View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Joanna Chataway, Chux Daniels, Laur Kanger, Matias Ramirez, Johan Schot, Ed Steinmueller
Science Policy Research Unit, School of Business, Management and Economics,
University of Sussex
Paper prepared for 8th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, 18 – 21 June 2107 in Gothenburg, Sweden
DEVELOPING AND ENACTING
TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
2
Abstract
Thecontemporaryworldisconfrontedwithanumberofgrandsocialandenvironmentalchallengessuchas
socialinequalityandclimatechange.Traditionalinnovationpolicies,focusedontheprovisionofR&D
funding,buildinginnovationsystemsandpromotingentrepreneurialism,areprovingincreasingly
incapableofaddressingthesechallengesinasatisfactorymanner.Henceinrecentyearstherehasbeena
turntowardsadifferentframingofinnovationpolicy,placingemphasisonalternativefuturesandtheco-
productionofscience,technologyandsociety,thenon-neutralnatureoftechnology,transformative
potentialofcivilsociety,andattentivenesstotheneedsandwantsofusersandnon-usersalike.Inthis
paperweteaseoutthebasicfeaturesofthisemergentframingwhichwecalltransformativeinnovation
policy.Basedontheexperienceoffivecountries–Colombia,Finland,Norway,SouthAfrica,Sweden–we
outlinevariousattemptstopursuetransformativeinnovationpolicies,exploringassociatedchallenges,
barriersandpitfalls.
Introduction
Numerousandcriticalinterlockingenvironmental,technological,economic,politicalandcultural
challengesconfrontourworld.Theyincluderesourcedepletion,populationgrowth,industrialization,
urbanizationandinequality.Thesearecollectivechallengesexpressedin17SustainableDevelopment
Goals(SDGs;UnitedNations,2015).Theyconcernboththedevelopedanddevelopingworld,andthey
exceedtheabilityofanysinglecountry,bodyofgovernanceorscientificdisciplinetomanagethem.Whilst
innovationiswidelyinvokedasessentialtoaddressingthesechallenges,theinnovationengineoften
appearstobefalteringwiththefruitsofcreativedestructionincreasinglymorphingintodestructive
creation(Soete,2013).Innovationmaybecomeasmuchpartoftheproblemasthesolution.The
ambivalentandopen-endednatureofinnovationneedsbeincorporatedintothethinkingaboutscience,
technologyandinnovationpolicy.Wesuggestthatpolicyneedsreformulatingtoachievetheincorporation
ofaconcernwiththechoiceofvariousinnovationoptionsaskingquestionsaboutwhichdirectionsof
innovativepathwayswillindeedhelpfacetheinterlockingchallenges.Thistypeofthinkingandframinghas
beguntobearticulatedundermanydifferentlabels,forexample,ResponsibleResearchandInnovation
(Stilgoeetal.,2013),inclusiveinnovation(AgolaandHunter,2016),socialinnovation(Mulgan2007;Joly,
2016),frugalinnovation(RadjuandPrabhu,xx).Whiledifferinginmanyaspectsthebasicthemesofthese
approachesseemtoberecurrent:attentiontoalternativefuturesandtheco-productionofscience,
technologyandsociety,emphasisonthenon-neutralnatureoftechnology,stressonthetransformative
potentialofcivilsocietyandattentivenesstotheneedsandwantsofusersandnon-usersalike.
Integraltothenewapproachtoscience,technologyandinnovationpolicyshouldbeaconcernwiththe
transformationofsocio-technicalsystemsratherthanafocusontechnologicalinnovationinspecific
industries,andsectors.Thisconcernisinspiredbythesustainabilitytransitionsliterature(Grinetal.,2010).
Themainargumentfortheneedfortransformingthesesystemsisthatoptimizingexistinginstitutionsand
3
practicesinenergy,healthcare,mobility,agriculture,food,mobility,communicationandwater
managementwillnotleadoverthemediumandlongtermtoanadequateresponsetodefinedsocietal
challengessuchastheonescapturedbytheSDGs.Problemsareembeddedinthefundamentalframingof
socio-technicalsystemsandreformswhichameliorateexternalitiesandnegativeimpactmayextendthe
life-spanofexistingsocio-technicalconfigurationsbutwillnotresolveunderlyingproblems.Forexample,
changestotaxationmayleadtowelcomeredistributionbutwillnotprovideincentivesfordifferent
patternsofinvestmentininnovationandeconomicgrowthwhichcouldhaveamoredirectandlasting
impact.Investmentinhealthsystemsmayleadtoshorttermimprovementsinpeople’sabilitytoaccess
healthcarebutlongtermpressuresonhealthbudgetsanddemographicchangemeanthatmoreradical
changesinhealth,socialcareandapproachestowellbeingwillbeneeded(BroerseandGrin,2017).
OverthepastyearworkingwithinthecontextofanewglobalConsortiumofScience,Technologyand
Innovationfundersandagencieswehavebeguntodocumenttheemergenceofnewwaysofframing
policyinspecificcountrycontextsandtoexplorewaysinwhichanalyseandpromoteresearchbased
approachestofurtherdevelopmentofanewpolicyapproach.TheConsortiumhasnamedthisnew
framingTransformativeInnovationPolicy(inspiredbySchotandSteinmueller,2016butseealsoSteward,
2012andWeberandRohracher,2012).Itisunderpinnedbytheoreticalperspectivesfromaliteratureson
innovation,transitions/transformationandalsorelatestobroadersetsofliterature,includingpolitical
economyperspectivesandevolutionaryeconomics,whichquestionandaddresstherelationshipbetween
science,innovationandsocialandeconomicprioritiesandbenefits.However,itisclearthattransformative
innovationpolicyneedsfurtherdevelopmentintoacompellingnarrativeaboutitsprospects,asetof
demonstratorshowitcanbedone,andanetworkofpeopleandinstitutionscapableofimplementingit..
TheTransformativeInnovationPolicyConsortium(TIPC)wasformedin2016attheSPRU50thanniversary
conference,anddesignedtoallowmemberstoco-createunderstandingaboutnewwaystousescience
andinnovationtodirectlyaddresssocial,economicandenvironmentalchallenges.Initspilotphasea
mappingexercisecombinedwithcasestudiesisdonetobuildupapictureandunderstandingofscience
andinnovationpolicyineachlocationandexistingeffortstomovepolicyinadifferentdirection.Inthe
futureTIPCwillconductexperimentsinscienceandinnovationpolicyandfundingaimedatdeveloping
insightintoeffectivewayshowofcontributingtotransformativechangerespondingtotheUNSustainable
DevelopmentGoals.
InthispaperweprovidebackgroundtoTIPC,anoverviewoftheworkofConsortiumsofarandnextsteps.
Thepaperconcludeswithanumberoffocusedquestionsaboutthenatureoftransitionsand
transformativechange.Thefollowingquestionsunderpinthispaper:
1. Howcanwedifferentiatebetweenwaysofframingresearchandinnovationpolicy?
2. Whataretheelementsoftransformativeinnovationineachofthefivecountries;and,howdoes
eachcountrycombinedifferentinnovationpolicyapproaches(orpolicymixes)topromote
4
transformativeinnovation?
3. Whataresomeoftheemergingissuesinvolvedinpromotingtransitionsandenacting
transformativeinnovationpolicy?Whataresomeofthechallenges,barriersandpotential
pitfalls?
BelowbasedonSchotandSteinmueller’sfirstpaper(2016)webrieflycharacterisetwodominantpolicy
frameworksandintroduceathirdalternative.Andappendixprovidesanoverviewtablewhichfleshesout
thethreeFrames.Nextweprovideasummaryofinitialworktomapdifferenttypesofinnovationpolicyby
fivefoundingmemberoftheTransformativeInnovationPolicyConsortium,coveringthefollowing
countries:Norway,Colombia,SouthAfrica,SwedenandFinland.Wethenconsidersomeofthequestions
andissuesthattheconsortiumwillworkwithaseffortstodevelopframe3initiativesprogress.We
concludewithadescriptionofnextstepsandplannedactivitiesforTIPCmembers.
ThreeframesforSTIpolicy
Beforepresentingdifferentwaysofframingresearchandinnovationitisimportanttocaveattheanalysis.
Werecognisethattheframesbelowarenotwater-tightcategoriesandneitheraretheystatic.Frames1
and2overlapandinformedeachotherandwillcontinuetodothatwithrespecttoeachotherandFrame
3.Andeveninitsnascentstages,Frame3representsavarietyoftypesofpolicyframingsand
interventionsaimedatdirectlyaddressingsocial,environmentalandeconomicissueswithresearchand
innovation.Thesecharacterisationsofdifferentframesshouldbeseenasevolvingandanattemptto
betterunderstandtheorientationandnatureofpoliciesandinterventionsbroadlyratherthanasdetailed
andfinalisedcategories.
