Trapped by the high-tech myth: The need and chances for a new policy rationale

Havas, Attila (2014): Trapped by the high-tech myth: The need and chances for a new policy rationale. Published in: Hirsch-Kreinsen H, Schwinge I (eds) Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship in Low-Tech Sectors: The Prospects of Traditional Economic Industries (May 2014): pp. 193-217.

Abstract

Against the backdrop of a strong plea for evidence-based policy, this paper juxtaposes how innovation is analyzed in mainstream economics and evolutionary economics of innovation, as well as their concomitant policy rationales. By discussing the indicators selected for the Innovation Union Scoreboard and another major EU report, it argues that the science-push model of innovation is still highly influential in the EU STI policy circles, despite a rich set of research insights stressing the importance of non-R&D types of knowledge in innovation processes. In conclusion, the chapter highlights the potential drawbacks of the persistent high-tech myth, considers possible reasons for its perseverance and discusses policy implications of the systemic view of innovation. Those include: i) STI policies should promote knowledge-intensive activities in all sectors, including low- and medium-technology industries and services; ii) it is a highly demanding set of tasks to identify systemic failures, devise appropriate policies to tackle those, and organize the required stakeholder dialogues; iii) several policies affect innovation processes and performance, perhaps even more strongly than STI policies, and hence policy goals and tools need to be orchestrated across several policy domains; iv) analysts and policy-makers need to be careful when interpreting their country’s ranking on ‘scoreboards’; v) the choice of an economics paradigm to guide policy evaluation is likely to be decisive.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Linear and networked models of innovation; Science-push; Market failure; Evolutionary economics of innovation; Systemic failures; STI policy; Opportunity costs
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B5 - Current Heterodox Approaches > B52 - Institutional ; Evolutionary; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O38 - Government Policy

References

Bach, L. and M. Matt (2005), ‘From Economic Foundations to S&T Policy Tools: a Comparative Analysis of the Dominant Paradigms’, in Llerena, P. and Matt (eds) Innovation Policy in a Knowledge-Based Economy: Theory and Practice, Heidelberg: Springer

Balconi, M., S. Brusoni, L. Orsenigo (2010), ‘In defence of the linear model: An essay’, Research Policy, 39 (1), 1-13

Bleda, M. and P. del Río (2013), ‘The market failure and the systemic failure rationales in technological innovation systems’, Research Policy, 42 (5), 1039-1052

Bush, V. (1945), Science: the Endless Frontier, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. available at http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm (accessed 10 September 2013)

Caraça, J., B-Å. Lundvall, S. Mendonça (2009), ‘The changing role of science in the innovation process: From Queen to Cinderella?’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76 (6), 861-867

Caracostas, P. (2007), ‘The policy-shaper anxiety at the innovation kick: how far do innovation theories really help in the world of policy’, in F. Malerba, S. Brusoni (eds) Perspectives on Innovation, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, pp. 464–489

Castellacci, F. (2008a), ‘Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories: Manufacturing and service industries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation’, Research Policy, 37 (6-7), 978-994

Castellacci, F. (2008b), ‘Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: Comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75 (7), 984-1006

den Hertog, P., E. Oskam, K. Smith, J. Segers (2002), ‘Usual Suspects, Hidden Treasures Unmet Wants and Black Boxes in Innovation Research’, position paper, Utrecht: Dialogic

Dodgson, M. and R. Rothwell (eds) (1994), The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Dodgson, M., A. Hughes, J. Foster, S. Metcalfe (2011), ‘Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia,’ Research Policy, 40 (9), 1145-1156

Dosi, G. (1988), ‘Sources, procedures and microeconomic effects of innovation’, Journal of Economic Literature, 24 (4), 1120-1171

Dosi, G., C. Freeman, R.R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L. Soete (eds) (1988), Technical Change and Economic Theory, London: Pinter

EC (2008), Science, technology and innovation in Europe, 2008 edition, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

EC (2009), Science, technology and innovation in Europe, 2009 edition, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

EC (2010), Science, technology and innovation in Europe, 2010 edition, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

EC (2011), Innovation Union Competitiveness report: 2011 edition, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

EC (2013a), Innovation Union Scoreboard 2013, Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission

EC (2013b), Research and Innovation performance in EU Member States and Associated countries: Innovation Union progress at country level, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

EC (2013c), State of the Innovation Union 2012: Accelerating change, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Edler, J., M. Berger, M. Dinges, A. Gök (2012), ‘The practice of evaluation in innovation policy in Europe’, Research Evaluation, 21 (3), 167-182

Edquist, C. (2011), ‘Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems or (failures)’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (6), 1725-1753

Fagerberg, J., D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (eds) (2005), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford UP

Foray, D. (ed.) (2009), The New Economics of Technology Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Freeman, C. (1991), ‘Networks of innovators, a synthesis of research issues’, Research Policy, 20 (5), 499-514

Freeman, C. (1994), ‘The economics of technical change: A critical survey’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18 (5), 463-514

Freeman, C. (1995), ‘The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1), 5-24

Godin, B. (2006), ‘The Linear Model of Innovation: The Historical Construction of an Analytical Framework’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 31 (6), 639-667

Gök, A. and J. Edler (2012), ‘The use of behavioural additionality evaluation in innovation policy making’, Research Evaluation, 21 (4), 306-318

