure and
its specific rules and functioning
• Most “industrial” gatherings linked to ad-hoc
interventions (airbus, defence)
• EUREKA as a symbol of this approach: bottom-up
based, only a common label, separate public funding
(approach and implementation of it)
• A new fashion to support it: benchmarking and the
circulation of “good practice”
Modest emergences of federal
approaches
• ESA as a front runner (with its funding linked to the
GDP of nations, but this compulsory part is marginal
in total budget, and there are processes to insure
“rates of return”)
• Limited success of European-wide structures
- the failure of the Atom-based JRC
- EMBL (though successful) is a marginal player in
biology
- the failure of the European Science Foundation
(built by research agencies and institutions)
Landmarks in EC & EU involvement (1)
• The 1957 treaty: Nothing on R&D, but R&D is present in the
Coal & Steel treaty (1952) & in the EURATOM treaty (1957)
• 1968 the European Commission is created. First
initiatives launched in 1974 following the energy crisis
• 1979-1982 intense debate on IT as the answer to the growth
challenge, failure of bilateral industrial approaches --> EC
commissioner Davignon “creates” the ESPRIT new model
- stakeholder consultation “the table ronde”
- research consortia (multiple countries, multiple types of actors)
- public funding through “cost-shared” projects
Landmarks in EC & EU involvement (2)
• ESPRIT impact: R&D included in EU treaties
- Single Act (1987) and “the S&T bases of European industry”
- Maastricht (1993) and S&T to support European policies
- And the 5-year framework programme as the implementation arm
- Evaluation as a mandatory requirement
• FP: from fast growth to stabilisation
- FP1 to FP3 (1984-1994) fast yearly increase of expenditure (from 1
to 3 billon ecu /year)
- FP4 to FP6: “slow” yearly growth (from 3 to 4.5 billion euros)
- FP7 increase (should arrive to 10 billion euro in 2012)
- progressive changes in overall portfolio
FP1 - FP7 evolutions
• Thematic priorities (64% in FP7)
- Energy: from 50% in FP1 to 5%+ in FP7, and environment
moved from 8 to 4%…
- ICT peaked at 42% in FP2 to 18% in FP7
- Health and biotech reached in FP5 a plateau of 16%
- Industrial technologies have moved between 15 & 20%
through a large reshaping. In FP7 cut in 3: 7% for nano &
materials, 8% for transport and 9% for space (appeared in
FP5) & security (new in FP7)
• Structural dimensions (36% in FP7)
- Human Capital (mobility) reached its plateau in FP3: 9%,
complemented since FP5 by Infrastructures (4%) and since
FP7 by basic research (ERC, 15%)
- Others include the JRC (3%), SME support (2.5%),
international cooperation…
Landmarks in EC & EU involvement (3)
• 2000-2002 Lisbon Agenda, Barcelona Target and the
European Research Area
- target: the most dynamic knowledge based society
- objective: 3% of GDP for R&D in 2010, 2/3rds by firms and
1/3rd by public sector
• FP only one tool
- objectives: overcome fragmentation & boost excellence
- new instruments: Networks of excellence, Integrated Projects,
Joint Technology Initiatives, European Research Council
• Re-launching coordination of policies
- a lasting failure
- new approaches: OMC (Open method of coordination), ERA
Nets (between national operators), joint EC-nation funding
(article 169…), Technology platforms (shared visions &
agendas)
Devolution, decentralisation
• Since the 1980s, a shift in most “large” EU countries,
Spain, France, UK (for regions), Italy (for “districts”),
bridging with the German situation
• Though not central, quite soon addressed issues linked
with technology, science and higher education
• Convergences and differences
- Strong convergence on support to innovation in SME
- Decentralisation of Universities & University funding in Spain and UK
(not in France) vs recent involvement of German Federal Government
in “excellent” universities
• Europe as a key driver: Structural funds, RITTS/RIS initiatives,
Europe of regions
Regional Research & Innovation
policies
• The “proximity discourse”: industrial districts & clusters,
now creative cities
• The ambiguity of Regional systems of innovation:
economic vs political regions (having at least a partial
responsibility on socio-economic affairs)
• Two opposite references: successful country regions
