Transcript Document 7254903

Improving the Governance of National Innovation
Systems
Insights from the OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy
Gernot Hutschenreiter
Country Studies and Outlook Division
OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry
China-OECD Roundtable on Innovation Policies,
Beijing, 18-19 October 2011
OVERVIEW
• What is governance?
• The importance of governance
• Challenges to governance
• Government responses: improving the coherence of policy,
better co-ordination
• Long-term steering of innovation systems: a dynamic view
The importance of good STI governance
• Countries performance in innovation depends – to a significant part – on the
quality of governance, including the quality of




co-ordination of policies in several dimension: framework conditions versus
dedicated STI policies; across ministries / agencies; between different levels of
government (international – national – regional)
the interplay between policies (e.g., between / among ‘framework policies’ and
‘dedicated’ STI policies)
resources allocation processes, e.g. through explicit priority setting or other means,
leading to an appropriately adapted “policy mix”
the information base for decision making
• In a forward-looking perspective, governance needs to be adaptive in order


to steer the innovation system over the longer run, following a long-term strategic
vision
to deal effectively with a changing environment (advances in technology,
institutions, complex phenomena like globalisation ...)
What is governance of science, technology and innovation?
The set of largely publicly defined institutional arrangements, incentives, etc. , that
determine how the various public and private actors engaged in socio-economic
development interact in allocating and managing resources devoted to science,
technology and innovation
• Governments play a key role in providing the framework conditions, supporting
institutions, infrastructures and incentives that enable innovation on a broad
scale
• ... but other actors belonging to the research and business sectors as well as
other stakeholders also play an important role in governance, e.g. by generating
and maintaining the social capital that is important for innovation
Challenges for governance
A broadening scope of STI policy and a more differentiated
policy mix
• As innovation policy moves to the centre of economic policy making it needs to
be better linked to other policy areas
• Better appreciation and understanding of the interplay between policies (e.g.,
between / among ‘framework policies’ and ‘dedicated’ STI policies) calls for
improved co-ordination across government
• A broad concept of innovation

taking into account various types of non-technological innovation – not new, but
better understood;

implications for (the role) of government are not always obvious and may differ
depending on the state of development of the economy and innovation system (e.g.
reflecting the state of development of different types of markets)

... has translated into a broader policy space and a more differentiated policy mix
• ... implying a greater need to ensure coherence
The emergence of multi-level governance
• The landscape has become more complex due to the emergence of
new actors at different levels of governance

Supranational – national – regional levels
• The formation of this multi-actor / multi-level landscape has led to an
increasing need for political co-ordination among the multiple agents
and governance levels involved in policy formulation and
implementation
Global R&D landscape
Researchers, per thousand
employment
R&D Volumes in 2000 USD - constant
prices and PPP
BRIICS
North America
EU27
1 Billion
16.0
FIN
10 Billion
14.0
ISL
100 Billion
DNK
12.0
JPN
NOR
NZL
USA
SWE
10.0
KOR
PRT
CAN
EST
ESP
SVK
AUT
AUS
GBR
8.0
FRA
IRL
BEL
SVN
DEU
LUX
RUS
6.0
GRC
CHE
ITA
POL
4.0
NLD
CZE
HUN
TUR
2.0
MEX
ZAF
CHN
CHL
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Gross domestic expenditures on
R&D as a percentage of GDP
Government’s responses of governments:
Improving coherence and co-ordination
Improving the coherence of the policy mix
‘Framework policies’ and ‘dedicated’ STI policies
• Increased recognition of the role policies aimed at shaping the ‘framework
conditions’ for innovation (e.g. in ‘systemic evaluations’ of innovation policy):

Macro-economic stability

Performance of product, labour and financial markets (regulatory framework)

Competition, IPR regimes, infrastructure, etc.
• Framework-related policies need to be considered explicitly as part of the
overall policy mix; they are necessary yet insufficient in the presence of
market and governance / systemic failure

Theory as well as empirical evidence, including OECD work, indicate that both
have a place independently and in combination with each other
• Leveraging the impact through comprehensive reforms / packages of
measures taking into account the main interactions between ‘framework’ and
‘dedicated policies’ / ‘tightly coupled parts’
• This includes complementarities and trade-offs (e.g., competition policy /
financial incentives for R&D; labour market regulations and immigration
policies / incentives for R&D)
Improving the coherence of the policy mix
Striking balances among dedicated measures to foster innovation (1)
• Direct / indirect support for R&D and innovation dimensions



For some time shift towards the latter, but balance has to be achieved in order to
make best use of respective advantages
Preferences (e.g., concerning the tax system) and capabilities (e.g., in tax
administration) may constrain their application, and thus feasible combinations
Post-crisis reversal?
•
Example: Mexico – In the past heavy bias towards tax incentives mainly benefiting large
firms (subsidiaries of MNEs)
• Institutional / competitive funding (of PROs)