Frame1:R&Dleadstoinnovation
TheconceptualisationoftherelationshipbetweenR&Dandinnovationinthisframeisquite
straightforward.Researchleadstoinnovation-thekeychallengeistospendmoneyonresearchinan
enablingway.Thisframeemergesoutthe2ndWorldWarandintheaftermathofthescientificmilestones
thatoccurredinthoseyearsasaresultofsignificantinvestmentinR&D.Themainjustificationforspending
moneyinresearchunderthisframeofthinkingrevolvesaroundmarketfailure.Itisnotpossibleforprivate
sectorfunderstorecoupinvestmentinbasicresearchanda‘tragedyofthecommons’arises-noone
entityfromtheprivatesectorwillinvestinthepublicgoodofknowledge.Theframeprovidesarationale
forwhythestate,therefore,needstostepintofundbasicscienceandresearch.Inresponse,governments
inEuropeandintheUSbegantoexpandtheresearchfundingarchitectureandinstitutionalsupport
mechanismssuchaspeerreviewandother‘supply-push’mechanismsbegintotakehold.
5
Thedecadesthatfollowedfromthisexpandedinvestmentinscienceandtechnologywitnessedarapid
growthinnewtechnologiesandeconomicgrowth,alongwiththeexpansionofsectorsandindustriessuch
asagriculture,aviationandtransportandhealth.However,alongsidethisrapidgrowthcamenew
challengestoenvironmentandhealthandaraftofnegativeconsequencesoftechnologicaladvancesbegin
toemerge(notunlikewasseenaftertheindustrialrevolution).Inkeepingwiththepredominanceof
scienceandscientificexpertise,theseenvironmentalandhealthconsequencesfromthe1960sonwards
aredealtwiththroughsciencebasedregulationandaparallelinfrastructurebeginstoemergetolink
expertswithpolicymakersaroundregulatingscienceandinnovation(seeforexampleJasanoff,1990).
Theimplicationsofthisapproachresultedinthedominanceoftheso-called‘linearmodel’ofinnovation.
Whilewenowappreciatethattherhetoricofsuchalinearmodelnevercapturedthecomplexityofthe
innovationprocess,itneverthelessprevailedinpolicycirclesformanyyearsandisstillinfluentialin‘pure’
ormodifiedformsthatseetheStateinvestinginthesupplyofbasicandmoreappliedR&D.
Frame2:InnovationSystems
Duringthe1970sand1980s,increasedeconomicpressuresandinternationalcompetitionbegantoexpose
thelimitationsofthefirstpolicyframework.Differencesincountry’sabilitytowithstandeconomicshocks
becamemoreapparentandthelackofsubstantialprogressinbridgingthegapbetweenthepoorestand
richestcountriesintheworldcausedconcern.
OnemajorissuethatanalystssuchasRichardNelsonandEricVonHippelbegantonoteisthatresearch
doesnotflowfreely.Knowledgeis‘sticky’andtacitanddifficulttotransfer.Countriesalsodonotfollowa
similarpath,varietiesofdevelopmentpathwaycontinuetopersist.Developmentisboundincomplex
wayswiththeinstitutionsthatproduceit.EvolutionaryeconomistssuchasPaulDavid,BrianArthur,
GiovanniDosiandothersbegantowriteabouttheimportanceofpathdependenceininnovation–
essentiallyarguingthatcountriesshouldfollowtheirownestablishedpathway,andnottrytobreakfrom
establishedroutinesandpracticeinordertofollowanidealisticmodel.
Tocapturethesecomplexities,awidevarietyofscholarsfromdifferentdisciplinaryandintellectual
backgroundsincreasinglybegantorefertoavarietyofinnovationsystems(Freeman,Lundvall,Nelson).
Thecapacity,capabilitiesandnatureoftherelationshipsbetweenorganisationsandinstitutionsinany
‘system’,beitnational,regionalorsectoral,deeplyimpactstherateandnatureofresearchwhichoccurs.
Thisframeworkshiftsattentionfromthecreationanddiffusionofresearchtoconsiderationofhow
institutionsandorganisationsfunction,andinteract(andcreatedemandforresearch).Inthis
conceptualisation,itisthelearningandabsorptivecapacitybetweendifferentactorsinthesystemwhich
6
emergesasincreasinglyimportant,aswellasentrepreneurship(theavailabilityandreadinessofactorsto
bringresearchtothemarket).
Frame3:Transformativeinnovationpolicy
Inthelastdecade,science,technologyandinnovationhavebeenwidelyinvokednotsimplyasthe
foundationforfuturegrowthstrategiesbutasanimportantcomponentforresolvingarangeofsocial
issuessuchasenvironmentalandhealthchallenges.Theviewofresearchandinnovationassocially-
relevantinamultiplicityofinterdependentways,aswellaseconomically-beneficialhasledtoincreasing
recognitionthatthefirsttwopolicyframesarenotwellsuitedtothisambitionandgoalbecauseneither
conceiveofresearchandinnovationinwaystargetedtothescaleoftransformationthatisneeded.
Therelationshipbetweenresearchandinnovationinthisframeisnotfocusedonensuringinnovation
happens(asfastandasmuchaspossible)butaboutthedirectionofinnovation.Adifferentiatingfeature
offrame3isthereforetheconceptionofdirectionalityfailure(WeberandRohracher,2012;forthenotion
ofdirectionalityseeStirlingxxx).Inframe1thechallengeistoovercomemarketfailureandinframe2itis
tolinkuporganisationsandmaketheinstitutionsandactorswhichenableeffectiverelationshipsfor
researchtranslationintoinnovationswith(commercial)impact.Theaimisovercominginstitutionalfailure
andshapingmarkets.Ratherthanmarketorinstitutionalfailure,Frame3grappleswithdirectionalfailure,
or‘needsfailure’–afailuretodiscusshowtomeetsocialandenvironmentalneedswithSTI
(acknowledgingthattheseneedsarenotpredefinedorgivenbutaretobeexploredintheprocesstoo).
Meetingneedsdependsonbringingtogetheradiverseunderstandingandengagementofawiderrangeof
stakeholdersacrossallstagesofresearchandinnovationpathways,inanon-linearwaysandastronger
shifttoacultureofco-production.Routedintheoreticalworkonsocio-technicaltransitionsandlongterm
transformativechange,initialthinkingaboutFrame3indicatesthatexperimentalapproacheswhichwill
challengeexistingsocio-technicalpatternsarevitallyimportant.Evenwherenewmacrolevelinstitutions
emergeandsignaltheneedfornewdirection,suchasinternationaltreatiesornationallaws,anyprofound
changewillrevolvearoundbottom-upsocio-technicaltransitionsachievedthroughopeningupforarange
ofoptions,experimentation,learning,networking,andparticipation.Thisthinkingunderpinstheworkof
TIPC.
Howdoeseachframeaddresssocial,economicandenvironmentalchallenges?
Whilstframe3isexplicitlyaimedatdirectlyaddressingsocietalchallenges,eachoftheframesis,in
principle,abletoaddresssocialneedsandenvironmentalissues.Frame1wouldsuggestmissionoriented
R&Dfocusedonchallengesassociatedwithsocialneedsandtheenvironment,andregulationandthe
organizationofasocialbenefitsystemtocompensatethoseleftbehind.Itisasupplydrivenmodelwhich
focusesonbreakthroughs.Althoughlinkswiththemarketsandusersarerecognizedasimportantsuccess
7
factorsforinnovation,themainemphasisisonstimulatinginvestmentinaneffectiveway.Whilethis
framecanintegrateneedsbyallocationofresearchfundinginareaspertinenttoaddressingsocialand
environmentalneeds(e.g.medicalresearchonnewvaccines;cleantechprograms),typicallyitdoesnot
enablesustainabilitytransitions/transformationsandinclusionofnewnon-researchactorsintotheframe
whicharecentralelementsinframe3.Frame2wouldsuggestinterveninginexistingnationalsystemsof
innovationtoachievebetteralignmentandcoordination(e.g.innovationsinthecoordinationbetween
medicalresearchandhealthcaredelivery)orstimulatingentrepreneurshipinrelevantareas.Initiatives
usingthisframingcanandoftendoincludeawiderarrayofactors,yetfocusonprocessandproduct
innovation,learningandincrementalchange.Itdoesnotfocusonradicalchange,anditleavescivilsociety
actorsattheperiphery.Insumforbothframe1and2adeepertransformationwhichwouldalignsocial&
technologicalchangeandredirectmobility,energy,food,agriculturalandhealthcaresystemsawayfrom
unsustainablepathwaysisnotacoreaim.Insteadthefocusisonstimulatinginnovationinorderto
generateeconomicgrowth.Questionsaboutthedirectionalityembeddedintheseinnovationarenotput
central.
Frame3putstheissueofdirectionalityfrontandcenter.Itwouldsuggestanticipatingandexperimenting
withnewapproachestoinnovationforsocialandenvironmentalneedsthatgoesbeyondafocuson
creatingknowledgeorimprovinginnovationsystemfunctioning,andfocusesdirectlyoncreating
conditionsforsocio-technicalsystemchange.Herethemainrationaleforpolicyis
transition/transformationheadon.Frame3policiesareopen-ended,focusedonlearning,andbottom-up
emergenceoftransformation,whilekeepingthetransformationrationaleupasamaindrivingquestion
(SchotandSteinmueller,2016).