(Finland) or successful places (Silicon Valley, Road
128, Cambridge…)
• One de facto temptation of analysts:
- regions as autonomous islands
- regional policies as “national policies writ small”
(though limited access to “framework conditions”)
- success stories focus only on “high tech” regions
How to take hold of regional
diversity: 4 dimensions
• “institutional”: size, governance capabilities, policy
path dependency
• “economic”: communication infrastructures, natural
endowment, activity/sector mix
• Regional knowledge base: higher education, other
public sector research, firm capabilities
• Connectivity: collaborative patterns, layers of
matching, intermediating structures
Institutional aspects
• Size: from city regions or “quasi-industrial district” to
multi-cluster regions and large metropolitan areas
• Location of economic decision sources (cf. Markusen)
• Institutional margins of manoeuvre: toward a matrix
between degree of autonomy and “departmental”
responsibilities
• Policy path dependence (degree of pro-activeness)
• Internal coherence: articulation with “below” policy
layers, constituency building
Economic aspects
• Communication infrastructure as a key enabler:
accessibility (from outside and to markets), internal
coherence
• Lasting “natural” & historical endowments
• Activity/sector mix is central
- do not focus only on manufacturing industry
- relative role of new, technology intensive activities
- consider re-articulation of ‘traditional’ activities
- central issue of categorising activities: analytic, synthetic &
symbolic KB, focused vs distributed KB (issue of related
variety), engineering vs discovery driven design spaces,
technology vs organisational innovation
Regional Knowledge base
• Use of Triple Helix like description
• Universities:
- training as a key component to consider
- research: academic and technological, issues of spectrum and
relevance beyond classical issues of visibility and ranking
• Government labs and R/T institutions
- ‘non academic’ but also ‘FhG/TNO’ types, growing role of NPO
- very uneven geographical distribution and regional embeddedness
• Industrial R&D and innovation capabilities
- beware of impact of choice of quantitative surveys: Frascati,
innovation surveys, technological profiles…
- from global numbers to relative specialisation, sector critical mass,
variety and richness of actors, competence pool
- large and small firms: how to consider the anchor tenant hypothesis?
Regional Connectivity
• Proximity is not only geographical, also cognitive and
organisational
• Geographical proximity does not often match with
political definition of regions --> importance of “layered”
approach
• 3 dimensions of connectivity:
- identification, characterisation and measure: large
number of potential indicators and practical difficulty of
collection and use
- ecology of intermediating structures
- existence, location, breadth and depth of public policies
Some shared elements of Regional RIP
• They are key players in support to SME
- technology /science parks
- technology resource centres
- sector-based cluster/pole policies
• They all like start-up & spin-off firms (incubators, seed
capital, competitions,…)
• Even when not in charge, receptive to university claims,
but difficult tension to manage between “world level
critical mass” and regionally relevant oriented research
• Role of transversal “platform” policies: enlarging KB,
promoting entrepreneurship, region attractiveness,
Part 2:
Behind the Lisbon Agenda
Knowledge dynamics
drive to a de facto differentiation
and
a strong “centring” of national
intervention
The new motto: Knowledge based economy & society
Balance between
The dynamics of
Accumulation &
science & new
Breakthrough:
industries
Managing established
(1)
industries
(2)
Societal issues: from
The club of Rome to
new crises : RDI in
Collective goods
(3)
• The overflowing of the Nation-State and the
need for “Institutional transformation”
• Toward a new model?
Employment and competitiveness of
established industries: new “proximity policies”
SME
Large firms
Geographic
Italian like
industrial districts
‘Attractiveness’
policies
‘sector’
based
Industrial
collective
research
“CETIM like”
‘large projects’
(transport: from low
energy vehicles to the
hydrogen society)
A privileged role of regional policies?