Shifting balance as role of PROs and markets are evolving
The shift towards competitive funding has provided powerful incentives for PROs
and universities. At the same time stability and capabilities have to be maintained
Some rebalancing in response to ‘overshooting’
•
Example: New Zealand – Shift towards competitive funding of PROs may have gone too
far, resulting in some degree of instability and unintended side-effects
Improving the coherence of the policy mix
Striking balances among dedicated measures to foster innovation (2)
• Supply-side / demand-side measures

Traditional bias towards the supply side

Rebalancing in view, e.g. of societal needs, better understanding of innovation
•
Examples: Switzerland – steps towards complementing “supply driven” technology and
knowledge transfer from Higher Education Institutions to enterprises by measures that
build on the demand from SMEs; reflexions on the use of public procurement to
stimulate innovation in various countries
Balance of supply and demand orientation
Source: OECD Secretariat.
Improving the coherence of the policy mix
Striking balances among dedicated measures to foster innovation (3)
• Individual project-based / ad-hoc – consortia-based / longer term support.
Consortia are useful among others for triggering behavioural change (e.g. cooperation between different types of actors
•
Example: Norway – mix of Research Council support measures
• Bottom-up / top-down approaches. Bottom-up for more standard types of
innovation projects, but also to gather information and induce selforganisation on new areas, e.g. by sufficiently unrestrictive competitive calls.
Top-down for deliberate changes in directions
•
Example: Korea – Future Growth Engines and 21st Century Frontier R&D Programmes
• Evidence-based policy making


Greater actor autonomy (e.g. Universities, PROs) => greater need for
accountability => use of review and evaluation => generation of strategic policy
intelligence
Policy learning needs to be institutionalised and is easily disrupted
•
Example: Hungary – frequent changes in institutions as an obstacle to policy learning
thus to evidence-based policy making
The governance triangle – Coherence in the policy cycle
OECD (2009), Country Reviews of Innovation Policy
Synthesis Report (unpublished)
Policy Action &
Experimentation
(Policy Instruments)
GOVERNANCE
Policy
Targets & Paths
Mapping &
Analysis
(Articulating Goals)
(Framing Problems)
AGENDA–SETTING
Stability, commitment, leadership
• Maintaining stability / predictability of institutions and policy delivery

While innovations in the policy framework are necessary, frequent changes tend
to be counter-productive, reducing the power of incentives for R&D and
innovation for both business and Public Research Organisations (PROs)
• Example: Many developing but also some OECD economies
• Securing commitment

Safeguard public funding for STI against “crowding out” by short term demands –
even more importantly in a crisis / post-crisis environment
•
Example: Norway – the Fund for Research and Innovation; various resource based
economies
• Providing leadership

Involvement of the highest level of government is often needed in order to
secure policy attention and commitment
•
Examples: Chile – active involvement of Ministry of Finance has helped developing and
“anchoring” innovation policy in a certain phase; various negative examples
Better co-operation can improve policy coherence by a number
of arrangements ...
• Growing inter-ministerial (“horizontal”) co-operation, sometimes coordinated by Prime Ministers, involvement of Ministries of Finance, etc.

Ensuring an effective policy co-ordination and stakeholders’ participation
•
Examples: Hungary, Mexico – high-level councils have by and large failed to deliver the
expected co-ordination; Switzerland – (too?) strong focus on science; Korea – perhaps
gone the furthest in trying to solve co-ordination problems
• Growing involvement of stakeholders (scientific institutions, business, the
wider public) in the debate on science and technology policy, e.g. through
participation in advisory Councils and their activities, foresight exercises,
public awareness campaigns, etc.)
• Growing involvement of regional governments and actors in innovation
policy in many countries, sometimes constrained by lack of capacities
Selected approaches for increasing coherence
Set-up high-level
policy councils – a
popular device in
OECD countries, but
with mixed results
Articulate strong
guiding national
visions or strategies,
e.g. through foresight
exercises
Merge policy-making
organisations, for
example, into ‘superministries’ – but has
its limits
Adopt joint
programming
practices – popular
with EC, but also at
national level
High-level policy councils
• Councils to advise governments on science and innovation are a long
established practice in many OECD countries, though their success is
highly variable
• The function of these councils has tended to reflect contemporary
thinking about the role of science and technology in innovation
• The extent to which councils have a basis in legislation is driven by the
legal traditions of the countries involved
• Membership tends to span the industry and education spheres, with
representatives from relevant ministries, academics and industrialists. PM
acts as chair in several instances
• The turbulent history of councils internationally suggests both that their
form and functioning are hard to get right and that some degree of
experimentation is necessary
Source: OECD (2009), Chile’s National Innovation Council for Competitiveness
(Follow-up to the OECD Review of Chile’s Innovation Policy)
Adjudicating
between actors
Advice to
government
Source of
strategic intelligence
Introduce a long
term perspective
Policy
council
functions
Formal
evaluation
Monitor international
S&T developments
Enhance the
profile of STI
Budget planning
and allocation
Three models can be discerned
An advice model (Canada, Ireland, Netherlands, Switzerland, UK),
where the government is happy to be proactively or reactively advised
on research and innovation policy but does not want to be restricted by
that advice
A co-ordination model (Finland, Austria), where the intention is that
the council should communicate horizontally across ministry
responsibilities so as to align policies in support of innovation, without
this alignment always being binding
A joint planning model (Japan, Korea), where the government uses
the council as a virtual “horizontal ministry of innovation”, much as
engineering companies build project teams by bringing together
people across different disciplines
Source: OECD (2009), Chile’s National Innovation Council for Competitiveness
(Follow-up to the OECD Review of Chile’s Innovation Policy)
Limits to attainable policy coherence
• There are limitations of what can be realistically achieved in terms of
policy coherence:

There is a gap between the need for coherence and the capacity to achieve it

Governing in multi-actor systems necessarily involves a degree of incoherence

No single governance system can guarantee improved policy coherence, i.e.
there is no best practice

There nevertheless exist good practices and tools of coherence

The paramount tool of coherence is informed decision making
Source: OECD (1996), Building Policy Coherence: Tools and Tension
Governance is an institutionalised learning process:
the innovation policy cycle
TRANSLATE
Strategic
intelligence
EVALUATE
ANALYSE
Three levels of monitoring & evaluation
Framework conditions for innovation
1
2
STI Policy Mix
Demand-side measures
e.g.
Procurement policies
e.g. Promotion
of innovation in
SMEs
STI programmes
and measures
e.g.
R&D tax incentives
Grants
Supply-side measures
e.g.
Public-private
partnerships
3
Governance: steering in the long term
Move towards more firm-centered innovation systems
Public research-centered
In-house
product
innovation system
Firm-centered
innovators by sector (as a percentage
of all firms), 2002-04
innovation system
100
University-centered
public research
Switzerland
Denmark
% share of higher education in publicly performed R&D (2008)
90
Austria Sweden
80
70
60
50
40
Turkey
Netherlands
Greece
Portugal
Italy
Chile
Canada
Norway
Ireland
United Kingdom
Belgium
Finland
Spain
Australia
Iceland
New Zealand
France Germany Japan
Mexico
Poland
Hungary
United States
South Africa
Korea
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic
Slovenia
30
20
China
Russian Federation
Luxembourg
10
Public lab-centered
public research
Source:
OECD,
based30on Eurostat,
CIS-4
(New60Cronos,70May 2007),
national
data100
sources.
10
20
40
50
80
90
% share of firms in total R&D spending (2008)
In bold are countries that have been already subject of an OECD Review of Innovation Policy
OECD Review of China’s Innovation Policy
See: www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews
China’s innovation policy: institutional reform and learning curve
Source: OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: China.
Transforming an innovation system
Making firms the central actors: The case of the Russian Federation
Archetypical Innovation System
of leading OECD countries
Russian Innovation System
Framework conditions
for innovation
Public
procurement
Framework conditions
for innovation
Financial
incentives
to business
R&D and
innovation
Direct
R&D financing
Financial
incentives
to business
R&D and
innovation
Public
procurement
Demand-oriented
policies
Financing
PROs
Non-targeted competitive Funds
Targeted Federal Funds
PPPs
Block Competitive
grants
grants
Tax incentives
Venture financing
Competitive grant s
State
Corporations
Firms
Mission-oriented
policies
Governmentsponsored
Venture Funds
Cluster-oriented
policies
Firms
Technoparks
Design bureaus,
joint-stock
R&D and engineering*
companies
Public
research
sector (PROs)
(RAS, other
PRIs, HEIs)
Business
sector
Commercialization
Governance
Technology Transfert
Centers and Networks
Clusters
Diffusion-oriented
policies
Infrastructural
support to
R&D and
innovation
Policy
mix
Public
execution
of R&D and
innovation
Improved framework conditions; Restructuring of the R&D intensive sector;
Enhanced contribution from public research and education; Promotion of business innovation; etc.
Infrastructural
support to
R&D and
innovation
Some related work at the OECD
• Country Reviews of Innovation Policy



Customising instrument that takes a broad national innovation system
perspective – well beyond R&D to include, e.g. framework conditions for
innovation
Policy mix and governance arrangements are important components and the
Reviews typically make suggestions on how to improve these
Reviews have had significant impacts in those countries reviewed so far (mix of
OECD/non-OECD, large/small, advanced/emerging)
• Innovation Policy Platform (IPP)



Web-based tool to facilitate STI policy learning – under development
Will support users (policy makers and analysts) in better understanding the
performance and dynamics of their innovation systems and the leverage points
for more effective policy interventions
Guidelines for better appreciating existing and desirable/feasible governance
arrangements and innovation policy mixes are key components
OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy
•
Comprehensive analysis of the respective
national innovation system, with a focus on
the role of government policy.


“Learning”: deepen the understanding of
priority issues in the area of science and
innovation by analysing them in concrete
national contexts
“Outreach”: facilitate the participation of
selected non-member countries in OECD
work and benefit from OECD work and
experience
See: www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews
Thank you for your kind attention
谢谢
Contact:
[email protected]
www.oecd.org/sti/innovation/reviews