Frames1and2ontheonehandandFrame3ontheotherhandarefollowingadistinctconceptionofhow
STIpoliciescontributetoachievingpublicwelfareandacleanenvironment(seefigure1).Thisfigureshows
thatamaindifferencebetweenframe1&2ontheonehandandframe3ontheotherhandisthatthe
formergettopublicwelfare/cleanenvironmentthroughthestimulusofeconomicgrowthandregulation,
whilethelatterencourageaddressingpublicwelfareandacleanenvironmentintheinnovationprocess
itselfassumingeconomicgrowthwillfollowtoo(albeitonewithadifferentcontent).Pleasenotethat
missingfromthefigureisthatframe3incorporatesthenotionofdirectionality,whichmightalsoleadtoa
redefinitionofeconomicgrowth.
8
Figure1:STIpolicyframesandhowtheyaspiretoachievepublicwelfareandacleanenvironment.
Differentcoloursrefertodifferentframes(red–frame1,blue–frame2,green–frame3).Asolid
lineindicatesanaspectthathasbeenexplicitlyaddressedbytheframe(e.g.thelinkbetween
knowledgecreationandutilizationinframe2),whereasadashedlineindicatesanaspectthatis
expectedtofollowautomaticallyoncesomeprioractivitieshavebeenconducted(e.g.theutilization
oftheresultsofbasicscientificresearchbyindustriesinframe1orregulationwhichcorrects
failure).Asummaryoverviewofthethreeframesispresentedintableformintheappendixtothis
paper.
UsingthethreeframestomapSTIpolicyinconsortiumcountries
TheTransformativeInnovationPolicyConsortium(TIPC)isinitspilotphaseandpartoftheworkassociated
withthisphasehasbeentomapresearchfundingandinnovationinitiativesusingthe‘3Frames’asthe
basisfordiscussionandanalysis.Hereweofferaverybriefstylizedsummaryofsomeofthefindingsfrom
thismappingexerciseconductedinexistingTIPCmembercountries–Colombia,Finland,Norway,South
AfricaandSweden.WefocusonhowcountriesaremovingtowardsincorporatingFrame3perspectives.
MappingwasachievedwithbackgroundresearchcarriedoutbySPRUandTIPCpartnersandinthecontext
ofcountrybasedworkshops.
Sweden’sChallengeDrivenInitiative(CDI)exemplifieshowsomeFrame3elementsarebeingincorporated
incurrentprogrammes.InitiatedbyVinnova,CDIisdesignedaroundfourchallenges‘futurehealthcare’,
‘sustainableattractivecities’,‘informationsociety3.0’and‘competitiveproduction’.Thesegobeyond
simpleFrame1fundedresearchprogrammesaimedatsocialandenvironmentneedsbecausetheyinclude
innovationsinhowend-usersareengagedandnetworking.Theyspanmultiplethematicandsectoralareas
Create knowledge
Utilize knowledge
Economic growth
Public welfare
Clean environment
Environmental and societal challenges
9
withanenvironmentalsustainabilitycontext.VINNOVAhasalsoinstigatedtheTheStrategicInnovation
Programme(SIP)whereagenda’shavebeendefinedinconsultationwithstakeholdersacrosspublic,
privateandcivilsocietysectors.TheSIPapproachisdesignedtofostermoreradicaldeparturesfrom
existingsocialandtechnologicaltrajectoriesthroughdelegationtoimplementationactors.Itinvolves
considerabledelegationofmanagerialauthorityfromcentralVINNOVAstafftoprogrammeleads.
Animportantfeatureoftheprogrammeisthatregularevaluationallowsoverallmonitoringandevidence
tofeedintodecisionsaboutdirectionandprogressofprogrammesandtheinitiativeasawhole.VINNOVA
hasalsoplanstomovemoretoanexperimentalapproachtosysteminnovationthroughthecreationof
nationalpolicylabswhichwouldallowshieldingfromregulationswhichpreventsfurtherdevelopments.
FinlandhastheBioNetsprogrammeadministeredbyTEKESandotheragencies.BioNetsis‘bottom-up’in
thatthegoalsaredefinedbythestakeholdersthemselves.Finlandalsohasanumberofinitiativeswhich
comefromsectorbasedprogrammes,andareexperimentalbynature.Reconceivingtransportasthe
provisionof‘transportservices’alongwithaccompanyingregulatoryandprocurementinitiativesisan
exampleofeffortstoexperimentwithnewsociotechnicalsystemsandalterthedirectionofinnovation.A
programmeforencouraginginclusiveinnovationinlowandmiddleincomecountriesandanewstrategic
researchfundinginitiativetoaddress‘wickedproblems’(onesinvolvingincompleteorcontradictory
knowledgeandopinion,potentiallymajoreconomiccosts,andintricateinter-dependencies)bythe
AcademyofFinlandhavealsobeeninstigated.
NorwayhasadoptedadifferentrouteintothisnewterrainbydrawingheavilyonResponsibleResearch
andInnovation(RRI)thinkingtoguideefforts.RRIunderpinsfourprogrammesfundedbytheResearch
CouncilofNorway(RCN):ResearchProgrammeonBiotechnologyforInnovation(BIOTEK2021),the
ResearchProgrammeonNanotechnologyandAdvancedMaterials(NANO2021),theInitiativeforICTand
digitalinnovation(IKTPLUSS)andtheProgrammeonResponsibleInnovationandCorporateSocial
Responsibility(SAMANSVAR).BIOTEK2021inparticularevidencesacommitmenttomeetingsocial
challenges.InnovationNorwayalsorunsaninitiativecalledDreamCommitment,abrainstormingprocess
involvingabroadcrosssectionofNorwegiansocietyinthinkingaboutfuturesocialchallenges.
The1994NationalDevelopmentPlanlaidoutthesignificantchallengesthatSouthAfricanpolicymakers
neededtoaddress.Relatedly,the1996ScienceandTechnologyWhitePaper,the1999NationalResearch
andTechnologyForesight,andthe2002NationalResearchandDevelopmentStrategyhavealllaidout
meansfortryingtolinkresearchandinnovationtosocio-economicanddevelopmentgoals.Tothisendthe
DepartmentofScienceandTechnology(DST)overseasamulti-prongedapproach.Anumberofresearch-
ledprogrammeswhichlinktoeconomicandsocialchallengesfallundertheNationalResearchFoundation
(NRF)andtheDST,whichoperatesataxdeductioninitiationtoencourageinvestmentinR&Dtogenerate
10
employment.TheseinitiativesaregovernedbyFrame1implementationmodes.Anarrayofrecent
initiatives,governedbyFrame1buttoalargerextent,Frame2elements,aimatmoredirectinvolvement
andcoordinationofstakeholders,withaviewtoachievingspecificsocialandenvironmentaloutcomes.
TheseinitiativesincludetheRenewableEnergyIndependentPowerProducers’ProcurementProgramme
(REIPPPP),andDST-ledTechnologyforRuralEducationandDevelopment(Tech4RED)–aprogrammewith
sixkeycomponents:ICT,Nutrition,Health,WaterandSanitation,Energy,andScienceCentre.Other
examplesincludesupportfortheNationalHealthInsurance(NHI),andprogrammestargetedatlowincome
segmentsofthepopulation,forexample,aDSTgrassrootsinnovationinitiative.TheDepartmentofHigher
EducationandTraining(DHET)isalsoreconstructingfinancepackagestofacilitateinclusion.
RecentinitiativesinColombiathattargetresearchandinnovationonsocialandeconomicgoalsarealso
linkedtospecificdevelopmentinitiativesinadditiontoacontinuationofpoliciesandprogrammesto
supporteconomicdevelopmentgoalsandtobetterarticulatescience,innovationanddevelopment.The
2011-2014NationalDevelopmentPlanlaysoutbroadrangingapproachestolinkingacrossresearchand
innovationtosustainablegrowthandcompetitivenessacrossdifferentsectorsandareas.Theseinitiatives
mighthaveFrame3rationalesbutaredominatedbyFrame1and2featuresintheiroperation.Colombia
supportsmultipleschemessupportingpotentiallysociallyrelevantresearch.However,thesocial
innovationprogrammesfallingundertheNationalStrategyforSocialAppropriationhavemovedpolicy
towardslinkingknowledgecreationandsocialgoalsinmoredirectandtargetedways.‘Ideasparael
Cambio’launchedin2012and‘ACiencaCierta’launchedin2013bothinitiatedbyColcienciasandfunded
bytheInterAmericanDevelopmentBank(IDB)takedifferentapproachestomakingknowledgeaccessible
andusefultolocalcommunities.Thefirstengagesinpublicorprivatesectorresearchersintechnological
problemsolving.Thesecondengagescommunitygroupsinidentifyingpossiblesolutionstosocialand
environmentalproblemsandmakestheirsuggestionsaccessibletoothersbystoringtheminadatabase.