Without forgetting services
To firms & to individuals
A link to societal issues as “a public
engine to innovation”
RDI in collective Goods
• Need to focus not on the economic definition of public
good, but on politically defined priorities
• Multiple organisational models, sharing:
- large government labs
- industry subcontracting and delegation
- importance of procurement
- government as a proxi & intelligent customer
• However very different balances between zones:
- military vs civil R&D
- buying R&D with products vs procuring research
- broad or narrow spectrum of mission R&D
A public engine to innovation?
• The US model of military R&D: “a public engine of
innovation” with twice the size of the European one
(see Caracostas & Muldur)
• Three potential options:
- imitate (defence programmes + ‘DARPA like’) : Can
similar effects be expected from the Europeanisation
of military R&D?
- develop large civil programmes: How to avoid Nixon
like “war against cancer” (see Walsh 2005)?
- learn from other EU experiences: develop a “fund
for innovation in collective goods” (FICG) along the
lines of structural funds?
Knowledge dynamics: search regimes
• 3 characteristics to differentiate fields
• Rate of growth: publications all fields 1-2%, genomics in the
1990s 8%, Nano S&T 1999-2003: 14%.
• Degree of convergence: how many competing hypotheses
simultaneously, see work on paradigms (Kuhn, Dosi) & about
dominant design (Metcalfe)
• Importance of complementarities
- cognitive (e.g. interdisciplinarity)
- technical (see facilities and “big science”)
- institutional (e.g. importance of public-private
collaborations)
Source: Bonaccorsi (2005), see Prime Website
Ôdominant
scienceÕ
Dynamics
Cristallisation
(Cognitive
complementa.)
Trajectory
(degree of
covergence)
Physics
Computer science /
TI
Large objects or
Distributed PI
Technical systems
(patent poolsÉ )
Strong industryuniversity relations
Early seclection of a Adoption of
dominant design
standards and design
cumulative
tools
improvements
Molecular
Biology
Science based
/Õindividual PI&
transfer/ licences
Nano
ÔconvergenceÕ
Hybridation of
Ôlong distanceÕ
disciplines
Competition
between
paradigms
(initially) based on
previous trajectory
of ÔcentralÕ
discipline
Critical
Infrastructures
(Technical
Complementa)
Coordination
mode
Specific very large
Equipments
No entry barrier
Main
Industrial
Actors
Generic
infrastructures
Technological
platforms +
Ôinterdisciplinary
gatheringsÕ
National Ôlarge
Technological
Networks &
Multi actors poles
programmeÕ
programmes
clusters (bottom(PPP) :
(product oriented)
up)
ÔNanodistrictsÕ
National champions MNF (oriented
Start-up & venture Central role of
(specialising in
toward mass
capital (in early
ÔincumbentsÕ
public
markets)
phases) /
(global firms ÔB to
infrastructures)
Specialised NTBF (B (Concentration
BÕand ÔB to CÕ, ex
to B)
around large
start-up from
established firms previous waves)
in diffusion?)
Three challenges for policy
• How to nurture “frontier science” and the emergence
& initial exploration of new paradigms? The
exploration phase
• How to organise to test and initiate a learning curve
on “promising” new paradigms? The crystallisation
phase.
• How to shape markets and their infrastructures to
enable firms to invest? The selection phase
Exploration: Europe & breakthrough science
•
Starting point: Europe and US equivalent in Articles production but
very different in generating breakthrough Science (marker = Nobel
prices, 5 times more US than EU)
•
My analysis: Source = fragmentation of funding bodies in EU vs.
large concentration in US federal research.
•
My ‘conjecture’ on a given field (say catalysis)
•
Conclusion: go towards an agency of agencies focusing on
‘breakthrough science’
- 2 agencies in US. 70% on ‘mainstream research agenda’ and
exploration of 30 longer term ‘options’
- EU at least 10 agencies/programmes.
- Issue= critical mass in mainstream agenda.