Grupp, H. (1998), Foundations of the Economics of Innovation: Theory, measurement and practice, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Grupp, H. and T. Schubert (2010), ‘Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance’, Research Policy, 39 (1), 67-78

Hall, B.H. and N. Rosenberg (eds) (2010), Economics of Innovation, Amsterdam: North-Holland

Hatzichronoglou, T. (1997), ‘Revision of the High-Technology Sector and Product Classification’, OECD STI Working Papers, 1997/2

Hirsch-Kreinsen, H., D. Jacobson, S. Laestadius, K. Smith (2005), ‘Low and Medium Technology Industries in the Knowledge Economies: The Analytical Issues’, in H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, D. Jacobson, S. Laestadius (eds) Low Tech Innovation in the Knowledge Economy, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 11-29

Jensen, M.B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz, B-Å. Lundvall (2007), ‘Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation’, Research Policy, 36 (5), 680-693

Klevorick, A.K., R.C. Levin, R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter (1995), ‘On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technical opportunities’, Research Policy, 24 (2), 185-205

Laestadious, S., T.E. Pedersen, T. Sandven (2005), ‘Towards a new understanding of innovativeness – and of innovation based indicators’, Perspectives of economic, political and social integration, 11 (1-2), 75-121

Lazonick, W. (2013), ‘The Theory of Innovative Enterprise: Methodology, Ideology, and Institutions’, in J.K. Moudud, C. Bina, P.L. Mason (eds) Alternative Theories of Competition: Challenges to the Orthodoxy, London: Routledge, pp. 127-159

Lipsey, R.G. and K. Carlaw (1998), ‘Technology policies in neo-classical and structuralist-evolutionary models’, STI Review, No. 22, pp. 31-73

Lundvall, B-Å. (ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter

Lundvall, B-Å. and S. Borrás (1999), The Globalising Learning Economy: Implications for Innovation Policy, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

Malerba, F. (2002), ‘Sectoral systems of innovation and production’, Research Policy, 31 (2), 247-264

Malerba, F. (2009), ‘Increase learning, break knowledge lock-ins and foster dynamic complementarities: evolutionary and system perspectives on technology policy in industrial dynamics’, in D. Foray (ed.) The New Economics of Technology Policy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 33-45

Metcalfe, S.J. and L. Georghiou (1998), ‘Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy’, STI Review, No. 22, pp. 75-100

Mowery, D.C. (2009), ‘Plus ca change: Industrial R&D in the “third industrial revolution”’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 18 (1), 1-50

Nelson, R.R. (ed.) (1993), National Innovation Systems: A comparative study, New York: Oxford UP

Nelson, R.R. (1995), Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change, Journal of Economic Literature, 33 (1), 48-90

OECD (1998), ‘New Rationale and Approaches in Technology and Innovation Policy’, STI Review, No. 22

OECD (2001), Innovative Networks: Co-operation in national innovation systems, Paris: OECD

OECD (2002), Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development, 6th edition, Paris: OECD

OECD (2004), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2004, Paris: OECD

OECD (2005a), Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd edition, Paris: OECD

OECD (2005b), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2005, Paris: OECD

OECD (2006a), Government R&D Funding and Company Behaviour: Measuring Behavioural Additionality, Paris: OECD

OECD (2006b), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2006, Paris: OECD

OECD (2007), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2007: Innovation and performance in the global economy, Paris: OECD

OECD (2008), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2008, Paris: OECD

OECD (2010), The OECD Innovation Strategy: Getting a head start on tomorrow, Paris: OECD

Pavitt, K. (1984), ‘Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and theory’, Research Policy, 13 (6), 343-373

Peneder, M. (1999), ‘The Austrian Paradox: “Old” structures but high performance?’, Austrian Economic Quarterly, 4 (4), 239-247

Peneder, M. (2010), ‘Technological regimes and the variety of innovation behaviour: Creating integrated taxonomies of firms and sectors’, Research Policy, 39 (3), 323-334

Radosevic, S. (2002), ‘The electronics industry in central and eastern Europe: an emerging production location in the alignment of networks perspective’, Working Paper No. 21, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London

Sandven, T., K. Smith, A. Kaloudis (2005), ‘Structural change, growth and innovation: the roles of medium and low-tech industries, 1980-2000’, in H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, D. Jacobson, S. Laestadius (eds) Low Tech Innovation in the Knowledge Economy, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 31-59

Sharif, N. (2006), ‘Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept’, Research Policy, 35 (5), 745–766

Smith, K. (2000), ‘Innovation as a Systemic Phenomenon: Rethinking the Role of Policy’, Enterprise & Innovation Management Studies, 1 (1), 73-102

Smith, K. (2002), ‘What is the “Knowledge Economy”? Knowledge intensity and distributed knowledge bases’, UNU/INTECH Discussion Paper Series, 2002-6

Smith, K. (2005), ‘Measuring Innovation’, in J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford UP, pp. 148-177

Steinmuller, E. W. (2009), ‘Technology policy: the roles of industrial analysis and innovation studies’, in D. Foray (ed.), The New Economics of Technology Policy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar, pp. 17–32

Tidd, J., J. Bessant, K. Pavitt (1997), Managing Innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford UP

von Tunzelmann, N. and V. Acha (2005), ‘Innovation in “Low-Tech” Industries’, in J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, R.R. Nelson (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford UP, pp. 407-432