RutaN,aninitiativeinMedellintocreatefablabs,creativelabsandbusinessacceleratorshighlightthe
potentialimportanceofmunicipalitiesininstigatingFrame3typeapproaches.TheGeneralRoyaltySystem
(GRS)thatchannelssignificantfundsforSTIinvestmenttotheregionsprovidesthepotentialforboth
decentralizationofgovernanceandachangeinfocusoffundingofSTItosupportregionalinitiativesthat
canhaveabigimpactoninclusion.AparticularchallengeforColombiawillbetoensureSTIpolicyhasa
positiveimpactinthepost-conflictregionswhereworkingeducation,health,housingandagricultural
policieswillbecritical
DiscussionbasedonresultsofmappingSTIpoliciesanddiscussionswithinConsortium
Allthreeframesarevisible
AllfivecountriesprovideevidenceofamovetowardsaFrame3rationale.Theneedtoaddresssocietal
11
andenvironmentalneedsthroughSTIpoliciesisrecognizedandanemergingsetofinitiativeshavealready
beenputinplacetoimplementthenewrationale.Allconsortiummembercountriesareexperiencinga
differentrangeofeconomic,socialandenvironmentalchallengesandthesechallengesshapeboththe
articulationandimplementationofFrame3approaches.Culturalandpoliticalhistoriesareimportantand
alsoaccountforsomeofthedifferencesinparticularities.Forexample,theimportanceofconsensusand
bottom-upapproachesinSweden,thelegacyofapartheidinSouthAfricaandofconflictinColombiahave
allplayedaroleinshapingthecontentandinstitutionalfeaturesofemergentFrame3approaches.
WhilstitistruethatFrame3policiesarestillmarginal,theyarepresentedascriticalandinsomecasesas
partofurgentandprioritypolicyagendas.Thereisaweightofexpectationwhichwhilstreflectingaclear
theneedfornewdirectionsinpolicymaypresentproblemsifpoliciesdonotdeliverrapidly.Eachcountry
hasitsownspecificapproachanditsownnarrativearoundtheemergenceofresearchandinnovation
policiestargetedatsocial,economicandenvironmentalchallenges.InNorwayamovetowardsamore
knowledgebasedeconomyisaccompaniedbyamovetousingResponsibleResearchandInnovation(RRI)
thinkingtomakeresearchandinnovationmoreresponsivetosocietaldemands.Swedenisdeveloping
greenbusinessasitrestructuresitsindustrialbaseandusingstatesupportedresearchandinnovationto
supportthattransition.Colombia’semergingFrame3policiesareinterwovenwithitspeaceprocessand
attemptstoovercomeregionaldivisions.SouthAfrica’sFrame3typepoliciesarecloselyalignedto
broadertransformationofaneconomybasedonthelegaciesofapartheidandintegratedintoeffortsto
overcomeexclusionandunemployment.Finland’sdevelopmentofFrame3policiesareintegratedinto
initiativesaimedatovercomingeconomiccrisis,andmakingupforthelossofNokia.
Inallfivecountries,thedifferencesbetweentheFramesareimplicitratherthanarticulated.Thishas
consequencesforthewayinwhichpolicyisdeveloped,forthewayitisimplementedandforthewayitis
monitored.ItalsoseemslikelythatlackofamoreclearlydefinedFrame3agendamaylimitconsideration
ofamoreformalreflectionofhowdifferentframingsofpolicyandinstrumentsassociatedwiththemmight
ormightnotsupportorhindereachotherandwhatgapsmightexist.Rather,thereisanimplicit
assumptionthatpoliciesandinstrumentsassociatedwiththemcanbeeasilycombined.Thereisalso
limitedconsiderationofnewinstrumentsandmechanismsthatmightneedtoaccompanychangesinhow
organizationsfundresearchandbuildnetworks.Frame3aimsarelargelypursuedusingFrame1&2
instruments.
YetsomeConsortiummembersarecurrentlygrapplingwithhowtointegrateframe3elementsmore
explicitlyanddeveloppolicyinterventionsandbuildclearerconceptualapparatustoguidepolicy
development,implementationandevaluation.Oneexpressionofthisisthatduringthemappingprocess
twoconsortiumagenciesbegantothinkaboutamoreextensivemappingexercisethatwouldmapall
instrumentsandprogramsontothemultilevelperspective(MLP)representationoftransformativechange
12
inordertoidentifygapsininstruments.Here,nicheexperimentswouldbethoughtaboutinrelationto
changesneededtofacilitatebroadermeso-levelchangeandinrelationtosupportorobstaclespresented
bybroaderpolicytoolsandenvironments.Thiskindofexercisewouldpotentiallyhavemanybenefits
includingencouragingreflectionon‘policymixes’whichcouldfacilitatesuccessfultransition(Roggeand
Reichardt,2015)andpoliticaleconomyfactorswhichfacilitateorimpedetransitionandtransformation
(ByrneandMbeva2017).
ThebalanceacrossthethreepolicyresearchframesemphasisingFrames1and2areverylikelytobethe
subjectofongoingdebate.PartofthecomplexmanagementissuesrelatedtodevelopingFrame3willbein
definingwhereandhowitintersectswithpolicyandinterventionsrootedinotherframes.Thisposes
importantquestionsabouthowbesttoachievepotentialsynergiesacrossframesandacrosskeyactorsand
organisationsassociatedwitheachframe.Forexample,willhousingFrame3instrumentsandapproaches
alongsideFrames1and2typefundingmechanismsincreasetheirprominenceandimpactorincreasetheir
vulnerabilitytocaptureorfurthermarginalisation?ThismaywelldependontheextenttowhichFrames1
and2initiativesbegintodefinethemselvesinrelationtonewapproachesandthekindsoflinksthatareor
arenotbuiltbetweenthethreeframes.Forinstance,iftraditionalFrame1researchoutputsare
systematicallymadeaccessibletosociallyandenvironmentallyorientedinitiativeswilltherebeeffective
feedbackfromtheseinitiativesthatincreasethepaceofinnovationandfosteralternativedirections.
Similarly,iftraditionalnetworkandlinkageinitiativesbegintoincorporatesocialgoalswillthosewishingto
includeotherFrame3featuresbeeffectiveinarguingfordifferentconfigurationsof
actors,practices,andgovernanceprocesses?
Actorsandnewmanagementandorganizationalpractices
Ineachcountry,theconstellationofactorsinvolvedininitiativeswithFrame3characteristicsand
ambitionsisdifferent.Inallcountries,traditionalfundersofresearchandinnovationhaveplayedakey
role.Thusthereisevidencethatfundersareseekingtomovemoretoaroleofchangeagentfor
transformativechange.Thisisfarfromstraightforwardofcourse.Initialanalysissuggeststhatthismaybe
linkedtothepointmadepreviouslythatexplicitarticulationofFrame3rationale,andtheoriesofchange
forhowtoaddresssocietalandenvironmentalchallengesthroughSTIpoliciesaremissing.
Theactiveinvolvementofmultiplegovernmentministries,andahostoflocalactors,includegrassroots
innovators,informaleconomyactors,andcivilsocietyandcityactorsiskeytoFrame3initiatives.Involving
amultiplicityofactorsdoesnotnecessarilymeanconstructiveornon-rivalrousrelationshipsbetween
them,andtransformationprocessestypicallywillinduceandprovokeconflict,e.goppositionsanda
diversityofviewsandpositions.Thiscanbeproductivesinceitmightleadtosecond-order(ordeep)
learning,yetobviouslyitcanalsoleadtonoiseandnon-action,orevencounter-action.Whetherornot
13
conflictexists,frame3approachesaddcomplexityofparticipation,andthisagainraisesquestionsabout
managementandappropriatemanagementandgovernancearrangements.Oneoftheaimsinthecase
studiesthatwewillintroducelaterinthepaperistoexplorethewayinwhichconflictanddisagreementis
handled.
Ahostofquestionsneedtobeaskedinrelationtothewaythatmoreengagedagendasdevelop.Will
‘bottom-up’participativemechanismsactuallyreflecttheneedformoreradicaltransformationtoachieve
environmentalorparticularsocialgoalsorwilltheyreflectlowestcommondenominatorsandaseriesof
compromisesthatmayneedtobemade?Ormightmoreradicalagendasbecapturedbypowerful
interests?InSweden,anOECDassessmentindicatesthatwhilsttheCDIprogrammebuildsexplicitlyon
actionorientedapproachesinvolvingmultiplestakeholders,includingend-usersandgivesthoseusers
moreresponsibilityinimplementingandmonitoringprojects,theoutcomesarequiteconventional.The
sameOECDreportnotesthattheSIPprogramme,whilstalsoseeminglybuiltontheneedformoreradical
changeininnovationtrajectoriesandnewpatternsofengagementbetweenstakeholders,maybereflecting
themoretraditionalshorttermgrowthorientedobjectivesofpowerfulindustrialpartners(Coenenetal,
2017).