- Result 1: concentration on ‘exploitation’ science (85%?)
- Result 2: twice less efforts on breakthrough science + duplication = 4
times less potential Nobel prices
‘Science districts’: Grenoble at a glance
• Minatec = 3500 researchers, engineers and post grads
• Critical world size (publications, patents)
• 3 layers of facilities: exploration, demonstration, prototyping
(around 1 billion euros)
• Large R&D facilities from 3 world key players in electronics (ST,
Philips and Flextronics)
• Numerous start-up (one of largest European pool), Successful
start-up with world niches (SOITEC…),
• Incoming industry players: most major electronic equipment
producers, Pharma and materials firms implanting R&D facilities
• Broad academic environment: 55000 students, 13000
academics and public researchers
• Large trained capabilities (40% of total manpower with bachelor
degree)
Crystallisation: NBIC & ‘Science districts’
• Shared facilities
• Joint support teams:
TT (contract, IP…),
incubator, seed
capital..
• Vision shaping
(markets & society):
OMNT, Ideas Lab
• Scientific forum
• Incentives for internal
& external research
collaboration
• “Attractivity” team
Grenoble and Minatec
National
Lab
University
Engineering
Schools
Industry: R&D space with
world players and multiple
start-up & NTBF
Selection:
Public dimensions of market shaping
• A changing approach: from support to national
champions to “market shaping”
• Public support
- Norms: the over-mentioned case of GSM
- competition rules: see wind energy
- physical networks: see internet and information
society
- IPR: see the extension to genomic applications
- User and worker safety: see Prion research
- Public debates as a new form of “market” and even
“research shaping” (see GMO and field trials…)
Toward a new framework
to think
public intervention?
The overflowing of the Nation-State...
Region
NBIC
-explore
- crystallise
University research capabilities
Agencies
ERC
Poles
FP - technological prog.
- select
Proximity
Policies
Collective
goods
Europe
Nation
FP+ (European agencies?)
Districts
ICR
ILP
ERA Nets research
FICG
‘champion users’
Notes: ICR= Industry collective research, ILP Innovating large projects, FICG Fund for innovation in collective goods
... Toward a European Model?
Main hypothesis : each issue requires to define
an ad-hoc answer
Prepare
‘Technological platforms’
Organise
Open Method of Coordination
Federal = FP
Implement
Coordinated = ERA Nets (+)
ERA Nets: 5 Types
- coordinating wide research areas: social sciences, humanities,
chemistry, materials research, marine
- building EU specialities: plant genomics, functional genomics,
ocean drilling, bio-energy, photovoltaics, catalysis research, complex
systems research…
- coordinating ‘sector driven’ technology: space, transport, wood,
construction
- ‘collective problem’ focused research: infectious or rare
diseases, cancer clinical practice, flood management, food safety, water
management, zero emission power plant…
- addressing transversal problems in R&I: women in science,
foresight, science education, support to SMEs
Technology Platforms
• “Stakeholders, led by Industry, getting together to
define a Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) on a
number of strategically important issues with high
societal relevance”
• bottom-up, industry (problem)-led approach
• Wide coverage:
- frontier S&T: nanomedecine, hydrogen fuel cells, wireless
communications, embedded systems
- High tech industries: aeronautics, space
- Infrastructures and environment: transport, water, sustainable
chemistry, animal health
- Classical industries (steel, textiles, construction…)
• Implementation of SRA may lead to “Joint technology
initiatives”.
But we miss a European engine…
•
•
•
•
•
Achieve 1% Barcelona target by end of FP7
Present situation: 0.7% - not increasing!
Consequence: need to increase of 0.3% of GDP
Proposition: EU shows direction by sharing the burden.
Annual expenditure of FP7 must go from 0.05% in 2003 to
0.20% of GDP in 2013: multiplication by 4.
• Consequence on EC budget: presently RDD=4%, should
thus attain 16% within present financial framework
• Not realistic taking into account other requirements: EC
budget ceiling must be increased to 1.2%