Anotherquestionoftenaskediswhethertherelationshipbetweenactorsshouldbemanagedthrough
administrativecoordinationsuchasinvariousinter-ministerialcommitteesorevennationalscience,
technologyandinnovationcouncil?Ormightthisapproachruncountertotheexperimentalethoswhich
SchotandSteinmueller(2016)suggestmightplayacrucialroleinthedevelopmentofFrame3
approaches?Inthatcasethebestoptionisperhapsnottofocusonadministrativecoordinationbut
engagearangeofactorsinnewinitiativestoensurecoordinationontheground.
Experimentation
TheFrame3perspectiveconteststheideathatthereisabestoroptimalapproachtoachievingthesocio-
technicalinnovationsnecessaryformeetingsocialandenvironmentalneeds.Itthereforefocuseson
experimentalapproaches.Experimentalapproachesinthiscasedonotimplythatrandomisedclinical
trialsarethemostappropriatemeansofprogressingpolicy.Thelevelsofcontextualdifferenceand
variationaretoogreattomakethatapproachthemostrelevantvehicleforlearningorestablishinggood
practice,andthefocusonabroadchangeprocesscannotbecapturedthroughRCTs.Experimentshaveto
beseenasinstrumentcontributiontonicheformation.Therelationshipsbetweennicheexperiments,
socio-technicaltransitionandtransformationisanimportantcomponentoftheoreticalframework
underpinningTIPCwork(SchotandSteinmueller,2016)).Thisincludesafocusonshielding,nurturingand
empoweringofniches.Atthesametimeadestabilisationofprevailingsocio-technicalsystemsisseenasa
necessaryconditionforenduringchangetoo.Anotheraspectofanalysisthatishighlightedbytheneedto
14
viewsmallerscalenicheexperimentsastriggersfortheintroductionofmoreradicalchangeistheneedto
developthinkingandunderstandingofthepoliticaleconomyofframe3initiatives.Recentworkon
politicaleconomyperspectivesmakesastrongargumentfor‘discursiveinstitutionalist’approachesto
politicaleconomyanalysis(Kern,2011;ByrneandMbeva,2017)whichareparticularlyrelevantto
situationscharacterizedbyhighdegreesofuncertaintyinwhichactorsmaynotfullunderstandtheir
interests(HudsonandLeftwich2014).Fromthisperspectiveitisimportanttofocusonideasand
discourses,aswellasinterestsandinstitutions.
InallofthecountriesparticipatinginTIPC,experimentationwithnewpracticeanddiscussionsonnew
directionsforinnovationpolicycanbediscerned(whiledestabilizationpoliciesarenotpresent).InSouth
Africa,thetriplechallengeoferadicatinginequality,povertyandunemploymentisthebackdropfornew
initiativeswhichdevolveresponsibilitiestolocalcommunities,seektosupportgrassrootsbased
entrepreneurialism,andbringstakeholderstogetherforimprovementsineducation.Thereisalsoan
indicationofbroaderinvolvementofactorsinColombiainalimitedrangeofprogrammeswithaparticular
emphasisonarticulatingproblemsfromacommunitylevelandexpressingtheseonlinetoencourageideas
forsolutionsfromavarietyofsources.Policiesandprogrammesthatspecificallylinkresearchtosocial
goalsareorientedtotraditionalactorsbutalsosupportedbyanewNationalStrategysupportedby
taxationonmineralroyalties.Aregionaldevelopmentbankhasalsoplayedanimportantroleinhelpingto
bridgebroaderdevelopmenteffortstoscienceandresearchpolicy.Inbothcountries,however,
experimentswithnewconfigurationsofactorsandmoredecentralisedinitiativesaresecondarytoefforts
aimedatmaintainingorimprovingtraditionalscience,technologyandinnovationsinstitutions.Asimilar
conclusioncanbedrawnforNorway,SwedenandFinlandfortheirresponsibleresearchandinnovation
initiatives,andtheirchallengeledandstrategicprogrammes.
Inallfivecountries,thereareexamplesofimportantexperimentalinitiativesoflocalmunicipalities,cities
orregionalauthoritiesinpromotingFrame3approaches.Intermsoffosteringexperimentalapproaches,
creatingspaceinbroaderregulatory,organisationalandinstitutionalframeworksfortheseinitiativesisa
significantissue.Animportantquestionmightbehowweconnecttheseinitiatives,upscalethemand
makethemtransformative.Thisquestioncanbeansweredonanationalbutalsotransnationalscale.This
connectingupworkmightbeanimportantrolefornationalfundersandinnovationagencies.
Roleoffunders
TheConsortium’scompositionfocussesattentionontheroleofnationalresearchfundersonthebalance
betweentheFramesandtheunderstandingsanddefinitionsofsocialandenvironmentalneeds.Because
researchfundershaveanongoingresponsibilityfortheknowledgeinfrastructureandbecausetheyare
15
majorplayersinthenationalinnovationsystemsitwouldbesurprisingiftheychosetocastaside
establishedpracticesofgovernanceandevaluationmechanismswhichsupportsthatgovernance.
However,conventionalindicatorsassociatedwithspendingonresearcharepowerfulandshapeaswellas
measurebehavior.GovernanceandevaluationarekeytotheextenttowhichFrame3areabletotake
rootinpolicyenvironments.
Theexperimentationwithpracticenotedinprevioussectioninvolvesanongoingsetofchangesinthe
structureofgovernancewhichinvolvebothdispersalofadministrativecontroltootheractorsand
assumptionofamoreactiveroleintheimplementationofinitiatives.Theprincipaltypeofdispersalisin
thedefinitionofinitiativeswhereitnowseemsbroadlyacceptedinallthecountriesthatlocal(intermsof
geographyorsector)definitionofobjectivesandthemeansofmeetingthoseobjectivesisdesirable.This
change,inturn,leadstootherquestionsconcerninggovernance.
Wheretraditionalfundingarrangementsmightfocusonwell-establishedactors,newinitiativesarelikelyto
involveamultiplicityoforganisationaltypes,mostofwhicharelessformalandperhapslessstablethanthe
traditionalactors.Thishasimplicationsforthefundingagencies’rolesinmonitoringactivitiesandmaking
interventionsduringthelifeofparticularprojects.Italsosuggestsalessarms-lengthrelationshipbetween
thefundingagencyandthosewhomightseektobeincludedinnewinitiatives.Towhatextentdofunding
agenciesneedtodevelopnewcapabilitiesforpromotingtheavailabilityandassistingintheapplicationfor
supportforsocialandenvironmentalinitiativethathaveFrame3elements(broaderparticipation,
opennesstoexperimentation,andattentiontoissuesofanticipationorforesight)?
Evaluation
Weareatanearlystagewithdevelopingevaluationtoolsandperspectivesfortransformativechange.
Frames1and2areassociatedwithavarietyofsupply,networkinganddemandpolicyinterventions.The
relativesuccessofthoseinterventionscanbemeasuredagainsttheoreticalandpracticebasedexpectation
andlearning.Frame3initiativesaremakinguseofsomeofthesamemechanismsintargetingsocial,
economicandenvironmentalchallengesbutasyetlittlethoughthasbeengivenastowhethernew
instrumentsareneededorwhetherdifferentcombinationsofpoliciesmaybecombinedinnovelwaysto
achievedifferentaimsandobjectivesandwhetherinitiativesthatdonotachieveimmediategoalsshould
bejudgedtohavefailed.Insummary,thefollowingissuesandevaluationcriteriawillbeimportantto
consideraspartofdevelopingFrame3policythinkingforevaluation:
1. Democratisationofdeliberationandchoicewithregardtogoalsandpossiblyimplementation(withthe
accompanyquestionofhowtodemocratisegovernanceandevaluation).Howcanthesecriteriabe
builtintoevaluationframeworks?
16
2. Explicitconsiderationisneededofmeanstodisruptexistingarrangementsthatarenegativelyaffecting
orblockingpathstomeetingsocialandenvironmentalneeds(notonly‘bad’prospectiveinnovations
butexistinginnovationsthathavenegativeimplications).Whatisthebestwaytoidentifyandevaluate
theimpactofnegatives?
3. Explicitpursuitofexperimentalapproachesbaseduponthelogicthata)moreofthesame(policies,
practices,etc.)producesmoreofthesame(outcomes,perpetuationofpoliciesandpractices)andb)a
priororexanteknowledgeofbestalternativesisunavailablewithoutexperience.Butadaptationwill
beimportant.Howcanwepromoteadaptiveapproaches?
4. Existingevaluativeframeworksandmethodsreinforceexistingpracticesandbiasplanningand
implementationtowardprioritisingtraditionalgoals.Nonetheless,newevaluativeframeworksand
methodsareneededforaccountability.Canex-antemethodsandtheoryofchangeapproachesbe
helpfulhere?
5. Abroaderscopeofanalysisisneededtoanticipatealignmentinchangeswithspecificsocio-technical
systemsinthedirectionofmoreprofoundchange.Whatshouldbetheindicatorsandsignsofchange
thatweidentifyanduse?
ThesequestionsareatthecoreoftheevaluationandaccountabilityanalysisthatTIPChopestodevelop
andwillbeimportantasconsortiummembersprogressexperimentsinFrame3policy.Whatmakesan
experimentworthdoing?Cananexperimentthatfailstoachieveitsinitialobjectivesbeseenasan
investmentwithasocialreturn?Ifthereisnotauniversalpathtotransformation,howcanweevaluate
thenatureoftransition?Howcanweassesswhenaparticularinitiativeistogeneratehigherorderor
doublelooplearning(learningusefulinsightsaboutthelargerprocessinwhichtheinitiativeislodgedthat
willpositivelyinfluencethedefinitionandimplementationoffutureinitiatives)?Atpresent,themapping
worksuggestthatFrame3initiativesarebeingundertakenbecauseoftheirself-evidentvalue–i.e.
becausetheirobjectivesareconsistentwithaddresssocialorenvironmentalchallenges.Insomecases,
particularlyinthecasesoftheScandinaviancountries,initiativeshavebeentakenunderthepremisethat
betteroutcomesmightbepossiblebymore‘bottomup’definitionofinitiatives.Ineithercasetheeternal
evaluativequestion–howcanweknowwhetherprogresshasbeenachieved?–isrelevant.
WorkinthispilotphaseofTIPCwillinformthedevelopmentofbroaderevaluationapproachesandthe
developmentofFrame3basedtheoriesofchange.Theseevaluationstrategiesneededtoberootedin
theoreticalunderstandingoftherelationshipsbetweennicheexperimentation,socio-technicaltransition
andtransformation,politicaleconomyperspectivesaswellasinitiallearningfromthemappingexercise
andthecasestudieswhichdiscussedinthenextsection.Currently,thelackofexplicitarticulationof
Frame3rationalesandlogicsisabarriertobeingabletodevelopmoreprecisethinkingaboutwhatspecific
partnerships,networks,interventions,instrumentsandpolicytoolsaremeanttoachieve(Marjanovicetal,
17
2013)todevelopingamorecoherentapproachtodevelopingFrame3thinking.Learningandadaptationis
centraltoFrame3thinkingandsotheabilitytocontinuallyiteratebetweenintendedimpactsand
outcomesandimplementationisvital.
TheoriesofchangeanddevelopmentofFrame3narrativesmaybeusefullysupportedbyvarioustypeof
‘futures’andex-anteevaluationwork.Consortiummembershavebeguntothinkaboutthis.Forexample,
FinlandandNorwayaretosomeextentintegratingforesightactivitiesintocurrenteffortstolinkresearch
andinnovationwithtargetedsocialandenvironmentalgoals.Foresight,andotherfuturestechniques,may
wellbeanimportanttoolforprovokingmorecreativeandradicalapproachestotransformation.
Scenariosbasedapproaches,particularlythosethatareagentbasedandlookathowbehavioursmay
changeandevolvecouldhelpbothindesigningandmonitoringworkandencouragingexperimentation.
Usingfuturesworkindevelopingtheoriesofchangemayalsobeawaytocountertheinherent
conservatism(thetendencyistolookforevidencethatapproacheshaveworkedinthepastnottoconsider
thescenarioswhichmayallowthemtoworkinfuture)inex-anteevaluationofproposalsforFrame3type
work.
3.Nextsteps:Developingcasestudies
Consortiummembersarecurrentlyworkingonaseriesofcasestudieswhichwillenablefurtheranalysisof
thefactorsthatpromoteandimpedeattemptstofocusresearchandinnovationdirectlyonsocialand
environmentalgoals.Theywillalsobeusedtostrengthentheoreticalunderpinningsrelatedtoframe3
transitionsandtransformativepolicy.Thisinturnwillfeedintodevelopmentofrealisttheoryofchange
basedevaluationsthatwillbeusedtoevaluateandmonitorprogressinworkonframe3‘experiments’
whichwillfollowthispilotphaseofTIPC.
Casescoverdiverseareasbuthavebeenselectedaccordingtothefollowingprinciples:1)directionality:
focusonalternativefuturesassociatedwithtechnologicaldesignchoices;2)goal:focusongrand
environmentaland/orsocialchallenges;3)impact:focusonsocio-technicalsystemsandsystem-level
issues;4)degreeoflearningandreflexivity:focusonsecond-orderlearning,problematizationofoperating
routinesofdifferentactorsandthecreationofspacesforexperimentation;5)conflict:focusondisruptive
change,possiblyresultinginmajordisagreementsbetweenactors;6)inclusiveness:focusoninitiatives
withabroadbaseofparticipation,includingtheconsiderationofnon-usersaspotentiallyaffectedparties.
Datawillbecollectedthroughsemi-structuredinterviewsandtheanalysisofpolicydocuments.A
18
workshopwithstakeholderswillconstructtransformativeinnovationhistories.Useofthismethodology
willhelptoensurethatalthoughthecasestudiesarediverse,therewillbevalueincomparingacrossthese
attemptstoformulateandimplementframe3approaches.Thecasestudiesareasfollows:
TEKES,Finland:Smart,low-carbonmobilitysolutionsforpassengertransport.
Theproject’sprincipalaimistoreducecarbonfootprintbydevelopingsustainableandsmart
mobilitysolutions.Overthepastdecade,Finlandhashadover20projects,bothpublicandprivate,
seekingtochallengeandchangethesocio-technicalsystem.Theseinitiativescanbeviewedas
nichesforwidersystemtransformation.Thiscasestudywillbuildanunderstandingofthe
strengthsandweaknessesoftheseattemptsatnicheexperiments.
ResearchCouncilofNorway:ResponsibleResearchandInnovation(RRI)withintheBiotechnologyfor
Innovation(BIOTEK2021)programme.
Thisisalarge-scale,long-termprojectwithvariousactorsfromacrossthebiotechnologysector.Its
flagship,the‘CentreforDigitalLifeNorway’(DLN),wascreatedtoenhancecollaborationbetween
lifesciences,informatics,mathematicalsciencesandengineering.Thisprogrammehasprogressed
furthestinNorwayintheadoptionanddevelopmentofRRIandhasledtotheir‘Frameworkfor
ResponsibleInnovation’.Byexaminingthiscase-study,thecountryteamcanexaminehowRRI
developsaspartofaTransformativeInnovationPolicy‘toolkit’.
DepartmentforScience&Technology,SouthAfrica:Cofimvaba’sTechnologyforRuralEducationand
Development(Tech4RED).
IncollaborationwiththeDepartmentofEducation(DoE),thistransformativeinnovationinitiative
investigatedarangeoftechnologiesandmeasuresthatcouldaddressruraleducationand
developmentchallengesinSouthAfrican.ThemaincomponentsofTech4REDare:ICTand
Education,Nutrition,WaterandSanitation,eHealth,Energy,andScienceCentre.Eachcomponent
involvesarangeofstakeholdersincludinggovernment(national,province,districtandlocal),
academia,industry,andcivilsociety.AlthoughspearheadedbytheDST,partnersintheCofimvaba
Tech4REDinitiative,forexampleintheICTandEducationcomponent,includetheDST,
DepartmentofBasicEducation(DBE),schoolswiththeDistrict,theEasternCapeDepartmentof
Education(ECDoE),andtheDepartmentofRuralDevelopmentandLandReform(DRDLR).Inthe
NutritioncomponentsstakeholdersincludeCSIR,AgriculturalResearchCouncil(ARC),Nestle,and
schools;whileintheEnergycomponent,stakeholdersincludeEskom,Municipality,schools,and
industryactors-Anglo-AmericanPlatinum,CleanEnergyInvestments,andAirProducts.
Theconceptualisation,designandimplementationofTech4REDisinfluencedbyvariouspolicies
whichtogetherhelpedtoshapethecontextwithinwhichTech4REDoperates.Someofthecore
19
policiesare:TheNationalDevelopmentPlan;NationalICTR&DandInnovationRoadmap;The
DepartmentofEducationWhitePaperone-Education;TheNationalSchoolNutritionProgramme;
TheNationale-Healthstrategy2012-2016;and,Schooling2025..TheTech4REDprogrammeis
comprehensive,holistic,andchild-centredwhilealsoincorporatingfamiliesandwider
communities.Thecasestudyexploresaspectsoftheprogrammeanddrawoutlearningfromthis
complexandambitiousinitiative.
Vinnova,Sweden:Challenge-drivenInnovationinitiatives(CDI).
ThiscasestudyillustratesoneofthecentralprincipalsofexaminationforTIP.Howcanweturn
socialandenvironmentalchallengesintoopportunitiesforgrowththroughthedevelopmentof
innovativesolutions?Bygoingstraighttotheheartofsocietalproblemsandseekingdirect
solutionstothem,growthcouldbecreatedbyaddressingchallengesanddirectlyimprovingpublic
welfare.Notby(asthedominantinnovationpolicyparadigmassumes)orientatingtoinnovations
thataddressprimarilyeconomicfactorsfirst,andthatthen,assumethatgrowthfromthesewill
raiselivingstandards.CDIfocusesonfourareas:1)futurehealthcare;2)sustainableattractive
cities;3)informationsociety3.0;4)competitiveindustries.Fromatransitionsperspective,these
CDIinitiativesmainlyaimtofacilitatenichedevelopmentandthecasestudywillallowinitial
analysisofprogresstodate.
Colciencias,DepartmentofScience,Technology&Innovation,Colombia:InclusiveInnovationincoffee
sector
TheColombiancoffeeindustryhasbeenanarenaoflearningandinnovationforbestpartof90
years.AremarkablefeatureoftheColombiancoffeesectoristhatwhilstitisaninternationally
competitivesector,thesuppliersareoverwhelminglyindependentmicroandsmallagricultural
producers.Throughacombinationoftechnologicalinnovation,institutionalentrepreneurshipand
supportofSTIpolicy,thecoffeesectorhasprovidedaviableandsustainablelivelihood.Important
socialfeaturessuchassustainability,participation,qualityoflife,fairtrade,R&Dandtechnical
assistancehavefeatured.Further,abalanceappearstohavebeenmaintainedbetweenhumanand
naturalresources.Thiscasestudywillinvestigatethedegreeandmannerinwhichframe3
elementsplayedaroleintheprocess.Alsowhethersocialandtechnologicalnichesevolvedto
supporttransformationalprocesses,andhowtheregime,regionandsectorinstitutionsmayhave
alignedprioritiestoprotectandnurturetheevolutionofinclusiveniches?Howtoowere
capabilitiesandotherinclusivefeatures“scaledup”?
Conclusion
20
Thispaperhasprovidedanoverviewofboththinkingbehindtransformativeinnovationpolicyandthe
TransformativeInnovationPolicyConsortium(TIPC)designedtofosternewapproachestoscienceand
innovationpolicy.ItisclearthatthejourneyofTIPChasjustbegun.
References(notcomplete,apologiesfortheinconvenience)
Agola,N.O.,andHunter,A.(Eds.).2016.InclusiveInnovationforSustainableDevelopment:Theoryand
Practice.London:PalgraveMacmillanUK.
Freeman,C.2008.SystemsofInnovation:SelectedEssaysinEvolutionaryEconomics.Grin,J.,Rotmans,J.,Schot,J.Geels,F.,andLoorbach,D.2010.TransitionstoSustainableDevelopment:
NewDirectionsintheStudyofLongTermTransformativeChange.NewYork:Routledge.
Lundvall, B.-A. (ed.) 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning.
Nelson,R.,ed.(1993).NationalInnovationSystems.AComparativeAnalysis.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Jasanoff,S.1990.TheFifthBranch:ScienceAdvisorsasPolicyMakers.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.Joly,P.-B.2016.Beyondthecompetitivenessframework?Modelsofinnovationrevisited.Journalof
InnovationEconomics&Management(forthcoming).
Mulgan,G.2007.SocialInnovation.London:YoungFoundation
Pawson,R.&Tilley,N.(1997).RealisticEvaluation.London:Sage.
Pawson,R.(2013).Thescienceofevaluation:arealistmanifesto,London,SAGEPublications.Rogers,P.,(2014),TheoryofChange,UNICEF.Retrievedfrom:http://devinfolive.info/impact_evaluation/img/downloads/Theory_of_Change_ENG.pdf,K.andReichardt,K(2015)Goingbeyondinstrumentinteractions:Towardsamorecomprehensivepolicymixconceptualizationforenvironmentaltechnologicalchange.SPRUWorkingPaperSeries,no.12.
Schot,J.,andSteinmueller,E.W.2016.FramingInnovationPolicyforTransformativeChange:Innovation
Policy3.0.Workingpaper.Availableonline:http://www.johanschot.com/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/SchotSteinmueller_FramingsWorkingPaperVersionUpdated2018.10.16-New-
copy.pdf.
Soete,L.2013.Innovation,growthandwelfare:fromcreativedestructiontodestructivecreation.Paperfor
theSPRUDIG-ITworkshopInclusiveGrowth,InnovationandTechnology:InterdisciplinaryPerspectives.
Availableonline:https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=soete-dig-
itworkshopsoete.pdf&site=25.
Steward,F.2012.
Stilgoe,J.,Owen,R.,andMacnaghten,P.2013.Developingaframeworkforresponsibleinnovation.
ResearchPolicy42(9):1568-1580.
21
UnitedNations.25.09.2015.Transformingourworld:the2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment.
ResolutionadoptedbytheGeneralAssembly.Availableonline:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
Weber,K.M.,andRohracher,H.2012.Legitimizingresearch,technologyandinnovationpoliciesfor
transformativechange:Combininginsightsfrominnovationsystemsandmulti-levelperspectiveina
comprehensive'failures'framework.ResearchPolicy41(6):1037-1047.
22
Appendix1:3framessummary
Thetablebelowisaselectivemixtureofideasrelatingtothethreeframesofresearchandinnovation
policy.Thetableaimstofunctionasasimplifyingdevicesothatthedistinctivenessofeachframecanbe
easilygraspedataglance.Thisleadstocertainimplications:
Avoidanceofexcessivespecification:yes,eachframeismorenuancedthanthetableallowsandhas
alsodevelopedovertime(forexample,innovationsystemsliteraturehasstartedtopayattention
tocivilsociety,entrepreneurshipapproacheshavestartedtotalkaboutsocialentrepreneurship).
Thesimplificationsinthetablearemadepurposefully,reflectingatrade-offbetweenprecisionand
clarity.Itisalwayspossibletoaddmorenuanceandcomplexityinthetextdescribingtheliterature
aroundeachframework.
Choiceofcriteria:ideallythetableshouldnotcontaintoomanycriteria,otherwiseitwouldbecome
toodifficulttofollow.Thisindicatesa(future)needtoagreeonthecrucialones.Admittedly,there
ismuchworktobedoneinthisregard.
Exclusivity:asageneralrule,cellsineachrowshoulddiffersubstantiallyfromeachother.Therefore,
criteriacommontoallormostoftheapproachesshouldbeavoidedwherepossible.Moreover,
sincetheframesarecumulativewitheachpartlyreactingtobutalsobuildingonthepreviousones
itissensibletoconstructthetableinsuchamannerthateachcellwouldfocusonlyonthenovel
additionalfeaturesofeachframe.
Symmetry:theessentialdifferencesbetweentheframesshouldbeoutlinedsymmetrically(e.g.
“conflictvs.consensus”shouldbespecifiedforeachframe,notonlysomeofthem).Ifthiscreates
difficultieswithfillingthetableitindicatessomegapsincurrentthinkingthatrequireadditional
reflection.However,itisnotnecessarytoachievesymmetryforcriteriacontainingdescriptive
characteristics(suchas“typicalpolicyactivities”forwhichthenumberofactivitiesineachcellmay
welldiffer).
Finally,thetableproposesthatframe2containstwovariants.Inreviewingpolicyframeworksinthe
existingfiveconsortiumcountrieswenotethatwithinthenationalsystemsofinnovationframingthereare
anumberofvariantsandinthistablewehavedelineatedmoreandlessmarket-basedapproachesand
havebeguntocharacterizeamarket-basedapproach(“entrepreneurship”).Thelattercanbeseenasan
applicationofamoregeneralneoliberalapproachtothedomainofinnovationpolicy.Hencewehave
highlightedthedistinctiveemphasesofeachwith(a)and(b)whereappropriate.
23
3FRAMES:ACOMPARISON
Inputprovidedby:JohanSchot(SPRU),EdSteinmueller(SPRU),LaurKanger(SPRU),TuomoAlasoini(Tekes)
Frame1:R&D Frame2:systems(a)andentrepreneurship(b) Frame3:transformativechange
Timeofdominance 1960s-1980s 1980stotoday Emerging
Maingeographical
focus
National Nationalandregionalsystemsofinnovationintersecting
withsectoralandtechnologicalinnovationsystems(a)/
Nationalwithparticularattentionto“centresofexcellence”
or“clusters”ofinnovativeactivity(b)
Multi-scalar:focusongrandchallenges
thatextendtomultiplescales
exceedinggeographical,sectoral,
technologicalanddisciplinary
boundaries
Focalactors Government,scientistsandindustry
actorswithatendencytoprioritize
largefirms
Interlinkedconfigurationsofgovernment,scienceand
industryactorswithparticularattentiontotheroleand
missionsofuniversities(a)/enterprises,marketsandthe
governmentwithaparticularfocusonNewTechnology-
BasedFirmsandstart-upculture(b)
Government,science,industry,civil
society,end-usersandnon-users(as
potentiallyaffectedpartiesand
contributorstotheinnovation
processes)
Justificationfor
policyintervention
Fixingmarketfailures:industriesfail
toconductbasicscientificresearch
thatisnotfullyappropriableor
conductlessofthisresearchthan
sociallydesirable
Fixinginstitutionalsystemfailures,includingfailureto
generateentrepreneurship:increaseinR&Dspendingdoes
notautomaticallyleadtohighperformanceintermsof
innovativeactivities.NB.Systemreferstosetoflinks
betweenactorsasinnationalsystemofinnovation
Fixingtransformationalsocio-technical
systemfailures:R&D,innovation
systemsandcommercializationdonot
leadtosolvingimportantsocialand
environmentalproblems
Mainstrategy Knowledgegeneration:provide Knowledgeutilization:boostabsorptivecapacity;increase Solvingsocialandenvironmental
24
supportforbasicandappliedscience systemperformancebycreatingoflinksbetweenactors
andfacilitatingmutuallearning(a)/promote
entrepreneurshipandfacilitatethecreationofmarketsfor
innovativegoodsandservices(b)
challenges:morespacefor
experimentationwithnichesolutions
enablingsocio-technicalsystems
changeandtiltingtheinstitutionaland
regulatoryregimefieldtowards
transformativechangeofsocio-
technicalsystems
Natureofcritical
knowledge
Appropriateandtransferable:easy
toadopt,applyandutilizewithout
protectivemeasures
Stickyandsituated:utilizationrequiresproximity,
absorptivecapacityandinteractivelearning
Emergentandco-produced:generated
throughdialoguebetweenmultiple
actorsaspartofacollectivesearch
process
Focalareas Hightechnology:stressonthe
creationofradicalnovelty
Radicalandincrementalproductandprocessinnovations:
stressonsignificantprice/performanceimprovements
throughsuccessiveincrementalinnovations
Socio-technicalsystems:stresson
fundamentaltransformationofsystem
architecture,changingbothits
componentsanditsdirectionalityof
development
Typicalpolicy
activities
4. R&Dstimulation(subsidies,tax
credits,procurement,mission-
orientedprogrammes)
5. BuildingtheIntellectualProperty
Rightsregime
6. Educationpolicywithemphasis
• Constructinglinksbetweenactors(buildingplatforms,
networks,databases)andorganizingtechnologytransfer
• Stimulationoflearning-by-doing,learning-by-using,
learning-by-interacting
• Useofdemandstimuli(e.g.procurement)toenhance
andacceleratemarketdevelopment
• Stimulationofexperimentationwith
nichetechnologies,scale-upand
accelerationofsocio-technical
transitions(e.g.StrategicNiche
Management,innovation
intermediaries,Transition
25
onScience,Technology,
EngineeringandMath(STEM)
subjects
7. Sciencecommunicationto
explaintheimportanceofSTEM
towiderpublic
8. Foresighttoselectfocusareas,
regulationandtechnology
assessmenttomanagenegative
impacts
• Buildingregionalandnationalsystemsofinnovationby
assessingcapabilitiesgapsandtechnological
opportunities,implementingpoliciestoaddressthem
• Enhancingskilldevelopmentbasedonproactiveanalysis
ofskillgapsandshortfalls
• Programstostimulateentrepreneurshipandincubators
(includingindoctrinationinthesocialvalueof
entrepreneurship)
• ImprovingbusinessconditionsforSmallandMedium-
SizedEnterprisesandstart-ups
• Addressingthenatureofequitymarkets(mezzanine
levelfinance,IPO,inclusioninexchanges),especially
angelandventurecapitalmarkets
Management)
• Newinstitutionalsolutionsfor
changingthedirectionalityof
existingR&Dandinnovation
activities(e.g.technologyforcing,
ResponsibleResearchand
Innovation,policymixesfor
stimulatingnichesanddestabilizing
existingsystems)
• Promotingsocial,inclusive,frugal
andpro-poorinnovation
• Bridgingscience/engineering,social
sciencesandhumanitiesinthe
educationsystem
Underlyingmodel
ofinnovation
Linearmodel:invention(discovery)
leadstoinnovation
(commercialization)leadsto
diffusion(adoption)
Interactiveandsystem-bound:chain-linkedmodelstressing
feedbackloopsbetweeninvention,innovationanduse;
evolutionarymodel,stressingongoinginteractionsbetween
actors,networksandinstitutionsresultinginpath-
dependency(a)/demand-pullmodel–needsof
organizationsandindividualconsumerslargelydrive
innovativeactivities(b)
Socio-technicalandexperimental:
quasi-evolutionarymodelincluding
non-random(purposeful)variation,
selectionandretentionwhileaccepting
emergenceasmaindynamic;stresson
feedbackloopsbetweeninvention,
innovationanduse,andongoing
interactionsbetweenactors,networks,
institutionsandtechnologiesacross
26
scales.Focusoncirculationand
appropriationinsteadofdiffusion
Basicassumptions
aboutinnovation
• Divisionoflabour:cleardivision
oflabour–governmentprovides,
sciencediscovers,industry
appliesandconsumeradapts;
increaseinR&Dwillautomatically
translateintomoreinnovation
• Conflictvs.consensus:mostoften
embeddedinamilitary-industrial
complexthattakesdefence
needsasforerunnersandlarge
industriesasthe“natural”
intermediarytotranslate
scientificadvancesinto
commercialapplication;open
conflictwithnewfirmsand
industriesthatarenotpartofthe
club
• Technologicalandsocialprogress:
thelinkbetweenthetwois
largelyuncontested
• Divisionoflabour:multiplecloselyinteracting
actorswithdifferentbutpartiallyoverlapping
rolescontributingtotheoverallperformanceof
thesystem(a)/cleardivisionoflabour–thetask
ofthegovernmentistofacilitatetheoperationof
existingmarketsandtocreatemarketswhere
theydonotyetexist;lefttothemselvesmarkets
providenovelproductsandservicesatoptimum
quantityandprice(b)
• Conflictvs.consensus:evolutionaryinrhetoric
butfunctionalistinpractice,emphasison
cooperationandorchestrationbetweenvarious
actors,leadingtothefulfilmentofsystem
functions(a)/tendstobeconflict-oriented,
mainlystressinginternationalcompetitivenessof
statesandcompetitionbetweenenterprises(b)
• Technologicalandsocialprogress:thelink
betweenthetwoislargelyuncontested
• Divisionoflabour:blurred
boundaries,multipleactorscrossing
variousdomainsandenacting
overlappingroles,resultinginthe
co-productionofscience,
technologyandsociety
• Conflictvs.consensus:mixof
competition,cooperationand
intermediationisrequiredto
achievedisruptivesocio-technical
systemschange
• Technologicalandsocialand
environmentalprogressdonot
automaticallygotogether:
technologychoiceisnotneutral,but
containssocietalchoicesand
directionalitywithimplicationsfor
equalityandtheenvironment.
Basicassumptions • Dealingwithconsequences:new • Dealingwithconsequences:largelyreactive, • Dealingwithconsequences:
27
aboutoutcomes technologiesareassociatedwith
highdegreeofuncertaintyand
unpredictabilitymakingit
virtuallyimpossibletoaddress
majorenvironmentalandsocial
impactsproactively
• Causality:stressoninnovationas
amotorofeconomicgrowth
leadstopublicwelfareasabonus
majorenvironmentalandsocialimpactsare
usuallyaddressedaftertheyhaveoccurred,
sometimeswithaparticularemphasisonthe
provisionofadequatemarketstimuli(b)
• Causality:stressoninnovationasamotorof
economicgrowthandincreasedcompetitiveness
leadstopublicwelfareasabonus
proactive,stressonanticipating
alternativefuturesassociatedwith
certaintechnologicalchoices
• Causality:stressoninnovationas
meansfordirectlyaddressing
environmentalandsocialchallenges
leadstoeconomicgrowthand
increasedcompetitivenessasa
bonus
Mainhazards • Governmentfailure:insufficient
fundingforbasicR&D
• Marketfailure:negative
externalitiesthatrequire
regulation
• Systemfailure:innovationsystemfailstoperformasa
synergisticwholeandtoenhanceinnovativeactivities
(a)
• Governmentfailure:toomanystaterestrictionson
businessactivities(b)
• Marketfailure:regulatoryneedtodealwithnegative
externalitiesinawaythatwouldnotstifle
entrepreneurship(b)
• Transformativefailure:failureto
inducefundamentaltransformation
tosocio-technicalsystemsforming
thebackboneofmodernsocieties
• Societalandenvironmentalneeds
failure:failuretosolveextra-
economicandcollectiveproblems
onmultiplescales
Parallelcounter-
narratives
• AppropriateTechnology
movement,focusonsmall-scale
solutions
• PoliticsanddemocratizationofScienceandTechnology
• Inclusiveandinteractivetechnologyassessment
• Technologicalfix:strongstate
interventionwithmassive
investmentinBigTechnologies
whichpromisetosolvelarge
environmentalandsocialproblems
28
• Socialinnovation:moveawayfrom
technicalsolutionswhichare
perceivedaspartoftheproblem
Recommended